The Case for a Third Party

It is time to wake up from the American nightmare. Two corporate parties dominate politics in the United States– inefficient, polarized, and shunned by the masses of America. On one hand, the Democrats pay lip service to identity politics, preaching change for the oppressed while maintaining firm status quo policy positions. On the other, the Republican party continues to spiral into Trumpism, with radical right wing elements encroaching on the electoral territory of traditional conservatives. Meanwhile, issues such as climate change, housing, and healthcare continue to crush regular people, especially marginalized groups. Neither party represents the interests of the majority of society, and it is not possible to “reform” either party, as some progressive Democrats have suggested. The truth is, the two parties are different arms of the capitalist status quo, and to participate in the charade that passes for politics in the US is to give up hope for real change. What is necessary is a clean break from the Democrats and Republicans, the establishment of a new party which the masses of society can have faith in. This party must put forward a socialist program, a radical alternative to the piecemeal politics of the Democrats and the pseudo-fascism of the Republicans. 

To understand the necessity of a new party, one first must fully grasp the problems with the current system. At the core of the ineptitude of the two major American parties is their class makeup. Both parties are funded and controlled by a tiny minority of wealthy donors and politicians; the political elite. In the context of liberal democracy, this is perfectly acceptable because fundamentally, liberalism is capitalist ideology. As David Harvey argues, neoliberalism has become the hegemonic discourse of our time, justifying many of the injustices of capitalism through the logic of free markets and individual liberty. The political elite does the bidding of, and in many cases, overlaps with the economic elite of our society, the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie’s fundamental interests are to extract as much value out of working people as possible, and to keep the masses of people from overthrowing them. Through the lens of class analysis, it is clear that the two ruling parties will not present solutions to the contradictions of capitalism, and they will continue to defend the interests of the ruling class, giving as few concessions to workers as possible and concentrating as much wealth as possible in the hands of the few. The ruling parties are representatives of the interests of the ruling class, and they have been since the foundation of the United States. As Howard Zinn revealed in A People’s History of the United States, the revolution of 1776 was a bourgeois revolution which successfully took political and economic power from the British crown and put it in the hands of the American elite. The appeals to liberty, democracy, and other enlightenment ideals put forward by the so-called “founding fathers” were disingenuous at best, and complete lies at worst. Every major party that has risen and fallen in the period since the revolution has represented the interests of the elite of the time at the expense of the masses of society. In order to escape the downward spiral of capitalism, a new political formation is necessary, an organization through which the masses can exert their will. The two modern American parties are not capable of representing the interests of the masses, but it is necessary to analyze their recent behavior in order to understand the state of the ruling class. 

Donald Trump’s support from rural and white workers smacks of serious discontent with the status quo. This discontent is mirrored in more progressive layers of society by the Bernie Sanders candidacy. These populist candidates harnessed the rage of the masses at the material conditions of capitalism in order to propel themselves to electoral victory. The masses of America have become so rightly dissatisfied with the present state of things that they were willing to vote for candidates who promised radical change, even if the policies pursued by these politicians were ultimately detrimental to the interests of the masses. Both Sanders and Trump were opposed by large segments of their respective party elites, which reveals a divide between the political elite as a whole and the rank and file of their parties. “Anti-system” candidates have not gone away, but under the constraints of the modern party system, they can only serve as dissenters within the existing parties, and weak ones at that. Until there is a new party that can openly confront the capitalist system, politicians will continue to harness the discontent of the workers to increase their own political power, meanwhile, the country will continue to deteriorate as the parties put the interests of the ruling class above the concerns of the masses. For example, the resurgent labor movement proves that workers are looking for higher wages, better conditions, and more benefits, but neither party is aiding them because these goals contradict the interests of the bourgeoisie. This is the basis of the logic that a mass socialist party is viable in the United States. 

The fact that there is no mass party fighting for socialist policies is evidence of the stranglehold the bourgeoisie have over American politics. Critics of American socialism like Madison Gesiotto argue that America is too polarized for a mass party of any sort to emerge, but what is the actual nature of the divisions in our society? The issues that are presented as the most contentious in our society frequently stem from some variant of identity politics. This is true of debates over LGBT and women’s rights, immigration, and “critical race theory”. On the right, Republicans appeal to white voters with barely concealed racism and open xenophobia and other forms of bigotry, while on the so called left, a gentler form of identity politics allows Democrats to pose as the party of justice without actually following through on any progressive policies (Das). What both forms of identity politics conceal is the fundamental class contradiction of our society. Regardless of however one identifies, if a person has to work to live, it can be said with almost complete certainty that there is a set of desires that they share with every other working person. These include but are not limited to, reasonable working hours, wages that will support a comfortable life, stable housing, healthcare that won’t immediately result in bankruptcy, affordable education, and freedom to pursue one’s interests outside of the workplace. How many of these desires are met by the social, economic, and political institutions of the United States? When we look past the noise of the culture war, we realize that we are losing the class war. This is an affirmation of Noam Chomsky’s hypothesis that people can be kept passive and obedient if they are presented with lively debates in a narrowly confined spectrum of what is “acceptable” (Chomsky et al.). This is not to dismiss issues of identity as irrelevant or superficial–it is obvious that race, gender and sexuality, and other forms of identity are extremely prevalent to the experiences of huge layers of the population. But in order to actually address them, it is necessary to create a fighting party of the masses which will rise to meet the needs of the working class as a whole, and then work outwards to solve the systemic injustice which runs rampant in this country. The culture war is perpetuated not by the masses of people, but by the political elites, who understand that it is useful to divide the population to prevent it from uniting under a common banner.  A mass socialist party would directly combat this strategy, and is the first step towards the realization of a truly just and equitable society. 

For those who are serious about constructing a mass socialist party, the program of that party is of the utmost importance. The party should stand for the interests of all working people and oppressed groups to encompass as wide a range of interests as possible. First, come the social benefits that a civilized society should afford its citizens. Healthcare, housing, education, and work should be guaranteed to all people. Secondly, the party should fight hand in hand with the labor unions to raise wages and strengthen labor protections. Third, a socialist party should advocate for the nationalization of the key levers of the economy, including the banks, corporations, and financial sector, in order to distribute economic resources according to human need rather than profit. Finally, the party should advocate for action against systemic injustice and policies that will restore the wellbeing of marginalized groups as well as a strong response to the ecological crisis. The point of this program is not necessarily to achieve every proposed reform, but to illustrate for people the inadequacies of the American political system. The strength of such a radical platform lies in the inability of the ruling parties to accept it. When people realize that the policies they support through the mass party will not be accepted by the American government, they will realize the necessity of  revolutionary changes to our society. The party should not be a goal in and of itself, it should be a means towards the end of advancing the consciousness of the masses. 

UN Vote Proves UK Acquisition of the Chagos Islands Was Illegal

For many Chagossians, the phrase “dying of a broken heart” is all too true. Known in Creole as “Sagren,” this feeling of profound sorrow still resonates among the Chagossian community more than 50 years after their eviction from Diego Garcia in the late 1960s and early 1970s by the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (UK). In an attempt to “cleanse” and “sanitize” the Chagos Archipelago, of which Diego Garcia is the largest island, the UK proceeded to separate the group of islands from the nearby British Colony of Mauritius to form the British Indian Ocean Territory in 1965. Years later, Mauritius gained independence in 1968 while Britain maintained control over the Chagos Islands.

In the next decade after 1965, the British forcibly expelled thousands of members of the local Chagossian population to make way for the creation of a joint U.S.-UK military base known as Camp Justice. Relocated to the nearby islands of Mauritius and Seychelles, the Chagossians received little to no resettlement aid or compensation and instead were subjected to incredibly poor living conditions. Post-relocation, many Chagossians ended up settling in the UK where they were given British citizenship. To this day, the UK government still prevents the Chagossians from returning to Diego Garcia.

Importance of Diego Garcia

The eviction of the Chagossians from Diego Garcia was purely on behalf of furthering U.S. strategic foreign policy objectives. The island’s isolated location in the middle of the Indian Ocean--south of the tip of India and nearly equidistant from Australia, the Saudi peninsula, and the eastern coast of Africa--allows the U.S. to have a military presence in an otherwise untouched geographical area. The position of the island, which houses one of the largest American bases outside of the U.S., provides the U.S. with the opportunity to exert military force on neighboring countries or provide military support to nearby allies if the need arises. Diego Garcia also remains under British control, a close American ally. This strengthens the U.S.-UK relationship by further tying the two countries together over the shared interest of the continuous operation of the base.

Additionally, according to The National Interest, the U.S. relies on Camp Justice military for “long-range bomber operations, the replenishment of naval vessels, and the prepositioning of heavy equipment to expedite the rapid deployment of Army and Marine Corps brigades.” The facility has also played a key role over the years, serving as the primary base for air operations and bombing raids during the Persian Gulf War in the 1990s and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 2000s.

External Factors

Chinese Influence

China’s presence in the Indian Ocean has increased since President Xi Jinping announced the launch of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) in 2013. The BRI is a geopolitical strategy that funds a variety of infrastructure projects that help to economically connect China with over sixty countries in Eurasia and Africa. During a 2018 tour of Africa by President Jinping, Senegal, Rwanda, and South Africa signed onto the BRI. However, because Mauritius is an economically prosperous country with high foreign direct investment from the U.S. and a booming tourist industry, it agreed to sign on at a later date. The addition of these countries to the BRI highlights China’s growing influence on the continent, exposing Africans to Chinese culture and overall strengthening Afro-Sino relations. 

China’s military presence in the Indian Ocean is also increasing with the construction of Shandong, a modified version of China’s first flattop aircraft carrier Liaoning, further expanding China’s oceanic fleet. According to the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, “the primary purpose of this first domestic aircraft carrier [Liaoning] will be to serve a regional defense mission,” but “Beijing probably also will use the carrier to project power throughout the South China Sea and possibly into the Indian Ocean.” China’s economic and military expansion into the Indian Ocean, catalyzed by the BRI, threatens U.S. hegemony in the region. This is a cause for concern for many U.S. defense scholars and adds fuel to the argument that the U.S. must maintain their naval presence on Diego Garcia in order to counter growing Chinese influence in the region.

Brexit Impact

In a landmark speech prior to the December 2019 general UK election, UK Labour Party leader  Jeremy Corbyn pledged to “right one of the wrongs of history” and renounce British sovereignty of the Chagos Islands if he were elected Prime Minister. Per their manifesto for the upcoming election, the Labour Party committed to “allow[ing] the people of the Chagos Islands and their descendants the right to return to the lands from which they should never have been removed.” As for the current status of the Chagossians living in both the UK and on Mauritius, Corbyn called the entire situation “utterly disgraceful” and asserted that “[the Chagossians] need a full apology and they need adequate compensation.” Corbyn added that “I believe the right of return to those islands is absolutely important as a symbol of the way in which we [Britain] wish to behave in international law.”

However, with Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit success in late January 2020, many of the departure’s impacts will be felt in Britain’s 14 Overseas Territories. According to a representative from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, “the UK has put in place a number of measures for the Overseas Territories in the event of a no-deal.” What this means for the Chagos Islands is not entirely clear, especially because the terms of Brexit have not been explicitly defined thus far in the transition period. 

The focus of a pro-Brexit deal was primarily centered on the repercussions regarding Northern Ireland and the potential return of a hard border between the north and the south, thus news on the impact on Britain’s Overseas Territories has been limited. Some of these Overseas Territories rely on aid from the European Union (EU), and a hard Brexit is likely to severely damage the economies of these territories that rely on the UK’s involvement in the larger EU community. 

Current Affairs

In 2017, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) sent the territorial dispute between Mauritius and the U.K. to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The ICJ ruled in February 2019 that the British separation of the Chagos Islands from Mauritius was illegal and ordered the U.K. to relinquish control of the islands “as rapidly as possible.” However, because the ruling was merely an advisory opinion, the case was referred back to the United Nations (UN) for a vote. In May 2019, UNGA’s final vote was shockingly low: 116 countries condemned the UK’s decision and only six supported it. Despite extensive lobbying by the U.S. and the surprising abstention of 56 countries--many of them being U.K. allies such as Canada, France, and Germany--the single-digit support highlights the magnitude of international dissatisfaction regarding the UK’s imperialistic behavior in the Indian Ocean. While the vote was nonbinding, it affirmed the ICJ’s previous ruling and set a six-month deadline by which the UK must withdraw from the Chagos Archipelago so that it could be reunified with Mauritius. As of April 2020, no progress has been made in achieving this objective.

What Comes Next?

For the UK, the UN vote was crucial in highlighting Britain’s waning popularity in the international community, seeing as how a number of UK allies failed to actively support the UK during the voting process, instead choosing to abstain. For the U.S., they have an interest in maintaining Camp Justice. Increasing Chinese influence in the Indian Ocean and the close proximity of the island to both U.S. adversaries and allies furthers American foreign policy objectives by allowing the U.S. to maintain a formidable presence in the area. However, the United States’ lease on Diego Garcia is effective only until the year 2036. What happens after the lease runs out is currently unknown.

President Trump's Travel Ban: 2020 Updates

On January 27, 2017, President Trump’s administration issued Executive Order 13769, formally known as “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States”; this order is also informally known as either the “Muslim ban” or the “travel ban.” It prevented all immigration and most travel from the Middle Eastern and African countries of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Despite mass protests and legal challenges, the order was legally upheld by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Trump v. Hawaii. On January 31, 2020, nearly three years later, the Trump administration expanded the list of countries to include Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania. The amended order was implemented on February 21, 2020. 

While the impact of the travel ban will inevitably differ widely from state to state, there is no serious universal rationale for implementing these policies. The stated reason by the Trump administration for the order’s expansion is that the countries listed have “displayed an ‘unwillingness or inability’ to adhere to ‘baseline’ security criteria,” specifically citing “insufficient information sharing from the countries’ governments about criminal and terrorism data, a lack of electronic passport systems and issues with Interpol reporting methods.” Even if this is true, the Trump administration hasn’t explained why these travel restrictions were not implemented sooner, or why similar violating countries haven’t also been hit with a travel ban. The reasoning behind the expansions is flawed at best and points to an ulterior motive at worse. Whatever the cause, by adding more banned countries to the list, President Trump disrupts vital refugee flows from Eritrea and Tanzania, angers important allies in Nigeria and Tanzania, and disrupts peace processes in Eritrea and Ethiopia.

Eritrea 

Eritrea is a small nation located in the Horn of Africa, bordering the Red Sea, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Djibouti. Economically underdeveloped and politically repressed, it has been under the authoritarian rule of strongman Isaias Afwerki since independence. In August 2018, Ethiopia and Eritrea signed a peace agreement that resolved several land disputes between the two countries and brought the “frozen conflict” between the two nations to an end. Ethiopian president Abiy Ahmed's role in resolving the conflict earned him the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize. 

Unfortunately, the peace deal has stalled. Major joint economic deals that were in the treaty have failed to materialize, as have attempts to move troops away from the border. The U.S. has significant political capital in the region and could have played an important role in ensuring the peace deal functions as planned, preventing a resurgence in conflict. Nevertheless, by accusing the Eritrean government of being unable to maintain even basic security concerns, the U.S. is burning a major bridge with the power-hungry Afwerki. Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh Mohammed has directly stated that “the government saw the ban as a political move that would hurt the country's relations with the US.”  This reduces the U.S.’s ability to assist in the peace process and severely hampers its traditionally “outsized role in the region” and the peace process. Damaging the peace process is especially ironic as most of the refugees that the travel ban is trying to stop are fleeing because of the conflict and conscription efforts that have been implemented as a result of the conflict. In addition, the regional economic growth, increased U.S. influence in the region, and increased regional stability makes peace the desired outcome for the U.S. regardless of the refugee situation. 

Nigeria 

In contrast to Eritrea, Nigeria is one of the giants of Africa. As Africa’s most populous country and its single largest economy, Nigeria has been a major political force since it gained independence from Britain in 1960. Imposing a travel restriction on Nigeria harms a major strategic relationship and major U.S. economic partner.

The United States and Nigeria have been close military and political partners since the early 2010s when Nigeria’s northern regions were besieged by a violent insurgency from the Islamist group Boko Haram. Boko Haram, which swore allegiance to the Islamic State in 2015, killed tens of thousands of Nigerian civilians and forced 2.3 million Nigerians from their homes. While the threat from Boko Haram and affiliated extremist groups has subsided since 2015, the threat has not been eliminated. Since Boko Haram killed at least 30 civilians in February 2020, U.S. military and political assistance remain crucial to ensure the group can’t regain the power it had in 2015. The U.S. has been extremely crucial in the fight against Boko Haram, deploying many trainers and advisors to support Nigerian troops in the field, as well as supplying the Nigerians with the military equipment they need to maintain their counterinsurgency effort. 

U.S. assistance is jeopardized by the travel ban. Nigerian foreign minister Geoffrey Onyeama was “blindsided” by the decision, indicating a negative reaction from the Nigerian government. Any decreased trust between the two governments could lead to decreased cooperation on vitally important security matters.

In addition, these travel restrictions harm the U.S. and Nigerian economies. Both countries are among the world's largest economies and have a strong trading relationship. The travel ban jeopardizes the economic relationships between American and Nigerian companies, as face-to face-meetings and conferences become harder to organize due to decreased “access to business and visitor visas and diversity visa lottery eligibility.” This damage to economic relations couldn’t come at a worse time. The African Union is planning to implement the Africa Continental Free Trade Area in July 2020, one of the largest free trade zones in the world. These restrictions, which function as de-facto economic sanctions, could disrupt American access to the overall African market. 

The travel ban also deprives the U.S. of an incredibly economically beneficial source of manpower, as NPR explains “first- and second-generation Nigerians are typically more educated and more likely to hold professional jobs than the general U.S. population.”

Tanzania

Tanzania is a large nation in eastern Africa and can be defined as an anocratic state that has experienced a backslide into autocracy in recent years under President John Magufuli. This includes increased arrests on false charges, abductions, or extrajudicial violence. The government has also increasingly cracked down on the LGBT population, and homosexuality is punishable by a prison sentence of 30 years to life. The travel ban could prevent people fleeing from finding refuge in the United States. If no other options exist, these people will be forced to stay in Tanzania.

Despite its domestic policies, Tanzania is an important U.S. counterterrorism partner. Ever since Al-Qaeda carried out a 1998 bombing of the U.S. embassy in Dar es Salaam, the U.S. has provided military supplies and training that has ensured that terrorism in Tanzania remains a much smaller threat compared to its neighbors Kenya, Uganda, and Somalia. In addition, U.S. training has helped turn the Tanzanian military into a peacekeeping force that has deployed on several major UN peacekeeping missions in recent years. The travel ban has the potential to jeopardize an incredibly successful security relationship between the United States and Tanzania.

Sudan

Finally, Sudan is a large and populous nation in Northern Africa that recently split into Sudan and South Sudan in 2011 following a long and brutal civil war. The nation had been ruled by dictator Omar Bashir from 1989 until 2019 when mass protests and pressure from the military forced him to resign. Sudan is currently ruled by a power-sharing accord between the protest movement and the military, with the overall head of the government falling to military leader and possible war criminal Lieutenant-General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. 

Sudan was on the first draft of the travel ban back in 2017 but was later removed after diplomatic pressure from the United Arab Emirates, who was receiving Sudanese military aid. Sudan’s inclusion in the updated travel ban only serves to further destabilize a nation that is teetering on the edge between dictatorship and democracy. The ban has sparked feelings of disappointment towards the U.S. from many young Sudanese people who are at the forefront of Sudan's revolution. By failing to signal the U.S.’s full support for the Sudanese people and their freedom of movement, the U.S. increases the possibility that the spark of democracy in one of the world's most historically oppressed countries fails to light.

In summary, the travel ban expansion is a strategic miscalculation for U.S. interests and relationships in Africa. It weakens the U.S.’s ability to fight ISIS affiliates in Nigeria and harms the U.S.’s friendship with Tanzania. It weakens an already strained peace deal in Eritrea and ensures that Eritrean and Tanzanian refugees can’t find refuge in the United States. It even hurts the economy by harming U.S. ties with the massive Nigerian economy.

Brazil Takes Off as Washington-Beijing Trade Dispute Grows

Despite working to meet a December 15th trade agreement, dubbed “Phase I,” President Trump has repeatedly threatened to increase the levied tariffs on Chinese imports should one not be reached. United States (U.S.) Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer explains that Phase I only includes about 35 percent of the total trade discussion with China. Despite Washington and Beijing inching closer to an initial agreement, the world’s two largest economies maintain tariffs on a combined total of more than half a trillion dollars of goods, with rates ranging from 5 percent to 30 percent. The tariffs continue the Trump Administration’s critique of China and its trade practices with the United States. 

In 2018, trade of goods and services between the two countries (two-way trade) totaled US$737.1 billion, with total exports valued at US$179.3 billion and total imports valued at US$557.9 billion. Such values put China as the U.S.’ single largest trading partner by total traded goods and services. Despite this, President Trump has maintained his harsh critique of the Chinese, fulfilling a campaign promise to combat China’s alleged unfair trade practices. As the U.S.-China trade dispute wages on with both sides retaliating with additional tariffs, Brazil —namely Brazilian farmers— have emerged as beneficiaries of the confrontation.

Chinese Trade with Brazil

Since the beginning of the trade dispute in 2017, Chinese firms have been shifting to Brazilian agriculture products. For Instance, Brazil passed the U.S. as the world’s largest soybean producer and exporter as a result of the increased demand from China—a demand increase of more than 20 percent. Brazil’s dominance in soybean production was not unforeseen; in fact, between 2011 and 2018, the overall production of the crop in the country has nearly doubled to 119.3 million metric tons and is expected to reach nearly 129 million metric tons by 2027. Since President Trump began his anti-China trade rhetoric, Brazilian soybean exports’ value swelled by US$13.86 billion, while American farmers will be left with an unwanted “record high level of ending stock,” as exports to China will be one-third of what they have been for the last few years. As a result, competitive Brazilian farmers have directly benefited from the trade dispute, while American farmers have truly felt the negative effects of the trade dispute. While Beijing and Washington work on finding common ground to settle their trade dispute in Phase I, Brazilian officials remain confident that they can retain the increase in trade. 

While trade between Brazil and China has a lesser two-way trade value than that of the U.S. relationship, Brazilian trade with its Asian counterpart has increased by 170% within the last decade, to nearly 100 billion dollars, according to Brazil’s Ministry of Economy. During the same period, trade between the U.S. and China grew by only 68 percent. China has been Brazil’s largest trading partner, ahead of the U.S. for nearly a decade. To further emphasize Chinese engagement with Brazil, 2017 Chinese Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Brazil was US$19.5 billion, comprising 31.9 percent of the total global FDI destined for Brazil; in contrast, Chinese FDI in the U.S. was valued at US$39.5 billion, more than double of that in Brazil. However, Brazil was the largest recipient of China FDI in South America. As tensions between the U.S. and China unravel as a result of the trade dispute, Chinese firms have looked at other markets to import necessary products from. One beneficiary of this market exploration is Brazil. The South American nation, home to nearly 210 million people, has experienced a direct increase in two-way trade and improved diplomatic relations with China. However, Brazil’s recently elected president made some in Beijing uneasy about China’s relations with Brazil.

Bolsonaro’s Evolving Chinese Trade Rhetoric

Despite China’s investments in Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro had been a harsh critic of Chinese investors. In October of 2018, the same year Bolsonaro was elected with an 11 percent margin, the then-president-elect warned, “what we need is to become aware that China is buying Brazil, not buying in Brazil, it is buying Brazil.” Importantly, Brazil’s president is often referred to as the “Trump of the Tropics,” for his similar rhetoric on social, political, and economic topics, including his critique of China. In a March 2019 speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Bolsonaro’s Minister of the Economy, Paulo Guedes, went on to state that “Temos um presidente que adora a América,” translating to “We have a president that loves America.” 

However, President Bolsonaro’s criticism of his Chinese counterparts has not dissuaded new investments in the country. In fact, according to the Brazilian Ministry of Planning, Development and Management (now a division of the Ministry of Economy) from 2016-2018, Chinese firms announced 11 greenfields and 38 brownfield investments, a total investment value of US$19.4 billion. Greenfield investments, defined as a form of FDI, is when a firm establishes operations in a foreign company and constructs new facilities. Alternatively, brownfield investments are considered as an operational expansion of a company in a foreign market, normally seen as the expansion of an existing facility. Such investment activity indicates a long-term commitment on the part of Chinese firms to invest in Brazil. Despite President Bolsonaro’s previous rhetorical repudiations of Chinese investments, the country is actually drawing closer to China, its largest trading partner. 

Notably, the Brazilian-Chinese relationship has changed as President Bolsonaro altered his tone with China. In October, while the U.S.-China trade meetings dragged on, a Brazilian delegation including the president visited multiple countries in Asia, most significantly China. There, President Bolsonaro not only made amends with his Chinese counterparts regarding the remarks he made during his campaign trail but also signed two trade protocols and outlined strategic growth in the relationship. He went on to assure that the Brazilian and Chinese governments are "completely aligned in a way that reaches beyond our commercial and business relationship.” Preserving such a relationship is crucial to the Bolsonaro Administration, which inherited a sluggish economy with high unemployment and inflation. 

Thus far, the administration has worked diligently to position Brazil more competitively on the global stage by pushing reforms in the areas of pension and tax, easing government regulation in select industries, and negotiating foreign trade agreements with individual nations and economic unions. All these initiatives ultimately pushing for economic liberalization. In the meantime, Brazil will be the beneficiary of the U.S.-China trade dispute as escalations make a final resolution between the two countries more difficult. 

Moving Forward

While Brazil’s new government is at the center of domestic and international controversy, that parallels the political polarization in the U.S., the government has taken proper economic initiatives to stimulate its sluggish economy. By proposing and passing vital reforms, Brazil has an opportunity to catapult its industries to the world stage and develop one of the “world’s most closed big economies”. The government has already announced two of the country’s largest trade agreements in its history between MERCOSUR, the European Union, and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), valued at nearly US$22 trillion and US$1.1 trillion, respectively.

China’s agricultural purchases in Brazil and direct investment have also contributed to the necessary fundamental changes and economic opening that is needed in Brazil. However, it is important that Brazil holds its neutrality in the trade dispute between the U.S. and China, as noted by Vice-President Hamilton Mourão in a meeting last month with Chinese President Xi Jinping in Beijing. While China is Brazil’s largest trading partner by value, historically, the U.S. imports a greater amount of higher value-added products, such as aerospace and heavy machinery products. While this may be true in the past, China’s new-founded interest in diversifying its investments in Brazil, beyond purchasing low value-added goods, could reshape political ties, as already slightly seen with Bolsonaro’s revised rhetoric. 

Until then, Brazil will continue to silently draw itself closer to China amidst the Washington-Beijing trade dispute and push necessary reforms to develop its domestic industries to a formidable global competitor.

The Perils of Democracy: Analyzing the Gradual Rise in Nationalism Among its Institutions

Democratic institutions are created with the consent of the people. More importantly, however, democracy can only remain stable and in power when the leader continues to act with the greater good’s interests in mind. People have always been at odds regarding what democracy truly constitutes, a tension that has increased since the end of the Cold War. Still, even with its systemic flaws, it is commonly believed that this form of government is the best model and that there is no better alternative. However, it is important to address shortcomings as democracy is not stagnant; in the context of democracy as a society, a political body, and an economy, it has inevitably changed over time. 

One such area that requires attention is the perceived value of nationalism. Research scholar Ghia Nodia describes how nationalism and democracy coexist in almost a permanent state of tension. According to Nodia, Western social values often teach us to see democracy as the hero and nationalism as the villain, while in reality, this is not necessarily the case. Nationalism, through a political lens, can be perceived as necessary in that it instills its people with a sense of patriotism, which a successful government requires in a specific class of people: the military. However, as Spohn and Sauer explore in “War zeal, nationalism, and unity in Christ” during World War I, even German Protestant theologians and church leaders were exceptionally susceptible to nationalism and war zeal, resulting in evangelical missions that spurred the cause for war among the masses. Religion evidently plays a large role in the proliferation of nationalist views. This seems plausible in some instances because religion as a doctrine, often teaches its devotees that tradition is the greatest principle and that their actions must seek to preserve this virtue, including a country’s identity. However, this cannot be generalized to all religions because of the differing interpretations of texts by priests or religious leaders.

Although nationalism is integral to the internal fabric of a political body, more often than not, it leads to its destruction. It is important to consider what type of nationalism is present when analyzing its effects on a specific country, however. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, specifically focusing on the Democratic Republic of Congo, nationalism spread as a political tool. The standing government at the time used nationalism to suppress the opposition and sideline divisions among the citizenry that would otherwise pose a threat to the leadership’s power. This explains much of the instability in the region, the constant riots, and overall civil unrest, because artificially-created nationalism by the ruling class was pushed onto the people instead of “achieved nationalism,” which is rather realized by the people on their own through a sense of pride and trust for their representatives. Achieved nationalism then seems like it would be the most successful in maintaining democracy.

Nonetheless, this is not always true. In addition to religion, the changing desires of the electorate is a driving force behind the formation of nationalist perspectives. In particular, India is a region that has time and time again seen the repercussions of this prevailing attitude. Indians, tired of being oppressed by their British conquerors, sought independence from Britain to be able to have their well-deserved freedom--freedom to shape their own institutions, their own industries, their own national life. They achieved this by uniting together to throw the foreign forces out, resulting in an increased sense of nationalism. 

However, this nationalism quickly deteriorated into polarization with the conflict between the Hindu majority and Muslim minority escalating to the point of division, an ensuing trauma that continues today. The rise of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in Indian politics can be attributed to nationalism. When Modi first came into the public eye, he portrayed himself as a man of the people, a common man with a modest background as a tea vendor at a local train station. His rallying calls to put India first, to rebuild the economy by providing greater infrastructure and jobs, appealed to voters of all classes. He represented the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), or the Indian People’s Party, a name which itself reflects an ideology that prizes the collective people. Through this image, he was able to champion himself as a man of the people, in contrast to his opponents, and easily won with a sweeping majority of the votes. Modi’s popularity among the people has allowed him to seemingly get away with just about anything. Most recently, Indian citizens and their belief in Modi were tested when the tensions in Kashmir escalated. By unjustifiably removing Article 370, which would remove special protections for the regions, Modi put not only India at stake, but also the people of Jammu-Kashmir, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, as well as the very meaning of democracy. This has become such a contentious topic between the Western world denouncing Modi’s actions and his partisans praising him. When I conducted interviews with my own family in India, all of them said they support Modi, claiming that he is simply helping the region of Kashmir, which had been torn politically, economically, and socially ever since its creation, and that India has the right to take over and protect the Hindu minority in the area. In their eyes, at the same time, Western media portrays a different story: that Modi is akin to an authoritarian, taking land from the people of Kashmir like the British did in India. 

There are countless examples of populism devolving into dictatorships, such as those seen in Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela where the concentration of power in the hands of the elected leaders and their changing behaviors slowly diminish the people’s trust in democracy. Mirroring Modi’s election, these respective candidates won in the first place because they seemed to be “the people’s men.” Not fulfilling these promises leaves people unhappy and creates a class that is ripe for the revolution, a truth that these leaders clearly ignore or simply do not care about. In fact, this was one of the pressures that culminated in the Arab Spring uprisings. Due to the people’s discontent with their government, there was an overwhelming sense of anti-nationalism, which “propelled discourse about liberation from an oppressive regime,” and the lack of nationalism also leads to factionalism within the regional states as well, leading to a shift in power from the federal to the state governments, in turn harming the ruling body itself. 

These rulers are able to methodically rise to power and stay in power by ridding themselves of any possible threats by first deeming that the opposition is misrepresenting the leader’s actions and branding them with the trait of anti-nationalism. Using the bully pulpit as a medium to disseminate false and spiteful views, the leader traps the uneducated and uninformed, who fall into a mobocracy that becomes increasingly polarized, with one side supporting the leader while the other protests and seeks to promote change. This is seen most evidently with the current democratic state of the United States. Donald Trump, similar to Modi, was able to attain his presidency by appealing to the common, working-class people of American society, by promising jobs, a better economy, among others. He works under a false image of devotion to the country; rather, as Lepore writes, patriotism is animated by love, nationalism by hatred. 

Once the president or leading governing body has planted the seeds for nationalism, however, it is natural to ponder as to who sows these seeds and ensures the views prosper. Inevitably, because democracy is authorized by the consent of the people, even a nationalist leader would not be able to maintain a stable polity without their support. This is where social media comes in. When Twitter was founded in 2006, it was meant to be a platform of communication and expression, a way to stay up to date with issues whether on a person or a global level. Originally, it was just used by the common person and not given much attention by the government or its agencies. But things quickly changed with Twitter becoming a medium for hate speech. Note that it is not a question here as to whether or not hate speech should be allowed, but rather here the focus is on its relation to nationalism as a result of the discourse of the time. The propagation of such hate groups is often linked with physical attacks against minorities. Although hate speech and hate crime do not always have a direct correlation, speech often serves as a catalyst due to its sometimes incendiary and dividing nature; this is seen with how white supremacist groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan, operate with a select group of people instigating and stirring the disgruntled masses. According to statistics released by the FBI, it is clear that hate crimes are seeing no decline as in 2017 alone, over eight-thousand hate crime offenses were reported. These groups continue the cycle that began with the President all in a fake sham of nationalism. 

Again, it is necessary to consider why countries value a degree of nationalism.  As expressed in Nationalism and Democracy:

“Patriotic celebration of such things may grate on the sensibilities of individualistic liberals, but it offers no threat to ethnic minorities. On the contrary, a custom of tolerance for minorities can also become a point of national pride, as it has in the case of many Americans or citizens of other long-established democratic nations.”

In this sense, a celebration of diversity warrants feelings of nationalism. Yet, it is difficult not to find these words ironic. In a country founded on the back of immigrants and minorities, people of color are still discriminated against, with those with darker skin facing the most backlash. In addition to being underrepresented in public office and Congress, minorities feel unheard by their president. For Americans to truly be able to feel a sense of national pride in terms of their treatment of minorities then, they must take a step back and reflect on whether or not America is the same for all, or if it is a living nightmare for others. 

Countries such as the United States and India, now through its pursuits in Kashmir, as well as other well-developed and developing democracies, continue fearlessly in their endless goals of nation-building. However, given the assessment of the existence of nationalism and other autocratic tendencies, the first step is for these countries to pay greater attention and focus their political and sociological research and studies towards this exact question. Then, once the root of the problem is identified along with any other possible factors, policymakers must act to find a solution after which they can report to their officials. Convening in a national conference, global leaders can then discuss how to better the circumstances and decide whether or not compromise is necessary. While this background work is being done to widen our knowledge on the issue, if a country must intervene in the affairs of another, to help form or stabilize democracy, the least harmful method would be to station a few troops in the region--this way the country can maintain indirect control without doing anything that will cause harm in the long run. But until then, one must keep a vigilant eye on the upcoming United States 2020 presidential election.

Managing Multilingualism: Preserving the Linguistic Plurality

The reality of the current world is that, though there are a few dominant languages such as English, Spanish, or Arabic, oftentimes not even a country’s borders will accurately reflect the diversity of humanity’s linguistic heritage. Even though the world is defined by nation-states, there are minorities in virtually every state who often speak distinct languages that need to be cherished in order to show respect for their culture and preserve an entire way of thinking. To address the representation of the less dominant languages within their states, different states take different approaches; however, these laws are often not enforced properly and some languages are still left ignored. Even in today’s liberal world order, which should encourage political and public representation, these languages are tragically seeing a decline in public representation and the number of speakers. Thus, it is beneficial to examine and improve upon the laws currently existing to regulate the inclusion of minority languages and work towards making a more inclusive, diverse, and unified society. 

National vs. Official Language

A number of states have different laws pertaining to the designation of an official language and a national language. The main distinction to be made between the official and national language is that the official language is the language often mandated by a state’s founding documents and the language used in government and official proceedings, as well as one expected to be used as a definite lingua franca among speakers of different languages in that society. The national language, on the other hand, is the language spoken by the majority, and it has come to be identified as a national symbol of a certain group of people to be a more general legal description of a nation. Depending on the composition of a state’s culture and population, the relationship a country should have towards its national and official language(s) should preserve unity and peace of the society while also appreciating and promoting its potential for linguistic plurality. 

One National and Official Language 

France is one country that, although it is seeing an increase of speakers of different languages residing within its borders, is still reliant on French as both its national and official language. This is not only stated in the Constitution but also reinforced through the Toubon Law of 1994, which came as a response to the increasing use of English. This law dictates that all government documents, education, and advertisements must be in French; thus the French language is seen as a defining aspect of the country and the nation and is largely necessary in order to navigate around one’s daily life. However, publishers are still allowed to publish their work in any language they wish, commercials may be translated into French through footnotes, packaging can have translations in other languages, and the laws mandating French in the public sphere are not to infringe on the private life. Thus, there is not a need for an absolute use of French; however, the fact that French must be ever-present and is both the official and national language makes it more difficult to maintain the use of other languages, as children are exposed to French in school and media and do not need to rely on any language their parents are potentially using as much. This leads to the loss of the language in the long run. The existence of French as an ever-present language, on the other hand, makes it unifying in nature, as it is agreed that this is one language everyone would use to express themselves. This approach provides cohesiveness to society as everyone can understand each other and feel a sense of belonging in France. 

French still has this purpose in a number of African countries as well, where it is not always a national, but often at least the official language used to unify the speakers of different languages living in the same country. This is the case in Rwanda where Kinyarwanda may be the national language, but French is used for official purposes. This may lead to French eventually overpowering and becoming the national language as well as the official, as it has happened in countries such as Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Togo, as noted by Faingold in “Language rights and language justice.” A similar destiny beheld countries like Costa Rica and Venezuela, where Spanish became both national and official because of the pressure to have a unifying language without sufficient regard for how that would reflect on the number of speakers of other languages. While this approach may be ideal when it comes to the creation of national unity through language, it can prove to be very aggressive and detrimental towards other, often pre-colonial languages of the region, thus reaffirming the status quo of the post-colonial world.

Regional Languages

Spain is an example of a country that has one national and official language, Spanish. However, unlike neighboring France that has French as its national and official language and does not emphasize the integrity of regional or minority languages, Spain’s autonomous regions of Catalonia and Basque Country allow an elevation of Catalan and Basque to languages of greater regional importance. Whereas France does not have these autonomous regions and does not prevent people from publishing in their own language, the autonomous status of Catalonia, as Cultural Policies and Trends explains, dictates translation of government documents into Catalan. This makes it easier to live within a region majorly composed of the speakers of Catalan with the use of Catalan in daily life and in public spaces such as schools, TV programs, stores, public transportation, etc. This designation of a language other than the main Spanish has contributed to the maintenance of--and even an increase in--the number of speakers of Catalan and Basque and has also led to much hostility. Constant pushes against the autonomy and linguistic freedom assigned to these regions persisted in the history of Spain, especially during the area of the dictator Francisco Franco, who wanted to see a more unified and traditional Spain. This heritage led to violent protests and a political atmosphere that we can see to this day in Catalonia. Therefore, such designation of regional rights allowing the use of a certain language more extensively does allow, as Cultural Policies and Trends outlines, public representation of the language, such as on the street and in the news and government, and has a key role in preserving the number of speakers of the language; however, it also threatens to lead to disunion and a lack of cohesiveness and inclusivity in the long term as intolerance blooms on all sides and common ground is lost.

Absence of an Official or National Language

The U.S. is an example of a state without an official or national language. In the U.S., the Constitution makes no mention of the official language and all languages are legally regarded as equal; a person born in the United States could theoretically live a normal life without ever learning the dominant, de facto English. Although the dominantly-spoken English may not be required on TV or in schools, such as the case in France with French, English is still spoken by the majority of the US population. Knowledge of English is also one of the requirements when taking the citizenship test, which is one of the ways someone is designated as an “American”, so it could be argued that it is the national language. English is also necessary to obtain many jobs or participate in higher education. However, the absence of an official requirement of English makes it easier to request translations of official documents, allows for the participation of a greater amount of people in the economy, and makes it possible for many non-English or bilingual schools to exist, which supports children trying to maintain fluency in different languages. Additionally, the complexity of the U.S. identity prevents English from defining the national identity of a U.S. citizen, so it is lacking some components of a national language, especially compared to the French language which is not only the most spoken language in France but also has a long tradition of bonding society. 

This does not guarantee that the society will remain cohesive, as not having a unifying language leads to, as CNN points out, a questioning of how the national identity is defined. It also contributes to the problem of segregation, as immigrants either assimilate into the dominant English over time or are perceived as the other when they choose to only live alongside speakers of the same language and are unable to easily communicate their thoughts to English speakers. While the potential for otherization and self-segregation coming from this lack of an official unifying language is a reason for concern, by not having a national or official language the U.S. has the privilege of not being forced to follow the tragedy for multilingualism that was the empire of Spain. The Spanish Empire aggressively imposed a monolingual society upon a multilingual nation, which to this day leaves many nations struggling to protect the rights of speakers of minority languages. Instead of centralizing English and tragically recreating the linguistic experience of the Spanish empire and early English colonization, America should rather focus on using the linguistic fluidity offered by the Constitution, which did not label a national language, in order to create a society that is inclusive towards speakers of all languages, and try to restore the lost and forgotten native languages of North America. 

Other nations, such as Mexico, do not cite an official language and actively protect the language rights of minorities, including the many indigenous languages that are largely under threat now, as Faingold explains. This arrangement comes from the fact that, unlike in France, there is no need to protect the language of the majority as Spanish is dominant and not threatened, and the problem is rather ensuring the rights of the indigenous people, which is a model that the US could follow. While English and Spanish are the dominant languages of the Americas, the nations of the Americas should focus on separating themselves from the politics of a language equating a nation, which is often predominant in Europe and the “Old World”, and focus on using their inherent diversity to create a national identity that incorporates fully speakers of all languages.

Official Language with Provisions for Minorities

India is famous for being multiethnic and multilingual, but it also claims constitutionally that Hindu is used officially to unify the diverse provinces and allow for the cohesion of the many ethnicities. Unlike France, it allows many provisions to the variety of minority groups, and unlike Spain, it does not necessarily restrict this to regions to prevent partitioning. In practice, this means that schools are able to instruct in many different languages and there is freedom on how things are commercialized. Publications on the national level could also be in different languages. On the other hand, the higher education and courts operate in Hindu or English, due to the colonial heritage. This means that speakers of languages other than Hindu or English are at a great disadvantage when it comes to acquiring higher education and succeeding in “higher” levels of society. As Sharma observes, this translated into a decrease in publications in languages other than Hindu and English and a decrease in speakers of the minority languages as Hindu and English are necessitated for success in the society. This reduction in multilingualism in India is concerning, as the country is supposed to be priding itself in its very multilingual nature. 

Multiple Official and National Languages

Switzerland is a country that relies on German, French, Italian, and Romansch, and all except for Romansch have equal status as the official and national language. This means that government documents and proceedings, schools, TVs, and daily life, in general, could happen in any of those languages, and the majority of people are at least bilingual, so the system works. However, this not only makes taking off with Swiss airplanes very long as the welcoming and instructions are said in all languages but also, for some countries such as India, can result in a confusing, impossibly time-consuming translations. While the Swiss model is something to consider (and something that is also followed in multinational organizations such as the EU), it has its drawbacks of requiring reforms in the education system and huge investments in translations in order to also ensure that the society remains cohesive. 

Conclusion

To conclude, in a situation where many languages are spoken in a small area, it appears the easiest and most realistic approach is to have one lingua franca in order to ensure cohesiveness. However, this should not mean that all public affairs should occur only in one language. It would be especially dangerous for maintaining the number of speakers of a minority language, and thus ensuring that the language survives, to take the language outside of schools, TVs, and stores, as this most often leads to alienation of young generations from their mother tongues and reaffirms the domination of colonial heritage. Perhaps the idea of having one official language (so that there are grounds for mutual understanding), no national language (so speakers of all languages are seen as constituents of that nation and an inclusive environment is maintained), and many provisions to minority languages, especially when it comes to educational opportunities, so that the number of speakers is maintained, proves to be the best track of thinking in order to achieve a more just, welcoming, united, and tolerant society in the future.