The World Owes Haiti an Apology: The Perils of US Intervention

Via Picryl

The United States is a country that wears its values on its sleeve and thus takes it upon itself to carry the weight of the world on its shoulders. Upon its very birth, it stood upon a foundation of freedom, justice, democracy, fairness, and opportunity, principles that it proudly emblazoned on its seminal Constitution and that it immortalizes in its physical monuments. These are the traits that define the outlook of America’s history; these traits make up the hallowed, almost deified American Dream; these are the traits that Americans seek to embody at home and abroad. It is what distinguished early America from the antiquated and repressive monarchies that it sought to free itself from. Yet, travel to Haiti, a nation scarred by American intervention, and these traits will seem like a myth when ascribed to the U.S. Travel to Haiti, and it will seem like freedom and justice are in short supply.

Seemingly from its inception, the Caribbean country that makes up around one-third of the island of Hispaniola has been mired in a stubborn, unrelenting downward spiral of abject poverty, political instability, and despair. The reputation of being “the poorest country in the Western hemisphere” has clung to its national character for over a generation and supersedes any further conversation about Haiti. The irony is, Haiti was once the wealthiest colony in the entire Western Hemisphere. The juxtaposition between its former abundance and its current suffering can be explained by the legacy of colonialism and occupation, originally occurring under the Spanish, and later the French and American imperial projects. 

The story of Haiti’s contact with the West unfolds in a familiar way to its peers in the Western Hemisphere. Initial Spanish contact brought disease, which ravaged the indigenous populations, as the Spanish crown enacted the racial and economic hierarchy that facilitated its rule. Hundreds of thousands of Africans were trafficked onto the island via the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Amid weakening Spanish power, France laid claim to the Western part of Hispaniola, transforming the colony into an economic powerhouse fueled by cash crops like timber, sugar, and coffee. But in 1791, Haiti was struck by an intriguing turn of events: a massive slave revolt, led by the revolutionary and ideologue Toussaint L’Overture, proved an existential threat to French colonial rule. After thirteen years of brutal war, the former Haitian slaves successfully declared independence, in a land free from the tyranny, exploitation, and humiliation of slavery. This constituted the world’s first ever successful slave revolt to gain independence, and mirrored the effect of the “shot heard ‘round the world” so embodied in American ideals.

Yet, even from the outset of Haiti’s existence, America’s presence could be felt. Though early in the United States’s lifespan, the young nation had already demonstrated an interest in its peers in the Western hemisphere, in a foreign policy approach that would eventually culminate in the Monroe Doctrine. The U.S. supported the global isolation of Haiti during the Jefferson administration, maintaining its alliance with France and the global balance of power. However, the U.S. had its own vested interest in preventing the success of the Haitian Revolution: the Jefferson administration did not want the country’s own slaves to revolt following inspiration from their Haitian comrades, especially given its already tense racial politics. Of course, Thomas Jefferson and his peers would never admit that their approach directly contradicted the premise of universal rights and economic freedom, upon which they had fought a war with the British less than thirty years earlier. But from its very birth, Haiti was defined by the interests and potential aggression from foreign powers, a trend that would only continue. 

Shortly after Haitian independence, the French levied enormous debts upon Haiti, which it was forced to pay under threat of force, to make up for the lost wealth of French slave owners and landowners. This was a threat made to Haiti, which was already outgunned and underdeveloped due to the existential war it had just fought. Haiti was forced to take out loans from French banks to pay this debt, and then accrue additional debt from French banks to cover its original debt. So while France continued to profit from its former colony long after its occupation, Haiti was deprived of the essential income needed to develop infrastructure, education, and other systems needed for a stable government. Its rural farmland continued to supply cash crops, as its infrastructure and farming methods grew increasingly antiquated, and as its people languished for generations. Around World War I, the United States re-entered the picture. 

In 1915, the Wilson administration occupied Haiti, under the pretense of establishing stability (eventually a common refrain in U.S. foreign policy) after the assassination of their president. The Americans also wanted to curb growing French and German influence (owing to their debt policies and economic interests toward the nation, respectively) and prevent their intervention during this time of chaos. But instead of ensuring stability and lasting peace, American intervention was brutal, corrupt, and altogether scarring to the Haitian people. The U.S. seized Haitian economic assets and land, enriching American banks and government coffers while damning the Haitians to debilitating yet familiar exploitation. Yet more damning, perhaps, is how U.S. Marines killed 15,000 Haitians who rebelled against American rule, and made chilling examples of opposition leaders. 

Make no mistake: U.S. intervention was not welcomed by the Haitian people, and this pattern of U.S. occupation and profiteering in the name of democracy or stability can be found across the Western Hemisphere. Around the same time, the U.S. effectively forced the creation of, and profited greatly from, the Panama Canal; it replicated a similar model of Haitian occupation in Cuba following the Spanish-American War; a few years before its actions in Haiti, the U.S. had ended a bloody, years-long war for control of the Philippines. While the Americans would often establish infrastructure in the countries they intervened in, these institutions were often not accessible to much of the country’s poor majority. But more importantly, even if this infrastructure (roads, ports, the Panama Canal itself) immediately or eventually created value or otherwise brought economic or social success to a community, I would assert that that value is incredibly dwarfed by the value of a people’s self-determination, self-governance, and control over its resources. I would surmise that the Founding Fathers would be inclined to agree with that statement. For the United States, freedom, justice, stability, and prosperity were the shades under which it imposed its will and hegemony onto others, relegating smaller countries to the very fate that it had escaped from itself at birth, and leaving death and destruction in its wake. 

While formal U.S. occupation ended in 1934, its influence over Haiti continued to loom large–most notably in its control over Haitian finances lasting until 1947. As Haiti weathered the brutal dictatorships of François “Papa Doc” Duvalier and his son Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier during the 20th century, the United States propped up their regime in the interest of Cold War hegemony, especially after the Duvalier regime made concessions to Washington, including tax breaks for foreign companies and anti-communist alignment. Haitians continued to suffer violence, imprisonment, repression, and poverty on the part of the state; the cascading disasters of Haiti’s history had left the country’s systems in disrepair. All the while, a deep well of corruption continued to replenish the country’s elite, a chasm of inequality separating rich and poor. Haiti’s ongoing crisis only deepened after a devastating earthquake in 2010, a 7.0 magnitude wave of destruction that killed an estimated 300,000 people and displaced another million. This brings us to Haiti’s current conditions: after the assassination of President Jovenel Moïse, the nation has been overrun by gangs, who contend for control in the capital, Port-au-Prince. The actual government has lost much of its legitimacy following the aforementioned political turmoil, and the Haitian people are caught in the middle. A UN-backed intervention force, this time led by Kenyan police, has been dispatched, to minimal success.

What can we take from this? Again and again, even after Western colonialism and the Cold War, the United States’s intervention has damned Haiti to a fate it did not choose and did not deserve. American intervention was done in the interest of profit and hegemony, instead of the freedom and democracy that the country prides itself on. The common notion that Haiti’s current condition is the result of the failure of its people and the deep corruption of the country is, at best, reductive. Persistent foreign occupation and violence severely hindered the nation from creating strong institutions and infrastructure. Moreover, the support for illicit regimes (like the Duvalier dynasty) and the constant misappropriation of funds reinforce the vast inequality that Haiti experiences while preventing the socioeconomic mobility of the Haitian people, even given the country’s abundance. Indeed, many of the skilled and professional among Haiti’s population have migrated outward, many of them to the United States, where they are often the victims of xenophobic rhetoric. 

This fashion of American intervention was not just practiced in Haiti, though. It is a trend across recent American history, done in the interest of preventing communism or maintaining stability, but often ignoring the will and perpetuating the suffering of the people within. During the Arab Spring in 2011, as Egyptians rallied in the streets demanding freedom and self-determination, the United States continued to support the authoritarian Mubarak regime in the interest of regional political and economic stability until the final hour, once its collapse was all but inevitable. Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003 was, in large part, a failure: Iraq today maintains an unstable democracy, and the U.S.’s actions created a power vacuum that left an easy entrance for the Islamic State, one of the most destructive terrorist groups of the 20th century. There are also examples where the U.S. didn’t intervene, but should have: the United States, “leader of the free world,” sat idly by as the Rwandan genocide saw the senseless deaths of hundreds of thousands. President Bill Clinton himself publicly recognized this mistake during a visit to Rwanda after the genocide. Time and time again, the United States did not stick up for its values. However, there is precedent for positive examples of U.S. intervention and peacemaking when there is political will. American involvement in Somalia in the 1990s, while originally invoking the infamous “Black Hawk Down” debacle, eventually pioneered a positive model of diplomacy. The peace process was aided by the measured stability induced by foreign involvement, remained in the country until the peace process was fully complete, and made use of local power brokers to bring agreements that were effective–all lessons that can be applied to the current situation in Haiti. 

The Haitian people have suffered for generations. The United States and the world owe Haiti an apology. But an apology is not enough. The United Nations, with the backing of the United States and other important countries, must make a concerted effort to re-establish stability and the basic functioning of the Haitian state. While this is a form of intervention, it is a necessary one to prevent Haiti’s continued misery. From there, these organizations must work with Haitians to create Haitian-led institutions; there is precedent for state-building like this within Haiti (with the Aristide regime) and outside of it (the re-establishment of the democratic Sierra Leonean government by UN and UK forces after the rebel takeover in 1996). But one thing must remain true: the next chapter of Haiti’s future must be written by the Haitian people.

The Most Violent Police Force in Europe: Police Brutality in France

theguardian.com

“Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité.” This phrase, meaning “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” first appeared during the French Revolution of 1848 and has since become entrenched in the history of France. It is part of their current constitution and is considered to be a central piece of French heritage; however, France has yet to successfully live up to this promise, due in part to deeply entrenched institutional racism. One dangerous manifestation of this racism is in the country’s policing. French police officers are more heavily armed than any other police force in Europe and, in recent years, they have also been the most aggressive. Since 2022, French police officers have killed 15 people during traffic stops. Most recently, on June 27, 2023, a 17-year-old boy named Nahel Merzouk was shot in the chest at point-blank range by a French police officer during a traffic stop in Paris. The police officers claimed that Merzouk (who is of Algerian descent) had been physically threatening them with his car; however, witness statements and video footage told a different story. According to passengers in the car at the time of the shooting, the two police officers pulled up on motorcycles next to their car in stand-still traffic after Merzouk, who was too young to have a license, failed to stop for them. One passenger claimed that the officers took turns hitting Merzouk with the butt-ends of their rifles while they threatened to shoot him. On the third hit, the witness recounted that Merzouk let go of the brake pedal, causing the car to restart. It was at this moment that one of the officers fatally shot the teenager, causing the car to continue to accelerate until it crashed. Merzouk was pronounced dead at the scene. Merzouk’s mother believes the shooting was racially motivated, having said the officer “saw an Arab face, a little kid, and wanted to take his life.” The murder of Merzouk sparked nation-wide protests against racially-motivated police brutality. President Macron responded to the protests by employing heavy police presences, which resulted in the arrests of over 3,600 people. Still, Macron was quick to condemn the murder of Merzouk and one of the police officers involved in Merzouk’s death has been charged with voluntary homicide. However, proponents of racial justice movements in France point out that this incident is part of a larger pattern of excessive use of force by police officers in which police officers are rarely charged.

Police brutality in France has been a heated topic of discussion for years. It first became a major political issue after the gilets jaunes (meaning “yellow vests” in English) protests in 2018 and 2019, in which French workers with long commutes took to the streets in yellow vests to protest against the proposed rise in diesel taxes. The movement slowly transformed into a larger movement against President Macron’s general economic decisions, and, at its peak, 285,000 people were protesting across France. During these protests, around 2,500 protesters were injured (some losing eyes and limbs) in violent encounters with police. While this led to a smaller movement calling for a ban on police use of explosive grenades and rubber bullets, government representatives argued that this use of force was necessary because, while the overwhelming majority of protesters were peaceful, some did turn to acts of vandalism and violence. In fact, the French Ministry of the Interior reported that around 1,800 security personnel were injured in the protests. In response, Lauren Nuñez, Secretary of State to the Minister of the Interior from 2018 to 2020, expressed that he had no regrets about the use of force against protesters and stated that “Just because a hand has been torn off or an eye damaged doesn’t mean that this [response] is illegal. Above all, it’s important to make it clear that it’s not acceptable for police officers to be attacked in a violent manner by those wishing to express their convictions.” The general argument made by those supporting the police is that police officers are using an appropriate amount of force because some of the protests have turned into riots with significant property damage. They argue that police officers must use teargas and other weapons to protect themselves and to quell the riots in order to protect French society.

While some excuse the violence perpetrated by French police in response to the gilets jaunes protests as a necessary evil, others like Dunja Mijatovic, the human rights commissioner for the Council of Europe (an international human rights organization), have argued that police brutality is never acceptable. In response to police violence committed during anti-pension reform protests in March of 2023, Mijatovic stated “violent incidents have occurred, some of which have targeted the forces of law and order. But sporadic acts of violence by some demonstrators or other reprehensible acts committed by others during a protest cannot justify excessive use of force by agents of the state.” French police forces have demonstrated a pattern of increasingly violent behavior, especially in regards to their handling of protests and demonstrations. From March through May of 2023, French police forces were criticized for their excessive use of force against protesters during the anti-pension reform demonstrations as some felt that the heavy police presence at the protests escalated the potential for violence. On March 25, 2023, police officers engaged in another polarizing, violent confrontation with protesters during a separate demonstration in Sainte-Soline over environmental concerns. During this confrontation, police officers launched tear-gas grenades at protesters, injuring 200 demonstrators and sending one demonstrator into a coma with life-threatening injuries. Similarly to the anti-pension reform protesters, protesters at Sainte-Soline blamed the police presence for the violence that erupted. An engineering student (referred to as David) who was present at the protests said, “This is the first time I have attended a demonstration that was this violent, but, in fact, the violence did not come from the protestors. It was violent because the police were violent.” Human rights organizations have increasingly raised alarms over police violence in France as they use aggressive crowd control tactics even against peaceful protesters. French police forces have been criticized for using weapons that are often banned elsewhere, including flashballs, grenades, water cannons, batons, and firearms. These weapons exacerbate the risk of injury at the hands of an overzealous, potentially aggressive police force.

While police forces in France have been criticized for racial biases in their application of force, this violence does not exist in a vacuum. It is heavily influenced by the larger social dynamics and stigmas present in French society, which include racial and religious biases against minority groups. In a study presented to the French national assembly by the Representative Council of France's Black Associations, 9 in 10 Black people in France reported experiencing racial discrimination. This racial prejudice manifests in a variety of ways, including in the country’s policing practices. The Défenseur des droits, an independent constitutional authority in France, found in a 2017 study that a young man who is perceived to be Black or Arab is 20 times more likely to be stopped than other members of the French population. However, these French racial biases do not only manifest in policing policies. For example, recent public discourse has revolved heavily around discriminatory educational practices. France has strict laws banning religious symbols in public schools. The French government justifies these laws by arguing that they are necessary to promote secularism; however, they have a disparate impact on Muslim students and are often said to be targeted to restrict the wearing of hijabs and other articles of clothing associated with Muslim students. Most recently, in August of 2023, the Minister of Education Gabriel Attal announced that students will no longer be allowed to wear abayas in schools. Abayas are long, loose traditional dresses worn primarily in North Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. This decision caused outrage since there is no direct link between abayas and Islam, so these dresses could be considered a cultural item rather than a religious one. France has attempted to guard against racial biases by creating laws without explicit mention of people's race; however, this does not prevent laws from disproportionately impacting minority communities. The French police can provide information on how many people have been killed by police officers; however, they cannot provide information on the race of those victims because it is illegal to collect that information in France. The French government’s attempts to create color-blind laws ignores the realities of life in France for minorities. It exacerbates the problem of racial injustice because it strips the oppressed of the ability to quantify their oppression as a weapon to combat it.

Still, some are working to combat racial prejudice in policing. In 2021, six French and international human rights groups, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Open Society Justice initiative, filed the first class-action lawsuit against French police forces in which the plaintiffs are asking for mandatory police reform. This lawsuit, heard by the Conseil d’État (the highest administrative authority in France), began proceedings on September 29, 2023. The plaintiffs argued that there is significant, systemic discrimination in police action, including racial profiling and discriminatory identity checks. On October 11, 2023, the court found that police activities surrounding racial profiling in identity checks did constitute discrimination and were not “limited to isolated cases”. However, the court did not impose measures to force the French government to end these discriminatory practices because the court said it did not have the authority to change political policy. While this decision was disappointing to proponents of this case, the court did recognize the repeated abuses of identity checks in policing as racial discrimination. This is significant because some political leaders have historically denied the notion that racial discrimination exists in policing at all. For this reason, it is possible that proponents of racial justice in France could still use this finding to force their political leaders to confront the realities of racial inequality in France and enact some real change.

Venezuela in Crisis: What Does the West’s Waning Opposition to the Current Regime Mean for the Future of the Country?

Introduction 

Venezuela is a country full of striking natural beauty and one of Latin America's most urbanized places. It is the birthplace of Simon Bolivar, contains the Los Roques Archipelago, and is famous for its Pan de Jamon (bread filled with ham and olives) and Hallacas (corn or cassava dough stuffed with meat, olives, raisins, onion, and more.). However, in recent years, Venezuela has been plagued with social, political, and economic strife. 7 million people have left Venezuela, fleeing poverty and political crisis. Many are at risk of eviction, exploitation, and are forced into debt that they could never repay. Of course, the COVID-19 pandemic made things worse, plunging Venezuelans into an even deeper economic crisis. People are forced to flee in unconventional and unsafe ways, many falling prey to smugglers, kidnappers, and traffickers. While some Venezuelans make it to the United States, many go to surrounding Latin American countries, such as Ecuador, Colombia, and Brazil. Adding to their suffering, Venezuelan refugees are stigmatized and scapegoated by the countries they flee to, with limited job opportunities and access to public services, they are often left to fend for themselves. While host communities and countries remain committed to helping the refugees, the sheer numbers mean that resources are stretched thin and finances are almost nonexistent. Understanding the present reality for many Venezuelan citizens requires examining the external factors at play.  

In this article, I explore how a country with such a rich culture and economy, due to its oil reserves, came to be in such a perilous situation politically and economically. I will also discuss how the West’s initial opposition to the current Venezuelan government is fragmenting, after many years of strong condemnation. Finally, I will discuss what is next for Venezuela and how the international community is assisting in one of the biggest humanitarian crises of the 21st century. 

How did Venezuela get here?

There are two parts to how Venezuela got into its current situation, political reasons and economic reasons. However, they intertwine and together they have engulfed the country in a crisis that has caused millions of people to flee. The executive powers of the president are incredibly strong and have only been strengthened in the past few decades. Since 1999, Venezuela has been run by two individuals from the same political party: Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro. Chavez was a socialist president from 1999 until his death in 2013. He emphasized key elements such as nationalism, a centralized economy, and a strong military that frequently engaged in public projects. His approval rating was quite high, reaching up to 80% public support. He ran on an anti-corruption platform which made him very popular. He increased social welfare programs and redistributed the country’s oil wealth. Riding this wave of popularity, Chavez’s party gained control of key institutions, such as the judiciary, electoral council, and the Venezuelan Supreme Court. Over time, the system of checks and balances became weakened and the president’s power was often left unchecked. When Maduro was elected following Chavez’s death, global oil prices decreased. Venezuela’s economy relies heavily on oil, which led the country into a 7-year recession. Basic goods were scarce and inflation skyrocketed. It was clear that Maduro was not as beloved by the public as Chavez was because there were many anti-government protests between 2014-2017. It did not help that Maduro ordered a brutal police crackdown on the protestors. During this time, many Venezuelans left the country to escape the economic repression and political crisis. 

Everything came to a head in the 2018 presidential election. Despite public discontent with Maduro, he was reelected president. This election was dismissed by citizens as neither free nor fair and many accused the government of corruption to help Maduro hold onto power. Many other candidates that planned on running were imprisoned or ran from the country out of fear of imprisonment. As discussed earlier, many of the institutions in Venezuela that performed checks and balances were under the socialist party’s influence. So when these institutions were called upon to investigate the claims of a corrupt democratic election, they refused and there was a lot of division. In January 2019, the speaker of the National Assembly, one of the only institutions that was still credible and influential, Juan Guaido, declared himself the “interim president” of Venezuela. He proclaimed the seat of president vacant because Maduro’s re-election was not valid. He predicted that he would be governing the country within a few months. In hindsight, this process would become extremely complex and detrimental to the people of Venezuela.

Venezuela’s economy is very dependent on the income from oil imports and exports. So much so that Venezuela could be thought of as a petrostate, where the government is dependent on oil, power is concentrated, and corruption runs rampant. The country is home to one of the world’s largest oil reserves and while that has been financially beneficial in the past, it has also been its downfall because there has been no diversification in the economy. The oil price in Venezuela has plunged from $100 per barrel in 2014 to $30 per barrel in 2016. Even though the prices have started rising again in recent years, Venezuela is still in an economic recession where conditions remain in turmoil. This is because of oil dependence, falling production rates, high levels of debt, and hyperinflation. Many experts believe that economic diversification will be difficult for Venezuela in the future. It would take an enormous investment to first put the oil sector back on track and then develop and cultivate other industries. 

The West’s Opposition 

More than 50 countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, recognized Guaido as Venezuela’s legitimate president. Yet the international influence was limited, as the military stayed loyal to Maduro. He remained firmly in charge of the country with the support of China and Russia behind him. In response, the US put sanctions on the Maduro government making it harder for him to sell his country’s oil in 2019 on Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA). These sanctions cut off the US as PDVSA’s main destination for oil exports, which restricted Venezuela’s access to foreign currency. Because the economy was in freefall, Maduro loosened the foreign currency regulation brought in by Chavez. This helped a little with the economic crisis but the majority of citizens do not have access to foreign currency, leaving them to continue to struggle.. In August 2019, the US issued sanctions on Maduro’s government blocking and freezing the property and interests in the United States and within the control of US persons. In January 2021, the US imposed oil-related sanctions on Venezuela. The Treasury targeted three individuals, fourteen entities, and six vessels for their ties to organizations attempting to assist PDVSA. This network allegedly helped PDVSA sell oil to Asia despite the US sanctions. The Treasury argues that any profits from the sale of oil help to contribute to the corruption in Venezuela’s government. 

The United States and the international community have also condemned Venezuela’s current government for its human rights abuses. The government has been repressing dissent and opposition as they did during the protests between 2014-2017. There are violent crackdowns on peaceful street protests. Since 2014, more than 12,500 people have been arrested in connection to the anti-government protests. There has been imprisonment of any potential political opponents and the prosecution of civilians in military courts. On top of removing the checks and balances system, the government has also stripped power from the opposition-led legislature. There are shortages and scarcity of medical supplies, food, medicine, and a lack of access to essential healthcare. In 2018, 80% of Venezuelan households experienced food insecurity. The infant mortality rate has increased by 30%, cases of malaria by 76%, and maternal mortality by 65%. For more than a decade, the government has abused its power to regulate the media and has worked to reduce the number of media outlets that criticize them. Self-censorship is a serious problem for fear of the media outlet being suspected, flagged, or its journalists arrested. 

The humanitarian crisis, human rights abuses, and persecution of dissents have caused a refugee crisis. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, more than 7 million people have fled Venezuela however it could be more as many who are not registered by authorities have also left. Many are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse while in other countries because they have limited access to jobs, healthcare, schooling for their children, and other public services. 

Is the Opposition fragmenting?

Despite initial opposition and sanctions by the United States and the international community, recently the opposition has been fragmenting and waning. They have recognized that these restrictions are only making the humanitarian crisis worse. In March 2023, the United States announced that it will be sending 120 million dollars in humanitarian aid to Venezuela. This is to help relieve the limited resources that are causing the current humanitarian crisis. In November 2022, the US announced that they will be easing oil sanctions after Maduro signs an accord to create an UN-administered fund to provide humanitarian aid to his people. This agreement is part of a long-term solution to finding a common path out of Venezuela’s complex economic crisis. This will include the relaxation of limitations on Chevron’s operations in Venezuela and would allow them to re-enter global oil markets. Canada, the United Kingdom, and the European Union have recently pledged to review their own sanctions in exchange for the release of political prisoners. The Biden Administration has signaled that they are prepared to ease up on their sanctions in exchange for concrete steps by Maduro and his government to not ban opposition parties from running against him in the 2024 presidential elections. 

What is next for Venezuela? 

So who is the president of Venezuela? Is it Maduro or Guaido? If you ask who the current president is, it is clearly Maduro who has the support of the military. If you ask who the rightful president of Venezuela is, that is a more complex question. What is next for Venezuela? How will they get out of the crisis that they are currently in? How are they going to fix the economic situation in their country so more citizens have to leave in order to survive? 

For one, the Biden Administration has signaled that they are prepared to ease up on their sanctions in exchange for concrete steps by Maduro and his government to not ban opposition parties from running against him in the 2024 presidential elections. In order to survive and fix its economy, many experts believe that Venezuela must diversify its income and end its dependence on the export of oil and natural gas. This has worked in other countries such as Norway and Saudi Arabia where oil accounted for a large part of their GDP. If strong democracy was redeveloped in Venezuela, with an independent press and judiciary, this could help hold the government and oil companies accountable.  They have to strengthen their political institutions so there are checks and balances within the government. Anti-corruption is important in order to keep the government accountable in the eyes of the public to win back their trust. Most of all, they must expand their social service programs as Chavez did early on in his presidency. The humanitarian and refugee crisis is an immediate threat to people’s lives, the short-term goal if you will. The long-term goal is to push Venezuela away from being a state reliant on one source of income. International aid and intervention can only do so much; governmental and institutional reform has to come from the Venezuelan government itself by recognizing the precarious situation of becoming a failed state they are in danger of falling into.

Indigenous Communities: A Path to Self-Determination in Western Hemisphere

The Western Hemisphere is a region that features some of the world’s constitutional frameworks that are most attentive and inclusive to the matter of indigenous rights. While many of these strides are highly commendable and even revolutionary, given humanity’s oppressive history, these texts stand in large contrast to the actual reality on the ground where indigenous activists continue to face ignorance, persecution, and, in some cases, death. Even amongst activist circles, the discussion surrounding indigenous communities tends to focus on land protection or a degree of land autonomy at best, which is itself often poorly enforced in practice, and indigenous people’s rights are seen as a means of enriching the nation’s diversity and standing against the colonial past but often with the result of mere commercialization of said culture. Without a more meaningful recollection of the past and an education geared towards a more in-depth appreciation of local customs and diversity, indigenous localities and cultures are reduced to a mere superficial acknowledgement and a figurine an indigenous artisan is attempting to sell to a mildly excited foreigner.  

It is crucial to maintain and strengthen the present rhetoric of inclusion, as well as remember the injustices of the colonial past that saw indigenous people subjugated and stripped of their own land and basic human rights, and recognize the contributions of indigenous communities’ to the crucially needed struggle for environmental rights, but the only way to truly move forward is through a broader legal and social recognition of the right to self-determination of these communities. To truly acknowledge and guarantee indigenous people’s humanity and rights and allow for actual preservation and celebration of indigenous people’s identity, culture, language, and socioeconomic progress and inclusion, is to give indigenous people’s voices an actual platform, support better community organization, even across the modern national borders where possible, to listen to input coming from indigenous communities themselves rather than outside assumptions aimed at simply checking off an inclusionary-sounding box when making policy, to guarantee the right to land and meaningful preservation of one’s history, and not to reduce the conversation to a discussion on tourism and environmental rights happening in a vacuum but rather to acknowledge the imperative need of indigenous communities to participate at every level of societal organization and be able to contribute to legal, economic, and sociocultural practices of their country, neighborhood, and local community - to enjoy their human right to self-determination.  

First Things First: The Land 

When discussing the issue of indigenous peoples’ rights, this rhetoric is often inextricably tied to land. Each indigenous group, as understood by tribal alliances and modern understandings of ethnic boundaries, is assigned a specific geographic space and either given a certain degree of authority over it or paid certain symbolic respects as a reference to the original inhabitants of that geographic space. While land and territory are often key aspects of a group’s identity, it should also be acknowledged that conventional understandings of territorial boundaries may not apply to the indigenous societies of the Americas. To claim a certain territory for a certain group may actually discredit its group’s actual association with the land or impose a foreign and post-colonial worldview.  

In the case of Canada, many indigenous groups prefer to not associate themselves with the Canadian identity and actually do not even agree with the very idea of the Canadian entity. While this does not mean Canada does not exist as a country in present world, and it does not necessarily imply these groups’ refusal to acknowledge or even operate within Canada’s framework, it is true that the very idea of citizenship, international and internal treaties, or the idea of land ownership and claims do not necessarily reflect the worldview of these groups and Canada’s attempts to formalize its relationship can be met with reasonable distrust as imposition of the idea of land claims, borders, or the idea of “Canadian” sovereign indigenous nations can come across as paternalistic and reminiscent of colonization. In fact, Canada has also introduced a statement of acknowledgement read in schools, official functions, and even concerts, sports events, and award ceremonies. These statements are meant to pay respect to a specific group that lived on this territory by mentioning their name and recognizing the “enduring presence of the Aboriginal peoples on this land.” The statements are also adapted to read specific region’s most prevalent indigenous groups and acknowledge their specific partaking in Canada’s historical and modern day state-formation processes.  

While these statements are a step forward from previous history of forced assimilation, sterilization, and betrayal of prior treaties with the indigenous groups in modern-day Canada, the statements also do not acknowledge the modern lack of advancements in terms of addressing indigenous peoples’ concerns, such as the issue of disappearances of men and women, environmental rights, the very issue of historical injustice, forced assimilation, and illegal overtaking of land. Therefore, the very statements that are meant to pay respect can, at best, actually reveal the ironic hypocrisy of the promise of acknowledgement while not taking concrete action and are in fact potentially just another way to subjugate indigenous groups to the idea of Canada and presence of Canadian hegemony. Additionally, in some cases, the groups mentioned in statements, like the Haudenosaunee and the Anishinabe, may themselves be in disagreement over who had historical presence in certain areas, which can lead to additional confusion and alienation, and some with the authorities all the while continuing to insufficiently address concerns submitted by the peoples that these statements are supposed to protect. While acknowledgement of historical and present day contribution of indigenous people to the land is the very least a modern government can do, any discussion of land rights and historical and modern day presence should not be casually presented on behalf of the modern hegemon state but rather carefully discussed and presented in accordance with the indigenous groups’ worldviews and discussion.  

All discussion, seemingly needless to say, should also be transparent and respectful of differences the governing present-day nation state has with cultural and legal frameworks of indigenous groups it is intending to include in these conversations and formal treaties. In the case of Argentina, for example, one can argue that historically most oppression and erasure of land settlements and original socio-cultural relations has been done by the colonial Spanish Crown. However, some of the nations that emerged out of anticolonial struggle for independence and freedoms, such as Argentina and Chile, have themselves expanded their borders thus pushing out original settlers, and the very entities of each modern state in the Western Hemisphere today can be considered a de facto hegemonic presence on behalf of the indigenous, settlers of these lands. While history cannot be undone and lands cannot simply be return due to complexity of demographic and cultural shifts, the very least each of these nation states can do is recognize the enduring legacy of pre-colonial nations, the painful colonial history of injustice and violence, but also continuous contributions of each of these original nations to modern day state-making and sociopolitical life, without implying the need of indigenous, or original (a term often used in some parts of South America to avoid colonial and othering connotations of the word “indigenous”), peoples’ need to assimilate in the modern concept of a nation state but rather allowing for this concept to be expanded to accommodate the people it is supposed to be composed of, which includes indigenous peoples and their homes. 

However, going beyond this, present-day nation states should not leave indigenous people as part of a “tradition” and the “past” but rather recognize the very existence and agency of these groups in modernity. Indigenous, or original, peoples should be offered protections by the present-day hegemon state and their input should actively be acknowledged and respected, with concrete action taken to address these concerns. Going back to the Southern Cone, Argentina also is amongst states that presently and historically have had the most inclusive constitutional and legal texts as it pertains to indigenous peoples’ land rights and cultural acknowledgement. Regardless of this, on a regular quiet, breezy day in Buenos Aires, the historic Plaza de Mayo features a constantly present tent that proudly stands right across from Casa Rosada, with the raised Wiphala. While some of the reasons for protests are more structural, such as corruption, abuse of power by authorities, need for greater justice in local governance etc., many of the signs just ask for the government to grant indigenous women an audience, and each reason could best be addressed with greater effort to include indigenous leaders on negotiating tables, and actually listen to their input, their vision for land organization, and their understanding of governance and its principles.  

Going north to the beautiful Falls of Iguazu, original communities are largely left to look for their own educational resources and recent treaties actually stripped some of the smaller but very present communities of their original land claims. I personally had the honor to visit these communities and saw hotels that were originally not supposed to be there inhabiting more than half of the area designated for this group. A 2005 accord with the government, according to local residents, encoded confusing language and manipulated tribal leaders into signing treaties that gave up virtually half of their territory. This meant that this society suddenly got hotels and tourists instead of assistance in programs meant to ensure preservation of the local language, history, and culture, assist the members of this group in capacity-building and use of modern professional tools needed to succeed and bring socioeconomic gain and recognition to the area. This discussion is not meant to critique or single out either Canada or Argentina, but rather to applaud existing well-meaning efforts at integration and acknowledgement these governments have undergone but also remind of the need to be critical and not only acknowledge but also address underlying inequalities in power dynamics between modern states and indigenous peoples.  

In the end, any discussion about land is not just about land. It is about a larger question of identity, of the right to resources, and of recognition of the negotiating power and agency of the people of this land. To recognize this is to move beyond the idea of territorial claims, and even of the very concept of modern-day nation-state, and allow for changes necessary to ensure acceptance and actual transparent, educated, and democratic inclusion of the people that inhabit the land. 

Communities Across Borders 

Tied to the very idea of competing understandings of citizenship and belonging to land is the fact that indigenous groups of the Western Hemisphere oftentimes are situated and made to work within a territorially constricting modern nation-state boundary. In other words, indigenous communities are oftentimes separated from fellow community members by an international border, a reality that only makes community organizing, activism, negotiating, and retention of a linguistic, social, and cultural identity that much more difficult to obtain, maintain, and perfect. In some cases, like in the case of Guaraní-speaking groups of the Iguazu Falls, friendly relations amongst Brazil, Argentina, and Paraguay maintain the borders open and circulation and transport can be more easily negotiated, with Paraguay maintaining legal appreciation and practical fluency of Guaraní amidst its borders and facilitating retention of this language, even if colonial time changes. However, friendly relations and sociopolitical exchanges amongst these states have not historically been consistent to say the least and there is nothing, all three being sovereign states, that prevents any of these states from hypothetically choosing a more repressive legal framework that would, if not completely cut off, then more severely restrain movement and intragroup exchange of these regional peoples. In the case of the Miskito people, Honduras and Nicaragua have also enjoyed friendly relations and have also constituted a shared political entity at times. However, they enjoy sovereignty and can similarly choose to restrict the processes of community organizing of Miskitos across their sovereign borders. Furthermore, the effect that the recent proclamations of states of emergency in Honduras and the recent prosecution of journalists and international organizations in Nicaragua, as well as the recent assassinations of prominent environmental activists of indigenous descent in both countries, is yet to be better understood, especially as it pertains to indigenous groups that already lack acknowledgement of sovereignty, a seat at the UN, or another concrete legal recognition on national and international levels.  

Here again we have to acknowledge that historical injustice cannot simply be undone and that inclusion cannot be achieved overnight. However, the United Nations have created working groups, forums, committees, and assembled conventions and proclamations to address the issue of indigenous rights and their representation in the international system, and have also invited actual tribal leaders to speak in the interest of their nations. This is a beginning but is a practice that is still lacking consistency, transparency, education, and mutual respect, and equal footing needed for actual democratic inclusion of the indigenous peoples. Furthermore, there should be more effort on behalf of regional bodies to address local concerns and assist in indigenous community organizing across borders. This does not mean that countries need to give up their sovereignty but is rather again connected with the aforementioned idea of care for all citizens that the present-day states claim are trying to protect.  

It is Not Just About That Souvenir 

I am adding this section because I all too often see people going to North American reservations to buy dream catchers or buying those Wiphala stickers as a proud souvenir from their trip to South America. This is not to say that there is anything inherently wrong with these practices, and they in fact oftentimes are the main source of income and sustenance for many indigenous groups throughout the Hemisphere and the world. The problem I see with this practice is when people buy these items without realizing they are more than just items, that their meaning contains actual spiritual and political significance. Furthermore, it should be questioned that this type of tourism and souvenir selling is what entire groups of people need to be able to survive. Why are indigenous peoples’ industries being reduced to consumption by tourists from mainstream hegemonic circles? Why are objects that hold spiritual, historical, and sociopolitical meaning to them being commercialized, instrumentalized, and misunderstood? This is another power dynamic that we can begin to address through greater education, transparency, and democratic respect for human rights and inclusion of these groups and their practices. A single tourist choosing to learn about what Wiphala stands for or choosing not to buy a dream catcher from Target but invest in a handmade product instead and learn of its origins will not generate a structural change individually. However, this may look like a step in the right direction.  

More structurally speaking, however, the culture and very existence of indigenous groups would not be commercialized if proper respect were given to their identity, sovereignty, and sociocultural context. Does this mean sovereignty is necessary to allow for proper self-realization and self-determination of indigenous peoples? This seems to be the actual central question of each subset of issues that surround indigenous rights, be it citizenship, political representation, environmental protection, or cultural preservation issues. This of course depends on complex historical and political implications that are specific to each local and regional contexts. I do want to highlight current successes and implications in granting actual self-determination rights to indigenous peoples.  

Of all current world constitutions, only the Constitution of the Plurinational State of Bolivia grants explicit rights to self-determination to the indigenous people on the country’s soil, as article 30 in its second clause contains reference to the rights of “self-determination and territoriality” when discussing the country’s “nations and rural native indigenous people.” Just the very phrasing in terms of the level of nationhood when talking about the country’s minority and indigenous communities is very unique and revolutionary as the very phrasing would be considered by some world leaders as dangerously giving up on the hegemon nation-state’s sovereignty. However, this particular permission has scarcely been exercised in practice given that the pandemic, a coup d'etat, and various administrative changes have delayed the process of granting autonomy to those that requested it or were in the process of requesting it. The case of Guaraní Charagua is fascinating because, since 2015, this particular nation has managed to gain a level of autonomy within its territorial boundaries, with deliberative assembly and traditional forms of governance creating a successful hybrid style of decision-making, functioning effectively in the broader global neoliberal framework while also introducing and maintaining the local customary decision-making processes. However, the tension with the departmental and state governments, and particularly with differently racialized groups, with white mestizos in particular, means that the ability to reach self-determination and own expression without de facto limitations and judgment is not yet realized. Constitutional provisions themselves might not yet be sufficiently detailed and widespread to guarantee self-determination, but Bolivia’s Constitution represents a potential step in the right direction, where nation-state recognized its plurality and that complexity of its constituents’ identities goes beyond the traditional framework of the nation-state, and provisions granted for local autonomy, language and collective knowledge-sharing as means of cultural and scientific preservation can be argued to have significantly supported Bolivian state-formation and human rights prospects.  

Another particularly interesting case is that of Chile and the rejected new constitutional framework proposed officially in the latter half of 2022 following extensive protests demanding justice and a new constitution back in 2019. Amidst a constitutional drafting process that was designed to be exceptionally inclusive of the country’s women, minorities, and civil society but that also ended up embroidered in a degree of controversy and many delays given the pandemic and complex global realities, Chile saw its new constitutional proposal in September of 2022 that was widely rejected in spite of the fact that majority expressed a willingness to move away from Pinochet’s constitutional framework still in use in Chile. The sheer length of the text, as well as some of the vague and legally unsecured language embedded by largely politically inexperienced constitutional assembly, were signs of alarms for many voters. Additionally, some described the constitutional draft as utopian and as putting economic progress of Chile at risk due to potentially expensive social protections it guarantees. However, this attempt at a change in constitutional framework represents a very important subject of study to perfect future processes of constitutional drafting. Of particular interest to this article are provisions given to indigenous groups in Chile. The assembly of indigenous community leaders was proud to include clauses on self-determination and even on independent judiciary processes for indigenous communities. However, this proved to be some of the most controversial additions to the new constitutional draft as many felt that this would create a legal gray area and infringe upon Chilean sovereignty and equality of its people under law. This is a legitimate concern and legal implications of such decisions as well as the final supremacy of the constitutional law must be carefully discussed and understood. On the other hand, however, amongst the responses to these concerns on behalf of indigenous leaders also stands a clear understanding and promise by the Chilean state that, by signing to various international laws including the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, the state already committed itself to allowing a degree of autonomy and self-determination rights and the peoples are in fact looking for what already was signaled as legally appropriate. While there is much to learn from this process and contradictions continue to present themselves, the fact that these attempts have occurred and that some other world regions, such as West Africa, have shown profound steps forward in terms of local judiciary and democratic assembly styles and representations being constitutionally recognized, there are avenues for learning and future advancements on this complex legal and social issue.  

Conclusion  

The issue of inclusion and granting and securing actual self-determination rights to indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere, and the world, is a very complex one. It is evident that the very definition of who gets the claim of belonging to a people, a territory, or the very status of a nation is a very complex problem. However, recognizing this complexity, allowing space for a greater conversation, more education, transparency, democracy, and supremacy of the issues of human rights and inclusion as conversational and constitutional drafting frameworks pose a potential step in the right direction. While these issues are becoming increasingly understood, which can be seen in the solutions proposed throughout the text of this article, practical examples from real life show that there is still a lack of education on the issue of indigenous rights, freedoms, and sociocultural integrity amongst the general populations, the modern nation-states stand largely in practical denial of their responsibility, and actual conversations that allow parity and conscious participation to indigenous communities in the state-building and rights-securing processes are still dangerously scarce in practice. It is only through involvement of indigenous communities themselves, one which goes across borders and beyond the present-day restrictions of the globalized neoliberal frameworks, that a change in the right direction can be taken.  

A Deliberate Strategy

Introduction

On February 24, 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, violating the UN Charter and creating the largest threat to European unity and security since World War Two. While the threat to European security is undeniable, the threat posed to international humanitarian law is equally alarming. In the year since the invasion, more than 8,000 civilians have been killed and 8 million Ukrainians have become refugees. As the war continues and Russia retreats from regions it once occupied, evidence of possible violations of international law is being discovered. 

While media coverage in the West has focused on alleged violations committed by Russia, that does not mean Ukraine is innocent. In the eyes of the law, Russia and Ukraine are equal and they are held to the same standards. Any breach of those standards, even once, cannot and should not be tolerated because any potential violation that is not investigated or prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law risks being repeated, either in Ukraine or elsewhere by states who watch how this war is being conducted and think they can do the same. Understanding the various alleged violations of international law that have been committed by both sides since the war began is critical if we are to not repeat them and if there is to be any measure of justice once this war is over. There are people still alive today who remember the horrors of World War Two, who remember what this world was like without the Geneva Conventions to regulate the conduct of war. 

History of the Russia-Ukraine Conflict

Tensions between Russia and Ukraine can be traced back to 2004 and the Orange Revolution. The revolution began in November 2004 after the second-round results of the presidential election proclaimed Viktor Yanukovych the winner, despite exit polls showing opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko in the lead. The elections were marked by widespread voter fraud and corruption in favor of Yanukovych, the Kremlin’s candidate. Russian election monitors had “validated” the results of the run-off and proclaimed Yanukovych the winner. However, the Supreme Court of Ukraine annulled the results of the first run-off and ordered a repeat of the vote in December. Yushchenko won comfortably, much to the chagrin of people in eastern and southern Ukraine, as well as Russia. Yushchenko’s victory was a setback for Russia’s plans to keep Ukraine within its sphere of influence. However, Russia got its way in 2010 when Yanukovych became president after Yushchenko’s term was riddled with infighting and he failed to integrate Ukraine with the West.

Yanukovych’s presidency did not last long before he was ousted during the Euromaidan Revolution in 2013 when protests erupted across Ukraine after he rejected a deal that would have led to greater economic integration with the EU. The protests spread across the country and Yanukovych fled to Russia in February 2014. A month later, Russia annexed Crimea, citing a duty to protect the rights and lives of ethnic Russians, who comprise a majority of the Crimean population. Not long after the annexation, separatist groups in Luhansk and Donetsk in eastern Ukraine declared independence from Ukraine. Russia supported the separatist groups in the war against the Ukrainian military, with some reports suggesting that Russian soldiers had crossed the border and were fighting alongside the separatists and that some shelling had come from inside Russia. 

In 2015, Russia, Ukraine, France, and Germany began negotiating the Minsk Accords, with “provisions for a ceasefire, withdrawal of heavy weaponry, and full Ukrainian control of the regions.” However, the agreement and ceasefire collapsed, and fighting resumed. In October 2021, Russia began substantially building up its troop presence on the Ukrainian border, with over 100,000 troops stationed there by the end of the year. In early February 2022, Russia deployed troops to its border with Belarus, surrounding Ukraine from the north, east, and south. Finally, on February 24, 2022, Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and the war has only deteriorated: more than 71,000 alleged war crimes are being investigated by the Ukrainian authorities. 

International Law

After World War Two, the international community agreed that the conduct of war needed to be regulated or the atrocities committed during that time would be repeated. The Geneva Conventions, which are the foundation of international humanitarian law (IHL), are a set of four treaties and three additional protocols that regulate how states can wage war. One of the innovations of the Geneva Conventions is the concept of grave breaches, which are the most serious breaches of the law of war. Grave breaches are unique in that they are only applicable in international armed conflicts (e.g., the current Russo-Ukrainian war). There are articles common throughout the four conventions (the Common Articles) that describe what a grave breach is. Articles 50 and 51 of the first and second conventions describe grave breaches as “wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body of health, and extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.” Article 130 of the third convention includes the previous language, adding that “compelling a prisoner of war of the right of fair and regular trial prescribed in this Convention” is also a grave breach. Finally, Article 147 of the fourth convention, building on the three previous articles, includes “unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a protected person, compelling a protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power, or wilfully depriving a protected person of the right of fair and regular trial” and the “taking of hostages.” Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions are legally and colloquially referred to as war crimes, which must be prosecuted by the High Contracting Parties. 

It is widely accepted that international human rights law (IHRL) is applicable during times of war and that principle has been affirmed by numerous international legal bodies. Even though states are technically allowed to derogate some of their responsibilities under IHRL, they are only allowed to do so “to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation. The measures of derogation may not be inconsistent with the state’s other international obligations, such as those under IHL.” There are also certain human rights that are considered non-derogable, such as the right to life, the right to liberty and security, and freedom from torture and inhumane or degrading punishment. Crimes against humanity are the most serious breaches of international human rights law, including violations of non-derogable rights.

This is where international criminal law (ICL) becomes applicable. ICL applies to four broad sets of crimes: war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide, and the crime of aggression. These are the four crimes the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction over, as outlined in the Rome Statute. The Rome Statute defines war crimes as both grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, as well as “other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict” such as intentionally targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure. The Rome Statute also has defined crimes against humanity as acts “committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack.” Examples of crimes against humanity include, but are not limited to, “murder, extermination, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty, torture, and rape, sexual slavery… and any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity.” Even though neither Russia nor Ukraine are state parties to the Rome Statute, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed on the territory of Ukraine are within the International Criminal Courts' jurisdiction because the situation was referred to the ICC by 43 state parties, and Ukraine lodged a declaration formally accepting the ICC's jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory indefinitely.

Probable Violations of International Law

On October 18, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine published a report detailing the findings of its investigation into events that occurred between February and March 2022 in the Kyiv, Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Sumy provinces of Ukraine. The Commission “has found reasonable grounds to conclude that an array of war crimes and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law have been committed in Ukraine since 24 February 2022.” Russian armed forces were responsible for the vast majority of war crimes and human rights violations. The Commission found that Russia most likely used explosive weapons indiscriminately in civilian areas, including indiscriminate attacks on residential buildings, schools, hospitals, and other buildings of non-military importance. Attacking civilian infrastructure not out of military necessity is a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions. Additionally, “The Commission found numerous cases in which Russian armed forces shot at civilians trying to flee to safety and obtain food or other necessities, which resulted in the killing or injury of the victims.” The Commission also found that “violations against personal integrity” were committed in the four provinces under Russian occupation. “These violations included summary executions, torture, ill-treatment, sexual and gender-based violence, unlawful confinement and detention in inhumane conditions, and forced deportations.” These are also grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, the Commission found “a pattern of summary executions in areas temporarily occupied by Russian armed forces" including in Bucha, where over 400 people were executed during the month of Russian occupation. Many Ukrainian civilians were also illegally confined, tortured, and forcibly transferred to Russia. “Russian armed forces inflicted severe physical and mental pain and suffering upon the victims.” Sexual and gender-based violence was rampant with victims as young as 4 and as old as 83. Each of these crimes described by the Commission constitutes grave breaches under the Geneva Conventions and can be considered war crimes. 

Even though Russia is responsible for most of the violations of international law, Ukraine is not absolved of wrongdoing. The Commission also found evidence of war crimes committed by the Ukrainian armed forces. “The Commission has also documented two cases in which Ukrainian armed forces shot, wounded, and tortured captured soldiers of the Russian armed forces.” In the first case, between March 24 and March 26, Ukrainian soldiers deliberately shot three Russian prisoners of war while interrogating them. The second instance occurred on March 29 when a Ukrainian soldier shot an already wounded Russian soldier three times at close range. 

The Commission’s investigation was limited in scope. It only investigated violations of international law committed through March 2022. As more Russian forces began retreating, evidence of possible war crimes and other violations of international law have been reported. In September, the Ukrainian news agency, Ukrainska Pravda, reported that 447 bodies had been exhumed from a mass grave in Izium, Kharkiv Oblast. Most of the bodies are civilians and their exact causes of death will be investigated, although most show signs of violent death, and 30 showed evidence of torture. As stated above, attacking civilians is a war crime, and the evidence, in this case, speaks volumes, but it must be properly investigated for this to be definitively called a war crime. 

A Deliberate Strategy?

International law is clear, but it seems that every day the world discovers another possible war crime or another violation of human rights. This begs the question: why? Why violate the laws of war and international human rights law? The answer is different depending on which country you are asking about, even though the law is equally applied to both. "This equal application of IHL to both belligerents is particularly difficult to accept in the current situation, where Russia is the aggressor and therefore responsible for all human suffering in Ukraine, whether or not it results from violations of IHL and even when it is directly caused by Ukraine because even that would not have occurred if Ukraine had not to defend itself from the Russian invasion.” The answer to why Ukraine committed those two war crimes is very simple: self-defense. The extent to which committing war crimes is the best way to defend your country is questionable, but that is the reason. 

On the other hand, Russia appears to be violating international law as part of a deliberate strategy. In the months and days before the war, Vladimir Putin made a series of addresses to the nation. On July 12, 2021, Putin wrote an article titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” in which he wrote there is no historical basis for Ukrainian independence from Russia, that Ukraine is a product of historical Russia and as such owes its existence to Russia. In this article, Putin accused Ukraine of fratricide by forcing Russians to assimilate into Ukrainian culture to create an “ethnically pure Ukrainian state, aggressive towards Russia.” Ironically, Putin ends the article by stating “we respect the Ukrainian language and traditions. We respect Ukrainians’ desire to see their country free, safe, and prosperous,” but the only way to do that is by aligning itself with Russia.” 

Exactly eight months later, three days before the invasion, Putin addressed the nation, repeating the same sentiments on the historical unity of the two nations, and proclaiming that Ukraine “actually never had any stable traditions of real statehood.” On the day of the invasion, Putin's intention for Ukraine became clearer. He stated that Ukraine was perpetrating genocide against ethnic Russians. "The purpose of this operation is to protect people who… have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime. To this end, we will seek to demilitarize and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation.” Vladimir Putin’s thinly veiled eliminationist rhetoric is contrasted by the outright eliminationist rhetoric of Russian media pundits like Timofey Sergeytsev. At the beginning of the war, Sergeytsev called the Ukrainian masses “passive Nazis” and “accomplices of Nazism” and called for a “total lustration” of Nazis (i.e., the Ukrainian people and government). Sergeytsev, echoing Putin, wrote, “Ukraine, as history has shown, is impossible as a nation-state, and attempts to "build" one naturally lead to Nazism.” Any Russian citizen or soldier, reading these articles and listening to these speeches in the Russian state media echo chamber, would undoubtedly internalize this as the truth. Many Russians have: 74% support the military’s actions in Ukraine.

Russia has made it abundantly clear it does not recognize the existence of an independent Ukraine, going as far as saying that Ukraine is run by Nazis that need to be “liquidated.” To achieve this goal of demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine, the Russian armed forces have been deliberately brutal towards civilians in the towns they occupied. For example, Germany’s foreign intelligence service, the BND, intercepted radio communications among Russian military personnel when they were north of Kyiv. One soldier said that they shot a person on a bicycle and another soldier said, “First you interrogate soldiers, then you shoot them.” Killing a civilian and prisoners of war are both violations of the Geneva Conventions.  Committing atrocities serves as a means to an end. By terrorizing civilians and committing gross violations of international law, Russia is trying to deter resistance and assert its dominance over the Ukrainian people. “Russia’s political goals in Ukraine lend themselves to violence against civilians, even more so after Moscow’s narrative shifted the motive for the war from liberating the Ukrainian population to cleansing it from “Nazi” elements.” Asserting control over the Ukrainian people can only be achieved by dehumanizing them to the point where they no longer have the will to fight back. 

Moving Forward

There is strong evidence both Russia and Ukraine have violated international law during this war. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine found evidence of such violations, disproportionately committed by Russia. There is also evidence supporting that this is a deliberate strategy by Russia to assert control over the Ukrainian people. Atrocities do not happen in a vacuum, but when they happen, they must be documented and investigated with the utmost urgency and respect for the people harmed. There are currently numerous international and domestic investigations open, but investigations of this nature can take months, even years, to complete. The Commission of Inquiry needed seven months to investigate crimes committed in just one month. This war has lasted for over a year, so the world may not find out the extent of war crimes until long after the war has ended. This poses its own set of challenges. Witnesses could emigrate, evidence could be destroyed, and victims, who are severely traumatized, may need years before they can tell their stories. It is also highly improbable that Russia will cooperate with any investigation, seeing as it does recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court, nor does it recognize Ukraine as a sovereign nation. None of these challenges should deter the international community from investigating, documenting, indicting, and, hopefully, prosecuting these gross violations of international law. Europe has seen the ‘cleansing’ narrative before and it, along with the rest of the world, must set the precedent now that any crimes and violations of a similar nature in a similar context will be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted, lest they will be repeated.

The United States is Failing Yemen

Earlier this year, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken announced $585 million in humanitarian assistance for the war-torn nation of Yemen. The US was quick to celebrate its own generosity, asserting that it remains “one of the largest donors of humanitarian assistance to Yemen” in the world. US leaders also called on other nations to contribute more to the chronically underfunded international response. However, while America takes its victory lap, the people of Yemen will still have to shelter from barrages of US-provided missiles. The US government has quietly facilitated the Yemeni Civil War through “incoherent” policy that the US media and public have largely failed to notice. Meanwhile, the struggles of the Yemeni people caught in the “world’s worst humanitarian crisis” are lost in the background. This article will examine the origins of Yemen’s current conflict, its impacts on civilians, and the many ways in which the United States is failing the desperate nation.

Origins of the Yemeni Civil War

The conflict in Yemen began in 2014 when Houthi rebels seized control of Yemen’s capital, Sana’a. The Houthis are Shiites who have long been at odds with their nation’s Sunni government. Contrary to popular belief, however, the Yemeni Civil War was not caused by Sunni-Shiite antagonisms alone. Fuel price hikes and corruption in former President Ali Abdullah Saleh’s government also caused tensions to rise throughout the early 2000s and 2010s. Massive protests erupted from these tensions when the Arab Spring reached Yemen in 2011. President Saleh was eventually ousted in 2012 and succeeded by his vice president, Abd Rabbu Mansour Hadi. Hadi’s tumultuous presidency came to a brief pause in January 2015 when he resigned as president after rebels took Sana’a. The Houthis took advantage of his absence and seized control of the Yemeni government. However, while Hadi fled his palace and sought exile in Saudi Arabia, he rescinded his resignation a month later, declaring himself the rightful leader of Yemen.

Hadi has since been embroiled in various clashes with the Houthis. However, these two parties are not the only ones involved in the conflict. Saudi Arabia and a cohort of other Gulf nations sided with Hadi’s government and launched a campaign against the Houthi insurgents, with arms and logistical support from the United States. Iran, Saudi Arabia’s bitter enemy, has supplied the Houthis with weapons, deepening the divides between the two nations. Although separate from the civil war, there are also ongoing military operations in Yemen that target Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP). 

Despite the occasional ceasefire, the conflict and chaos in Yemen only seem to be escalating, and innocent civilians are undoubtedly suffering the most. According to UNICEF, hunger and starvation are widespread, with 17.4 million people in need of food assistance—over half of Yemen’s population. This number is expected to balloon to 19 million by 2022. Further, nearly six million people have been displaced from their homes, most of them internally displaced in Yemen. Access to healthcare, clean drinking water, and sanitation services is scant at best. There are few areas of Yemen that are untouched by poverty and adversity.

Meanwhile, the Russo-Ukrainian War has compounded the suffering of the Yemeni people. “It’s another blow to Yemen, driving food and fuel prices further up,” said Abeer Etefa, a senior spokeswoman at the UN World Food Programme. Exports continue to fall as Ukraine grapples with its own conflict, sending shockwaves through the global food supply chain. The Middle East, Asia, and Africa have been hit the hardest, and the burden is the greatest in conflict-stricken nations. “Yemen depends entirely on food imports, with 31% of its wheat coming from Ukraine over the past three months.” Wheat has disappeared from Yemeni food markets, making it extremely difficult for families to meet their basic needs. At the same time, humanitarian donors are feeling the financial strain of providing aid to both nations, and given that the conflict in Yemen has stretched on for eight years, its assistance is dwindling rapidly.

The Yemeni people are clearly in dire need of help from the international community, and the responsibility for their situation lies with those who created it in the first place. As a contributor to the conflict and subsequent humanitarian crisis, the United States must do more to provide meaningful help to Yemen.

Policy Problems 

The United States has allocated $4.5 billion to humanitarian assistance for Yemen since the conflict began. However, it has also sold more than $355 million worth of arms to Saudi Arabia—one of the main instigators of the Yemen conflict—and has signed off on $4.5 billion more in future sales. It appears that America wants the world to think that they care about Yemen while they quietly pour money into the war. Not only does this render the $4.5 billion in humanitarian aid a very poor investment, but it is endlessly destructive to the Yemeni people. The Biden administration made moves to rescind support for Saudi Arabia and prioritize peace, but foreign policy experts agree that these are now nothing more than “broken promises.” US policymakers have also consistently blamed the Houthi rebels for the Yemen conflict and crisis. While the Houthis undoubtedly have a large role, breaking the war down into this “false binary” fails to account for the massive role that Saudi Arabia plays in Yemen. The United States must sever its ties with Saudi Arabia and put down its arms if it truly wants to end the conflict.

Experts also point out numerous issues with the peace process that has been led by the United States for the last several years. Katie Kizer of Foreign Policy writes: “The peace process led by the United States and United Nations has remained where it has for years: pursuing a top-down ceasefire between the men with guns—a strategy that has already failed multiple times—instead of engaging Yemen’s vibrant civil society which is interested in peace.” This assertion is true, as the UN brokered a six-month truce in early 2022 that temporarily reduced hostilities, but negotiators were unable to renew it. It expired on October 2nd, leaving civilians uncertain about their future. The US should be focusing its efforts on the resilient Yemeni people and rebuilding the local and state institutions that have collapsed since the start of the war. However, the US government currently faces little pressure to change its ways, so the gaping holes in its foreign policy will persist until the rest of the world takes notice.

Media Mistakes

America has clung to stories about conflict in the Middle East for the last several decades. The public hung onto journalists’ every word about the invasion of Afghanistan throughout the 2000s and the conflict in Syria for the last decade. Both of these wars have one thing in common: one big, scary enemy. It seems clear to Americans that Al-Qaeda was the enemy in Afghanistan and ISIS was the enemy in Syria. This makes both wars classic cases of good vs. evil (as it is painted by US media, at least) and portrays the United States as the hero of the Middle East. The conflict in Yemen, on the other hand, is complicated. It is difficult to sort through the complex politics and culture of the region and find the heroes and villains. Since it does not make Americans feel like they are on the right side of history, it is not worth covering for many news organizations.

As easy as it may be to point the finger solely at the media, its audience is also partly to blame. The conflict in Yemen is largely contained to the Middle East, meaning spillover onto US soil is unlikely. Since the conflict has no tangible effects on American citizens, many are content to live in their blissful ignorance. Journalists will understandably not go out of their way to cover an event that their audience will not read about, so the lack of public interest perpetuates negligent reporting. However, in the interest of fairness to US media, it is important to note that the sheer complexity of Yemen’s situation can make reporting particularly difficult. “You don’t see photos of Yemeni refugees anywhere because a lot of them are actually inside of [Yemen],” says activist Sama’a Al-Hamdani. Most Yemeni refugees are internally displaced, meaning they are trapped in dangerous areas and unable to speak to journalists. Despite this, it should also be remembered that journalists were willing to fly into war zones with troops to cover Afghanistan, but they do not seem to display the same drive to cover the situation in Yemen. Once again, this is due to the lack of public concern.

The Lost Generation

Why should the United States care about Yemen? In the middle of all the bad arms deals, failed attempts at peace, and the massive humanitarian crisis are the Yemeni people. They are just as entitled to security and peace as the citizens of every other nation involved in the Yemen conflict. But the United States' contributions to the conflict that surrounds them are part of the reason that they now face the loss of an entire generation of children. If Yemeni children make it through the conflict and into their adult lives, they will be forever hindered by illiteracy and lack of education. Two years ago, then UN humanitarian coordinator for Yemen Lisa Grande said, “If the war doesn’t end now, we are nearing an irreversible situation and risk losing an entire generation of Yemen’s young children.” The war still rages two years later. The lack of tangible impacts on US soil does not merit citizens’ ignorance of this conflict, and the US government certainly cannot continue to fund it. The US owes the suffering Yemeni population so much more.

The World Cup: Sustainability, Human Rights and the Economy

cnn.com

Every four years, spectators from around the world come together to celebrate their passion for soccer, more importantly, their love for their national team. The FIFA World Cup 2022 has been the most anticipated event for soccer fans for the past four years, as many wonder who will win the championship and dethrone France as the world champion. This year - and for the first time - soccer fans will gather in Qatar from mid-November to mid-December, marking the first time a World Cup will take place during the winter season. The decision was made in 2010 after the county won a ballot of Fifa's 22 executive members. The country has been preparing ever since for this highly anticipated international competition. However, as Qatar prepares to welcome hundreds of thousands of fans, questions about sustainability, human rights, and regulations are raised. 

Qatar is a country in the Middle East; although small, the current population of Qatar is 2,995,736 as of Sunday, November 12th, 2022. Qatar has the world's third-largest proven natural gas reserve and the second-largest natural gas exporter. As a small oil country, Qatar has been preparing to host the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 for the last 12 years, a competition expected to generate a lot of revenue. However, Qatar's economy is expected to slow down after the World Cup. Indeed, the country has estimated the influx of 1.2 million visitors will add $17 billion to its Gross Domestic Product. However, after the World Cup, tourism and consumption will decrease, which will slow down the economy of Qatar, a very well-known country for its oil economy.

It was in 2010 that FIFA Executive Members designated Qatar to host the World Cup in 2022. As a result, the country has had to make massive investments to host this five-week competition. Qatar has spent $200 billion on infrastructures and other development projects since winning the bid to host the World Cup. To build these infrastructures, the country employed migrant workers, which exposed the country's history of human rights violations. These migrant workers from Nepal, India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh came to Qatar because they lacked job opportunities in their home country. In order to build such infrastructures for the World Cup, Qatar needed the help of migrant workers who seek better opportunities and higher pay. However, the harsh reality of the life of migrant workers in Qatar was unveiled. Many migrant workers lost their lives by working on construction sites in the host country's most essential soccer tournament, which unites millions of people every four years.  

The World Cup will be played following years of serious migrant labor and human rights abuses in Qatar, Human Rights Watch said. The only way through which Qatar could build so many infrastructures was by hiring migrant workers from Nepal, India, Pakistan, or Bangladesh. Nonetheless, FIFA awarded the games to Qatar in 2010, with little human rights due diligence and no clear restrictions regarding protections for migrant workers who would be required to build the vast infrastructures. This lack of control and regulations has led to the death of hundreds of migrant workers, who allegedly passed away while working on the infrastructure for the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022. As a result, more people became aware of the human rights violations in Qatar over the last decades. Human Rights Watch identified Qatari laws, norms, and practices that enforce discriminatory male guardianship standards that deprive women of the ability to make important life decisions in a report from 2021. In Qatar, women must seek their male guardians' consent before getting married, receiving reproductive health care, working in several government jobs, and studying abroad on government scholarships. In 2017, FIFA adopted a Human Rights Policy, pledging to take "measures to promote the protection of human rights," saying, "FIFA will take adequate measures for their protection, including by using its leverage with the relevant authorities. However, by granting Qatar the right to host the World Cup, FIFA is going against its words to promote the protection of human rights as the host country has been the source of various human rights violations over the last decades.

Fifa, the World Cup organizer, has been blamed by many for its lack of recognition and responsibility in electing Qatar to host and organize the World Cup. This worldwide event is expected to have an influx of over 1 million visitors in a country with a population of less than 3 million. FIFA ought to have understood that millions of individuals providing their foreign labor would be required to create and maintain the World Cup's infrastructure. This was anticipated to have cost US$220 billion and included eight stadiums, an airport expansion, a new metro, numerous hotels, and other significant infrastructure. Additionally, FIFA is responsible for those workers and ensuring safe working conditions. However, according to Human Rights Watch, FIFA failed to impose strict conditions to protect workers despite repeated warnings from the workers themselves and civil society organizations and instead became a complacent enabler of the widespread abuse workers endured, including illegal recruitment fees, wage theft, injuries, and deaths.

Qatar is a country with many rules that have been extended to visitors of Qatar, even during the World Cup. Such restrictions have created a lot of controversies but also shine a light on government laws in Qatar that indicate human rights violations. For example, a rule that visitors and fans must follow is no sexual intercourse outside of marriage. Qatar's penal code criminalizes all forms of sex outside marriage, with sentences of up to seven years in prison. In addition, Qatar's penal code punishes consensual sexual relations between men above age 16 with up to 7 years in prison. A penalty of up to 10 years is imposed on anyone who engages in consensual sexual relations, which could apply to consensual same-sex relations between women, men, or heterosexual partners. Minky Worden, a news reporter and writer for Human Rights Watch, said that journalists would help ensure that these crucial issues of human rights violations are brought to light by the World Cup, as Qatar, FIFA and its sponsors still have a chance to rescue the tournament's legacy by addressing migrant rights abuses related with the World Cup and enacting reforms to increase protections for women, LGBT people, and migrant groups - not just during the World Cup but also beyond.

Currently, there are no reports of tourists being arrested for violating any of the rules stated above. However, tourists and fans are expected to abide by Qatari laws, with the risk of getting arrested, detained, and potentially put into jail. It has been reported, however, that fans have attempted to enter the stadium with an LGBTQ+ flag. This was the fan's way of showing their support for the LGBTQ+ community of Qatar, which is subject to abuse and mistreatment in the nation. These fans were denied access to the stadium unless they gave up the flag. 

While human rights abuses are still present in Qatar and millions of migrant workers work in horrible conditions, questions arose regarding the environmental effort of Qatar during this World Cup. According to Fifa, an international governing body of association football, "The FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022 Sustainability Strategy includes a comprehensive set of initiatives to mitigate the tournament related emissions, including energy-efficient stadiums, low emission transportation, and sustainable waste management practices".The 2022 FIFA World Cup sustainability strategy will enable the host country to deliver a tournament that sets new benchmarks in social, human, economic, and environmental development. However, according to recent discoveries, Qatar has been going against the above ethical standards established by FIFA. In its recent report, Carbon Market Watch found that when FIFA tabulated the carbon footprint for building seven new stadiums, it ignored enormous carbon sources, underestimating emissions by a factor of eight.

Furthermore, with newly built air-conditioned stadiums and 150 daily flights to bring in fans, the 2022 World Cup has been dubbed one of the competition's biggest environmental disasters. Even though Qatar claimed that its World Cup met the environmental standards that FIFA set, many concerns have arisen as to whether or not this World Cup is sustainable or greenwashing. After further research, it has been discovered that although Qatar has shown sustainable efforts, this promise of carbon neutrality is not possible, according to Gilles Dufrasne, lead author of the Carbon Market Watch report published in May 2022, examining Qatar's claims.

Known for being an oil country, Qatar's economy will only benefit from this international tournament, even at the cost of human rights and sustainability. In the past, it has been shown that hosting the World Cup could generate a lot of revenue for the nation. However, it is also true that hosting this competition may be a bad idea for others. The Qatar World Cup in 2022 is estimated to generate $4.7 billion in income. However, given the amount of money invested on investments and infrastructure for this internationally known competition, Qatar's unprecedented outlay is unlikely to pay off. There is the typical assumption that billions of people will witness this mega-event, putting Qatar on the figurative map and encouraging tourism, foreign trade, and investment. It might also give Qatar a larger influence in geopolitics. The historical data is negative for these promises of developing "soft power" and long-term economic gains. Being seen on the global stage is a two-way street. Qatar receives a lot of attention, but the majority of it could be more positive. It paid bribes to secure hosting privileges. It has brought in tens of thousands of foreign laborers and subjected them to its cruel kafala labor system, which has reportedly killed thousands of people. The games were rescheduled from summer to November/December due to the extreme heat. Its unfinished investment projects will be prominently shown. The expulsion of foreign workers from their homes to accommodate soccer fans and, ultimately, the removal from the country, among other embarrassments, is not likely to enhance Qatar's positive power.

The FIFA World Cup Qatar 2020 has been the most controversial sporting event in the last few decades. While the renowned competition unveils the ongoing issues that the host country has been facing for decades, it is also leaving the future of the country unknown as hatred has built up against Qatar, a small oil country under the spotlight for hosting the World Cup, but also for its violations of human rights, and allegations of greenwashing. It is now up to Qatar and its Executives to live up to the expectations that it set for itself.

Turkish Honor Culture and the Philosophy of Surveillance

By all accounts Pınar Gültekin was an ordinary, young Turkish woman studying economics at the Muğla University School of Economics. She was bright, ambitious, and beloved by her family. In the summer of 2020 she disappeared. After days of searching, her body was found, having been brutally strangled. Following a police investigation and court case it was revealed that Gültekin had been killed by her former partner, Cemal Metin Avcı, who claimed to have murdered Gültekin in a “moment of anger.” However, further investigation revealed that Avcı had the help and support of his family members in covering up his crime. Originally condemned to life in prison, Avcı’s sentence was then dramatically reduced to twenty-three years, given the “unjust provocation” by Pınar Gültekin that drove him to murder her.

Femicide

         The tragic and horrifying death of Pınar Gültekin is unfortunately one of many murders of Turkish women in recent years. Femicide, the intentional killing of women or girls, is the most violent form of misogyny, and its rise across Turkish society is cause for international concern. The Stockholm Center for Freedom recently reported that thirty-one Turkish women in the month of August alone were victims of femicide. These women were murdered by their male partners and relatives, frequently after having already issued a restraining order or having left the relationship.  The World Health Organization defines femicide in four distinct categories: intimate femicide (committed by a current or former husband or boyfriend); non-intimate femicide; “honor killing” (when the motive is to preserve/restore his family’s honor); and dowry-related femicide (the husband and in-laws kill the bride when the family does not meet the dowry demands) (Toprak and Gokhan, 2). Experts have traced the increase in femicide killings to the “policies of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government, which protects violent and abusive men by granting them impunity.” Cemal Metin Avcı’s reduced sentence and the practice of reducing sentences on the basis of female provocation are examples of such policies.

Pınar Gültekin’s death is an example of both an intimate death and an honor killing within the categories of femicide. Examining the origins of honor-based femicide killings lies in the Turkish societal practice of honor and surveillance.

Honor Culture

Honor culture is an international phenomenon which has existed across societies for thousands of years. Across cultures and continents there are thousands of examples of varying forms of honor culture. In ancient Rome, honor culture frequently led to justified honor killings, and Roman law punished men who refused to kill their adulterous female family members. Thousands of years later, the British Empire established the British Penal Code of 1860 which introduced “the notion of ‘modesty’, and related concepts of ‘chastity’, ‘enticement’ and ‘abduction’, as part of a framework of collective ‘honor’. Rather than safeguarding the rights of the affected individual woman, the law upheld the rights of third parties, be it the state, community or immediate family members.” Honor culture exists in varying forms; it can not be understood as a national issue applying to each and every citizen, but varies at a regional, familial, and individual level. In contemporary Turkish culture, honor determines both an individual's worth and societal structure through connecting individual honor to one's family. Therefore, honor exists as a collective that can be applied and upheld by an entire family. However, this complicates an individual’s relation to honor, because their honor can be destroyed by the actions of another family member. Turkish families must broadcast their honor as a collective unit to society. When women break behavioral norms, such as by acting more masculine or immodest, they not only destroy their own honor, but also the honor of their male family members which in-turn affects societal harmony by destroying the honor of the family unit. Retaliation often takes the form of violence or murder which has led to the increase in femicide and phenomena of “honor killings.” Honor killing refers to the cultural practice of killing an individual to protect the family or society’s honor. However, in Turkey there is a further complicated element in which “there seems to be a social apprehension that man’s violence against the ‘insubordinate’ female is understandable and justified.” Turkish male violence is directly linked to the longstanding multicultural acceptance of justifying violence when it stems from defending one’s honor. Consensual understanding that women’s purity is seen as the symbol of family honor, thus allowing family members to avenge anyone who compromises her honor, especially if it is the woman herself.

Unpacking the Origins of Honor Culture

French philosopher Michel Foucault was fascinated by society’s obsession with surveillance as a means of control and regulation, and much of his philosophical analysis can be seen as an attempt to create a visual metaphor for modern day surveillance. Applying the Foucauldian [BJ1] concept of surveillance provides a new lens of analysis and method of understanding for the intersection between honor culture and surveillance. Foucault described societal surveillance as a panopticon: a philosophical concept based on a unique prison design that was structured to ensure constant surveillance for all individuals within the prison. The panopticon has become a metaphor in surveillance studies as a tool to analyze the role of surveillance in a certain culture or industry. Honor culture relies on the societal acceptance of being watched constantly, as if under  the watch of an ever-present panopticon. Constant surveillance creates a unique human experience, as individuals adjust their behavior to cope with the limitations imposed upon them due to a constant “assumed gaze.” Much of the self-regulation that exists in Turkish honor culture is directly linked to individuals dealing with the pressure of being constantly watched.  Foucault also wrote about how self-regulation due to surveillance creates a “discipline blockade” that refers to how individuals regulate their behavior in dangerous and fatal ways as a response to surveillance. Although it may not directly kill, constant surveillance creates environments in which individuals can put their own life at risk because of the constraints against them. In Turkey the highest rates of suicide occur for young women under the age of twenty-four. Although experiences of suicide are highly individual, there are numerous reports of Turkish women attempting to end their own lives as a result of the pressure they felt from their family and community to protect their honor and purity. When seventeen year old Derya’s [BJ2] family discovered her romantic relationship, they informed her that she had blackened the family name and needed to kill herself in order to end the family’s shame.  Despite wanting to live, Derya felt immense pressure and obligation: “My family attacked my personality, and I felt I had committed the biggest sin in the world..I felt I had no right to dishonor my family, that I have no right to be alive. So I decided to respect my family’s desire and to die.” Thankfully, her suicide attempts failed, and she sought refuge at a Turkish women’s [BJ3] shelter. However, Derya’s story reveals that the lack of agency and opportunity that Turkish honor culture gives to young women is deadly.

The severity and devastation of Turkey’s honor culture lies in its systemic surveillance, which both requires and encourages a constant shared observation of every individual. Justified male violence against women may first appear as a result of patriarchal culture that is dominated by misogynistic thinking; however further examination of honor culture reveals that it is rooted not in misogyny, but in surveillance. Pearce and Vitak explain that “Surveillance is the norm in such cultures because others must validate that an individual is adhering to the behavioral code.” An individual must be constantly watched by their family and society, while simultaneously watching others, in order to make sure that their collective honor is respected. As previously mentioned, an individual cannot determine one’s own honor, instead it is directly linked to their family and community; this collective concept of honor therefore demands a culture of surveillance. Individuals are both constantly watched and constantly watching others.

Surveillance as a tactic

An awareness of constant surveillance is behind the fear and motivation for engaging in honor culture, but awareness also requires understanding how surveillance can appear as different manifestations of power. Surveillance can exist at the state sanctioned level; this type of surveillance manifests itself in virginity examinations imposed upon women that can be requested at the behest of individuals, police, and schools. In a survey conducted on virginity examinations, 70% of Turkish doctors reported conducting at least one virginity examination that year. The legal system is another form of institutional and state sanctioned surveillance. By refusing to adequately punish men accused of honor killings, the legal institution is indirectly contributing to surveillance culture by creating an atmosphere in which surveillance and violence can thrive. However, surveillance can also occur at the private level, such as between families. As revealed above, honor killings are frequently carried out by a woman’s male relations, thus revealing how surveillance is conducted in the home. Familial surveillance builds relationships of cynicism and distrust between family members.

Conclusion

Understanding the role that systemic surveillance plays in honor culture is key for Turkey to overcome the issue of femicide. In order to eradicate femicide rooted in honor killings, Turkish legal institutions must place greater effort towards recognizing the larger institutional barriers that surveillance supports. Although there is dire need for reform and justice, Turkish activists are rallying and protesting across the country to ensure that the deaths and lives of Pınar Gültekin and other victims of honor killings are not forgotten or ignored. Organizations, such as the Turkish Women and Democracy Association, known as KADEM, work tirelessly to advocate for greater gender equality for men and women across Turkey. The Turkish Women Union seeks to promote women’s political rights and agency across the country. Other organizations, such as We Will Stop Femicide (WWSF) actively combat the issue itself. These varying organizations all demonstrate the important role of Turkish civic society and collective organization. Despite Turkey’s current authoritarian regime, the brave work done by feminist and human rights organizations, as well as individual citizens can allow us to be optimistic.

How Grassroot Movements in Latin America can help influence the fight for Reproductive Rights in the United States.

Grassroots movements in Latin and South America, such as The Green Wave, have generated change and progress in reproductive rights by implementing modern human rights frameworks and emphasizing that criminalizing abortions does not stop them from happening. Hopefully and eventually, these movements will be adopted in the United States to help mobilize their grassroots movements to fight for reproductive 

rights by spreading awareness of the goals and methods of these groups. The United States Supreme Court’s recent nonadherence to stare decisis in the overturning of Roe v. Wade will not only have detrimental consequences for reproductive rights in the United States, but the whole world. Roe v. Wade was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court and was considered as an advocacy model for reproductive rights in many countries. In 2020 in the United States, the abortion rate was 1 out of 5 pregnancies ended in abortion. It is estimated that 20-26 states could outlaw abortions and reduce the number of resources and rights for someone who is pregnant. These new laws can then act as trigger laws for more reproductive rights reduction in more states. 

In 1970, an anonymous woman known as Jane Roe filed a lawsuit against the district attorney in Dallas, Texas, named Henry Wade. She wanted to challenge a Texas law making abortion illegal except if necessary to save a woman's life. She alleged that

the law was unconstitutional, vague, and did not protect her right to privacy. The main question that the Supreme Court had to answer: does the US Constitution recognize a woman’s right to terminate the pregnancy by abortion? 

Ultimately, the court decided that the Texas law was unconstitutional because the 14th Amendment of the Constitution has a due process clause which protects individuals against state action called the right of privacy. They decided that a person’s right to choose to have an abortion is within the right to privacy and that any other law that would prohibit abortion violates that right. 

However, in June of 2022, Dobbs v. Jackson was decided and overturned the decision of Roe v. Wade. This is because, in 2018, Mississippi legislators passed a law called the Gestational Age Act, which prohibits abortions after 15 weeks. The only licensed abortion clinic in Mississippi called the Jackson Women’s Health Organization filed a lawsuit that went all the way up to the Supreme Court. The ultimate question that they had to answer was is the Mississippi’s law banning abortion after 15 weeks unconstitutional? In the end, they would find that there is nowhere in the Constitution that gives a person a right to an abortion. The Supreme Court has broken from stare decisis in following a precedented and influential decision from 50 years ago. In the Majority Opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, he discussed the right to abortion as neither deeply rooted in the nation’s history nor an essential component of “ordered liberty.” 

What exactly is the United States’ history with abortion and reproductive rights? Unsurprisingly, the history is rooted in sexism, the patriarchy, and the idea that the American woman’s duty and sole purpose was to bear children. The first time that abortion was actually criminalized was in the mid-nineteenth century. In the 1850s and 1860s, doctors helped legislators pass anti-abortion laws to make it

illegal to have an abortion and to take birth control. And yet, even though all these new laws were passed criminalizing birth control, women started to take control over their bodies, pregnancies, and abortions. During this time period, many argued that too many native-born white women were terminating their pregnancies. Many people were afraid that if white American women stopped having children, America would be overrun by foreigners. Many were against the use of contraceptives as well, likening the women who used them to prostitutes. Some leaders of the anti-abortion movement were of the view that pregnancy and having children were women’s purposes in society. One of those leaders, named Horatio Storer, wrote “what a woman is in health, in character, in her charms, alike of body, mind, and soul because of her womb alone.” The ideal, white, American family was seen as one that had lots of children to carry on the ideal American society. When women started to unsubscribe from that idea, many anti-abortionists felt it threatened their society and way of life and left them open for an ‘invasion,’ if you will, of foreigners. It has only been since the 1960s that women could even think about getting access to a birth control pill. Even today, while more accessible than 50-60 years ago, birth control is still not as widely accessible as one might think. Now with the overturning of Roe v. Wade in Dobbs v. Jackson, many women in America are worried that more policies will follow that could make their accessibility to reproductive health resources even smaller. 

What about the rest of the world? A lot of times, when the United States makes policies about issues, other countries would try to follow it or model their policies on the United States. A region of the world that is very interesting to look at as a case study is Latin and South America. As the United States’ southern neighbors, a lot of what the US does affects them. As of this moment, there are only 6 countries in Latin and South America that have a ban on abortions. They are El Salvador, Haiti,

Honduras, the Dominican Republic, Suriname, and Nicaragua. In most of the countries where abortion is legal, they usually have one of two models: 

● The Grounds Model: this model is where abortion is criminalized except in certain circumstances. These could include when a pregnancy is the product of rape or if the pregnant person’s health will be at risk if they go through with the pregnancy. 

● The Mix Model: this model is used in countries such as Argentina, Colombia, Uruguay, and Mexico. It gives access to legal abortion 

resources and there are no specific circumstances or requirements to get one. 

The Grounds Model has been the most commonly used model in the Latin and South American regions for many years. However, due to increasing feminist activism there has been a rise in social movements in Latin America that have paved the way for their countries to move towards the Mix Model instead.. 

In the 1970s, an activist group started in Argentina called Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo, or Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo as a result of the human rights abuses at the time. It was founded in 1976 with the goal of finding the children and grandchildren stolen and illegally adopted during the Argentine military dictatorship that occurred from 1976-1983. These children were stolen from Los Desaparecidos, or those who disappeared because they spoke out against the regime and its leaders. It is estimated that 30,000 people disappeared during the regime and at least 500 babies were taken from their parents while in captivity and given to childless military couples. This organization has made a lot of progress; since it was started, they identified thousands of bodies and relocated many of the missing children and reconnected them with their families. During their protests, Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo wore white headscarves

on their heads which symbolized their right to know the final fate of their children and grandchildren. 

This organization has inspired many pro-abortion activitst movements today in Latin and South America. For example, a women’s rights movement called The Green Wave wears green headscarves as a symbol of their protest and solidarity with each other. This organization started in Argentina and was directly inspired by the progress and change that Abuelas de la Plaza de Mayo has made in achieving its goals. The Green Wave has helped deliver groundbreaking change and progress in reproductive rights in Latin America. Through mass protests and keeping up the pressure on lawmakers, they have gotten the government to make major steps in decriminalizing abortion. They also have helped people break away from the stigmas of birth control and abortion and have raised general awareness around reproductive rights. Through their efforts, they have forced policymakers to make sure reproductive rights and access to resources are at the center of political debate and decisions. This grassroots movement’s influence has not only been confined to Latin America. It has spread throughout the world and people are seeing their success at making real change happen around reproductive rights. For example, in Poland, people protesting against abortion bans are using green scarves on their heads as a symbol of their right to reproductive autonomy. 

Grassroots movements such as The Green Wave are focusing their goals on trying to get policymakers to move their laws closer to compliance with international human rights obligations. The global trend recently with legislators is to try to expand access to legal abortion by including and following international human rights laws into the laws of their own countries and constitutions. A good example of this strategy is in Colombia; in February 2022, the Constitutional Court in Colombia decriminalized

abortion for up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. This is a historic step in reproductive rights and for grassroots movements. Their reasoning behind this decision came from the need to decriminalize abortion so that sexual and reproductive rights could be preserved. They noted the studies done by the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ESCR Committee) where they mention the right of all to enjoy the highest standard of health. 

The ESCR Committee has General Comment No. 14 and General Comment No. 22 which also played a role in Colombia’s decriminalization of abortion. These general comments talk about the right to health, equality, and freedom of conscience. By extension, the interpretation of these international human rights laws implies that denying women access to abortion is a form of discrimination that is in contrast with basic human rights. Colombia’s new policies and laws adhering to international human rights have influenced other countries in Latin America to do the same and now abortionservices have been included in health care systems all over Latin America due to the persistence and pressure of grassroots movements to make sure reproductive rights are a present topic in policy debates. 

In addition, grassroots movements have also emphasized to lawmakers how criminalizing abortions is not going to stop them from happening. Criminalization threatens the ability of women to get access to essential reproductive health care and resources. At the same time, it also increases inequality and discrimination. If a wealthy person has the resources to get an abortion, then the chances of deadly results are slimmer. The rate of unsafe abortions is four times higher and is increasing in countries with abortion laws that are restrictive and where abortion is criminalized. According to a study done by an organization in Colombia named La Mesa por la Vida y La Salud de las Mujeres says that only 1 to 12 percent of abortions are performed legally. This

implies that most women in Latin America getting abortions are doing so in unsafe conditions where their health could be at a much greater risk. Furthermore, many of the legal abortion clinics are located in major cities, which are unaccessible to many women. Women who live in rural areas already experience greater discrimination and marginalization and are now being put in an even more vulnerable situation. This is why grassroots organizations and movements are fighting for better access to clinics, information, and resources to obtain an abortion in safe conditions. The organizations are positioning reproductive rights as a social justice issue, the absence of which is a violation of women’s rights. By putting this topic into public conservation, they are helping everyday people and lawmakers think of circumstances and conditions that have not even crossed their minds. 

The main question here is: will the policymakers in the United States try to incorporate some of these strategies that grassroots organizations are implementing to help women get more access to resources for safe abortions and take steps to decriminalize abortions and birth control fully? Well, seeing how grassroots movements such as The Green Wave have already spread all through Latin and South America and have even gone to Europe, it is conceivable that these methods could be adopted by similar protest movements in the United States. By putting pressure on lawmakers and generally informing the public about abortion access and reproductive rights, these movements can make sure that these issues are at the forefront of political conversations and debates. On paper, the United States is a secular country, with very clearly laid out foundations for a separation of church and state.The model which protects the rights of women most is the decriminalization model, where abortion is recognized as an essential health care service that no one needs to be prosecuted for or die from. It is only when personal and religious beliefs are set aside and looking

toward movements are arguments that have worked for others that the United States can finally make progress in the realm of reproductive rights. 

Food Apartheid and Indigenous Peoples

Settler-colonialism had, and continues to have, devastating consequences for Indigenous Peoples in the Americas. Colonization can be broadly defined as a “process by which a territory is settled by a group of people that has emigrated from another country or region and transformed the land” which “includes the displacement of people indigenous to that territory and treating them as second-class citizens ruled by the members of the foreign colonial group” (Sagaskie 102). Sagaskie expands upon this by adding that two significant facets of colonization are that, one, there is a conquered group who has lost their sovereignty to the invaders and that, two, there is an indigenous group that is considered to be inferior (102). However, while this definition includes the historically prevalent practice of colonization in pre-modern times, it does not truly encapsulate the experience of Indigenous populations as Western Europeans instituted a very specific form of colonization known as settler-colonialism. This type of colonization is distinct in that it “...functions through the replacement of indigenous populations with an invasive settler society that, over time, develops a distinctive identity and sovereignty.” Unlike classical colonization, settler-colonialism was unique in that “settlers' ' intended to stay through the elimination of Indigenous Peoples- additionally, this is not considered to be a singular event, but a perpetual process. Furthermore, settler-colonialism differs from other forms of colonization in that it is an inherently white supemacist act- the elimination of Indigenous Peoples is legitimated through racist logics that they are inferior and therefore brutality is not just justified, it is seen as necessary to protect the interests and identities of the settler state.

One feature of settler-colonialism in the Americas is its destruction of Indigenous Peoples’ food sources and traditional relationships to food. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, different nations, that span from what we now call Alaska to South America, had balanced food networks that involved intimate connections to their environment and cultures. It is virtually impossible to generalize the diets of Indigenous Peoples as they were as diverse as the regions they occupied (Sagaskie 103). Furthermore, their diets were dependent on the local resources that were readily available thus food staples were not necessarily fixed- however, there were foundational elements to Indigenous diets that are often referred to as the Three Sisters which consisted of corn, beans, and squash. The cultivation and consumption of these crops were integral to the diets of nations such as the Anishinaabe, Oneida, and Iroquois, though settler-colonialism increasingly made it difficult for Indigenous Peoples to harvest them; the United States actively attempted to undermine these practices through the forced removal of nations from their ancestral lands, destruction of crops, and severely limiting access to arable land (Sagaskie 103). These processes carried out by the settler government undermined the ability of Indigenous groups to access food; it is one such example of the US facilitating Indigenous genocide. The introduction of a new “meat” industry also contributed to the destruction of Indigenous food sources and, subsequently, their populations. The Spaniards, who were anxious to ensure their own survival, appropriated large amounts of land for grazing livestock; the vast numbers of livestock, many of which were new to the Americas, managed to destroy Indigenous croplands. The effects of this were severe: Indigenous Peoples became malnourished and not only starved to death, but also became more susceptible to European diseases as their immune systems were weakened. Ultimately, the settler-state’s ability to limit the food options of Indigenous Peoples, thus forcing them to consume European foods, and forcibly relocate them to remote reservations where they were expected to adapt to sedentary lifestyles, laid the foundation for high levels of food insecurity in the 21st century. Indigenous Peoples throughout North America are specifically subjected to food apartheid, thus affecting their ability to sufficiently access nutritional, quality, and culturally relevant food which further impacts their health and overall quality of life. 

What is food insecurity versus food apartheid?

The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) defines food insecurity “as a lack of consistent access to enough food for an active, healthy life.” In addition to this definition, the Interagency Working Group on Food Security and Food Security Advisory Committee have established that there are two types of food insecurity: Type I includes “individuals or groups of people who do not have enough food to eat,” while Type II includes “individuals or groups who do not have enough nutritional and culturally appropriate food.”  The issue of food insecurity is compounded by various factors, however location is often perceived to be the largest barrier. The term “food desert” are geographical locations that lack affordable food of a good quality. However, the term is arguably inaccurate- it ignores the intentionality behind certain communities not having enough food that can be traced back to settler-colonialism and white supremacy. Many have argued that the term “food apartheid” is more valid as it examines the whole food system and the way it intersects with race, geography, and economic policy. Furthermore, while the term food desert hints at the geographic aspect of food insecurity, which is certainly important, it is not the only factor to consider. Since 2011, the federal government has spent approximately 500 million dollars to produce a higher amount of well-stocked grocery stores in low-income communities- however, food insecurity did not diminish with the presence of grocery stores alone. The USDA even reported that proximity to supermarkets “has limited impact on food choices” and “household and neighborhood resources, education, and taste preferences may be more important determinants of food choices than store proximity.” In other words, though mainstream discourse surrounding food insecurity has focused on the proximity to grocery stores, it  is not the only factor to consider- one must consider the actual income of the neighborhood’s residents, access to cultural food staples, and transportation. For example, the presence of a Whole Foods in a low-income neighborhood does not necessarily matter when the residents cannot afford Whole Foods prices. To further highlight this issue, a 2014 study conducted in two Philadelphia neighborhoods found that while the presence of new grocery stores may have improved the perception of food accessibility, there was not an increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. It is also important to consider whether or not SNAP recipients can even shop at local grocery stores as they are both limited in options and price. While food apartheid is mainly discussed within the context of communities in urban areas, Indigenous nations in the United States, particularly those who live on reservations, are also subject to food apartheid which has not only severely impacted their access to healthy, affordable foods, but it has also affected their abilities to maintain relationships to traditional food systems. 

Indigenous Food Access in the United States 

Native reservations are subject to some of the highest rates of poverty that can be further characterized through a lack of access to food and healthcare. Indigenous Peoples in the US have one of the highest poverty rates of any marginalized group: 35 percent of children live in poverty. In terms of actual food access, 1 in 4 Indigenous Peoples are food insecure, while Indigenous households are 400 percent  more likely than other US households to report not having enough to eat. This is largely due to a significant portion of Indigenous Peoples living in remote areas where supplies are scarce and incomes are inadequate due to a lack of job opportunities. When broadening the scope of the issue from individual households to reservations and/or counties, the uncompromising nature of food apartheid becomes even more apparent. At least 60 reservations experience food insecurity. Additionally, out of the 28 counties that are considered to have a majority Indigenous population, 18 of them have high rates of food insecurity. A-Dae Romeros-Briones, the Director of Programs of the Native Agriculture and Food Systems at the First Nations Development Institute, has argued that: “With the onslaught of settlements and later reservation and federal policies, Tribal Nations were forced into other areas of unfamiliarity through the reservation system. This forced relocation remains an underlying issue as Tribal Nations today are trying to cultivate their lands, learn their environments and adjust to the abrupt transitions. Imagine a thousand-year-old society moving suddenly and now forced to re-build.” The technologies of settler-colonialism have forced Indigenous Peoples to adopt sedentary lifestyles and access food through a system that is actively harming them. This continues to be apparent as the US government’s policies that are presented as “assistance” arguably generate even more harm. SNAP participation among Indigenous households is around 24 percent, which is nearly double that of the general population. The USDA’s Food Distribution Program on Indian Reservations provides food commodities to Indigenous Peoples with low-income though the available foods have virtually no nutritional value and are high in fats and carbohydrates. As a result, Indigenous Peoples face higher rates of health issues alongside minimal accessibility to affordable and quality healthcare. Native communities have higher rates of Type II diabetes, which, due to inaccessible healthcare infrastructure, often leads to a higher rate of fatal cases.  Although the Indian Health Service (IHS) is the main healthcare provider for reservations, it is still not equipped to sufficiently help local communities; the private sector is not an option for most as there is poverty and high uninsured rates. The COVID-19 pandemic has only served to exacerbate these issues as Indigenous populations experienced a higher rate of cases and COVID deaths than any other group. Prior to the pandemic, more than 35 million people, including a high number of children, were living under food apartheid; this data actually reflects the lowest food insecurity rates in more than 20 years, yet the economic impacts of the pandemic have increased vulnerabilities. The disparities that have been produced and exacerbated by the pandemic are further proof of settler-colonialism’s perpetuity: Indigenous Peoples have higher rates of pre-existing conditions such as respiratory diseases, reservations have limited access to water which limits preventative measures, such as hand-washing, and poor health, and social distancing is difficult to maintain due to crowded living situations that are a result of impoverishment. 

The Navajo Nation is an extreme example of food insecurity as a result of food apartheid. Spanning 17 million acres across Arizona, Utah, and New Mexico, the Navajo Nation is the largest reservation in the US- it also only has 13 grocery stores. As a result, the average time for a resident to drive to a grocery store, assuming they have access to a vehicle, is three hours one-way. In a similar vein to other Indigenous nations pre-colonization, the Navajo people, otherwise known as the Dine, maintained an intimate relationship with the land and its various ecosystems as gardeners, hunters, and stewards- when the settler government of the US forcibly appropriated their land, subsequently displacing them, their livestock were killed and their fields were destroyed. Their way of life was permanently altered. Since the mid-1800s when the US forced the Dine on the Long Walk, where they were forced to travel to an internment camp at Fort Sumter, the Dine have had high rates of food insecurity with intentionally inadequate assistance from the federal government. Many Dine receive federal food benefits, such as SNAP, however, as previously mentioned, these are severely limited in their scope as Dine recipients are forced to buy unhealthy foods as they are the cheapest option. Artie Yazzie, a Dine, has said: “We have these big old thirst-busters that cost 60 cents, and three people can share it…So we’re going to go ahead and buy that instead of the $3 water or milk.” Artie has highlighted the crux of the issue: the nature of the food system accessible to Indigenous Peoples deliberately perpetuates insecurity and impoverishment. It exacerbates the conditions many Indigenous persons are subjected to which is having to purchase unhealthy food as it is both the cheapest, thus benefits last longer, and it sustains more family members than just one person. Another trend in the Navajo Nation that can be applied to other Indigenous communities is the disproportionate presence of convenience stores. A study conducted on 22 American Indian reservations in Washington State found 50 stores; when breaking that number down, these stores consisted of 25 convenience stores, 16 grocery stores, and nine supermarkets (O'Connell et al. 1).  O’Connell et al. assert that “nutrition environments on American Indian Reservations are characterized by few supermarkets and many gas-station type stores, moderate availability of fresh produce, and a reliance on off-reservation stores for regular or bulk shopping” (2). This observation is further compounded by the fact that 17 reservations do not have a supermarket on their reservation and the nearest locations are typically 10 miles away from the tribe’s headquarters (O'Connell et al. 1). In terms of the stores’ content, only about 38 percent of items on the checklist were available, with supermarkets having the most, though they are the least accessible, and convenience stores, which are the most prevalent, having the fewest (O'Connell et al. 4). Furthermore, dairy and sugar products are available in abundance, while fresh fruits and vegetables are the most difficult to find (O'Connell et al. 1). More specifically, eggs, white bread, and whole milk were the “most consistently available items” among all visited stores; eggs are the most consistent product in convenience stores which typically dominate reservations (O'Connell et al. 4). Distance also played a significant role in food availability: the average distance from tribal headquarters to the nearest supermarket on reservations, when one was available, was 5.3 miles, while the nearest off-reservation supermarket was typically 11.1 miles (O'Connell et al. 6). Thus it was incredibly important that one have access to a vehicle, though, of course, the difficulties of procuring vehicles in impoverished areas are more pronounced.

Indigenous Food Access in Canada

The US is not the only country in North America where Indigenous People are subjected to food apartheid and have limited access to food. In Canada, Indigenous populations also face higher levels of poverty and food insecurity. The country’s Constitution recognizes three groups: First Nations, which is a collective term for over 600 communities, Inuit, and Métis; approximately 4.9 percent of the population, which is equivalent to 1.67 million people, identify as being Indigenous. Out of three formally recognized groups, the First Nations make up the majority with a population of 900,000 individuals. Prior to settler-colonialism, the First Nations occupied a large territory where they harvested animals and plants for sustenance, as well as social, political, economic, and cultural reasons. However, in 1876, the settler government of Canada passed the Indian Act which established the existence of reserves, otherwise known as the Canadian equivalent of reservations; the purpose was to allocate small parcels of land for use by First Nations people, though they were in remote areas that were selected without consultation. The law’s passage was, simply put, a way to steal more land and protect settler-colonial interests. In present-day, almost half of First Nations people live on reserves that are mainly located in British Columbia, Ontario, and Manitoba. The Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) reported that 28.2 percent of Indigenous Peoples living off of reserves are food insecure, compared to only 11.1 percent of white Canadians facing food insecurity. The First Nations Regional Health Study then reported that of the First Nations households that live on reserves, and in Northern communities especially, approximately half are moderately or severely food insecure; households with children are also disproportionately impacted. In a similar vein to Indigenous Peoples in the US, food insecurity compounds health disparities as well- only 37.8 percent of First Nations adults report that their health is excellent or very good, compared to 59 pecent of Canadians nationally. Furthermore, the disruption of traditional food practices, which historically entails the consumption of foods that prevent diseases, and reliance on unhealthy foods has led to an increase in diabetes. Despite the fact  that healthcare is socialized in Canada, First Nation communities experience lower quality care compared to non-Indigenous populations. 

One example of a First Nation experiencing food apartheid, is the Fort Albany First Nation in Mushkegowuk Territory along the Albany River in northern Ontario- although traditional food were still highly prevalent, the majority of food intake was derived from store-bought food (Skinner et al. 2). Traditional food practices and harvesting activities involve hunting, fishing, and gathering, though these activities are in decline due to an increase in barriers (Skinner et al. 2). The primary limitations for community members were the high cost of hunting and the proliferation of environmental issues thus their ability to hunt in specific areas were limited; the cost of fuel and hunting equipment has impacted the ability to hunt large land-based animals, game birds, and small game. As a result of decreased food access, food sharing amongst family and community members is common (Skinner et al. 7). While the Inuit are considered their own distinct Indigenous group, they experience similar problems, but due to their geographic location food insecurity is even worse. The Inuit occupy the Canadian Arctic and face food insecurity at three times the rate of First Nation and Métis populations. Furthermore, 69.9 percent of  households with at least one preschooler are food insecure. When households have at least one hunter, food insecurity becomes less prevalent though, similar to the Fort Albany First Nation, hunting has become increadingly more difficult due to the cost of gear and gas; as a result, many have to turn to the local markets which have exceptionally high prices for food that is low in nutritional value (Skinner et al. 6). Fruits and vegetables are typically more expensive than highly processed foods in northern markets which partially has to do with transportation costs; additionally, sometimes food is spoiled by the time it reaches several communities. In a survey concerning northern First Nations, 82 percent of people stated their store often or sometimes sold expired food. It is easy to imagine that the Inuit, who are extremely remote, face similar challenges. However, one significant challenge for Indigenous communities in Canada, especially if they still maintain traditional food processes, is climate change. The rise of global temperatures has impacted the migration patterns of animals, such as birds and caribou, on First Nation territories. It is also affecting their ability to successfully harvest food as unpredictable weather patterns and climatic conditions have impacted the growth of certain plants and have made the physical act of harvesting extremely more difficult. Climate change is also increasing the cost of certain store-bought foods as transportation becomes more difficult. While there are many converging forces that contribute to the Indigenous population’s food insecurity, the devaluing of Indigenous life by the settler government has paved the way for food inaccessibility and poor quality to be considered acceptable, despite the harm it causes. 

How can we protect food access for Indigenous Peoples?

Within the context of international law, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, North American countries are in violation of a few key articles when considering food insecurity. Article II specifies that: “Indigenous peoples and individuals are free and equal to all other peoples and individuals and have the right be free from any kind of discrimination, in the exercise of their rights, in particular that based on their indigenous origin or identity.” The disparities between non-Indigenous and Indigenous populations highlights the unequal treatment when it comes to food access- such disparities are arguably intentional on the part of settler-colonial governments whose entire existence is rooted in the devaluation of Indigenous People. Furthermore, when it comes to exercising their rights, such rights must also include maintaining their traditional and cultural ways of life, which includes sustainable food systems. This is further enshrined in Article 11, which states that: “Indigenous peoples have the right to practice and revitalize their cultural traditions and customs…” Article 11 should also be applied to food- this means that Indigenous Peoples need access to land, tools, and nutritional food. This also means that not only should there be more well-stocked stores within an accessible distance to Indigenous Peoples, it also means that their low-income status must also be addressed. However, while solutions need to undercut systemic issues that are economic and political in nature, one localized solution is to support food sovereignty. This concept was founded by the organization Via Campesina which is composed of Indigenous Peoples in Central and South America fighting for land ownership. The term encompasses the needs of Indigenous Peoples to eat “healthy and culturally appropriate food produced through ecologically sound and sustainable methods and their right to define their own food and agriculture systems.” The concept of food sovereignty would allow Indigenous Peoples to control their own lands and food systems, which would not only help them access food, but it would be high in nutritional value thus diminishing reliance on settler food systems that produce and reinforce endemic health problems such as diabetes. While food apartheid is an intentional tool used by settler governments such as the US and Canada, Indigenous Peoples can find ways to subvert such harmful systems and not only survive, as they have been doing for generations, but to also thrive in a healthy, sustainable manner. 

References

O'Connell, Meghan, et al. “Food Access and Cost in American Indian Communities in Washington State.” NIH Public Access, 2011, pp. 1–10.

​​Sagaskie, Hunter Frederick. “The Impact of Colonization.” Michigan Sociological Review, vol. 33, 2019, pp. 101–114. 

Skinner, Kelly, et al. “Giving Voice to Food Insecurity in a Remote Indigenous Community in Subarctic Ontario, Canada: Traditional Ways, Ways to Cope, Ways Forward.” BMC Public Health, 2013, pp. 1–13. 

Forgotten: The Druze of the Levant and the Legacy of the Syrian Civil War

Few can deny the historical importance of the Levant region in rearing the foundations of human civilization. Thousands of years and hundreds of generations transformed the desolate, arid sands of the Fertile Crescent into functioning cities and irrigated farmland. Out of the ziggurats of Ur and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, long histories and mythologies emerged, nurturing some of the earliest societies known to man. It was along the banks of the River Jordan and the Nile that not only human life arose, but human spirituality as well, with the stories and scriptures of the Semitic tribes coalescing over hundreds of years into Judaism. Millennia later, Christianity would emerge, and centuries after that, Islam. This brief description does little justice to the sheer volumes that could be written on the complexities of these developments; the conflict and strife that forged pious steel from godless iron and the peace and harmony that tended the barren twigs of Gethsemane into olive branches. But it is telling of the arduous history which surrounds the Middle East and the people that live there that the present is not so different from the past. Persecution runs rampant in the modern states of the Arab World, leaving countless communities without basic necessities or the agency to change the course of their lives.

One group for whom this has proven especially true is the Druze: a community for which a single definition, much like the Middle East as a whole, gives little justice. The Druze are an oft-forgotten subsect of the Abrahamic faith, numbering between 800,000 and 2 million. Druze are dotted across the region and the United States, with a great majority of the known Druze population residing in Syria. Traditionally classified as ethno-religious in nature, the beliefs of the Druze are often explained as more monastic philosophy than deistic religion. In this sense, the Druze faith shares much in common with Taoism, meaning that while they still believe in spirituality and an almighty being, more emphasis is put on daily living rather than worship or the afterlife. This is not to say that the Druze snub ritual practices and belief in a god, in fact it is quite the opposite. Polls from Pew Research have shown that an astounding 99% of Druze believe in the Abrahamic God. Like the Five Pillars of Islam, Druze follow the Seven Duties, which include a strict adherence to monotheism and mutual solidarity with fellow Druze. However, the Druze faith is also considered by most to be confusingly esoteric. Druzite clergy maintain a strong chokehold over the “full” scripture, creating a laity which is unaware of the true nature of their religion.

Nevertheless, Druze remain steadfast in their beliefs and customs. Moreover, Druze are unique to Abrahamic faiths having solidarity with denominations, namely Jews. While Christians might consider Jews heathens and vice versa, Druze value their long history of solidarity with the Jewish people, having both been oppressed repeatedly by the caliphates and Muslim states of the area. It is with the Jews that Druze possess the greatest solidarity, having interculturally developed alongside one another and having been treated with greater tolerance and acceptance in Israel. The Druze, much like the Sikhs of India, are also renowned for their militant culture, serving in the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) up until 2015 under the separated Herev Battalion. While the group has since integrated with the IDF at-large, Druze continue to be overwhelmingly loyal to Israel as their home and protector.

Yet while the state of Israel has repeatedly expressed and demonstrated support for this ethnoreligious minority, surrounding Arab Muslim states have not been so kind. Political representation is rare if not entirely non-existent. For example, while Lebanon theoretically guarantees the same rights and privileges to Druze that it does to its other citizens, the reality is usually starkly different. While treated better than in other Arab countries, differences between the Sunni Muslim majority and Druze minority makes integration into daily life difficult. Although the Druze gained political representation in Syria in the Ba’athist takeover in 1963, they were quickly sidelined to prioritize the agenda of other Muslims and Arabs, and have remained a political minority ever since. As is to be expected, leaving the Druze politically ostracized has had considerable ramifications for the treatment of the Druze in all other facets of life.

Druze and Islam: A Complicated History

Mistreatment of Druze and ill-will from the Muslim majority of the region stems from a long history of religious suppression, social isolation, and the killing of Druze by fundamentalist Muslims. Two facts are important to acknowledge at this point: the first being that the term “Druze” is, technically, a misnomer. The term Druze, while disputed by some as possibly deriving from the Arabic word darasah (“those who learn”), is largely accepted to derive from the name of 11th-century adherent Muhammad bin Ismail Nashtakin ad-Darazi. An early follower of the faith, Ad-Darazi himself was soon categorized as a heretic and expunged from the sect entirely. Before this could spread, Benjamin of Tudela—a 12th-century Jewish European chronicler—published a history of the Levant which labeled the people as “Dogziyin”, which over time became bastardized to “Druze”. Druze will often go by many names, but the accepted label used by clergy and when referring to themselves is Al-Muwahhidun (“The People of Monotheism” or “The Unitarians”). For the purpose of this article, and given that the debated etymology has resulted in a lack of care or offense from the community, I will continue to use the term “Druze”.

The second fact which requires some elaboration is that the Druze technically arose from a sect of Islam known as Isma’ilism which is itself a branch of Shi’a Islam. Without delving too deeply into the complex—and disputed—history of the faith, Druze slowly developed into its own religion, eventually becoming persecuted under the Fatimid Caliphate, leading to a closing of the faith in 1043. This means that every Druze individual born past this era has been born directly into the Druze faith, culture, and lifestyle. Additionally, while the Druze emerged from a sect of heretical Islam, it has since abandoned a majority of the guiding principles of Islam. Indeed, the Druze are known as a cosmopolitan people, entertaining philosophy from the Old Testament, New Testament, and Qur’an alike. However, contemporary Druze communities reject the rite of Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca), requirement of zakat (alms to the poor), and other important aspects of Islam. Druze theology is instead directed by the Epistles of Wisdom and other such texts.

It is from this division that deep, long-standing animosity arose between the Islamic and Druze communities in the Middle East. Sunni Islamic scholar Ibn Taymiyyah codified this distrust and hatred, labeling their prophet al-Hakim a dajjal (“deceiver” or “devil”) and declaring the Druze “the most evil of people in apostasy.” Islamic theologians like Ibn Taymiyyah came to issue fatwas—legal-religious orders—calling for massacres of the Druze, and that they be fought against until they accepted Shari’a (Islamic rule) as the highest and most important of all laws.

Druze history has been marked by intermittent moments of conflict and cooperation between Muslim communities and Druze minorities. On the one hand, as stated previously, Druze living in Syria and Lebanon have faced discrimination and prejudice throughout their history on behalf of Muslim governments and religious leaders. Lebanon, for instance, has not pursued an actual census of the Druze since 1932 out of fear of inciting pogroms and infighting. On the other hand, as also stated before, the militant nature of the Druze tradition has made them desirable in combat units. Notable examples of this include Druze involvement during the Arab Revolts under the Ottoman Empire in World War I into the 1920s and uprisings against French Syrian rule into the 1940s. Paradoxical as this willingness to fight alongside followers of an enemy faith might initially appear, it makes sense strategically. Small numbers means the Druze are eager to win the trust of their Muslim neighbors, and fighting alongside them is one way of doing that. A similar phenomenon can be seen with the aforementioned Herev Battalion within the IDF. 

Culling: The Syrian Civil War and the Druze

While it has been shown that the history of the Druze has been one fraught with conflict and bloodshed between themselves and their Muslim counterparts, instances of organized violence were relatively few and far between throughout the twentieth century. This trend continued up until the early-2010s with the rise of ISIS and the beginning of the Syrian Civil War. Incidents were at first scattered, blending into the wholesale slaughter of Christians, Jews, Syrian Armed Forces (SAF), counter-revolutionary fighters, and foreigners. It was with the creation of the al-Nusra Front (also known as al-Qaeda in the Levant) in late 2011 that the frequency of attacks against the Druze skyrocketed.

It was around this time that an avalanche of reports began to emerge of flagrant prejudice against the Druze in Syria, specifically in territories occupied by ISIS and al-Nusra. Episodes of persecution began with the desecration of graves and houses of worship in Idlib, Syria, with al-Nusra fighters destroying well over 500 burial sites and around 100 Druze temples within the span of six months in 2012. Eventually, al-Nusra and ISIS began to escalate its methods to forced conversion, with several hundred Idlib Druze issuing statements renouncing their faith in November, 2013 and February, 2014. Finally, militant insurgents in Syria began to actively pursue violence against the Druze minority. While these instances of violence became widespread into the mid-2010s, this horror culminated in the Qalb Lawzeh Massacre. In the early hours of June 10, 2015, al-Nusra fighters—who had previously dug-up graves in the village—began to argue with townsfolk and ransack homes for food and blankets. Over the course of the day, this built up from verbal confrontation to physical violence, ending with the death of 20 Druze villagers.

There is no doubt that the fundamentalism of ISIS and al-Nusra fighters played into the reasoning behind these attacks; but just as there are material incentives for misguided youth and listless vagabonds to join jihadist groups, there were and continue to be material causes behind these injustices. According to Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi, an Iraqi expert on ISIL and the Syrian Civil War, the events which transpired at Qalb Lawzeh and the rampant destruction of property and displacement of Druze is not solely rooted in religious differences. Instead, evidence suggests that these principally arose out of land disputes, with al-Nusra forces having promised supporters land in the Jabal al-Summaq area. Underlying facts like this are essential to explaining not only the growth of ISIS and al-Nusra in the 2010s but also the ensuing conflicts between Salafists and easy prey minority groups like the Druze.

Conflict between the Druze and militant insurgencies did not stop with the Syrian recapture of Aleppo in 2016. Rather, attacks became rarer but more deadly. Bombings like the Swedia attacks in July, 2018 that killed more than 200 people (with another 24 taken hostage) highlighted the continued risk to Druze communities in Syria. 

Druze in the Middle East—Tomorrow and Beyond

The greatest tragedy facing the Druze is not only that these crimes continue into our present time, but continue without much notoriety or coverage. Calls for attention to the plight of the Druze date back to as early as the 1980s when Lebanese politician Walid Jumblatt—an important figure in the international Druze community—called for American Druze to lobby against American interference in the Lebanese Civil War. There have been occurrences of Druze involvement in international politics, most recently with the hosting of Sheikh Moafaq Tarif at the UNHCR in 2019, but these have remained scattered and infrequent. Coverage of the horrors at Qalb Lawzeh and Sweida settled down soon after the attacks, and critics have noted the lack of response from the US and international organizations.

The Druze are an ancient and proud people who will not go quietly while injustice faces their communities. They have shown their dedication not only to their fellow Druze but to their countrymen, a unique trait which should garner far more attention than it has received. In assessing proper channels for encouraging democracy and free agency in the Middle East, the US, UN, and all groups concerned with stabilizing the region should look to the Druze as a community to empower and protect. 

The Dangerous Myth of Overpopulation

At the height of an international lockdown during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic, images of wildlife peacefully walking through deserted city streets proliferated on social media. Monkeys were seen brawling in the streets of Thailand, while boars descended into the streets of Barcelona. These images elicited a plethora of responses, though many agreed on one thing: the staggering number of humans occupying the planet were the root cause of why scenes such as these were incredibly rare. They specifically argued that if not for overpopulation, the relationship between nature and humanity would be much more harmonious. Subsequently, memes with the slogan “Humans are the virus, Covid is the cure” began circulating. While such arguments may seem innocuous, the idea of overpopulation being a root cause of environmental and economic issues is a dangerous one. Its permeability highlights this: it has successfully seeped into our language, discourse, and approach to solutions despite it being rooted in white supremacy, misogyny, xenophobia, and fascism. Its proponents have crafted an incredible marketing scheme to sell overpopulation as the cause of our woes and to many it makes sense: more people means less resources for environmental and economic prosperity- right? However, overpopulation is not the danger its proponents make it out to be nor does it get to the real root cause of our issues. It is simply a tool to inflict further violence on Black and Brown people on a national and international scale and fuel dangerous ideologies such as ecofascism.

What Is Overpopulation?

In 1789, Thomas Malthus, a cleric and economist, wrote a treatise titled Essay on the Principle of Population which argued: “The power of population is so superior to the power of the earth to produce subsistence for man, that premature death must in some shape or other visit the human race…” Malthus’s vision of collapse was premised on the central argument that population growth would inevitably outstrip the human race’s ability to produce food thus generating the conditions for mass famine and societal breakdown. According to Malthus’s worldview, humans were the equivalent of animals who mindlessly reproduce; based on this assumption, he ascertained that human population growth is geometric (2, 4, 8, 12, etc) while food reserved grow at an arithmetic rate (2, 3, 4, 5, etc). Of course, when operating off of this supposition it is easy to portend misery and chaos. However, Betsy Hartmann, the author of Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: the Global Politics of Population Control, points out that Malthus got two crucial points wrong: population growth is not an eternal process, but has been shown to slow and stabilize as a result of higher standards of living. Furthermore, Malthus’s contention that food growth would be outstripped by population did not consider advances in human production (14). The Industrial Revolution, which was in its beginning stages at the time of this treatise’s publication, would produce the technology to sustain the needs of the growing population and more.  Additionally, it has been successfully demonstrated that not only is population growth not a hindrance to society, but it has actually helped produce more innovation- the more people there are, the more minds there are to discover solutions. 

Despite the fact that Malthus’s treatise has long been debunked, overpopulation never really disappeared and truly re-entered the public consciousness in the 1960s with the works of Garrett Hardin and Paul Ehrlich. Garrett Hardin’s essay “Tragedy of the Commons” is often cited as a foundational argument for protecting natural resources. The essay posits the following: when having access to common land (or resources), we worry that our neighbor’s cattle will graze the best grass, so we must send our cows out first to consume it. The logic is that since everyone is supposedly competitive, what inevitably happens is environmental degradation. However, there are a few foundational problems with Hardin’s premise. The first is Hardin’s view that humans are naturally selfish and competitive- Hardin’s projections as an individual should not provide the basis for over-arching assumptions about all of humanity. Furthermore, this notion has been contested: commons, a historical phenomenon that ceased to exist with the development of modern-day capitalism and its aggressive privatization of land, were early pastures that were well-regulated by local institutions. They were not the competitive, anarchical grazing sites that Hardin suggests. While it is this scenario that is the most well-known part of this notorious essay, it is crucial to examine its other aspects to truly understand the danger Hardin presents. “The Tragedy of the Commons,” has a subheading titled “The Freedom to Breed is Intolerable;” a few paragraphs later he argues: “if we love the truth we must openly deny the validity of the UDHR.” These examples further flesh out the nature of Hardin’s ideas: he is openly advocating for human rights violations to prevent reproduction thus mitigating the ‘issue’ of overpopulation. However, it was not white people that should have been prevented from reproducing. Hardin was a known white nationalist who believed that only racially homogeneous societies could survive; in fact, Hardin even lobbied Congress against sending food to poor nations as he believed their populations were threatening Earth’s “carrying capacity.” 

Paul Ehrlich’s book Population Bomb also echoed Malthusian hysteria. Ehrlich based the novel off of his experiences in a crowded city in India and argued that humans were reproducing far beyond their means. The book advocated for incentives, or blatant coercion if that failed, to control the population. Of course, in a similar vein to Hardin, such tactics would only be employed in countries in the Global South- thus the main targets for their fascistic methods were Black and brown people. White supremacy, classism, and misogyny have all been instrinically linked to overpopulation since its conception. It provided a foundation for Social Darwinism which advocates for the restriction of  particular family’s sizes through any possible method. For example, in 1601 the English Poor Law was implemented by Queen Elizabeth I  in order to provide food for the poor; following the publication of Malthus’s treatise, this was severely diminished by the Poor Law Amendment Act in 1834. The passing of such an amendment was justified using the Malthusian logic that helping the poor only encourages them to reproduce thus exacerbating their poverty. The Irish Potato Famine of the 1840s was also seen as a viable way to reduce the “surplus population” in Ireland, who was an English colony at the time. In the United States, eugenic fears of overpopulation of certain groups resulted in the Supreme Court legalizing sterilization for “undesirable” citizens in 1927. As a result, approximately 70,000 Americans were forcibly sterilized. 

Overpopulation has been used to justify fascism, thus the use of forced sterilizations,  and its various strains, including eco-fascism. Eco-fascism essentially places the blame of environmental breakdown on overpopulation and immigration and advocates for the extermination of poor people of color and migrants. According to eco-fascists, issues pertaining to the environment are the result of poor people of color reproducing and over-consuming beyond their means; they often focus on the individual consumption of cheap, disposable products. The environmental harm produced by industries such as fossil fuels are never blamed. While eco-fascism may take the appearance of a fringe movement, people of color and migrants have already been subjected to obscene acts of violence. The man who killed 22 people in El Paso, Texas in 2019 included eco-fascist sentiments in his manifesto which explains why he specifically targeted an area populated by Mexican immigrants. The mass shooter responsible for the massacre at a mosque in Christchurch, New Zealand was also apparently inclined towards eco-fascism. 

Is Overpopulation an Issue?

The short answer is: no. While large populations may place some strain on local resources, it is not a harbinger of apocalypse that Malthusians present it as. It should also be clarified that while the world’s population has increased greatly, that does not mean the Earth is “overpopulated.” In fact, as I hope to demonstrate, population growth is not a hindrance to the environment or economic development. Issues of environmental collapse and/or poverty are a result of colonialism and the international capitalist market rather than individuals in the Global South. 

Firstly, we must establish why it is that the Global South has had such a population boom over the last century. Malthusians would have us believe that Black and Brown people in the Global South are similar to weeds and have a higher natural proclivity towards reproducing- not only is that racist, it is untrue. What is true, however, is that they live under a different set of circumstances than those in Global North. As Hartmann points out, having larger families is for the purpose of survival and security. Children are able to bring in more income or take care of younger family members while their parents work (Hartmann 6). Additionally, children are often the ones to take care of their parents in their old age as many countries in the Global South do not have the same security in retirement age as those in the Global North who may have access to government funded programs (Hartmann 7). Parents may also have a lot of children to ensure that they will have a son who will survive into adulthood as high infant mortality rates continue to persist in certain countries (Hartmann 8). While this highlights the continuing existence of patriarchal values, it also demonstrates structural issues pertaining to infant and maternal care. 

Historically, famines have been attributed to overpopulation. However, as Hartmann states: “Tremendous advances in agricultural productivity mean that today the world produces enough grain alone to provide every man, woman, and child on earth with 3,200 calories a day…” (16). Considering this statistic, it should be obvious that population growth does not necessarily stress natural resources- there is enough for all. Famine is not typically a natural occurrence, but a breakdown in institutions that oversee food production and distribution (Hartmann 17). Africa has long been the famine poster-child for overpopulation zealots. Though there has most certainly been food crises on the continent, it has more to do with the implementation of neoliberal policies than it does with population growth. Hartmann explains that the pivot to becoming economically dependent on exporting cash crops has displaced subsistence farmers, who are often women, to areas that yield less food (18). Population control would not only be draconian, it would completely ignore the root causes of famine which are institutional rather than individual. 

Malthusians also blame environmental issues on population growth in the Global South. Sir David Attenborough, known for the series Planet Earth which is meant to raise awareness for endangered species, is the head of a coporation known as Population Matters. Their website states: “It took humanity 200,000 years to reach one billion and only 200 years to reach seven billion. We are still adding an extra 80 million each year and are headed towards 10 billion by mid-century.” Ultimately, the argument being made here is that the rate of population must be slowed down in order to save the planet. However, this fear mongering statement provides numbers with no context. With a rate of 80 million people per year, that means the population is slowing down- the population growth in 1970 was 2.1 percent per annum and now it is 1.2 percent. Despite this decrease in population growth, the climate crisis continues to become more severe. Why? It has less to do with reproduction and more to do with a capitalist economic structure that requires the extraction of natural resources, including fossil fuels, and mass consumption.  Since 1988, 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions have been produced by just 100 mulatinational corporations. If 750 million people in China, India, and Africa’s poorer population stopped producing carbon, while companies like ExxonMobile, BP, and Toyota continued to operate normally, reduction of carbon emissions would be miniscule. To provide more perspective, the total emissions of the poorest half of the population of China, which is around 600 million people, only account for one-third of the emissions for the richest 10 percent in the United States, which is around 30 million people. In India, who alongside China was a target of Malthusian rhetoric regarding population control, someone in the richest 10 percent uses, on average, just one quarter of the carbon of someone in the poorest half of the population in the United States. Despite the fact that the Global South has experienced most of the population growth in the 20th century, they are not the ones responsible for the present ecological crisis. 

Another major reason as to why population growth is seen as a problem is that it exacerbates poverty. This is another baseless argument. For example, in 1960, South Korea and Taiwan were poor countries with fastly growing populations- both experienced population surges over 50 percent, yet their income and standard of living increased exponentially. As Hartmann points out, “...the impressive economic performance of middle-income countries in the 1960s and 1970s occurred alongside rapid population growth” (30). Poverty is not a product of large populations, but is a symptom of larger economic and political forces. The myth of overpopulation is easy to debunk, yet it is still incredibly dangerous as it still influences the language we use to talk about people in the Global South and the harmful policies that are pushed by international institutions and implemented by political elites. Malthusian agendas seek to subject marginalized people, both at home and abroad, to violence. Moving forward, it is important to remain cognizant of the ways Malthusianism influences environmental policy and ultimately inhibit our chances of creating a better society. 

References

Hartmann, Betsy. Reproductive Rights and Wrongs: The Global Politics of Population Control. Haymarket Books, 2016. 

Private Property is Antithetical to Human Rights

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was the foremost document of its kind. When it was ratified by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, it was the first international standard for human rights. It enshrined the idea of universality, which proclaims that every individual has innate rights that must be protected by and from various institutions that are both private and public in nature. However, while the UDHR is a significant accomplishment, it is very much a product of its post-WWII era. The Cold War was in its early stages and the need to protect the ideals of Western capitalism against the various strains of socialism and communism was paramount. Furthermore, the process of formal decolonization had just begun; governments representing formally colonized peoples were just beginning to have a modicum of power within the newly formed United Nations (UN). This historical context is arguably of the utmost importance when considering the contents of the UDHR: Western countries, who were formative in the creation of the UN and its mission, were interested in upholding settler-colonialism and capitalism in order to protect their economic and political interests which were threatened by decolonization and the rise in anti-capitalist ideology. Nowhere is this more evident than in Article 17 which states: “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.” Private property is arguably antithetical to the human rights project as not only is it inherently exclusionary, it explicitly violates the rights of Indigenous peoples and creates the basis for extractive relationships with the land that are ultimately harmful. 

What is Property?

It should be noted that the contemporary understanding of property is rooted in the microcosm of Western philosophy. The West’s conceptualization of property deliberately occludes the reciprocal relationship to land that is an inherent part of Indigenous beliefs and customs. Property, as is currently understood, is a fairly general term- it typically connotes ownership over something tangible or intangible. For the purposes of this article, property will be used to refer to land and its material resources. Private property specifically refers to a “system that allocates particular objects, like pieces of land, to particular individuals to use and manage as they please, to the exclusion of others and to the exclusion of any detail controlled by society.”  It is worth mentioning that private ownership in Western countries does not directly translate to total ownership over the land; it typically entails rights to the land. However, these rights still have extensive consequences. Ownerships may entail the following: exclusion of others, renting, leasing, or selling land, and the decision to use or not to use it. Private property also does not exist in isolation; its existence still depends on public justification; without the acknowledgment of public institutions, it would be difficult to enforce laws pertaining to private property rights. 

While private property is currently the predominant system, it is not the only iteration of property that has been implemented. Common property is used to govern resources that are available to all; any sort of restriction on its use is meant to guarantee fair access to everyone. This idea of common property is deliberately meant to prevent any sort of exclusion. In a similar vein, collective property is where the whole community determines how important resources are to be utilized; such determinations are based on social interest and are meant to ensure the well-being of the community. While common and collective property differ in their specific mechanisms, they are both rooted in democratic processes that consider the interests of the community rather than the individual. 

The History of Private Property: How Did We Get Here?

Early agricultural societies “concentrated” the relationship between land and people as farming necessitated permanent settlements thus meaning that communities had to directly invest in the care and maintenance of the land. However, property was not seen as a private entity that is used to extract natural resources and accumulate capital; these early settlements cultivated intimate relationships to the land. In many Western cultural contexts, the land was seen as a “sacred mother.” The idea of land being utilized as a source of wealth and power simultaneously arose with the emergence of the nobility, who pushed for greater legal recognition of their land rights. Given this general overview, it is important to consider its particular evolution as a philosophical concept. Ancient philosophers in the Hellenistic tradition speculated on the relationship between property and virtue. Plato espoused the idea that collective ownership promoted common pursuit of the common interest; he believed that organizing property in a collective manner would prevent social division. Aristotle was in direct opposition with this idea- he suggested and defended the idea that private ownership would help cultivate virtues such as “prudence and responsibility.”  Additionally, Aristotle’s ideas would lay the foundation for the notion that private property has an inherent relationship to liberty and freedom. This supposed relationship between private property and freedom was very much a product of Aristotle’s historical circumstances: freedom was defined in contrast with slavery. In other words, to be free meant that one exercised ownership, while the opposite was natural enslavement. In the Medieval period that followed, Thomas Aquinas believed that virtue and property have a relationship. Yet Aquinas further argued that the rich have a moral obligation to be generous with their wealth, while the poor have rights against the rich. While Aquinas’ approach to private property differs from typical attitudes, it can arguably be seen throughout strains of “progressive” approaches to property, albeit they still operate within the framework of capitalism. 

The early modern period, which includes the Enlightenment, is where one begins to see the inception of contemporary notions of private property. While Hobbes and Hume promoted the idea that property is the creation of the state, it was Locke who formulated the most widely-accepted ideas related to private property. Whereas Hobbes and Hume believed that private property existed solely within the context of a sovereign state, Locke propagated the idea that property could also exist in a state of nature without any political decisions cementing its conception. Locke essentially believed that private property is a naturally occurring phenomenon and due to its existence within nature, it stands to further reason that to claim ownership over it is an inherent right- thus one can clearly recognize the lineage of Article 17 in the UDHR. Furthermore, Locke did not adhere to the idea of universal consent; unlike common or collective property, which emphasizes democratic procedures, Lockesian private property defends the idea of  “unilateral appropriation.”  Additionally, it was important to Locke that land be used in a productive manner; considering that he did not believe that Indigenous or nomadic peoples could be regarded as owners in this capacity, one can assume that “productive” relates to industry. 

A Rebuttal Against Locke’s Private Property

Firstly, it should be noted that, by definition, private property is exclusionary. This is harmful for multiple reasons. The dividing of land between individual actors for private control inevitably produces a barrier to accessing resources. Privatization of land often leads to the privatization of natural resources on said land thus turning them into commodities to be bought and sold. The specific issue is that some within the proverbial “community,” though this occurs on both a local and global scale, are not able to afford the commodification of these resources. The exclusivity of resources inherently produces inequality- some will be able to access these resources through a monetary exchange, while (many) others will struggle. Furthermore, turning land into an exclusive entity, i.e. property, creates a distorted mainstream relationship to nature. The parcelling up and division of land eclipses the idea that we can have a reciprocal relationship where the land takes care of us and we take care of the land. Instead it becomes another object where its primary purpose is to extract natural resources and produce commodities. 

The justification for exclusionary practices is that people are “better off” when resources are governed by a private entity. It is believed that under private property, resources can be utilized to satisfy a greater set of needs than under any alternative system, such as common or collective property. This is commonly referred to as the “Tragedy of the Commons,” an idea proposed by Garret Hardin. However, the “Tragedy of the Commons” is arguably more of a personal projection on Hardin’s part than it is an accurate reflection of reality as it operates on the basis that everyone is motivated by personal greed or self-interest. The problem with this position is that the privatization of resources has not been able to satisfy “the greater set of needs;” in fact, 72 percent of people currently do not have access to the resources they need. Additionally, the “Tragedy of the Commons” completely ignores the Indigenous ways of life which ensure that resources are respected and well-distributed to satisfy everyone’s needs. Ultimately, the exclusionary nature of private property is antithetical to the human rights project, especially as it contradicts other articles within the UDHR. For example, Article 3 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.” Yet if we operate under the supremacy of private property, how can everyone fulfill their right to life and security when marginalized cannot access the necessary resources to survive? How can Indigenous peoples fulfill their right to life when their land has been divided for capitalist modes of production? 

Lockesian private property is arguably another tool for settler-colonialism which is defined as “an ongoing system of power that perpetuates the genocide and repression of indigenous peoples and cultures.” Firstly, Locke’s idea that land should be unilaterally appropriated is explicit support for colonialism. Not only does it undermine basic democratic governance over land, it violates the sovereignty of Indigenous nations as it condones the violent seizure of land by settlers. This violence is not only wrought upon Indigenous peoples, but also on the land itself which is exemplified by contemporary ecological degradation. Secondly, Locke’s concept of productivity is an unimaginative way of life that is very much rooted in racism. Locke argued that land must be cultivated to be productive i.e. it had to conform to a sedentary agricultural standard to be legitimate; he voiced his doubts that Indigenous peoples could be regarded as owners since his definition of productivity is related to industry. Productivity in Lockesian terms denigrates Indigenous ways of life. However, it should also be noted that something does not have to be productive to be useful. The land is useful, not because of Western notions of productivity, but because it is the land: it is abundant in life, including human life. 

A New Approach?

Private property is contradictory to human rights: it perpetuates settler-colonialism and is part of exclusionary economic practices. It is necessary to reorient ourselves and implement an approach that respects the land, especially in the face of worsening ecological conditions and climate change, and its people. Common and collective property models are worth considering, however it is always possible to conceive of new ideas, new paths, and new futures. In order to create a new world free of settler-colonialism and exploitative economic models, we should look to Indigenous communities. Indigenous beliefs are diverse, however there seems to be a common theme: life is sacred and must be protected. It is important to cultivate a relationship with the land that is based on reciprocity and respect. The land can sustain us and we can sustain it. The needs of both must be met; abundance must be shared between both.

Grieving the Victims of US Sanctions

Sanctions are defined as the “withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign- and security-policy purposes.” The use of sanctions against countries perceived to be a threat to American interests began soaring in popularity in the 1990s, which was known as the “sanctions decade.” Since 9/11,  sanctions have become more precise in their targeting of individuals and entities, as a way to supposedly minimize the impact on civilians. They are utilized by both major political parties in the US and are painted as a more peaceful alternative to war; physical violence is not inflicted upon these target countries and American citizens can’t even feel their reverberations. The US currently has country-wide sanctions against Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Cuba, and Venezuela; more narrowly framed sanctions against individuals and entities have also been implemented, affecting an additional 27 countries. They are seen as the ultimate tool for enacting American interest and putting pressure on regimes the US would like to see ousted, while still being able to claim that the US cares about “peace” and foreign civilians- it’s a win-win for politicians and their polling numbers. 

However, while sanctions are painted as an ideal alternative to war, as it does not produce immediate physical violence, the damage that they create cannot be understated. Former UN Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali has described economic sanctions as a “blunt instrument” that very much harms civilians and causes long-term damage to a country’s ability to function. This article’s intention is to elaborate upon this claim and analyze sanctions and their effects on various countries through the lens of Judith Butler’s grievability. This ethical position argues that every life should be worthy of grief and that this recognition serves to create a more equal society. As Butler says in The Force of Nonviolence: “To be grievable is to be interpellated in such a way that you know your life matters; that the loss of your life would matter; that your body is treated as one that should be able to live and thrive, whose precarity should be minimized, for which provisions for flourishing should be available.” Sanctions are in direct violation of this principle; their implementation suggests that the lives of certain people, i.e. foreign civilians, especially those of target countries, are not of a particular value, and therefore not worthy of grief. Additionally, sanctions maintain a certain power dynamic that produces and exacerbates the precarity of the target country’s situation. As I will attempt to demonstrate, the impact of sanctions is extremely damaging which suggests that violence does not just manifest in physical acts of war, but also in the economic, political, and social institutions of a country. 

Iraq in the 1990s

In the 1990s, the United States imposed a number of country-wide sanctions in order to pressure certain regimes- this included Iraq. The United States used the UN Security Council to implement multilateral sanctions on Ba’athist Iraq, led by Saddam Hussein. These sanctions, coupled with unilateral sanctions from the US, created the most “comprehenseive embargo of a country since at least World War II.” Though the reported intent of these sanctions was to pressure Iraq to withdraw from Kuwait and to disclose the presence of any weapons of mass destruction, the results were disproportionately felt by civilians. Instead of ahcieving the desired results, these robust sanctions decimated Iraqi society and infrastructure. Prior to the sanctions, Iraq had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East and boasted modern infrastructure. Contrary to what one may believe about 20th-century Iraq, it had an extensive healthcare system, water treatment facilities, and a school and university system. Additionally, Iraq had a significant reliance on imported food and technology. This meant that the all-encompassing trade sanctions decimated both the Iraqi economy and basic access to necessary goods. 

The sanctions made Iraqi civilians susceptible to food and water shortages, which were accompanied by the total collapse of the healthcare system. These food shortages were a direct result of UN sanctions, as Iraq heavily relied on imports of food which were subsequently cut off by the international community. Approximately 70 percent of calories in Iraq were imported thus meaning that the sanctions severely impacted the nutrition of Iraqis. While reports of malnourishment, especially among children, conflict with one another, it can be agreed that the sanctions had a very real impact on food access which subsequently led to health problems. Water has also been in short supply; the Gulf War damaged the general infrastructure of Iraq, including water pumping and treatement facilities. The country was unable to access the technology and engineering resources needed to fix these facilities as they no longer had access to the imported technology. This made water access extremely unreliable as well as unsafe due to the fact that water could no longer be properly treated. 

Furthermore, the decline in both quality and quantity of water sources reportedly led to the spread of infectious diseases such as cholera. However, the health problems that were produced by the food and water shortages could not be treated as the health-care system collapsed during this period. Firstly, the physical hospitals and medical centers can no longer be attended to as the financial resources to fix them are simply not there; access to the technology that could have once fixed medical infrastructure was no longer present. Secondly, the sanctions completely stopped the import of medical equipment and materials which resulted in a shortage- things such as stethoscopes were in extremely limited supply. Perhaps most damning is the fact that Iraqi doctors were also operating on outdated knowledge; within the ten years of sanctions, no new medical literature entered the country as it was specifically prohibited by the sanctions. 

While the Iraqi sanctions were eventually lifted in 2003, the damage was done. Iraq’s infrastructure and economy were in ruins. Furthermore, it is up for debate as to whether the sanctions even achieved their goal. However, that point is arguably irrelevant- what matters is the very real toll these sanctions took on Iraqi civilians. The impact of these sanctions on Iraqi society demonstrates the ways in which violence can manifest. While the US and the UN didn’t drop bombs on Iraq, at least not until the invasion of Iraq in 2003, they were still inflicting great violence- the tools for doing so just simply took on another shape. How is it not violent to cut off a country’s food supply? Or their access to clean water? Or medical supplies? Oftentimes, violence is only viewed through a lens of war, when in reality it has implications that transcend this purely physical understanding. Ignoring these implications is deliberate as it allows the US, as well as the UN, to continue pursuing foreign policy interests, which are quite frankly imperialist in nature, without facing legitimate consequences. The actions of the US and the UN prove that they assigned a lesser value to the lives of Iraqis. Taking Judith Butler’s grievability into account, it is important to understand that Iraq’s civilians are worthy of grief; to acknowledge their grievability is to acknowledge their value as humans. 

Venezuela

The US has a total embargo on Venezuela, which is coupled with sanctions from the EU. The goal of these sanctions is to oust President Nicolas Maduro, which has been a bipartisan effort in the US. The sanctions were announced in 2015 by President Barack Obama; as a result, foreign companies stopped doing business and Venezuela’s foreign accounts were closed. In 2017, President Trump then imposed an oil embargo that prevented the purchase of petroleum from the state oil company, PDVSA; this came alongside the confiscation of the US subsidiary CITGO. This has had a huge impact on Venezuela’s economy and the government’s capacity to function as it gets the majority of its revenue from oil.

Once again, the very real, and violent, impact of sanctions has been felt across Venezuelan society. One report estimates that 40,000 people may have died as a result of sanctions limiting access to food and medicine. In a similar vein as Iraq in the 1990s, the sanctions on Venezuela has destabilized the country’s economy and prevented access to basic necessities. It should be noted that US sanctions don’t explicitly prevent the import of food or medicine. However, Venezuela is very much dependent on oil revenue as a source of hard currency that private and public businesses can use to import goods. Once again, the specific undermining of Venezuela’s oil industry has led to a sharp decrease in imports; the average monthly public import dropped to $500 million in 2019 and subsequently dropped to $250 million in 2020. There are approximately 300,000 people who are at risk as there is a lack of access to medicines or treatment as a result of sanctions. The health-care sector has taken a major blow mainly due to the fact that the government has reduced its expenditure for the public health-care system; this is arguably a result of the fact that the government can no longer raise the necessary revenue due to the US’s oil embargo.

The Grievability of Those Impacted

“Peace” advocate Gene Sharp defines nonviolent action as “a sanction and a technique of struggle involving the use of social, economic, and political power, and the matching forces in conflict.” However, as previously demonstrated, there is a significant issue with this definition of nonviolent action and the way the concept of sanctions is perceived. The idea that sanctions can be qualified as “nonviolent” ignores the very real history of their use. While Iraq and Venezuela are only two examples of the impact of sanctions, the fact that both countries have experienced extreme shortages in basic necessities, thus causing thousands of deaths, is not “nonviolent action.” It is very real and very violent. Violence is not just acts of warfare, but it also manifests in the way economic, social, and political power is wielded. The fact that sanctions are perceived as nonviolent allows the US to engage in imperialism without facing legitimate criticism or consequences. And it should be noted that sanctions are an example of modern-day imperialism- the US has made it clear on many occasions that they utilize sanctions in an effort to oust regimes that they deem a threat to US interests. While these regimes are certainly flawed, the idea that the US has the right to dictate the internal affairs of a country, and use the deaths of civilians to do so, is imperialism. 

Furthermore, the use of sanctions allows the US to deny their responsibility for the deaths of thousands. These deaths go ungrieved in the international community which is precisely the point. As Judith Butler says: “After all, if a life, from the start, is regarded as grievable, then every precaution will be taken to preserve and to safeguard that life against harm and destruction.” Grievability essentially assigns worth to lives that have been historically marginalized, both in domestic and international terms. The fact that lives in the Global South, especially in countries deemed enemies of the US, are not seen as worthy of grief allows the US to impose these sanctions without care for their impact. If the US did start to care about these lives and respect their inherent value, they would have to stop their use of sanctions and seek out solutions that would actively protect their lives against “harm and destruction.” That would mean that US foreign policy would have to be completely reformed. Grievability is not in the interest of the US; to embrace such an ethical position would be anithetical to the US’s commitment to safeguarding American interests, which are often rooted in imperialism. However, this makes grievability of the utmost urgency. To embrace this position would be an embrace of an entirely different world, where those in the Global South are deemed valuable and therefore worthy of protection. This would challenge pre-existing power dynamics and create the incentive for solutions that prioritize legitimate self-determination and basic human rights.

The Plight of Saudi Human Rights Activists

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has frequently been in the news for human rights violations, marring the image crown prince Mohammad bin Salman (often referred to as MBS) has attempted to craft for himself as a progressive ruler who is ushering in a new golden age for Saudi Arabia. Chief among his efforts to portray himself as a departure from the regressive policies of his predecessors was lifting the ban on women driving in the kingdom - almost ironically, one of the most damning incidents in the past couple of years has been the arrest, detainment, and alleged torture of activist Loujain al-Hathloul. A graduate of the University of British Columbia, al-Hathloul was arrested in March 2018 when attempting to drive into Saudi Arabia from the United Arab Emirates where no restrictions on women driving exist. Since then, she has been detained in a prison, where her family has alleged on several occasions that she has been electrocuted, sexually assaulted, threatened with rape and murder, and put into solitary confinement for long periods of time. al-Hathloul, who is currently on a hunger strike, has become a symbol for the continued mistreatment of human rights activists in Saudi Arabia, with multiple diplomatic envoys, world governments, and human rights organizations attempting to intervene on her behalf. 

Beyond Loujain al-Hathloul, Saudi Arabia has perhaps inadvertently built a reputation for being one of the most repressive regimes in the world. In 2019, they held the second highest numbers of writers and public intellectuals in prison globally (PEN America), they were ranked the 170th worst country for press freedom in the world out of 180 (Reporters Without Borders), they ranked 146th out of 153 countries in the Global Gender Gap Index (World Economic Forum), and overall, were the the world’s seventh least free country (Freedom House). Political parties, trade unions, independent human rights groups are banned altogether with the kingdom denying access to foreign organizations such as Amnesty International, while protests and public demonstrations were prohibited by the Saudi Ministry of Interior in 2011. Particular attention was called to Saudi Arabia’s human rights record after the assassination of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was dismembered and killed in the Saudi consultate in Istanbul on October 2, 2018. Khashoggi had been extremely critical of MBS in particular, and had fled Saudi Arabia in 2017, expressing concern for his life. 

While these statistics and incidents leave most with no doubt about Saudi Arabia’s utter disregard - some may say contempt - for human rights, the kingdom remains committed to rebranding themselves as a progressive beacon of the region. In what Human Rights Watch has called “a deliberate strategy to deflect from the country’s image as a pervasive human rights violator,” MBS has undertaken a spending plan dubbed “Vision 2030,” which aims to attract tourists - and foreign investment - while restructuring Saudi’s economy. A sweeping set of reforms was announced in July 2020, when the Council of Ministers implemented amendments to three landmark laws, all of which dealt with the kingdom’s highly controversial and discriminatory male guardianship system. Firstly, a change made to the Labor Law clarified that a “worker” - until then widely understood as being synonymous with a man - could be female as well, and introduced new protections against discrimination in employment on the basis of sex, disability, of age. This is particularly significant in that it is now illegal for private employers to insist that potential female employees provide proof of approval of their male guardian. Secondly, these reforms included changes to civil status issues, as women can now register their children’s births with the civil status office in addition to informing the office of death, marriage, or divorce. Women can also now be considered a “head of household,” granting them significantly more rights where their children are concerned. Finally, for the first time, Saudi women over the age of 21 can obtain their own passports without being forced to seek permission from their male guardian - in mid-August, this was expanded by a change in regulation allowing women over 21 to travel abroad without required permission from their male guardian. In addition to these legislative changes, sports games and music concerts have been opened up to women, allowing them to participate in civil society in a way not seen before. Major reforms, to be sure - however, women operating outside the scope of these reforms remain in jail, subjected to horrific treatment, and on a lesser scale, severe social stigma. As Walid al-Hathloul put it in the Guardian, “How can we claim we are opening up to the world when we don’t even respect basic human rights?” Saudi women still need a male guardian’s approval to get married, male guardians can still file cases for “disobedience” against their female charges (daughters, wives, or relatives), which can lead either to forcible return to their male guardian’s house or in extreme cases, imprisonment. 

Human rights organizations such as Amnesty International, Freedom House, and Human Rights Watch have widely reported on the atrocious conditions women rights activists in particular face in prison. Amnesty International’s Middle East research director, Lynn Maalouf, has released a statement saying “We are extremely concerned about the wellbeing of these activists, who have been in arbitrary detention for around nine months simply for standing up for human rights… we are calling on the Saudi Arabian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release all human rights defenders who are being detained solely for their peaceful human rights work.” Saudi authorities have dismissed these torture allegations as baseless, claiming that “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s judiciary system does not condone, promote, or allow the use of torture. Anyone… being investigated is going through the standard judiciary process led by the public prosecution while being held for questioning, which does not in any way rely on torture either physical, sexual, or psychological.'' Reports by Amnesty International say otherwise, providing evidence that a total of 10 activists were tortured and sexually abused during their first three months of detention alone. One activist was wrongly told her family members had died, and was kept under this pretension for a full month, while others alleged being tortured with electric shocks. In addition to discrediting the progressive image the kingdom is attempting to craft for itself, the treatment of women violates social norms commonly held in both Saudi Arabia and Islam itself, according to Loujain al-Hathloul’s sister, Alia al-Hathloul.

Among those who have been subjected to the harshest treatment are womens rights activists who have protested the ban on driving, prior to its lifting in 2016. While Loujain al-Hathloul is possibly the most well-known, Aziza al-Yousef, Eman al-Nafjan, and Hatoon Al-Fassi have also attracted media attention for protesting both the female driving ban and male guardianship system. Yousef, in 2016, started a petition to have the male guardianship system dissolved - and in 2013, both Nafjan and and Yousef participated in a protest demanding the government end the driving ban for women. Beyond the troubling allegations of torture, Saudi Arabia has attracted criticism for the secrecy with which these trials have been conducted, beginning with the charges themselves. According to the International Federation for Human Rights, these activists (as of 2019) had yet to be publicly presented with any charges from the authorities. Vague accusations have been leveled against them by local media, including “financial support to enemies overseas”, and “suspicious contacts with foreign entities.” Perhaps most concerning, their hearings have been closed to reporters and diplomats, preventing any third parties from seeing if there have been any legitimate claims leveled against them.

Beyond the continued outcry from human rights groups, diplomatic and supranational organizations have condemned Saudi violations of human rights. In 2019, Australia delivered a joint statement at the UN in Geneva on behalf of Member States, a cross-regional group, expressing “serious concerns over the persecution and intimidation of activists, including women human rights defenders, involving reports of torture, extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearances, unfair trials, arbitrary detention, and impunity for perpetrators.” ISHR’s Human Rights Council advocate Salma El Hosseiny added, “A cross-regional group of States led by Australia have stood up today for human rights despite the political and economic costs… The international communty sent a strong and clear message to the government of Saudi Arabia that its crimes won’t go unanswered and that as a Council member, it will be held to heightened scrutiny.” In the United States, forty-five members of Congress have formally and publicly expressed concern over Saudi Arabia hosting the 2020 G20 summit. Similarly, the European Parliament voted to downgrade its representation at the summit in response to Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses.

It remains to be seen whether a combination of following through on reforms, a return to the type of equitable and humanitarian treatment Islam demands, and pressure from the international community will push Saudi Arabia to change its despicable track record on human rights abuses.

Dignity: The Bridge Beyond the Global Communication Crisis: Part 2, An Ontological Reframing

The Present Crisis and Institutional Relevance of Dignity

In order to chart a course forward for a new exploration of the ontology of dignity, we must first be grounded in the particular crisis of the present moment, so that we can understand the psychology we aim to move past. A commonly understood origin of this particular shift in human relationships was the moment in the late 1990s where politica­l polarization spiked, and a shift occurred from the politics of redistribution to a politics of reco­­­­­­gnition. In other words, the prior policy debate was centered around material equality of conditions, and to what degree governing institutions ought to control material outcomes in the interest of equality, versus the interest, say, of liberty, given the limits of government knowledge and institutional effectiveness, but the importance or ethics of fairness. A shift occurred with the incorporation of Hegelian recognition into critical theory, the focus was put more and more on fostering equal, multicultural recognition, rather than material conditions, assuming one would lead in part to the other. According to Charles Taylor, who activated this intellectual movement with his essay coining the Politics of Recognition in 1992, “the struggle for recognition can find only one satisfactory solution, and that is a regime of reciprocal recognition among equals.” In other words, institutions must formally recognize the authentic multicultural and human identities of each citizen equally.

This shift to a focus on multicultural respect came in the wake of the spread of western hegemony through media and culture as well as international power dominance. The influx of cell phones, origin of partisan cable news, birth of the internet, and soon after social media meant not only could western media quickly infiltrate a global audience, but generated echo-chambers which exacerbated existing rural-urban and Eastern-Western and partisan divides, among others. Over time, the consequences of this transition were seen in the tragic escalations of terrorism, domestic and abroad, as well as dehumanization found in daily objectifying political speech and lack of community relations. With social media cultivating smaller and smaller echo-chambers and focus on abstract identities, important conversations about multicultural respect in a new wave of “Politics of Recognition” have become overridden with polarization.

In his famous critique of this movement of politics of recognition, Patchen Markell offers a perspective similar to Hayek regarding the previously debated politics of redistribution, by pointing out the epistemological limitations of executing politics of recognition at scale through formal institutions. Markell suggests that while recognition is an ethically novel goal, it ultimately unfeasible en masse because to engage in a struggle for recognition is, in some degree, to attempt to gain sovereignty over one’s identity, and we cannot control the beliefs or actions of another person. Instead, he offers a move toward a “politics of acknowledgement,” which reshapes the way we look at recognition to suggest a lesser degree of recognition would be a more appropriate institutional or political standard. However, critiques of Markell, while seeing the value of his observation of the limits of politics of recognition, believe that his politics of acknowledgement do not seriously address the legitimate material concerns of oppressed populations advocating for recognition in contemporary multicultural political debates. They call for a fusion of Markell’s acknowledgement with recognition as understood through Fanon and other critical theorists who have taken the value of Hegel’s theory and integrated it with a serious attempt at collective action to address these material needs.

If we zoom out, however, we can see that this debate circles around the same question as the wider historical narrative of philosophical ontological inquiry into dignity. The true ethical concern under material equity and recognition of authentic identity is ultimately the preservation of a person’s agency and intrinsic value to society. This is most closely related to the conceptual realm associated with dignity. The question, in reality, is what degree of dignity can we realistically and preserve through institutions, in order to provide a path for the continued development of community identities and engagement, as opposed to polarized apathy? How should we understand dignity such that it guides more equitable institutional communication?

Toward a Dynamic Ontology of Dignity

Ultimately, the dilemma captured by the integration of recognition theory with critical theory and advocacy for multicultural inclusivity as a turn from material equity claims alone can be traced back to one important psychological factor- the epistemological shift that occurs in the experience of oppression. While equal opportunities for economic mobility or a balance of wealth might appear to protect the autonomy of individuals, and therefore place them in one fluid community which gives healthy incentive for participation, this metric does not take into account the lasting influence of past oppression on a person’s psychology, and therefore, identity formation insofar as it maintains their objectification as an outsider to the community, unable to gain equal respect, and therefore, engagement opportunities. There are a few examples in which material solutions to this problem have been proposed, such as reparations or the return of lands to native peoples by contemporary political institutions. However, as in the earlier critique of material equity as a solution to human division, the psychological hurt is still not healed.

With recognition, the equality becomes in respect for one’s complete and authentic identity, which assumes a sort of healing of past experiences which preclude the ability to receive said respect, or for authenticity to be communicated. However, this, as Markell points out, always hits a wall in which both the consciousness of and therefore the sharing of one’s authentic self is often not possible, as it would require sovereignty over a person’s worldview, and ultimately, we cannot ever achieve this. That wall is the epistemological divide between two people’s experiences, and most specifically, between people who have faced various intersectional forces of oppression, and those who have experienced more privilege. Feminist philosopher Susan Brison paints a stark reality of this in her recounting of her experience being raped in her memoir Aftermath. Survivors of assault are not only left with a traumatic experience, but a new consciousness of the danger which surrounds them every day, no matter what they’re wearing, doing, or where they are at any time day or night. Even if a party is acting in good faith to try to empathize with and understand the experience of someone who has experienced sexual violence, they can never access the weight and depth of the reality of survivors without sharing this consciousness. They may speak of the systemic problem, but the fear is not realized in the same way, and therefore, their understanding of what it takes to recover dignity after such an experience is distorted into an often too linear and discrete process. Her reflection is shared by feminist philosophers Cerrie Moraga and Gloria Anzaldua whose intersectional experiences of racial and gender-based oppression not only put them at an epistemological from those with more privilege, but within their own communities as racial oppression existed within feminist spaces, and authenticity in their ethnic community required submission to sexist traditions. While safe spaces for consciousness raising can help, thus, to some extent communicate these experiences to those outside them by creating a community identity amongst survivors of oppression capable of articulating their shared reflections, the intersectional barrier is still not met.

If we consider, therefore, this epistemological distance to be untraversable, then to preserve one’s dignity might necessitate a different course of action for each individual. In other words, we might need to adopt a dynamic ontological understanding of dignity, in which it is dependent on a person’s unique experience of oppression. While this might at first seem to thwart any kind of institutional scaling, it’s possible that such an understanding of dignity can help us to overcome the shortcomings of previous theoretical solutions to division, be they material or in favor of recognition, by moving policy and social structures away from binary understandings of public goods to something more fluid. Consider, for example, how a dynamic understanding of dignity, if taken seriously, could act as a new kind of standard for shaping a shift from binary criminal justice centered around crime and punishment, to a long-called for system of reconciliation and emotional growth. These new avenues are rhetorically advocated for, but without a view of ontology which can grasp the reality of identity formation occurring on a multitude of intersecting but alternate planes, we have little sense of direction for drafting structures which can facilitate their implementation.

Integrating Somatic Practices of Preserving Dynamic Dignity into Institutions

If it’s not possible for us to intellectually process a person’s dignity due to this knowledge barrier created by experiences of oppression, we must find a way to reconnect through emotions, which innately foster a space of more dynamism, or what we might think of as spontaneous recognition, as in the origin of communication example between two visible actors prior to historical associations of identity developed. While we drew out this theme in the noting of work across each iteration of philosophers from Burke to Hegel to Arendt to now advocates of a Tocquevillian civic engagement through connection to tangible sources of identity, such as nature or architecture in Kemmis’ Politics of Place, a response to contemporary political polarization, or the Quest for Community, in Nisbet’s famous work, an unmatched source of wisdom on reconnecting to our bodies and emotions remains the somatic spiritual, meditative practices of traditional eastern philosophies.

Confucianism, Hinduism and Buddhism all share a view of dignity that centers around mutual respect, much like Hegelian recognition. For Confucius, this was called benevolence, by which he meant the authentic of loving of others, which gives life meaning, and thus, should be preserved over biological life. Therefore, it was focused very much on preserving dignity to others in one’s community, as in Hinduism. Buddhism expands this notion by encouraging the practice of dignity towards oneself as well as other living beings, including both humans and animals. While Buddhism makes more explicit this focus on dignity being expressed towards oneself as a necessary step towards the preservation of dignity more generally, the somatic practices of all three philosophies ultimately start with self-reflection and regulation.

The same idea has been captured in historically successful movements for civil rights, which require the seeking of material recognition of oppressed populations by their oppressors and institutions. Martin Luther King’s principles of nonviolence began with a notion of dignity that started from the self, before it could scale into reciprocity from society. As his movement and others institutionalized the habituation of these behaviors in a way that created significant impact and some gains toward empathy, this suggests the Eastern practices which put this at the center of our communication hold much promise. This is especially relevant in the dilemma of the intersectionality of oppression, previously established. Beginning from the self allows the unpacking of contradictions in our identities that allow us to disentangle, for example, emotional responses to artificial emergencies and anxieties that influence identity formation, due to, perhaps, divisive rhetoric targeted towards vulnerable populations but in bad faith, as in the white fragility movement, from the legitimate emotions of fear, shame, and blame that allowed that fusion to occur. By getting back to the root emotions and removing false narratives, radical empathy can take place between actors of raw emotions, outside of politicized narratives, after much hard, introspective work.

In these practices of Eastern meditation, we are forced to abandon the realm of intellectualism and become reconnected with our physical bodies and emotions, exploring our innate natures, including our needs, fears, desires and individual identities. We can challenge our survival-instincts which drive the material conflict of concern for Marx and other conflict historical narrative constructions discussed above, and move into a space of communication where we instead notice the emotional instincts towards natural ethical obligations towards other humans. Here, spontaneous recognition can occur, without the pressure to engage in bad faith with the quest for authenticity, and thus, as Markell points out, often a return to aggression and division rather than an activation of a true dialectic. If we can scale these communication practices into institutions, there will be more opportunities for the achievement of recognition, as opposed to trying to legislate or force recognition into our social structures. If we see the preservation of dignity, in its dynamic truth, as bound to these practices, it can continue to serve as a framework for unity to push past our current communication division, and bring together the philosophical contributions we have made across history while also creating a pivot towards healthier human tendencies than the ones which sparked systemic dignity deprivation.

Conclusion

Ultimately, by reexamining the parallel history of philosophy and human relationships through the lens of the psychology of communication as its influenced by the evolution of technology, we can see that the existentially overwhelming state of division we now face is not a new one, but the latest iteration in a long-unfolding story. Thus, the solution to moving past it cannot be uncovered through political discourse alone. Rather, we need to more seriously commit to our inquiry into human nature which we have circled around with each new spike of crisis, and consider what non-divisive tendencies might help us regulate our world back in the direction of sustainability.

This means picking up where we most recently left off in the search for reconciliation, in the current deliberation over the pivot from a politics of material redistribution to a debate around the recognition of identity. Putting this into the context of this new historical interpretation points us to a distinct need for a more serious inquiry into a dynamic ontological understanding of dignity which takes into account the epistemological differences which occur across oppression vs. privilege gradients. Even Fukuyama, a famous advocate at one time for ideological and material conditions being the drivers of history, now sees dignity as the true path past our crisis. In practice, working within the dynamism of dignity to venture across this epistemological distance will be most effective in a tangible, emotional space, as previously suggested in the latest iteration of a philosophical reconciliation of abstracted relationships in the crisis of the mid twentieth century. Somatic practices from Buddhist spirituality, which can reconnect our hearts and minds and help us engage in emotional dialogue within ourselves and then with others are one way to begin this shift.

We have seen the success of this strategy in previous collective action movements, with a key example being the civil rights movement in the U.S. Martin Luther King Jr.’s principles of nonviolence encapsulate this kind of somatic, dynamic understanding of dignity, and successfully institutionalized a habituation of these practices. We can use this and other historical movements as a model to begin thinking about how to scale a new set of institutions which allow for the fluidity of recognition we need, while still being able to articulate a minimal standard, that being the preservation of this understanding of dignity, by which we can judge their success or failure, and therefore determine what reform steps are necessary. Logic models which allow for a clear understanding of this sort of quantum dynamism or systems analysis may be helpful in analyzing how to strategize the specific structure of institutions we wish to result form reform.

The History of Forced Sterilization in the United States

Earlier this September, a licensed nurse at a Georgia detention facility filed a whistleblower complaint revealing that a contracted doctor had been performing a high rate of hysterectomies on migrant women without their consent. As justifiable outrage ensued, there were many comparisons between these forced sterilizations in ICE facilities to the eugenics programs of Nazi Germany. While these comparisons are certainly accurate, they ignore the fact that forced sterilizations are a tactic of genocide that cannot only be attributed to fascist regimes. Furthermore, these comparisons specifically overlook the fact that forced sterilization already has a historical foundation within the United States as it has been used as a means of controlling certain “undesirable” segments of the population from reproducing. The proliferation of eugenics programs in the United States throughout the 20th century was a violent reinforcement of the power of white, able-bodied men on both the domestic and international level. The hysterectomies that were forced upon migrant women were not an aberration or a horrific, singular example of a lack of accountability: they are a specific tool that the United States government has repeatedly employed to control various populations and strengthen a status quo that favors the white patriarchy above all else. 

Eugenics Programs: An American Tradition 

In the early 20th century, proponents of eugenics, which is defined as the belief of ‘improving’  society by preventing certain groups of people who have been deemed inferior from reproducing, saw two threats to the gene pool: external threats, which were neutralized through immigration laws, and internal threats, which were eventually addressed through sterilization. Eugenics was seen as an appropriate response to the alleged issue of protecting society from those deemed inferior, which was often racialized. The parallels between early 20th century and 21st century immigration laws are already apparent- the government utilizes white supremacy and eugenics logic to legitimate their treatment of immigrants from the Global South. The hysterectomies performed on unwilling migrant women are just another example of the government attempting to exert control over certain populations and protect the white gene pool. 

Nevertheless, there was some initial debate as to what solution should be employed to eliminate the public health threat of“criminality, feeblemindedness, and sexual deviance.”  The first eugenics law was passed in Connecticut in 1895, which prohibited certain types of marriage; however, they quickly realized that “undesirable” people would simply reproduce despite not having a marriage certificate. While segregation was seen as the next step towards achieving societal purity, this specific solution, which involved institutionalizing women through their reproductive years, was too expensive to properly implement. The forced sterilization of certain segments of the population was the final, and most effective, solution, due to the fact that it was relatively inexpensive to perform a one-time procedure and then release the individual back into society without the means for reproducing. 

Throughout the 20th century, 32 states had federally funded sterilization programs as a means of social control. These eugenics programs were constitutionally upheld through the 1927 Supreme Court case, Buck v Bell, which solidified the Racial Integrity Act of 1924 which allowed institutionalized people in Virginia to be sterilized in order to protect the “health of the patient and the welfare of society.” The decision led to 70,000 people being formally sterilized in the United States. Sterilization was often done on the grounds of mental illness, but physical disability, economic status, and race were also significant factors. By itself, California accounted for approximately one-third of forced sterilizations in the county as the state performed approximately 20,000 sterilizations; the Asexualization Act of 1909 legitimized the procedure of eugenic sterilization on unwilling participants who were diagnosed with being “mentally ill” and “deficient.”  

It should be noted that the eugenics programs that were implemented across the country during the 20th century inspired the Nazi’s forced sterilization programs in the Holocaust; Adolf Hitler viewed states such as California as a starting point for implementing “a better conception of citizenship.” While the concepts of eugenics and forced sterilization evoke imagery of fascist regimes, it is once again important to remember that they are also tools that the American government implemented to ‘protect’ white, able-bodied society from the perceived threat of certain groups. The comparisons that have been drawn between the practices of ICE and Nazi Germany are accurate, however it is more accurate to recognize that sterilizing female detainees without their consent is not an outlier, but a continuation of American policy. 

The Reinforcement of White Supremacy and Patriarchy 

Though mental health played a large part in justifying these procedures, these eugenics programs were explicitly racialized. For example, the sterilizations in California were driven by anti-Asian and anti-Mexican sentiments; Black and Mexican people were more affected than is suggested in official data. In particular, thousands of Mexican women who had immigrated to the United States had been sterilized between the 1920s and 1950s as they were deemed to be an “undesirable type.” In the latter half of the decade, Mexican women were tricked into being sterilized under the guise of receiving medical care or having their babies delivered. These women who were admitted to the Los Angeles County-USC Medical Center were confronted with a choice: in order to receive care, whether it be painkillers or an operation, they had to sign a slip of paper. Unbeknownst to these women, who were often in too much medical distress to comprehend what was going on and/or did not understand English, they were signing a consent form for sterilization. 

The Southern United States, however, did not pretend that sterilization programs were for any other purpose beyond controlling their Black populations.  In the example of the South, every solution to protecting ‘society,’ was implemented: this included Jim Crow laws prohibiting interracial marriage, physical segregation of the races, and the forced sterilizations of Black women. “Mississippi appendectomies” was a name given to the hysterectomies performed in the South on Black women as practice for medical students; North Carolina was known to practice on girls as young as nine years old. Furthermore, as the South began to desegregate, sterilization rates for Black women increased.

Even after these eugenics programs came to an end, forced sterilization was performed on Indigenous women in the 1970s and 80s; an estimated 25 to 50 percent of indigenous women were sterilized between 1970 and 1976 through the Indian Health Service (IHS). When the Government Accounting Office released the results of an investigation into these events, they found that they occurred at one-third of all IHS facilities. Additionally, the number of Indigenous women who were sterilized is the proportional equivalent of sterilizing 452,000 non-Native women; however, the number of sterilizations is most likely even higher as the IHS at the Albuquerque site contracted non-IHS doctors to perform these procedures and inaccurately added zero procedures to the official count. These statistics are especially jarring when taking into consideration the fact that the United States government has repeatedly tried to eradicate the Indigenous population, whether it be through the Trail of Tears, attacks on ancestral homelands, or the massacre at Wounded Knee; the forced sterilization of Native women is another example of a genocidal tactic. 

The United States also used sterilization on populations within their colonized territories. Between the 1930s and 1970s, nearly one-third of women in Puerto Rico were sterilized as a result of a eugenics campaign. Since its invasion of Puerto Rico in 1898, the United States has maintained control over the island’s economic development. Until 1952, the Governor of Puerto Rico was appointed by the President and veto power over a local House of Representatives; government entities, including the civil services, social programs, and armed forces, were all under US supervision. 

During this time, as population control research was being carried out, it was believed that the root of economic problems in underdeveloped countries was overpopulation. Subsequently, it was proposed that if the growth could be controlled, the standard of living would improve. Within the context of economic development, Puerto Rico had a high unemployment rate that remained consistent throughout the 20th century; in order to address this issue, it was believed that they had to “reduce the growth of the working sector.” This included forced migration of Puerto Rican workers and the mass sterilization of working-class women. As a result, there was a federally-funded sterilization campaign where medical professionals were told that if a woman came in to give birth and already had two or more children, she must have her tubes tied; most sterilizations were done postpartum. Puerto Rico had the highest sterilization rate in the world. 

It has been made clear that forced sterilizations disproportionately affected people of color and Indigenous people. This was done in an attempt to ‘protect’ American society which has largely been conceived to be white, able-bodied, and male. It cannot be forgotten that while forced sterilizations were performed on men, they disproportionately affected women. There is a clear intersection between white supremacy and the patriarchy that is evident in both the historical examples given and in the ICE detention facilities. It has largely been women of color who have been deemed ‘undesirable’ and have subsequently had their reproductive rights forcibly taken from them. Considering that forced sterilization is often recognized as a tactic of genocide, it is important to remember that institutionalized violence has played a defining role in the government’s treatment of marginalized peoples. 

A Step Towards Reproductive Justice 

In light of the knowledge that forced sterilization has been a continuous policy that has inflicted violence upon women of color, in both a domestic and international context, it is necessary to consider what steps need to be taken in order to begin righting the wrongs that have been committed. It is obvious that forced sterilizations need to be stopped in their entirety, but we must go further: any proposed solution must be rooted in reproductive justice. This term was coined by Black women and essentially advocates for the “freedom to reproduce on your own terms and to be provided with the support and access to do so.” The ability to control their reproductive lives is something that must be restored to women of color, Indigenous women, and immigrants from the Global South- this necessitates a solution that ensures that those who have been formally denied access to governing their own body are given full control. This goes beyond simply ending forced sterilization: it also requires full access to fair and equitable reproductive health care and education, access to affordable childcare, and more. The migrant women who were forcibly sterilized are not the first women to go through this, but we should make them the last.

COVID-19 Increases Human Trafficking Risk in Latin America and the Caribbean Region

For the past decade, the Latin America and Caribbean region (LAC) has consistently ranked among the regions in the world with the highest rates of human trafficking, whether for purposes of forced labor, sex, or domestic servitude. The region as a whole therefore faces immense challenges in identifying cases of Trafficking in Persons (TIP), prosecuting offenders, and aiding victims. 

Despite these existing challenges, the region has also become the world’s epicenter for the COVID-19 pandemic. The economic, social, and welfare conditions that have accompanied COVID-19 have therefore dramatically increased the risks for current and potential TIP victims, leading thousands more people, and especially women and children, to fall victim to the internationally-recognized crime. 

According to a Sept. 23 BBC news article, as of Sept. 22 8.8 million cases of COVID-19 and 350,000 deaths had been reported in the LAC region. Brazil and Mexico, with the highest populations in the region, also lead with the highest numbers of reported deaths. In fact, Mexico and Ecuador occupy the number one and two spots for the highest COVID-19 mortality rates in the world, and 50% of the top ten countries with the highest mortality rates are LAC countries. 

In a region that was already lacking adequate social welfare nets and sufficient healthcare systems, COVID-19 outbreaks and their subsequent shutdowns have shocked the regional economy in an unprecedented manner. 

According to a July 2020 United Nations (UN) Policy Brief, prior to the pandemic, economic development in the LAC region faced severe structural limitations, including high income inequality, high levels of informality, and vulnerability to climate change. The crisis has resulted in the worst recession that the LAC region has seen in over a century, causing a 9.1% contraction in regional Gross Domestic Product (GDP). 

The UN brief also states that these conditions could push the number of people living in poverty in the region up by 45 million, to a total of 230 million, and the number of people living in extreme poverty by 28 million, putting many at risk of undernutrition. 

As more people are pushed into poverty, many are forced to find additional sources of income to survive. This leaves many more people, and especially women and children, more vulnerable to TIP, which the region struggled to address even before the pandemic. 

Since 2000, the U.S. Department of State’s (DOS) Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons has released a yearly report which analyzes the state of TIP around the world by country and region, including the LAC. This report classifies countries into tiers based on their ability to combat human trafficking in accordance with the UN Palermo Protocol to Prevent, Supress, and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children. These rankings are identified based on the prevalence of trafficking in a country as well as domestic governments’ ability to identify and prosecute cases. 

Within the 2020 report’s country narratives, each country is classified among one of four tiers, depending on the extent of governmental efforts to meet the minimum standards of the U.S. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA). 

A country ranked at Tier 1 fully meets the TVPA’s minimum standards. If it ranks in Tier 2, the country does not meet the TVPA’s minimum standards, but is making significant efforts to comply with them. The Tier 2 Watch List signifies that the TVPA’s minimum standards are not fully met, and while the country is making efforts, trafficking is rising. Finally, if a country ranks in Tier 3, its government does not fully meet the minimum standards and is not making significant efforts to do so.

This year, the report’s regional analysis indicates that a majority of the Western Hemisphere, or 19 out of 31 countries (61%), rank within Tier 2 (Yellow). Comparatively, 19% of countries rank within Tier 1 (Green), 10% on the Tier 2 Watch List (Orange), and another 10% in Tier 3 (Red).

Even when the 2020 report analyzed 2019 trends pre COVID-19, the region was already struggling immensely to combat TIP. Adding the conditions of poverty and inadequate social welfare conditions into the mix, early evidence is already showing that the health and economic crises are leading to drastic increases in human trafficking throughout the LAC region. 

According to an August 19 America Magazine article, female sex trafficking, in particular, has largely increased in the region as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. Poverty, as well as confinement which has often led to amplified domestic violence, has led many young women in the region to leave home and struggle to find other sources of income. Many women are also forced into prostitution by their husbands, as well. Reporting cases of TIP has also become increasingly more difficult, given that police and courts have become much more inaccessible due to social distancing measures. 

In addition, the article emphasizes that though traffickers are more restricted in terms of movement across national borders, this can also make it more difficult to identify trafficking victims because they are not made as visible as they are no longer transported. The demand for webcam pornography has also increased by 30 percent with the pandemic, meaning that traffickers are now given virtual avenues for coercion and recruitment. Venezuelan refugees and migrants, in particular, are most vulnerable to forced prostitution and subsequently human trafficking. 

A recent UN Office on Drugs and Crime article also addresses a further challenge facing TIP  victims: support services for TIP victims across the region have been greatly reduced, and in some cases halted. In Colombia, however, authorities have attempted to move these counselling services online. 

Nevertheless, physical spaces for victims to take refuge and psychologically and physically recover are essential in ensuring that victims are not vulnerable to go back into trafficking. This is especially important when legal and criminal justice systems across the region were identified by the mentioned DOS report to be severely lacking in their ability to convict and prosecute traffickers. This means that while many victims may be removed from their situations, their assailants may still be at large continuing their crimes. 

Furthermore, labor trafficking and domestic servitude, especially among children, is expected to increase in the region as well. According to the June 15, 2020 ILO and UNICEF report “COVID-19 and Child Labour: A Time of Crisis, a Time to Act”, the global number of people in extreme poverty is projected to rise by at least 20% in 2020, largely as a result of COVID-19. With poverty comes increased rates of child labor, as households use every available means to survive. On a global basis, a one percentage point rise in global poverty levels tends to correlate with a 0.7 percentage point increase in child labor. 

These figures are exacerbated in the LAC region, in particular, as social protection nets are less widespread and lack proper implementation. Across the region, locked international remittances and an inability to migrate for work have led families into states of economic desperation. These circumstances promote a transition from formal employment sectors to informal ones, where children may be exploited for their labor. For those who are still able to work, they risk exposing themselves to COVID-19 and bringing the virus home to their families. 

All of these conditions leave children vulnerable to many types of TIP, including trafficking for the purposes of forced labor or domestic servitude. According to the mentioned DOS report, in Paraguay, for example, criadazgo is a form of child labor and trafficking in which rural families in desperate economic situations send their children to work for wealthy urban families. As  more families suffer to make ends meet, these forms of child trafficking are expected to become even more prominent. 

Exact figures on the extent of the impacts that the virus will have on TIP have not yet been released, and only anecdotal evidence exists from NGOs to show that these trends indeed exist. In the meantime, it is clear that COVID-19 has put possible and current TIP victims in the LAC region at great risk. 

Now more than ever, it will therefore be the responsibility of domestic governments to increase their mechanisms for identification of TIP victims, enforcement of laws against TIP, and prosecution and sentencing of traffickers. It will also be up to international organizations and NGOs to put pressure on these governments, as well as assist them in building their capacities to combat TIP in the age of COVID-19. While much of this work is already taking place, these institutions have a long road ahead of them in not only reversing the effects of COVID-19 on TIP, but working to eliminate TIP  in its entirety throughout the region.

A Turning Point in the Fight for LGBTQ Rights in Poland: What Next?

Poland is quickly becoming the latest European nation facing a shift in regards to LGBTQ rights, with the government’s anti-LGBTQ rhetoric continuing after another election win, and an increasing number of emboldened activists organizing in opposition. The Polish government has come under criticism from the EU and other Western nations in recent months due to their increased vilification of the LGBTQ community. The Law and Justice Party (PiS) has been unafraid to point out what they call “LGBT ideology”: the notion that the LGBTQ community pose a threat to Poles, particularly families, and in turn changing their way of life. Going so far as to call this “ideology” more destructive than communism they have also given funding to six towns that embrace their own status as LGBT-free zones after the EU denied these towns grants from their municipal twinning program over the towns declarations. A “Stop Pedophilia” bill was introduced into the Sejm (Poland’s Parliament), aiming to change the criminal law code to criminalize the inclusion of sexuality studies or reproductive health in sexual education courses to minors and is being postponed indefinitely. The government has also used the state broadcaster Telewizja Polska (TVP) to promote their platform, but faced pushback with a recent ruling from the District Court of Warsaw banning the publication of “Invasion”, an anti-LGBTQ production posted to their official YouTube channel.

A vast majority of Poland’s government sanctioned homophobia is rooted in the Catholic teachings and their interpretations. In a 2018 Pew Research Center survey, it was found that 87% of Poles identify as Roman Catholic. Most also follow their Central/Eastern European counterparts in being more active in the Church and identifying as conservative. A number of Polish clergymen are vocal in their political stances on this issue, standing firmly against any progress in LGBTQ rights. In Krakow, Archbishop Marek Jedraszewski warned in a 2019 homily of what he described as a neo-marxist “new plague [...] not red, but rainbow,” referring to the rainbows usage as a symbol of the LGBTQ community. PiS has leveraged anti-LGBT Catholic doctrines as a rallying cry for this and other social issues, arguing that they are threats to the family and the Polish way of life.

The radical pro-LGBTQ campaigning spearheaded by Stop Bzudrom (stop nonsense) has gained attention this year for their more confrontational protest methods. For example, when vans associated with Fundacja Pro , an organization that drove vans around various cities with messages promoting a connection between homosexuality and pedophilia showed up in various Polish cities, Stop Bzudrom had damaged them earlier in June in an act of protest against their messaging. Activist Margot Szutowicz (commonly referred to by their first name), a member of Stop Bzudrom, was arrested in July by undercover cops but was able to be issued bail. On August 3, Margot was arrested again, along with Lania (no last name provided), another activist from the campaign, on the grounds of “insulting religious feelings and insulting Warsaw monuments” after placing rainbow pride flags on various monuments. Pushback to their arrest was widespread: multiple arrests were made after days of confrontational protests between police and protestors. On October 1, an attempt was made on a Stop Bzudrom activist to push them under a tram in Warsaw. 

Similar action was taken on September 19, 2020, when an unknown group spray painted the Ministry of Education building with names of LGBTQ Poles who committed suicide. The public education system in Poland has been particularly contentious on this, with President Duda’s reelection campaign promising in their Family Card numerous anti-LGBTQ provisions, like banning education in schools, adoptions and others. Previous measures against an LGBTQ tolerance day were also quickly shut down by the government. 

The Polish government had responded to this criticism by deflecting the blame onto the growing opposition speaking out against their policies at home and abroad. A recent program by TVP said it was countries like Germany and the US, not Poland, persecuting the LGBTQ community, and the government has most recently been pointing to activist Bartosz Staszewski, who has become popular due to his installations of signs denoting LGBT-free zones across Poland, and vocal interaction with international media on this issue. 

PiS have also seen the push for LGBTQ rights as a threat coming from the EU. In July 2020, Polish justice minister Zbignew Ziboro stated his fear that ““There is a real risk that we may find ourselves in a situation where the EC (European Commission) will effectively force us to introduce the so-called homosexual marriages with the right to adopt children” Later in September, he responded again to the EU criticism, stating that various EU leaders and the European parliament sought “ to violate Polish democracy, through taking huge amounts of EU funds away from us, to blackmail us to force us to introduce changes in our social, cultural and educational lives." The EU has been critical of the PiS record on LGBTQ rights (albeit in a less assertive way) since the early years of Poland’s membership in the Union. However, some believe these statements from the EU are not enough, with Matt Beard of the international LGBTQ advocacy group AllOut saying that "the EU's words really need to be put into action". As issues regarding rule of law and decreasing civil liberties cause rifts between the Polish government, the EU and other nations like the UK and Canada, LGBTQ rights are becoming an increasingly contentious point between them.

Local leaders in this movement for LGBTQ rights remain cautious about what lies ahead. Polish LGBTQ activist Justyna Boloz said in an interview with Dazed that “the Polish Stonewall is yet to come.” Both conservative/Catholic groups and independent LGBTQ organizations are ramping up their efforts and show no signs of letting up. In a 2019 IPSOS survey of Poles under 40, “gender ideology and [the] LGBT movement”  was chosen by 31% of male respondents and 24% of total respondents, male and female, as the main threat to Poland (the climate crisis came in first). These numbers increase with younger men and PiS supporters. This growing negative perception of LGBTQ people and activism has also translated into violence targeting mass gatherings, like Pride marches. In the city of Lublin, a heterosexual couple was arrested for bringing a makeshift bomb to the city’s pride march in 2019. 

There are some who are more optimistic after recent developments. Teacher, writer and cultural researcher Marta Konarzewska said in an interview with Dazed that “Those who are fighting for freedom and autonomy now in Poland are very young, sometimes children. [...] and it’s these same people who are captured, detained, and punished by the police.” As PiS continue to frame homophobia through the lenses of family protection, Polish values and critiques of liberal democracy, there is a growing community of LGBTQ people and allies standing up to this prevalent rhetoric. A growing number of pro-LGBTQ activists are seeing opportunities with membership in organizations, and protests becoming more frequent with more international news coverage. Dangers to the LGBTQ community are present daily, from microaggressions to harassment and threats to safety simply by perceptions of queerness. This is a fact that cannot be understated, particularly to those in rural areas and in conservative strongholds. In spite of this, recent protests and international pressure over the past year have mobilized more Poles than before, particularly young people and those in urban areas. Broader issues, like the increasing urban/rural divide, the economy, and a brain drain of mostly young people leaving the country for work/education, have made the issue of LGBTQ rights a scapegoat for PiS. While PiS continues to dominate the upper chambers of government and President Duda prepares for his second five-year term, all eyes are on Poland as the fight for LGBTQ rights reflects the threats to the relatively new but already challenged Polish democracy.

The Future for Democratic Freedoms and Human Rights in the Gambia

In 2016, Yahya Jammeh, the authoritarian leader of the Gambia for 23 years, was ousted. Since then, democratic freedoms and human rights have begun to return. Under newly elected President Adama Barrow, a sense of democracy has returned to the country. However, in 2019, after analyzing election processes, civilian participation in government, governmental functions, and civil liberties in the Gambia, Freedom House labeled the country "Partly Free," a designation that, while certainly better from previous years under former President Jammeh, still leaves room for improvement. The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) was created in a 2017 Act to “investigate and establish an impartial historical record of the nature, causes and extent of violations and abuses of human rights committed” during former President Jammeh’s time in office. This is an important step in the right direction. However, human rights activists must continue to defend issues now supported by President Barrow and others in the Gambia, such as LGBTQIA issues and women's rights.

The Truth, Reconciliation and Repatriation Commission 

The Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) covers the Jammeh era from 1994-2017 and possible human rights abuses that occurred during that time. According to the Commission’s mandate, the Commission aims to “investigate and establish an impartial historical record of human rights violations, but to also consider reparations for the victims of abuses, promote reconciliation and promote non-recurrence.” The Commission is also working to look into the hundreds of millions of dollars of public money that had been embezzled by President Jammeh. According to the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, over $975 million had been misappropriated from various governmental agencies and state-run entities by President Jammeh, who exerted total control over his government and diverting funds as a retaliatory measure on those who questioned his motivations and actions.  Held at the Dunes Resort, the Commission holds public hearings that are broadcast live on state television, radio, and across social media. This, by all means, is by Gambians and for Gambians. 

Many of the victims under Jammeh’s administration were extrajudicial killings, with the Junglers as the main paramilitary force behind them. Other victims testified to sexual violence, threats to their livelihoods, unfair imprisonment and other rights abuses. Additionally, a number of people who were involved in killings have willingly testified to the TRRC. After the latest session, 21 of 104 witnesses were perpetrators and included the first confirmed Junglers to testify. The Commission has also pledged to take a victim-centered approach, and this has proven effective as victims, particularly those of sexual abuse by former President Jammeh, have come forward. This empowers not only the victims themselves, but civil society, as it shows that truth-telling is an action clearly rewarded.

 As the Commission continues to reach out to the rest of the nation, ensuring all who wish to speak are able to remotely or in-person, this victim-centered approach will continue to be effective as hearings conclude and findings are being finalized. Prosecution of former President Jammeh is still to be determined, but his connection to murders of African migrants, members of the Gambian diaspora, and news media critical of him provide evidence in an ever-growing case against him. 

Public opinion presents a clear goal from the people. According to a survey conducted by AfroBarometer on Gambian’s expectations for the TRRC’s results, “the most frequently cited expected results from the TRRC’s work are national peace, reconciliation, forgiveness, and healing (34%); accurate records of human-rights abuses of the past regime (30%); and prosecution and punishment of persons found guilty of crimes against humanity (28%).” 

Changes Ahead

While efforts to bring back journalists, freedom of speech and expression, and other rights are being conducted, human rights in the Gambia still has room for progress- and President Barrow knows that. The socioeconomic conditions that led to the voting out of President Jammeh were dire, with youth unemployment rising as economic activity continued to slow and knowledge of Jammeh’s excessive spending began to come to light. State media, the main outlet for information dissemination, was a government mouthpiece. Now, social media is one of the main outlets used to broadcast and report on the TRRC proceedings for Gambians domestically and abroad. The Gambian diaspora was instrumental in efforts to unseat Jammeh well before the 2016 election 

The TRRC’s focus on non-recurrence is notable: now that Gambians are able to reflect and see the impact of an authoritarian leader who relied on fear and charisma to get his way, ensuring that the country does not fall back into a similar situation is key. In their 2018 concluding observations, the UNHRC suggested that President Barrow “ensure that the rights enshrined in the Covenant are fully incorporated into the bill of rights of the new Constitution and other relevant domestic legislation and take all measures necessary to ensure that all laws, including customary and sharia laws, are articulated, interpreted and applied in full compliance with the Covenant.” Taking this step would show UN and international observers that the new Gambian government is taking serious steps to institutionalize human rights, and disseminate such practices throughout society using laws and governing documents as the vehicle to do so. 

The implications of the new Gambian government’s efforts for reconciliation are already being seen. While much of the international focus has been on the positive aspects of the TRRC and the new government, there continues to be controversy. One notable example of this is the case of “Operation 3 Years Jotna,” a group that was arrested after an anti-government protest calling on President Barrow to step down after his promised three years, and avoid the recurrence of authoritarianism that the TRRC, one of his most important attributes, is promoting. President Barrow is now seeking to fulfill the five-year term stipulated in the Constitution, rather than be the transitory President he first promised to be. The complexities of reforming an entire political and civil society will take many years, but public discourse is beginning to shift out of favor for President Barrow. Protest is continuing to be seen as a threat, rather than a part of democracy and its processes. 

As women’s and LGBTQ rights become more prominent in global human rights discourse, the Gambia is beginning to address these as well. The case of Fatou Jallow attracted international media attention. Winner of a state-sponsored beauty pageant, she detailed how she and other women became victims of President Jammeh. Human Rights Watch called the former President a “serial, sophisticated sexual predator.” International outcry has been effective in this case; Ms. Jallow is set to appear before the TRRC, and the government has renewed its commitment to equality between the sexes. In the government’s National Development Plan, “Empowering the Gambian Woman to Reach Her Full Potential” is listed as one of the goals of the plan, laid out for the next three years. Media coverage and actions of individuals, such as petitions, have helped NGOs to better serve Gambian women in the beginnings of the post-Jammeh era. However, LGBT Gambians continue to face threats, a result of cultural norms combined with legal discrimination. Former President Jammeh was vocally homophobic throughout his administration, going so far as to call them “anti-human”. President Barrow has simply stated that it is a “non-issue,” since other issues are more pressing at this time. Ambivalence still equals complicity- the case of Modou, a Gambian refugee who had his ear cut off after coming out as gay to his parents, shows that any progress made legally must also be effective in the conservative Gambian society. 

Ensuring Lasting and Effective Action

Changes being made under the Barrow administration, like re-joining the ICC and releasing political prisoners, are indicators that the Gambia can become an exemplary example of a nation that peacefully and effectively transitioned from a dictatorship to a democracy. In bringing awareness to the true extent of injustices committed under President Jammeh, Gambians are increasingly optimistic about justice and a sense of progress. While former President Jammeh is now in exile in Equatorial Guinea, his presence is still felt strongly today.

One area of rights and freedoms where the Gambia can make significant progress is in freedom of the press and expression. Now confirmed through testimonies in the TRRC, journalists were killed for speaking out in opposition against former President Jammeh. As the Gambian journalism industry begins to freely expand once again, and independent media restarts, the transition from self-censorship and fear to more freedoms and expression is an ongoing but incredibly significant process. With laws being revised to promote democratic values, the freedom of the Gambian press is entering a crucial point that can either progress towards democratic ideals or regress into former practices. States and international organizations must work together with the Gambian government and independent news media in the country to help facilitate the training of journalists, and grow the infrastructure for news media outlets and for the public. Improving access to sources such as television, radio, and the internet will allow more Gambians to be aware not only of TRRC proceedings, but also of news across all of the Gambia in a newly free and open media environment.

Additionally, the international community must be aware of the issues around cultural imposition. Regarding LGBT rights, Musu Bakoto Sawo, an anti-FGM activist and member on the TRRC, said in the Mail & Guardian that “For a long time the situation will remain as it is [and] Gambians generally are not going to take LGBT issues easily.” Former President Jammeh framed these issues as ones brought in by the West, and Gambian sentiments around the TRRC reflect a broader desire for self-determination in society; activist Madi Jobarteh said that “Gambians will take offence if foreigners want to promote gay rights in the Gambia.” The international community must ensure that future governmental discourse includes LGBTQ issues as an area for progress. Inclusivity is a focal point of the TRRC and the main reason for its effectiveness. This notion can translate into discussions on the rights of LGBTQ Gambians. 

The TRRC is ultimately working towards the broader goal of creating new values in society. After a generation of dictatorship, fear, and atrocities committed in the name of the government, the proceedings are helping create a new sense of peace and empowerment. Victims are continuing to come forward and the Commission will continue to hold hearings until the end of its two-year mandate. However, issues are arising in how the TRRC is helping facilitate broader political reform. Attila Lajos, EU Ambassador to the Gambia, said in a statement to The Guardian that “if the average Gambian doesn’t feel there’s anything better about this change, I think democracy in this country will not really prevail.” The TRRC will not solve all problems, but it is merely one action that has been taken to begin further, lasting societal change.

Framing this as a “national conversation,” the Commission has set up a Never Again campaign to carry out community-level initiatives. International organizations can help support these initiatives, without overstepping or resorting to neo-colonial practices. The effectiveness of the TRRC can continue though these initiatives, shifting societal mindsets to ones that embrace all the freedoms granted under a new democracy. From literacy and awareness campaigns to ones addressing AIDS and mental health for victims under the Jammeh era, there are many ways that reconciliation can occur far beyond the Dunes Resort. According to the government’s National Development Plan, the EU has pledged 11 million euros to youth employment training, addressing issues of massive youth unemployment and a large, growing diaspora. 

Only time will tell how the TRRC and related actions have affected Gambian society. Unraveling twenty-two years of dictatorship and the atrocities committed is a complex process that will, even with its initial successes, be flawed. As indicated through surveys and actions both supporting and going against the many new changes being introduced by the TRRC and President Barrow’s government, Gambians expect justice for those involved in human rights abuses, and a clear path for the future. The international community has appropriately taken a step back as Gambians themselves are working to learn the truths of--and beginning to move on from--the Jammeh dictatorship.