Populism: A Way Forward?

The modern political landscape appears dominated by populist movements. Most recently, populism has been associated with the Trump administration, Brexit, anti-establishment, etc., but it seems that there is little time taken to sit down and think through where populism comes from, what its implications are, and if it is in fact inherently negative, as the media often paints it to be nowadays. The core definition of populism is that of a movement aimed at ordinary people with political parties and leaders focused on granting the wishes of the people. Therefore, it is meant to propel leaders that are best at appealing to and advocating for the masses and citizens that come from different walks of life. At its core, populism does not necessarily seem like the worst political approach possible; in fact, it seems quite intuitive to democracy. The problem comes when leaders misuse their populist appeal to control all aspects of the government and downplay the importance of stable political and economic systems, ultimately allowing for the country’s downfall. 

More recently, populism has also been associated with more nationalist and nativist tendencies of some areas of the world, most particularly the US and Europe, which adds on to the drawbacks of populist appeal. However, all of this does not mean that populism as an idea is at its core a “dirty word.” It should be important to instead analyze the development of modern populism and learn from previous mistakes thus enabling the intuitive and positive aspects of populism to shine. Some of these positive aspects are that populism indeed seems intuitive to democracy, populist leaders tend to shine light on a previously ignored group in society, at least historically, and populism may be a step towards more constructive and lasting solutions, enabling citizens from all walks of life to feel like true participants in their country. In order for these events to happen, however, it is important to acknowledge the need for the populist leader to avoid creating a cult of personality, and by extension, meddling with the country’s institutions that guarantee accountability and balanced functioning of society. 

The Roots of Populism

Early populism is most often associated with post-WWII regimes of Latin America such as Peron in Argentina and Vargas in Brazil where leaders had a very direct relationship with the voters and grounded their career in promises to the citizenry. This type of approach grounded itself in flawed processes of modernization and the need of the masses to embrace a new system and a new link of trust with the political authority. Elites were no longer seen as trustworthy, and leaders that were more approachable, direct, and trust-provoking in the promised policy were necessitated. People such as Peron and Vargas were able to fulfill this void. However, in these early cases, there is already this notion of a cult of personality forming, one clear piece of evidence being that Peron’s wife bore significant influence on the political life of the state to the point that she took over the leadership at some point; although she appeared to have basic qualifications to lead and debatable successes in her role, this also showcases the trust that the people put in the entirety of the Peron family. “Peronismo'' remains a term that people use to refer to their political style, which also bears witness to the vitality and centrality the political movement has on one person, that person being Peron. Latin America itself, being the “cradle of populism” in the sense that its modern manifestations can be traced to originate from the region, also bears witness to other types of such politics centered around one charismatic leader, which is a key characteristic of populist leaders. “Chavismo” is one particularly prominent term meant to refer to the politics of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Populism is now evolving and becoming increasingly a buzzword in the worldwide political scene. Political figures such as Trump in the US, Boris Johnson in the UK, and even Putin in Russia are being assigned the title of a populist leader, which adds further dynamics and scope to populism as a term and a movement. 

Problematics of Populism

The origin of populism’s negative manifestations lies in the potency of the leader and centralization of power that may bear negative consequences. While this may not be at its core an intent of the populist movement and sentiment, a leader that is capable of charismatically moving the masses is also likely to be able to accumulate power, and, historically, leaders described as populist seem to have a natural drive to conserve and accumulate power. This results in a vacuum being left in a state after the leader’s death or change in leadership, which creates space for deterioration of political and social cohesion further weakening the core aspects allowing the society to function. Another consequence is high inflation rates as a result of the populist leader or party’s drive to fulfill the wishes and needs of the people. After all, the populist campaign is focused on the appeal to the voters en masse which means that, and especially so in left-wing populist movements, many wages increase, the investment rate gets magnified, and the populist political leadership after being selected is then called upon to fulfill these promises. In order to maintain support, populist governments have been known to make risky economic decisions tolerating quite grand public spending and refocusing or narrowing the economy in attempts to increase progress and provide jobs and satisfaction for the people that would over time result in catastrophic inflation and other economic outcomes. The recent developments in Venezuela, tied with populist origins in politics of Chavez and Maduro, bear witness to this the most. 

Another crucial reason for flaws within the populist approach is that, especially in more recent “western” examples, populism tends to be rather right-wing as opposed to traditionally left-wing, so populist leaders focus their appeal on specific societal groups, which often fall along race or ethnic lines, creating divisive, hateful rhetoric and deteriorating social cohesion instead of building it up by promoting inclusion of the marginalized and better cooperation. This is a grave issue and one that certainly should not be ignored when considering the potential of populism. It should also be noted that this turn of events which painted modern populism in such a divisive light is very paradoxical to the promise of the populist agenda to ease the struggle of society’s underappreciated citizens and bring about further inclusion of the marginalized to the society by questioning and reconstructing existing elitist framework. The reason is that while putting faith in the mass vote and focusing on wide appeal would attract diverse audiences, the masses can either be mostly supportive or disapproving of some core issues, such as very popularly in modern times, the issue of migration. This means that if xenophobic sentiment already nestled within the country’s demographic and social composition, a populist leader would just further extend this problem. 

The Benefits of Populism 

However, there are many reasons why populism is, after all, not seen in a completely negative light. While the drawbacks certainly are there and remain very unpredictable and dangerous, it also holds true that there are certain positive aspects. One is the very heart of the populist movement which is the appeal to the “ordinary” people. This has the potential to promote democratic values and function as populist leaders turn their attention to people on the ground and listen to the popular demands. Even in cases where a populist administration saw the eventual economic demise of the country, as with the case of Venezuela, leaders such as Chavez were able to appeal to rural and indigenous communities that previously never gained much attention from the political leadership. Populism thus has the potential to move politics beyond the Ivory Tower and the elite and to the people that actually make up the majority of the state communities and are waiting to finally see their demands met. While this does not automatically mean that these demands will indeed be met, that they will be met without graver consequences, or that there will ultimately be political turmoil and abuse of power, it also poses a foundation to creating a more inclusive society and one in which the political leadership listens to demands of the top. 

Furthermore, populist regimes have at times been very successful in their implementation of revolutionary policies with wide appeal. Populism has evolved to match the reality of the neoliberal market and is now focusing its appeal on stronger and more efficient social programs. The recent Pink Tide populism seen across various countries in Latin America has seen a turn away from neoliberal policies and provided, or at least began to provide, a viable alternative. These states are not necessarily as rigid and overly controlling as previous examples of populist regimes, but they have come to realize their position as a negotiator between policy and the people, and as a consequence have developed to become more fluid and responsive to the citizenry. These are some ideals highly desired of the political leadership in order to move the country and democracy forward. 

A Way Forward

Populism certainly has the potential to contribute to the creation of authoritarian and xenophobic modus operandi on a state level, but this may be more connected to the way that societal institutions already in place allow such populist sentiment to flourish. If the existing institutions already allow for a lack of accountability and unfair centralization of power, it is easier for charismatic leaders to spiral out of control and assume too much power with too little accountability, resulting in a dictatorial scenario. If institutions that are in place as populist leaders are ascending to their role allow for creation of a cult of personality and do not strongly protect balanced distribution of power or ensure protection of minority rights for example, then damage is likely to happen in terms of social cohesion and the protection of minorities or those of contrary opinion. This means that ultimately there would be less potential for a healthy democracy. 

This does not mean that populism should or even can be fully abandoned. Instead, as populist movements do not seem to wane but rather evolve, it may be better to embrace positive aspects of populism and look for ways to put mechanisms in place that would support and nurture the positive aspects of populism, such as emphasizing the focus on the actual people. On the other hand, negative aspects should be prevented from manifesting, such as the overtaking of power by the president and the ruling party or protection of only specific portions of citizens. In a world so often tortured by negative outcomes of neoliberalism such as environmental damage, worker exploitation, and ever-present expansion of corporations with monopolistic tendencies, nurturing the connection between the political top and the people that actually make up the country and are the majority may be just what is needed to bypass these elitist and exploitative tendencies of the modern world. 

A thorough way to begin ensuring that positive aspects of populism are amplified while negative aspects are addressed and contained is to: 1) ensure constitutional protection of freedoms such as freedom of expression, the press, political opinion etc., 2) ensure constitutional protection of minorities, 3) ensure clearly defined and unamendable division of powers that would control the president and the ruling party from overpowering the rest of society, 4) make space for civic education that would ensure that the “ordinary” citizens to whom the populist appeal is targeted are voting with conscience and sufficient knowledge and understanding of the implications of the policies, and 5) ensure, even constitutionally, a strong, diverse, and inclusive economy, preventing the president from single-handedly changing economic policies while also allowing the president to call upon these values of inclusion and diversity in order to promote the will of the citizenry. Such measures would limit the power of the president while simultaneously respecting the will of those that make up the state and are often overlooked or unheard as they would ensure checks and balances, protections, and space available to promote social cohesion and a healthy democracy and economy, meaning a populist government would not mean the end to civil liberties or the destruction of minorities. 

UN Peacekeeping and the Biden Administration

President-Elect Joe Biden will become the 46th President of the United States on January 20th, 2021. When he takes office, a host of pressing issues such as the pandemic, the recession, and the deep political divisions in this country will quickly occupy his time. While a relatively minor issue for the US president, the US plays a key role in the world of UN peacekeeping. Despite its political transition having more in common with the deeply unstable states that UN peacekeepers operate in, the US is responsible for 27.89% of peacekeeping funding (by far the largest contributor) and as a P5 member it has significant influence in where, when, and how peacekeepers operate. Peacekeeping is not a major part of Joe Biden's platform, or part of the American foreign policy discourse at all. In fact, it appears that he has not mentioned peacekeeping in any of his campaign speeches or campaign policy documents. Thus, in order to determine what the relationship between UN peacekeeping and the Biden Administration will look like, we must look at his relationship with UN peacekeeping as a senator and vice president, the Trump Administration's relationship with UN peacekeeping, and the immediate challenges UN peacekeeping will face going into Biden's term of office.  

Joe Biden and UN Peacekeeping

While UN peacekeeping first started in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it was only after the end of the Cold War that the US became a strong and active participant in the UN peacekeeping system. As a prominent member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during that time period, then-Senator Biden established himself as a strong proponent of the increasing US role in UN peacekeeping operations. Most notable, he sponsored S.J. RES. 112, a 1993 piece of legislation that would have allowed the President to put US military units under UN command. While that specific resolution did not pass, US troops became frequent participants in UN peacekeeping missions during the same time period, serving in Somalia, Haiti, and the former Yugoslavia, often under a parallel command structure (where the US and UN forces frequently coordinate and share the same objectives, but have different commanders). At the time US foreign policy makers thought UN peacekeeping was an effective mechanism for collective security that the US should be a strong participant in. For example, then Senator David Boren (D-OK) said "while Americans want something done, they do not want to do it alone." These feelings would sour a few months after the resolution was introduced, when 19 Americans were killed in Mogadishu.

Almost overnight, American public opinion turned against the UN and UN peacekeeping. The American public did not want to risk the lives of American troops for purely humanitarian reasons. The US pulled out of Somalia, stopped deployments to Haiti, and has never been a major troop contributing country since. Some congressional Republicans, led by North Carolina Senator Jesse Helms, wanted to go even farther, and tried to cut US funding towards the UN entirely. Biden got Helms to stand down and forged a compromise that ensured the US would pay its bills, in exchange for increased UN accountability.  

Biden was tapped for the vice presidency because of his extensive foreign policy experience, and because of that he played a key role in guiding the relationship between the Obama Administration and UN peacekeeping. Most notably, he hosted a major summit on UN peacekeeping in September 2014, alongside the Secretary-General and representatives from dozens of major contributing countries. In his opening address he highlighted his personal support for peacekeeping, stating that “men and women sometimes from halfway around the world risk their lives to protect peace on the fault lines of conflict is one of the great achievements of this international system.” 

UN Peacekeeping and the Past Two Presidential Administrations

While the Obama Administration never contributed significant numbers of troops to UN operations, it did play a key role in peacekeeping in three major ways. First, it remained the leading funder of UN peace operations, contributing several billion dollars to UN missions over the course of the Administration. In addition, it used its extensive military experience and military budget to increase the professional capability of  UN troop contributing countries such as  Ghana, Ethiopia, and Rwanda, as well as training for UN forces in the field. Finally, it provided substantial logistical support in the form of air transportation and aerial refueling, especially for UN missions in the Sahel region. In the Security Council, the Obama Administration was a relatively strong supporter of UN peacekeeping, advocating for frequent deployments of UN peacekeepers and strongly supporting ongoing missions.

This would largely change during the Trump Administration once it took over in 2017. Republicans traditionally take the UN, with its multilateral systems, with significantly more distrust than Democrats. President Trump, with his frequent rambling about “globalists'' severely disliked the UN, even by Republican standards. Being openly mocked while giving a 2018 speech to the general assembly certainly did not help matters. While the author is unsure if Trump even knows what UN peacekeeping is, his Administration was extremely detrimental to its smooth functioning. The Trump Administration, led by then-UN Ambassador Nikki Haley, significantly cut US funding for peace operations. It also left the UN Human Rights Council and  limited US global leadership on the human rights issues peacekeepers work every day to protect. The administration also stopped paying its bills, accumulating a whopping $900 million dollars in arrears, or overdue payments, for UN peacekeeping missions. This has signficant hampered the UN’s already stretched-thin peacekeeping capacity, impacting mission quality. 

Peacekeeping Over the Next Four Years

The pandemic has been the largest disruption of global order since the Second World War. Since they operate in areas most frequently affected by crisis and chaos, peacekeepers are experiencing significant changes in their duties and resources because of the pandemic. In the short term, UN peacekeepers are preparing for COVID outbreaks in their areas of operations, drawing on extensive experience operating alongside Ebola outbreaks in Liberia in 2014 and the DRC in 2019. In addition, major troop contributors are under domestic pressure to limit their troop deployments because of the pandemic. A major report on the matter identified three major long term issues for UN peacekeeping. First, the coronavirus and global recession is likely to decrease state capacity and increase conflict worldwide, necessitating more UN deployments. Second, UN member states will be under financial pressure to cut their UN funding, again due to the recession. Finally, the coronavirus has increased disagreement and conflict on the Security Council, which decreases the efficacy of new and existing UN peacekeeping missions.

Joe Biden will take office in a time when the UN peacekeeping system is under extreme stress due to the pandemic and the recession. As mentioned earlier, we have no clear picture of how President Biden will approach UN peacekeeping. He has given no public statements, speeches, or policy documents on the matter. With that in mind, we can predict how he will act towards UN peacekeeping through his previous interactions with the institution.

That history, written in detail above, suggests that he will be a supporter of UN peace operations. While he can’t solve the many issues that are about to hit the UN, he can help resolve some of them. Most notably, the funding issue. The Obama administration always paid their UN bills, and tried to increase US funding for the UN. The significant arrears accumulated during the Trump terms will finally be paid. In addition, a prospective Biden Administration will most likely be significantly better at managing the Security Council than the Trump Administration was, being less prone to causing major diplomatic rows by, for example, calling the coronavirus the “China Virus” or assassinating an important Iranian official.

In addition, we can determine part of the Bidens administration's attitude towards UN peacekeeping by analyzing his pick for UN ambassador, career diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield. The UN ambassador is the primary link between the US and UN peacekeeping, so their attitudes and ideas are particularly relevant. For example Samantha Power, Obama’s UN ambassador, was a strong proponent of robust and aggressive peacekeeping operations, influenced by her experiences as a war correspondent. Thomas-Greenfield was  Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs during the Obama years, in which capacity she was responsible for overseeing the logistical, training, and support missions (mentioned earlier) that were the Obama administration's main commitment to UN peacekeeping. She was extremely successful in that capacity, and is well regarded as extremely knowledgeable and competent in peacekeeping affairs. She was also present in Rwanda during the 1994 genocide, generally regarded as UN peacekeepings greatest failure. While it is unclear how that event affected her worldview, frequently witnesses to such tragedies tend to lobby for more robust and capable peacekeeping operations to prevent them from occurring again.

People who want the US to take a more active role in UN peacekeeping will most likely be disappointed. While Biden has a long and strong history with peacekeeping, his administration will represent a continuity, rather than a change, from the Obama Administration. Since the “Black Hawk Down” incident, US presidents have supported peacekeeping operations financially, logistically, and on the Security Council, but never as a troop contributing country. Presidential Decision Directive 25, an executive order signed by President Bill Clinton in the aftermath of the Somalia debacle, put a lid on US troop participation in UN missions and has never seriously been re-examined or challenged. For it to be overturned and for US troops to become a key player in UN operations again, there would have to be a significant shift in public opinion towards UN peacekeeping as an institution, one that is unlikely to occur over the course of Biden’s term. Despite that, the election of Joe Biden should be viewed as excellent news by those in the peacekeeping field. The American support that has been so clearly lacking over the last four years will be restored, in a time where it is desperately needed the most.

The Rise of the Far-Right in France: Understanding How National Rally Leader, Marine Le Pen, Has Used Tragedy of Recent Terrorist Attacks as a Political Weapon

In 2015, France was rocked by six deadly terrorist attacks, mostly notably the Charlie Hebdo attack and the November 13-14 attacks, that etched a permanent mark onto the nation’s psyche. Yet five years later, the effects of terrorism continue to plague France, demonstrated by the recent beheading of Samuel Paty, a french school teacher killed for showing his students a depiction of the prophet Muhommad in class, and the stabbings in a church in Nice just days later. 

Samuel Paty was a dedicated school teacher in Conflans-Sainte-Honorine who taught at a middle school in a suburb of Paris. Paty taught a class on freedom of speech and expression to his middle school students. During one of these lessons, he showed cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad created by the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Following this lesson, parents at the school expressed disapproval towards Paty’s actions, and posts on various social media sites were created to discuss Paty’s behaviour. Abdoullakh Abouyedovich Anzorov was an eighteen year old Muslim Russian refugee who learned of Paty’s actions through social media, and beheaded him with in the street. After murdering Paty, Anzorov was shot and killed by police. As a result of Paty’s murder, over ten people have been charged in connection to the crime. 

However, now France finds itself in a new predicament. As French President, Emmanuel Macron, struggles to hold the country together amidst both the COVID-19 pandemic and recent terrorist attacks, France’s political far-right is pursuing this terrorist attack as an opportunity to gain political support. 

Understanding the rise of the National Rally 

The National Rally (formally known as the National Front) is a far right political party headed by Marine le Pen in France, known for its controversy, racism, and xenophobia from their many critics. Now, the National Rally is using the recent terrorist attacks as a political tactic, hoping to gain voters who have turned away from Macron’s approach, following his widely criticized pension reform which led to intense protesting and riots. 

Although the National Rally has played a role in French politics for decades, its image and political success, in the form of electoral votes and political representation in government, has increased in recent years. First founded in 1972, by Jean-Marie le Pen, father of Marine le Pen, it was a party of disgruntled veterans, known for its anti-semitism, sexism, racism, and shared many similarities with former European fascist governments. The party formerly known as the National Front struggled to gain traction for decades, regarded by the French public as both a joke and a controversy; the party has been considered by many French citizens as an embarrassing example of a political group that cannot embrace the values that many French citizens prioritize, such as European integration within the European Union, equality for all French citizens, and immigration. Everything changed after Marine le Pen replaced her father as leader of the National Rally, ushering in a new era and image for the party. Under the guidance of Marine le Pen the party evolved from a national joke to a dominating player within French politics. 

Over time Marine le Pen reformed the party, leaving behind the Holocaust denial, sexism, and overt anti-semitism, replacing it with new issues: immigration, the eurozone, and a constant tirade against Muslims. Many of the former issues campaigned for by the party are now considered too far-right and too extreme; by focusing on more present issues that appear in current events, Marine le Pen has created a modern image and a party that fits into France’s current political climate. 

  Not only did Marine le Pen replace the party’s key issues, but she also adapted its political strategy, in an attempt to appeal to a broader audience. The National Rally worked to appeal to young people and women, two groups largely missing from its previous audience. The party found strongholds in rural areas and areas where unemployment is high and voters feel left behind by modern France, such as the Northern mining regions and the Southern coast of France. Studying the political psychology behind Marine le Pen’s supporters reveals that many of them feel ignored and betrayed by the modernization and urbanization of France. As cities such as Paris and Marseille become more diverse, there is an increasing sense amongst National Rally supporters that France is losing its “Frenchness.” A concept that manifests itself in the smallest ways, such as an interview at an event for the National Rally where supporters proudly explain that at this event they are only selling French crepes, no kebabs. As France becomes more diverse, there is a sense amongst some French voters that their identity and pride is being robbed from them, a sentiment that has propelled them into the arms of the National Rally. 

 The party’s creation of National Rally youth groups created a new generation of dedicated voters, devoting themselves to the party’s ideals. Fully embracing local politics allowed the party to achieve new ground. By using mayoral races to establish control in small cities across France, the National Rally has discovered how dominating the mayoral office in one small city will eventually lead to control throughout the region. The prioritization of local level politics has allowed voters to create strong ties to the party, something the National Rally has used to help them gain access to bigger positions. 

The 2017 French presidential election marked a defining moment for the party. Although Macron succeeded in his youthful and energetic campaign, the National Rally achieved unprecedented electoral success. Despite Macron winning by a large thirty point margin, the National Rally achieved 35% of the vote, demonstrating their success from a fringe political party to a serious mainstream one. Yet Macron’s optimism, and his ability to cast himself as an outsider and newcomer against the culture of elitism and nepotism that Marine le Pen represents, allowed him to succeed in the end. In contrast to Macron’s upbeat rallies that took a cue from Obama’s 2008 election campaign, the darker undertones of fear and anger in Le Pen’s rallies just could not compete. Yet most notably, Marine le Pen refused to back down following her defeat. She vowed to strengthen her party even more, through widening their ever-growing base and changing their tactics. 

In the three years following the 2017 presidential election Marine le Pen has held true to her promise. She officially changed the name from the National Front to the National Rally, echoing a further disconnect from the party of her father. The party also found success in the 2018 European Parliament elections, where the National Rally defeated Macron’s centrist party, winning 23% of the vote. With frustration over Macron growing, a pandemic with no end in sight, and an increase in terrorist attacks, Marine le Pen appears poised to dominate the political landscape in France. 

Response to terrorist attacks 

Following the brutal murder of Samuel Paty, President Macron gave a series of speeches that caused outrage across part of the world. Macron promised to use harsh measures against Islamic extremism. Macron’s administration has closed mosques and banned certain Islamic groups. In his speeches, Macron has referenced the importance of France’s laws and culture surrounding freedom of speech; he has also praised French secularism. Although his remarks garnered support amongst the French public, they have struck a chord with the Islamic world. 

In Turkey, President Erdogan claimed Macron has “lost his way,” leading to a diplomatic argument over Macron’s response. Meawhile Pakistan’s Prime Minister, Imran Kahn, reported that Macron chose "to encourage Islamophobia by attacking Islam rather than the terrorists." Outrage over Macron’s remarks has led to a boycott of French goods in Muslim countries throughout the Middle East and Asia. Anti-French protests have all seen an uptick, where images of Macron’s face are frequently defiled. 

Macron has also been criticized for alienating the almost six million Muslims currently living in France (the largest Muslim population in all of Europe). Reports of French Muslims feeling afraid and unwelcomed in their own country has fueled anger towards Macron’s recent statements and policies on terrorism. 

By far the most controversial aspect of Macron’s recent statements is his suggestion that Islam be enlightened so as to better fit into secular France. In recent years France has used their secular power to ban burquas worn by Muslim women. Now, Macron is pushing for more compromise amongst French Muslims, such as decreasing funding given to French Muslim communities. France is a proud secular country, one that sees separation of church and state as a marker of progress and modernity. While this statement has been regarded by some as simply an extension of French imperialism banning non-western practices, Macron claims that his remarks were misinterpreted; he was only only trying to prevent the radicalisation of Islam that was the motivator behind many recent French terrorist attacks. However, critics of Macron claim that their interpretation of Macron’s statement was correct based on Macron’s recent proposal to reform Islam in France. Macron’s proposals include dissolution of many French Muslim associations, a decreasing of funds sent to Muslim communities, and a certificate training programs for imams (a leader of Muslim worshippers). All of these policies are aimed at reforming Islam in a way that best suits French society, and to prevent the radicalization of Islam that is behind many recent terrorist attacks. 

Yet despite Macron’s response being harsly criticized by many across the world, it appears as though many French citizens resonate with his opinions following the murder of Samuel Paty. According to a poll of French citizens following Paty’s death by the Institute for Opinion and Marketing Studies in France and Internationally over 87% of French citizens believe that French secularism is at risk. Adding to that, 89% of French citizens believe the risk of terrorism is very high. Perhaps the most shocking results of this study found that 79% believe that Islam has declared war on France. The results from the survey also vary based on political party. Supporters of the National Rally showed much higher percentages in responses to the questions above. 

Marine le Pen’s Response

Knowing both the controversy surrounding Macron’s statements and the current opinion of the public, it has come at no surprise that Marine le Pen would use this tragedy to appeal to the French people. 

Marine le Pen has spent much of the last decade critiquing the role of Islam in France. She has made frequent pushes to end immigration for people from Islamic countries into France, notoriously stating, “We support putting a stop to immigration.” Le Pen has also been an outspoken critic of the burqa in France, showing disdain for any form of head covering worn by Muslim women. Following the attack, Marine le Pen proposed a ban on headscarves worn by Muslim women in public. 

In response to Paty’s murder, Le Pen declared that France was at war against Islam as an ideology, potentially hoping to draw in more supporters with her view of Islam as the enemy. Indeed, metaphors of war are now a crucial part of Marine le Pen’s vocabulary following Paty’s murder, which can easily be seen as a political tactic. Marine le Pen declared that France was in need of wartime legislation against the force that is Islam. Her statements are not new or suprising, but with every passing terrorist attack Marine le Pen can be seen eagerly speaking out against the dangers of Islam and immigration, two her of party’s most defining issues. However this time Marine le Pen’s response appears even more calculated, mostly likely given the upcoming election in 2022. 

A Chance for Victory 

After the National Rally’s shocking success in the 2017 election, and their wins in the 2018 parliamentary elections, many members of the National Rally believe that the 2022 presidential election will finally Fbring them the victory they so desperately want. Knowing this, it is impossible to view Marine le Pen’s recent statements and not see them as clever tactic, designed to sway voters who are already fearful over the dangers of terrorism and radical Islamists. 

Le Pen hopes to capitalize on the key issues within her party, Islam and immigration, and with recent terrorist attacks on peoples minds, these issues will most likely become crucial talking points throughout the election. Supporters of the National Rally have reason to believe in a victory for Marine le Pen. Macron has not proven himself to be the young, enigmatic leader he appeared as during his campaign. Economic issues, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Yellow Vest Movement in 2019, the series of protests against pension reform and widespread economic issues that have plagued France, have all damaged both Macron’s base and his popularity. Now, with anger over recent terrorist attacks that show no signs of stopping, Macron’s once charming charisma and centrist views look less appealing to French voters. Perhaps this time the National Rally’s views will appeal to the majority of French voters, leading to a victory for Marine le Pen in 2022. 

Does Mexico really win from USMCA?: An Analysis of Mexico’s Political Economy in NAFTA and USMCA

Introduction 

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) stands as the textbook example for an ideal regional trade agreement. Fundamentally, regional trade agreements like NAFTA benefit all participating countries by increasing the inflow of foreign investment and the significance of global value chains of participating countries. Additionally, regional integration, like the case of NAFTA, softens physical borders between countries. NAFTA is recognized by many as the most significant regional trade agreement for inspiring other regions to create preferential trade agreements in the 21st century. For Mexico individually, the ratification of NAFTA in 1994 was its breakthrough into the international trading system. Additionally, NAFTA integrated Mexico's developing economy with the two developed economies of the United States and Canada. While on the one hand, NAFTA signaled Mexico's breakthrough into the international trading system, on the other, it placed pressure on Mexico to implement liberal trade policies to maintain the efficiency of the trade agreement.

For Mexico, after 25 years, NAFTA does not yield the same impacts it did when first ratified.  

The changing effects of NAFTA on the Mexican economy stem from a combination of factors Mexico can and cannot influence. For example, the emerging significance of new global powers in the international trading system impacted the amount of trade entering Mexico. Take the example of China emerging as a dominant trading partner. What made China an attractive trading partner to multiple countries was its low cost of production and labor. Since these characteristics of low production are the same characteristics that made Mexico an attractive trading partner to countries, trade ultimately was diverted away from Mexico to China. Although Mexico cannot influence or determine an event like China rising in the international system, they can, however, control national economic policies that can mitigate the impact of unexpected events. 

To determine whether NAFTA is a useful trade agreement, it is significant to observe Mexico's economy before ratification, the early years after ratification, and, in recent years, considering the ramifications for the new United States-Mexico-Canada trade agreement (USMCA). Analyzing the economic impact of high trade barriers will be one deciding factor as to whether Mexico benefits from free trade or not. This analysis, including the differences between NAFTA and USMCA, will indicate reforms Mexico will need to implement to yield higher benefits from the nearly ratified USMCA.

Origins and Justification of NAFTA

NAFTA operates similarly to other preferential trade agreements with special exceptions. Firstly, NAFTA eliminated all tariffs on imported goods that were not in the agriculture, textile, or automobile industry. For all countries, these three industries are volatile to international trade, so maintaining some form of barrier will attempt to ensure minimal externalities on these three industries arising from international trade. Another significant operation of the NAFTA agreement is the treatment of most-favored-nation status to all members. The definition and practice stemming from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the most-favored-nation status, means that no country in this agreement could treat another member-state any differently.

The operations mentioned are some of the critical elements to the NAFTA agreement, while other mechanisms not mentioned ensure these regulations are met. By having these guidelines in place for bordering countries, movement of factories and goods between each country is made smoother. The special treatment established in this agreement also encourages more trade to be done between the agreed countries. Overall, NAFTA integrates the three countries that would stand against more significant integrated regions such as the European Union (EU) while still maintaining the sovereignty to implement different economic policies. 

The United States and Canada created NAFTA with the hopes of mitigating large flows of migration into the United States and Canada. An objective of NAFTA for these two countries was that the inflow of foreign investments into Mexico would increase the number of economic opportunities in the country, which would ultimately decrease the flow of migration. We later see that while NAFTA did bring forth more economic opportunities and developments into Mexico, it did not evenly distribute benefits throughout the country due to select industries benefiting more than others.

A Pre-NAFTA Mexican Economy

Before ratifying NAFTA in 1994, Mexico engaged in minimal trade. The little trade Mexico did engage in consisted of a high tariff and other forms of non-trade barriers such as import licenses. Import licenses are licenses administered by the national government that permit the importation of certain goods. This practice decreases the average rate of imports, and the revenue generated from these licenses is used to invest in different industries. For an extended period, the high level of investments contributed to the development of capital-based industries.  The development of these industries increased their significance in the Mexican government that ultimately influenced economic policies during times of economic shocks. Between 1970-1981, Mexico suffered an extreme debt crisis that required the government to implement liberal trade policies to gain an alternative form of revenue. These policies were short-lived, however, once individual industries noticed harmful effects such as increased imports and high consumer prices. Industries' influence caused these liberal trade policies to be repealed. Industries also influenced economic policy  in 1982 when Mexico transitioned into a business-orientated government, which began a four-step approach to transition Mexico into an open economy. Parallel to this four-step approach, discussions for a bilateral trade agreement between the United States and Mexico were underway.

Due to the discussion of a possible trade agreement with the United States coinciding with Mexico's massive wave of liberal trade policies, many trade policies implemented at this time appeased the interest of the United States. More specifically, policies that incentivized foreign investments are among some of the policies which appeased the United States to further negotiate the possibilities of a trade agreement. 

Before NAFTA, economic shocks were driving factors for Mexico to become more open to international trade. The influence of specific industries, however, prevented at times the government from  implementing specific economic policies. When the discussions for a bilateral trade agreement between the United States and China were underway, Mexico's agenda shifted to implementing strings of liberal trade policies to appease the United States. By crafting trade policies that molded the interest of the United States, it ultimately influenced Mexico's economic relationship with the United States. We see these policies play a significant role later as it ultimately influences how Mexico conducts future trade agreements with other countries. 

The Early Impacts of NAFTA

Research shows that  the net effects of NAFTA on the Mexican economy were generally positive. Although economic shocks could skew any economic fluctuation at this time, even with these events considered, the total net effects of NAFTA are still positive. First and arguably most significant is Mexico's convergence to the development of Canada and the United States. The net inflow of foreign investments to Mexico introduced new technological innovations in the country. New technological innovations caused Mexican national firms to reform their structure to match the rigid standards of the United States and Canada. Reforms made many national Mexican firms increase the quality of jobs in Mexico and contributed to an increase in the national average wage. These structural reforms led to economic and policy reforms that made Mexico better equipped for surprise economic events. 

Although NAFTA is credited for the overall development of Mexico, the effects, however, did create different inequalities. For example, the technological innovations that were introduced in select industries, which ultimately branched out to the overall development of individual states. The concentration of innovative development in only select industries meant that wage increases were only distributed to a specific group of individuals. On the same note, since the creation of jobs was concentrated in select industries, there is no substantial change in the unemployment and poverty rate made by NAFTA.

While NAFTA did increase the overall development of Mexico, the concentrated development of different states caused little societal improvement. Because of this little improvement, issues such as poverty and migration remained prevalent throughout all years NAFTA has been implemented. 

Differences between USMCA and NAFTA

Newly devised provisions in USMCA mostly surround the automobile and agriculture industry. Seeing that the automobile industry is one of the largest integrated industries within the agreement, new regulations and standards in the automobile industry are proposed in USMCA to better concentrate car manufacturing in North America. Additionally, for automobiles to receive no tariff a minimum of 75% of the car must be produced either in the United States, Mexico or Canada. USMCA provisions regarding the automobile industry help ensure that the automobile industry remains as a unified industry in North America and prevents large portions of manufacturing from being outsourced. Agriculture based provisions mostly pertain to the market access between the United States and Canada. Besides granting the United States more access to Canada’s agriculture sector, other agriculture provisions include increasing transparency in sanitary and biotechnology changes. 

    The Mexican agriculture industry has experienced both the positive and negative effects of NAFTA. While NAFTA increased Mexican exports to both the United States and Mexico, there were still some level of trade barriers which lessened Mexico’s benefit in exporting agriculture products. 

Policy Recommendation: Export Diversification and The Pacific Alliance 

Considering the economic integration between Mexico and the United States, diversifying exports will make Mexico’s economy less dependent and reactionary to the United States. Diversifying Mexico’s exports will also allow the country to branch out and strengthen established economic partnerships already in place. Efforts recommended in an attempt to close the gap between what NAFTA was supposed to achieve and what it achieved.

There are current efforts made by the Ministry of Economy to diversify Mexico’s export portfolio. Current efforts prioritize the development of small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) as well as increase their financial confidence. Through specific initiatives and forms of investments, the Ministry hopes for an increase in bank investments in SMEs to increase productivity and competition. Due to the uneven development of sectors and states in Mexico, current efforts will ideally close the unemployment rate across sectors and states. By developing under-developed sectors, it will increase productivity in the market, which in turn will increase the total amount of exports. Collaborating with banks, offering forms of financial assistance and consultancy to small businesses will ideally increase economic opportunities for states that did not feel all the benefits from NAFTA.

    An economic partnership that can strengthen Mexico’s export diversification is the Pacific Alliance. An economic partnership between Mexico, Colombia, Chile, and Peru, these four countries comprise half the exports that leave Latin America. This partnership originated as a free trade agreement, which has now branched into integrating more aspects of each country’s economy, such as a unified stock market and single passport usage, to name a few. The overarching goal of this partnership is for it to expand to more Latin American countries to strengthen intra-regional trade. Although there is an already established Free Trade Area of the Americas, a trade agreement with the Pacific Alliance and more Latin American countries would be one of the few Pan-American trading agreements that do not include the United States. Despite the challenges which lie ahead for the Pacific Alliance becoming a stronger partnership, Mexico can take initiatives that will allow it to emerge as the leader of the Alliance. Seeing that implementation is the main challenge to further strengthening the Alliance, by implementing policies or standards that are in alignment with the Alliance’s agenda, it will set the model for other countries to follow. 

The Political Implications of Neuralink: A Thought Experiment

In a press conference containing socially-distanced and bewildered engineers, Elon Musk delivered the latest advancements in brain-machine interfaces while extrapolating the possibilities of this nascent technology for human and robot symbiosis. Musk demonstrated how his start-up company, Neuralink, has the potential to solve a wide gamut of brain disabilities from blindness to paraplegia, by recording and displaying the brain signals of test-pig one of three: Gertrude. The current application of Neuralink seems to be a far cry from the wild assertions of its future capabilities. Yet, history has documented several technological breakthroughs that have redefined our understanding of what is possible and proven how quickly these advancements can be made; from Alan Turing’s Robinson machine to the dominating presence of the Internet, the quick movement of technology suggests that the future applications of Neuralink asserted by Musk must be considered. If brain-machine technology bears the chance of reaching AI and human symbiosis, the regulation and national security threats associated with this technology must be re-evaluated sooner than expected.

Technology, at its core, pushes no singular objective but simply reflects the motivations of those who are able to utilize it; when we see technological advancements wreak havoc on vulnerable populations and, just as frequently, shed light on social injustices, the varying results are a consequence of the existence of a diverse set of global actors. With the rise of revisionist powers that challenge the supremacy of the Liberal International Order, and when considering some of the most extraordinary promises of brain-machine interface tech like memory recording, telepathy, and evolution towards AI and human symbiosis, it is imperative to postulate how different state actors are likely to utilize these features to advance conflicting agendas. To convey this divide, imagine the different applications of this emerging technology, which stands the chance of bringing humans and AI into closer alignment with each other, in different political systems. 

As the name suggests, brain-machine interfaces such as Neuralink are developed with the intention to join the human brain with a robotic one — an advancement that will allow the human brain to function more like a computer. With this technology, the data produced through our synapses firing could be collected, stored, and uploaded to an external hard-drive for retrieval. Humans may discover ways to download and process new information at rates that would be virtually incomprehensible to humans who live without a chip. However, unlike a computer, human intentions will still exist, and in states existing under authoritarian rule, technology like this could have severe ramifications on individual liberties and current social structures. Consider, for example, how the Chinese government has used the internet and facial recognition technology to limit citizens’ access to free speech and control their actions. To regulate and monitor internet traffic, the Chinese government has set up state agencies dedicated to censoring information that diverts from their established political agenda. Since the advent of the internet in China, there has been contentious debate on how to regulate the internet to suppress potential political uprisings, and with the Great Firewall initiative and its subsequent extension, Great Cannon, the Chinese government has absolute censorship control over their media and can edit what remains on the internet at a moments notice. The terrifying concept of “sovereign-internet” extends to Russia and North Korea, and it exposes a worrying trend within authoritarian regimes where technology is used as a weapon for oppression rather than a tool for freedom. In the near future, it seems likely that brain-machine interfaces may be used by these authoritarian governments to tighten their surveillance of political dissent by providing them with a mechanism for tracking it.

A general distinction between authoritarian regimes and democracies is the distribution of political power in each; a centralized authority figure is characteristic of the former while the latter is created on the principle of rule by the majority. Brain-machine interfaces can easily be used to the advantage of authoritarian governments to push back more effectively against political upheaval and strengthen their hold on power. Compared to the application of facial-recognition technology in China, where surveillance cameras are heavily used to track citizens and deter opposition, brain-machine interfaces offer a more direct approach to achieve the same agenda of control and one that is not reliant on external factors like good weather. If the production and distribution of these technologies are also controlled by the central authority, it will only further the oppressive agendas of these governments and remove the agency of the people to revolt. A dystopian future may arise in the worst-case scenario of brain-machine interfaces where citizens’ beliefs are molded to mirror the political agendas of individual states and a void is created to replace creative thought and individuality.  

In modern-day democracies, ideals of personal freedom and individuality are used to convey the message of equality, and although more progressive than authoritarian governments, the current institutions of democratic nations are no better equipped to deal with implementing brain-machine interface technologies. As the complete antithesis to the central-power government structure, democracies contain an overflow of distinct moral values and political alignments which, while a conducive environment for constant growth and critical thinking, the sheer volume of opinions and information in democracies contributes to inefficiencies in political change and the rise of interest groups. This notion is evident in countries with “first-past-the-post” electoral systems that elect representatives who receive the most number of votes rather than the majority of votes and encourage pandering to small interest groups. In doing so, the voices of the few are given a larger platform than the needs of the majority and greater political polarization develops. The advent of brain-machine interfaces will only worsen this polarization as social cleavages are exposed between groups who are firm supporters versus those who are adamantly opposed to its implementation. 

The greatest achievement of the internet is its equalizing effect on access to knowledge and new information. However, as the number of individual participants continues to grow and barriers to entry are lowered, more misinformation and unfounded conspiracy theories are bound to spread rapidly. Even more concerning is how the internet can be used as a medium for states to influence the results of other democratic elections, a feat that was achieved by Russia during the U.S 2016 presidential election. If current cybersecurity attacks are difficult to identify and dismantle, the rise of brain-machine interfaces will only exacerbate the issue. The accelerated rate at which data will be created and consumed will have terrible real-world consequences as people are more likely to view and retain misinformation. 

In perhaps the only similarity to authoritarian governments, democratic states also engage in data collection on their citizens. However, the purpose of this monitoring is quite distinct in countries like the United States which use it to fight against terrorism rather than suppress political dissidence. However, this extension of power raises questions on infringement on privacy and civil liberties which led to an intense backlash against the U.S. government when Edward Snowden exposed the NSA for recording and storing large amounts of data on American citizens. Beyond the morally questionable nature of this behavior, the centralized storage of this data could pose great national security risks if any information leak occurred. Liberal democracies are therefore equally unprepared for the consequences of brain-machine interface technologies, and there is a desperate need for international cooperation to deter the threats of it.  

As humans become more reliant on technology and more interconnected with each other, it is likely that today’s technological woes will only be amplified by tomorrow’s revolutionary discoveries. This thought experiment hopes to demonstrate that all political systems — authoritarian or democratic — will not be able to implement technologies like Neuralink without some major breakdown along the chain of command. It is imperative that global actors come together to set agreed-upon norms, aid in the creation of an international organization with the goal of monitoring R&D in individual states and weeding out harmful actors, or simply expand existing platforms. Although the rise of nationalism across the world has had negative effects on international cooperation and openness, the existence of successful regulation on cyberspace in international law is a prime example of how global unity can uphold equitable applications of emerging technologies. Additionally, it is absolutely necessary that this conversation extends beyond state actors to private firms, the scientific community, and most importantly to average citizens, whose lives will be affected the most without proper regulation. Elon Musk’s demonstration with Neuralink solidified the notion that brain-machine interfaces are an inevitable advancement that will uncover the flaws of today’s technological governance and generate new threats as well as opportunities. The only thing left uncertain is whether or not global leaders will have the foresight and international framework to implement it correctly. 

“Subhuman:” An Intersection Between Nationalism and Genocide

At the end of 2019, there were approximately 80 million forcibly displaced persons. This incredibly high number is the culmination of a decade marked by political and social unrest. While cases of forcible displacement can be found in virtually every region of the world, Myanmar produced one of the highest volumes of refugees. This is due to the ongoing genocide of the Rohingya people, a Muslim minority group who have historically resided in the northwest state of Rakhine.  In August 2017, security forces launched a campaign of extreme violence specifically targeting the Rohingya; close to a million people were forced to flee to Bangladesh which is currently home to Kutupalong, the world’s largest refugee camp. While a cursory examination of the crisis may pinpoint the 2017 attacks as a catalyst, the persecution of the Rohingya, and subsequent displacement, spans decades. The Rohingya’s vulnerable status within Myanmar is deeply intertwined with a story of citizenship, identity, and nationalism. In order to fully understand the root causes of the genocide, it is necessary to understand how the rise of Buddhist nationalism has shaped Myanmar’s perception of citizenship and their relationship to the Rohingya. 

An Introduction: Who Are the Rohingya?

The Rohingya have often been treated as a stateless people with no country willing to claim them. In Violent Borders: Refugees and the Right to Move, Reece Jones asserts that Myanmar’s government has long perpetuated the notion that they are immigrants who illegally crossed over from Bangladesh thus denying them citizenship and the rights associated with it; Bangladesh, of course, denies being an origin point. While Myanmar’s government has labeled the Rohinyga as undocumented immigrants, the ethnic group, which practices a Sufi variation of Sunni Islam, can trace their origins to the 15th century kingdom of Arakan. Other Rohingya arrived in the region throughout the 19th and 20th century during British colonial rule. Since independence, Myanmar has refuted the Rohingya’s historical claims and has severely diminished their legal status to virtually nothing. Furthermore, the Rohingya are no strangers to large-scale attacks against them. In 1978, the military displaced 200,000 people in a campaign of killings and rape that mirrors the 2017 attacks. Another campaign in 1991 to 1992 drove an even larger number to Bangladesh.

In 1982, the military government passed the Citizenship Law which is seen as a violation of fundamental principles under international law as it discriminates on the basis of a hierarchical, “ethnic-based” concept of citizenship. Under this controversial law, there are three categories of citizens: full citizens, associate, and naturalized. Full citizens are recognized as one of the main ethnic groups of Myanmar; naturalized citizens, on the other hand, can only achieve citizenship if they can prove they entered and resided in Myanmar prior to 1948, the year of independence.  This effectively shut out the Rohingya whose historical claims in the region were denied and there was no feasible way for most of them to prove their presence prior to 1948- they were stateless. 

The Citizenship Law was just one example of Myanmar reinforcing and exacerbating the Rohingya’s ambiguous legal existence. In 1995, the government began to issue temporary registration cards that afforded the Rohingya the right to vote as “temporary citizens”- these were later nullified in 2015. Current identification cards label them as foreigners. Additionally, Rohingya could only register in the 2014 census if they identified as Bengali; any attempt to label themselves as Rohingya was rejected. The government has used any legal means necessary to ensure that the Rohingya are left with no power. This serves multiple purposes. For the government it is practical to deny Rohingya citizenship due to the fact that under the 1982 Citizenship Law, if the Muslims in Rakhine are formally recognized as Rohingya then they would be technically allowed an autonomous area; this would not only force the government to give up land, but the military also fears that an autonomous area could be grounds for a possible breeding ground for terrorist groups. However, while the government and military may perceive the dehumanization of the Rohingya to be a strategic matter, it also undeniably serves to further reinforce a particularly potent phenomenon: Buddhist nationalism. 

The Rise of Buddhist Nationalism 

Following the passage of the Citizenship Law in 1982, a book titled Fear of Extinction was anonymously published; it cautioned the Buddhist majority of Myanmar to keep their distance from Muslims. This anti-Muslim sentiment would lay the groundwork for years to come, including the attacks that would take place in the 2010s. By October 2012, mobs, that consisted of Buddhist villagers, police, and soldiers, targeted the Rohingya, attacking them with machetes, spears, and petroleum bombs. Property was destroyed and looted. These attacks not only displaced 140,000 people, they would also lay the foundation for the 2017 campaign that would formally kickstart what we know to be a genocide. 

Sri Lanka and Myanmar, both of whom have majority Buddhist populations, have both experienced a rising movement that has fused together Buddhism and nationalism. While the religion is not typically associated with violence, there are those within the Theravada strain who perceive an existential threat posed by the presence of Islam. In Myanmar, extremist monks paint a picture of a potential Islamic invasion- despite the fact that if anything there has been an exodus, not an invasion. Furthermore, at the forefront of the many campaigns of violence against the Rohingya, Buddhist mobs have been leading the way. A monk known as Ashin Wirathu is the perfect embodiment of this extremism. Once jailed for hate speech, Wirathu has rejected the peaceful teachings of Buddhism to embrace militarism in the face of a nonexistent threat. Wirathu, along with many other clergy members, have referred to Muslims as “subhuman.” 

After Myanmar's military junta dissolved in 2011 and the country began a process of political liberalization, extremists established the group known as MaBaTha which consists of monks, nuns, and lay people dedicated to protecting Buddhism at all costs. The Crisis Group characterizes it as a “broad-based social and religious movement dedicated above all else to the protection and promotion of Buddhism at a time of unparalleled change and uncertainty in a country where historically Buddhism and the state have been inseparable.” While the government has attempted to curtail the group, it has been largely unsuccessful

It all begets the question: why does the Buddhist majority feel threatened by a severely persecuted minority? Like most things it can be traced to colonialism where the British forcibly removed Buddhism from the system of state governance and brought in Hindu and Muslim moneylenders and landholders. This not only angered local elites, it also sowed the seeds for later resentment. However, while colonization plays a foundational role, there are contemporary drivers behind the resurgence of Buddhist nationalism. For starters, the liberalization of the country has led to people being able to express their fears and hatred in a way not previously seen. There are also demographic and economic anxieties that groups like MaBaTha play into. The economic model that was instituted by the British has led to the development of a “business class of traders with strong cross-border ties;” these networks are seen as exclusionary to the Buddhist majority thus reinforcing a deep-seated resentment. 

It is believed that “to be Burmese is to be Buddhist.” The questions of national identity and citizenship are inextricably linked with Buddhist nationalism which is fundamentally anti-Muslim. From the very beginning of Myanmar’s independence, the Rohingya were never given a chance to be citizens as their very existence defied what was considered to be ‘Burmese.’ Furthermore, the persecution and violence that the Rohingya have been subjected to throughout the decades has been a mechanism to fortify the central tenets of Buddhist nationalism. 

Refugees In Their Own Country 

While attention is paid to the Rohingya refugees who currently reside in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, it is important to also consider the conditions in which the Rohingya who are still in Myanmar are living. If anything, these conditions are another product of Buddhist nationalism as they serve to bolster the exclusion of the Rohingya from mainstream society and further dehumanize them. After the violence of 2012, the Rakhine state government segregated displaced Muslims and ethnic Rakhine in a supposed attempt to resolve the situation; Muslims have been forced to stay within these camps which are now viewed as open-air detention facilities. Living conditions are “squalid” and severe limitations on access to various resources have led to dire social and economic consequences. Lack of healthcare has led to an increase in morbidity and mortality. Additionally, lack of economic resources has produced an atmosphere of dire frustration that has forced occupants to seek out dangerous modes of escape. 

The conditions in which Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), who are virtually all Muslim, are forced to reside are just another example of the way Buddhist nationalism operates. As Muslims are deemed “subhuman” so too are the conditions in which the government forces them to live. These camps not only serve the military’s purpose in curbing potential “threats” by keeping the remaining Rohingya physically segregated, it also serves to legitimize the rhetoric of Buddhist nationalists. The conditions of these camps are an embodiment of the idea that the Rohingya are interlopers who are not deserving of basic human rights as a consequence. These camps, alongside the campaigns of terror, are useful tools of nationalists to protect a society they believe is being encroached upon by Islam; it maintains that so-called threat and keeps Muslims in their “rightful” place. 

One of Many Policy Recommendations

There are many policy initiatives that must be implemented by Myanmar’s government to end the genocide and create a safe environment for the Rohingya’s return. However, one of the most crucial initiatives will be to end the 1982 Citizenship Law which is fundamentally exclusionary and cannot exist in its current form. Not only does it serve to legitimize the rhetoric that degrades the Rohingya population, it also creates the necessary conditions to exclude the Rohingya and subject them to abuse. The fact that it does not recognize the Rohingya as an ethnic group deserving of citizenship, and does not provide any feasible means for them to prove their existence prior to 1948, marginalizes them as a community and strips them of any political and social power they may utilize to protect themselves. Not only would the repealing of such an inherently discriminatory law help restore rights associated with citizenship to the Rohingya, it would also counter Buddhist nationalism’s claim that the Rohingya are an encroachment. By stripping nationalistic elements away from laws having to do with citizenship, Myanmar can begin to create a genuinely pluralistic society that protects minority rights. 

Dignity: The Bridge Beyond the Global Communication Crisis: Part 1, A Historical Recharacterization

The world stands at a distinct crossroads. In the face of a global pandemic and subsequently fragile economy, looming environmental collapse, systemic identity-based division and political upheaval, we find ourselves rooted in patterns of aggression, overwhelmed by feelings of fear and isolation. Academics, policy makers and advocates across the globe have contentiously debated where we are to go from here. They see the planet on fire, the bloodshed, and the daily struggle of so many to survive brewing increasing resentment towards widening inequality and the institutions that create it. Some see how these feelings are exploited and exacerbated by the opportunistic power and profit seeking polarization industrial complex. With division so steeped, we fail to collaborate and implement sustainable solutions to these critical issues, and instead become apathetic, made to believe we have no power to overcome these barriers. Numerous theories have been developed to pinpoint the source of these deep divisions, but their intersectionality provides no clear path to healing beyond this continued quest for knowledge, hoping that at some point our self-consciousness will re-activate the apathetic abandonment of civic engagement, and inspire an equitable reform of our institutions.

The truth, however, is that these proliferating theories, communicated through language, fail to transcend the sociopolitical bubbles which create them, and thus, scale into collective action. They are often observational or descriptive of symptoms of our current state, glossing over all deeper psychological causality. They trace the histories of political parties and voting behavior, discuss the historical roots of poverty or the conflict between two religious sects. They sometimes consider what emotions are fostered by intersectional oppression, or are used to manipulate human behavior into engagement or disengagement in one’s community, radicalism, political violence, etc. Some even ask which emotions determine one’s partisan identity or cultural sorting into a more disciplined versus loose society. However, almost all social science research focuses on drawing causality between demography and survey answers or measurable behaviors, describing broader patterns from a distorted metric of the way things are right now. This moment, in that it is not the first existential global crisis, but the latest iteration faced by humanity, cannot be genuinely understood in a vacuum constructed by the influence of these contextual particulars. Rather, we need to zoom out, and reconsider the interaction of human nature with the wider historical narrative. We need to ask not where this particular division comes from, but what is psychologically necessary for shifting away from this human tendency. We need to critically think about what our better future looks like, reimagining our relationships from that lens, if we are ever to effectively strategize a path to getting there.

This series of articles will offer a reframing of the historical narrative and specifically the history of philosophy to illuminate not what is driving these particular divisions, but allows for the mentality of division, aggression, and fear more broadly. This recharacterization will also draw out a timeless path of human inquiry into our fundamental psychological needs for moving past these clearly unsustainable tendencies, the continuation of which can provide a critical standard for the reform of institutions and human relationships that will allow for more inclusive and vigorous civic engagement and human flourishing. This will ultimately take the form of an ontological discussion of human dignity, in relation to recognition, and the somatic reconnection of mind and body offered by spiritual practices of Eastern philosophy.

Historical Recharacterization

Previous historical recharacterizations which aim to unpack the catalyst behind the systemic exacerbation of human division have centered around conflict- especially caused by material and power-based inequity. Thucydides in his Archaeology, social contract theorists, Freud, Karl Marx, Fukuyama, etc. each derived a new framework contingent on material human existence being the force which determines human behavior and turns the wheel of history. Their realities suggest that if a certain equality of outcomes were made possible, there would be an end to conflict. Even if material consciousness is one of the prime factors behind human identity formation and therefore division, we cannot be certain, without a more serious inquiry into human nature, if the tendency for conflict transcends economic interdependence. Perhaps human relationships would exist without material dependence, and all of these conflicts are connected on a deeper level. Perhaps what moves the wheel of history along is something less tangible, and more innately emotional. If this is the case, the solution to our polarization crisis would require an entirely different institutional reformation.

What is clear is that all human relationships are fundamentally perceived through communication, whether it’s rhetorical, or occurs through physical or aesthetic signals, from body language to architecture, arts, or advertisements. Communication has evolved across history alongside technology, which often takes center-stage in conflict-based materialist historical narratives. The birth of language, tools, civilization, the arts, architecture, telephone radio, television, and now social media have changed not only how we communicate, but something about the psychology of our relationships. Debates have circled throughout historical narratives about where human life began, whether in a brutal state of nature and a struggle to survive or the immediate presence of connection drawn from maternal or paternal bonds, for example. However, what is consistent across historical narratives is that at some point, coalitions were built between individuals, creating a pivot from a life as individuals to relationships between people, culminating in the formation of tribes, or the first iteration of community. Eventually, these relationships got more complex with the Neolithic Revolution, and the rise of civilization to the point of polities, regimes, empires, and so on. It’s also widely acknowledged that the development of technology is largely what facilitated each of these stages.

Historical narratives centered around materialism as the root of conflict have demonstrated that technology certainly made an impact on human psychology in this sense, and to some degree talk about deep virtues or shifts in moral consciousness which are fostered by it. However, they focus far less on the metaphysical shift in human consciousness established by technology, which ultimately uncovers not just activated tendencies, but our full range of psychological capacity. If we continue to think about the shift in human relationships caused by technology through the lens of communication, we start to draw out this primordial image.

Think for a moment, about the interaction of two people communicating in simplest terms- the closest we can imagine to an origin of human psychology, prior to the development of artificially manufactured subconscious bias. These two people interact in a physical space where they can plainly see each other. This allows for the perception of a person’s emotional response to the other’s communication, and therefore, connects both actors directly to any ethical obligation which humans may inherently feel toward each other. The relationship exists entirely in the realm of particulars. They get to know each other more from physical actions and responses than through historically shaped assumptions about each other’s opinions. While scholars disagree over the presence of moral agency at this origin point, we can see the situation is open to, rather than destructive of the potential for empathy, for example. This could be complicated by innate judgements about characteristics such as physiology, which are often connected to the psychology of material conflict. However, even these judgements would be made relative to the person observed in the present. This does not substantiate a claim that the development of a divisive material order is inevitable, nor irreversible. Both are communicating from emotions, even if those emotions include fear, which may create a persuasive or intimidating dialogue, but a dialogue directed at this contingent being, nonetheless, rather than at a wider group through the objectification of that being and the associations being made with it.  

The evolution of technology, as we know, distorts this model of communication by allowing the formation of human relationships across larger geographic distances and levels of specialization. An ever-increasing proportion of our connections to other people are with those we do not regularly interact with face to face. In fact, across history, relationships have evolved to where most of the people we are connected to we never meet in real life. As such, identity becomes defined increasingly by abstractions, or communities which are not physically interpersonal, but are defined by other joint characteristics or needs, which we can understand conceptually. Within these abstract relationships, we do not see the immediate consequences of our actions on those we are connected to. In other words, without physical presence, we cannot directly observe the emotional response to our words, or the other consequences of our behaviors. We might see backlash through written word or recordings, but we don’t catch the details of facial expression or shifting body behavior, the sad glimmer of an eye, or catch of the voice. This distances us from our immediate ethical instincts, or perceptions of moral obligations towards each other. As such, unprecedented transgressions unfold into an escalation of conflict through the normalization of dehumanizing divisions between communities or identities.

This pattern unfolds in an iterative fashion, with each major jolt technology causes to the formation of human relationships. The Neolithic, Scientific, and Industrial Revolutions, for example, have all been marked by previous historical narratives. as moments where technology reshaped human relationships and ultimately led to an existential crisis over our new reality. Each one of these represented a new level of abstraction within human relationships, and therefore, communication. To illustrate the ramifications using just one example, we will zoom in on the jolt caused by the Industrial Revolution, now referred to as the crisis of the mid-twentieth century, in which globalization and industrial powers culminated in the World Wars. Globalization, enabled by the industrial revolution, was the distinctive benchmark in the evolution of human relationships towards far-reaching connections on the basis of abstraction. Allies and enemies formed under overlapping national goals, as well as value systems and ideologies, not through interpersonal community formation of neighboring peoples. As such, connections were felt in a distanced, intellectual, and therefore strategic rather than emotional way. Yet, prior to the first World War, the world had not fully confronted what globalization would mean for human relations, including the unintended, far-reaching domino effects of ally and enemy distinctions in times of conflict resulting in bloodshed of unimaginable proportions, and devastating poverty for many countries.

 These dark ramifications are infamously what laid the ground work for radical political leaders to emerge and triumph racist, xenophobic and dangerous overhauls of existing governments. Germany saw the rise of Hitler and the tragedy of the Holocaust. The Soviet Union led millions to their deaths. Outside Europe, other movements of genocide paralleled these transgressions. Even the United States, who asserted their role as the moral hero to the devastation of Germany and victor against the U.S.S.R. helped facilitate the research on eugenics used by the Nazi movement, and later accepted no blame for that role in their historical narrative. Further, they spent these years constructing Japanese internment camps, hysterically creating the witch hunt of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, and in the early throughs of violence responding to what was becoming the civil rights movement. Ultimately, the world was thrust into a forced confrontation with the question of what had allowed these mentalities and choices to unfold, and how to prevent it from happening again.

Philosophers developed a deluge of theories working to untangle the events of this historical moment. Marx, Nietzsche and Heidegger, each of whom had a role in supporting radical political projects which ultimately influenced much of this turmoil in varying degrees, all saw the role of technology in turning the wheel of historical conflict. They believed that the crisis of the century had been caused by the abandonment of philosophy alongside this evolution, thus allowing dogmatic leaders to control the trajectory of society, rather than a philosophical understanding of good. They believed that without philosophy, the lifestyle offered by this technological development was one of alienation from the self, a sense of purpose or meaning, and that it was these emotions which led people to dark and sadistic behaviors, or apathy towards them. Arendt discussed the moment as a crisis of isolation, or loneliness. Together, these resonate with the idea of the abstraction of relationships, and the unintended but very real ethical apathy that comes with these, without a conscious effort to foster empathy or a respect for what was to come as the political “solution” to the World Wars upon their conclusion- dignity.

Following the collapse of the Nazi regime, the world, lost in the devastation, was determined to articulate a preventative solution to future iterations of this moment. The United Nations was formed, and it, along with Germany as one of only three countries in the world to do so, adopted human dignity as a universal and politically protected human right. The idea was to assert that communities which exist as oppressors to other identities by material means would not be tolerated. However, it became clear quickly, as with the vague policy still debated in care bioethics, that dignity was a difficult thing to quantify and enforce. Thus, these declarations and constitutions were largely symbolic, or acts of soft power. Yet, they opened up an entire field of literature in international relations, attempting to understand the concept outside philosophical methods.

Parallel Causal Evolution of the History of Philosophy

This attempt of philosophers to produce literature which could unpack and reconcile the existential crisis brought shift in relationships by technology is not unique to the mid-twentieth century. Instead, if we recharacterize the history of philosophy in the same way as the wider historical narrative, it becomes clear that with each iteration of this pattern of increasing abstraction, philosophers in some sense return to the question of dignity. When abstraction makes us feel further from what was familiar about our humanity, we are reunited with a burning desire to reassert our value by asking what is intrinsically good about us, to assure ourselves that what was good was not lost in this reformation of human being. Thus, with each technological “benchmark,” philosophy gives us two things; a new historical framing which makes sense of the shift, and another contribution towards understanding the ontology of dignity, whether directly or through related concepts. When examined in this sense, each historical reframing and era of philosophy doesn’t, in fact, reject or undermine the previous paradigm completely, but rather, connects to and builds on it from this common thread.

By way of demonstrating a quick overview, Ancient philosophers, from, once again, Thucydides’ Archaeology within the History of the Peloponnesian War, as well as the Platonic and Aristotilean narratives of the development of civilization illustrate a clear understanding of the influence alterations of human relationships have on the development of human psychology. They fixate on questions of what characterizes human being, what is meant by human flourishing, and thus, ultimately, what is human dignity. They see the path to the human telos as analogous to the path from the family to political regime because these are the institutions which shape relationships and therefore human behavior, including communication. This is mirrored in Eastern tradition, which also focuses on determining the virtues and community relations which are intrinsic to and are best for the development of human nature. Then, with the influx of monotheistic religion and shift into a new political world order, came the birth of the Medieval Era. Here, particularly Christian philosophy in the west worked to once again reinterpret the historical narrative through religion, re-confronting and building on Ancient concepts of human dignity and morality. Amidst the Medieval Era also came the Renaissance. Some abstraction occurred here with tensions fostered from its artistic and technological innovation, clashing ideologies of pagan and Christian religion, as well through escalating class consciousness with increasing inequality.

However, the clear iterative shift came with the fall of the Medieval era and launch of the Early Modern period, first with the birth of the Scientific Revolution, where the upheaval of the Christian metaphysical reality with heliocentric theory and questioning of religious institutional power combined with huge leaps in technological innovation that put human reason in a newfound state of power. Because human reason, again, was seen as the characteristic human element within Ancient and sometimes Medieval philosophy, and therefore the foundation of dignity, this was really just another alteration in exploring the ontology of the concept in order to reconcile the overwhelming changes to present reality. Scientific and Religious philosophers, including Descartes, Spinoza, Bacon, Martin Luther, Newton, were both fully conscious of the stakes of this movement, each feeling their personal value as bound to their ideology and methodology, which would be lost if a contradictory historical narrative replaced their own. This fear is reflected, once again, in the horrors of burnings at the stake and introduction of subversive communication, later coined esoteric writing, necessary for each side to survive with the other.

This was continued with the escalation of the Enlightenment through the modern period. Eventually, this shift boiled over into the fusion of the new philosophic paradigm with political theory, where social contract theorists and democratic reformers sprung up in America and France, most infamously, advocating for their dignity, represented by reason, to be recognized by the state through avenues for active political participation, or participation in rational governance, and economic mobility-meaning compensation for their skills and thoughts. This was a new peak of abstraction in which individuals, and in fact entire governments, were boiled down into a representation of certain principles which were either good or bad, signaled by coded language and their participation or lack of engagement in populist revolutions. Violence was unforgiving, because this was not a fight or dialogue between people, but of principle. Suddenly, the masses were willing to die and to kill for ideas on an unprecedentedly extreme scale.

 As such, philosophers everywhere attempted to reconcile the existential crisis through unpacking the emotions responding to the lapse in dignity received from institutions and a historical reinterpretation to carve a path forward. Burke, Paine, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, among others throughout western Europe, all came together to reinterpret human dignity, and ultimately cast this as a framework for a new political order. Intimate details of human nature were explored. Burke, for example, through an examination of the ways in which our physical senses respond to different phenomena, determined a mode of analysis for human responses to broader political norms and transitions, which led to him supporting the American Revolution, but not the French, due to the French being so abstracted from interpersonal human, emotional communication and history that they had no ethical responsibility mediating their violence, where he saw the Americans as engaging in a dialogue of peoples on some level, and saw their revolution as inevitable. Part of his reasoning included the geographic distance between the American colonies and British mainland, which would preclude true emotional dialogue, or recognition of dignity across each sides to prime the debate for collaboration in finding a sustainable solution.

Soon after, this focus on human nature and historical understanding was mirrored through the intellectual prowess, unmatched since the Ancient Era, of German philosophers Hegel and Kant, who continue to directly supply a framework for contemporary conceptions of dignity. Naturally, the ethical consequences of previous abstractions within human relationships meant this framework was inherently racist and patriarchal. Nevertheless, it was a confrontation along the same thread of this history of the abstraction of communication. This brings us back to the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, and the crisis of the mid-twentieth century, our original example, which led to the collapse of this Modern Era of philosophy, and the birth of Contemporary Thought.

There are many other parallels to this historical reframing throughout Eastern and Middle Eastern philosophies. Ultimately, however, we can use this as a starting point for interpreting our current moment of crisis, and determining how to build on these previous contributions for an understanding of both history and dignity which do not propel us into another divisive era, but instead, ask us to see this as the exacerbation of one tendency of human nature, and consider what would it look like to shift ourselves in the opposite direction to a kind of institutional structure and set of communication habits that allow us to innovate sustainably and be brought closer together? In other words, how can we use this pattern to craft a more ontologically serious project of understanding dignity?

Epistemological Benefits of a Historical Ontological Understanding of Dignity

Making use of a historical examination of the evolution of theory on the ontology of dignity in some ways holds the potential to circumvent the epistemological limitations of examining dignity analytically, trapped within the bounds of our language and sociopolitical influential context. More acutely, it allows for the synthesis of all previous observations of the limits to our access of the ontology of dignity, illuminating what, if anything, is within our philosophical grasp and worthy of serious study. As with all historicist methods, this is imperfect to the degree that we cannot escape the ways in which we are being influenced throughout this historical recharacterization. However, to be introspective to the extent we are able is better than to ignore the patterns which brought us here altogether.

In other words, because the concept of dignity has repeatedly been tied to autonomy and reason, the phenomena which we have deemed characteristically human, it would be a mistake of dangerous proportions to ignore that each of these iterations of literature around the theory of dignity have occurred in the wake of an epistemological paradigm shift, and thus, are tied to deep political pressures, while occurring in the territory of fresh, unprecedented and therefore unexplored logic. This kind of confrontation with human nature is overwhelming, and its unfamiliarity both leads us to make grave decisions, and to allow familiar biases to take over, interpreting autonomy, for example, in an exclusionary sense, even when we can’t see that in the foundation of our philosophy. Strauss’ famous critique of Heidegger, demonstrating his lack of political consciousness when trying to examine human nature via introspection as the root of his participation in the Nazi regime, as well as the notorious racism embedded in Hegel and Kant, are all demonstrative of this.

However, there is promise in continuing the quest for dignity despite our inability to fully reconcile our own contextual limitations. Hegel, for example, saw each shift in what he called “categories” of human thought, which includes our perceptions and relations to each other, as becoming more intimate with our intrinsic human freedom, or value, and saw this as an opportunity for the positive rebuilding of institutions. It is here we will pick up in the following segment, infusing these epistemological benefits and possibility for turning around this wider narrative to healthier communication practices that bring out our empathetic, rather than aggressive and divisive tendencies into the beginning of a new exploration of our dignity. It is here we mark a path forward for philosophical inquiry and human healing.

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.

Yemen: A Path to Reconstruction

Yemen has undergone a brutal civil war officially beginning in 2015. The war has furthered Yemen's underdevelopment and ultimately turned it into a failed state from dilapidated infrastructure, insufficient healthcare, food and water insecurity, and an unstable government and economy. The Yemen Civil war began because of marginalization of a religious minority, the government's failure to provide economic opportunity for citizens and exploiting certain areas for its own gain, and a lack of representation of religious and regional groups. To resolve the war for the long-term future, there must be inclusive peacebuilding and assistance from the United Nations to facilitate peace conversations. To begin the first steps of state-building, Yemen must establish a decentralized government, strengthen the role of local governance, and forgo economic diversification.

Following the Arab Spring, where numerous Arab nations were demanding to overthrow dictators, Yemen fought for change too. President Ali Abdullah Saleh was forced to transition his position to Abdrabbuh Mansour Hadi, but this transition failed. There was massive unemployment, food insecurity, suicide bombings, and a separatist movement in South Yemen. In 2014, the Houthi Shia rebel group, a religious minority, took hold of northern Yemen's capital, Sana'a. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia, asking for international intervention. Saudi Arabia then created a coalition of Gulf countries implementing air strikes in order for the Houthi rebels to restore Hadi's rule. Saudi Arabia accused the Houthis of having links with Iran, which led to the involvement of regional powers as well as international powers in this war. The Saudi-led coalition was supported with U.S. intelligence, and the U.S., U.K., and several other European countries have sold arms to Saudi Arabia that were used to further the war in Yemen. As the war has gone on, Saudi Arabia and Iran have furthered the Sunni-Shia divide in Yemen. Parts of Yemen are now controlled by the Houthis, Republic of Yemen, Saudi-backed Hadi forces, Al-Qaeda, and the U.A.E.-backed Southern Transition Council.

The core of this issue stems from history. When North and South Yemen unified in 1990, the capital was declared in Sana'a in northern Yemen. The south began to feel marginalized by the north, as they were exploiting the oil and natural resources in the south and using it to mostly invest in Sana'a. South Yemen's Southern Movement for independence rose in 2007; they felt the northern centralized government was corrupted, and they did not have enough authority to manage their abundant resources. As for the Houthis, they had fought six wars with the central government between 2004 and 2010. The Houthis fought because of marginalization of their community and beliefs, not having enough authority in Houthi-majority regions, and longing for a democratic non-sectarian republic.

Upon discussing how to resolve this complicated war, it is essential to recognize the core problem: numerous religious and regional groups feel marginalized, and they want an inclusive governing system that is not corrupted as well as a stronger economy. Considering this, the first step for coming to a solution is an inclusive peacebuilding process, which requires the participation of women, Yemeni youth, and other marginalized groups such as southerners and religious minorities. Civil society organizations and women leaders in Yemen have contributed greatly to peacemaking already. For example, in tribal areas, women have been leading in mediation efforts because they are well respected and trusted in their communities. Yemeni women have previously demanded change and achieved 30 percent representation in the National Dialogue, which was a 2014 Yemeni transitional dialogue discussing peacekeeping. Muna Luqman, a Yemeni woman leader among many, spoke before a UN Security Council meeting, demanding that women be at the forefront of peace talks. She has consulted the only woman in the Government delegation, Rana Ghanem, for peace consultations, who agrees that there must be more seats for women. Luqman has additionally communicated with Houthi women, who have stated that they are ready for peace negotiations. Lastly, the Women Solidarity Network has been filling gaps left by the state, helping displaced people with food and other necessities, diverting the youth from fighting to peacebuilding, arbitrating for the release of detainees, and resolving conflicts over water and land resources. Though Yemeni women bear the brunt of the war, they are the largest hope for peacekeeping because they are trusted among their communities.

In addition to this, the UN must act more firmly to mediate peace negotiations and halt armed violence. The UN must take part in mediating peace negotiations between all parties, not just the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition air bombardment campaign. This especially points to the Southern Transition Council, as they are also actors in the war. To avoid more conflict, it is essential to hear the voices of each group that is involved. The UN must create means to enforce its resolutions, including that of disarmament and demobilization of the Houthis and opening naval, aerial, and land blockades. The UN must also demand the demilitarization of liberated cities and aid in restoring essential government institutions such as the social welfare fund. Additionally, it should bring international actors, such as the Saudi-led coalition, the United Arab Emirates, Iran, the U.S., and the U.K. to hold discussions and to mitigate more violence. Though international actors such as Saudi Arabia claim to be air striking Yemen to place the former government back in Yemen, Saudi Arabia seeks to defeat Iran by defeating the Houthis. This issue must be discussed and addressed in the UN Security Council, and there must be negotiations between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis for a cease-fire. It is a crucial time now, as Saudi Arabia wants to back out because of economic downturns and the coronavirus pandemic.

Lastly, the UN must localize the peace process by creating local peace agreements in areas of military conflict, and additionally must get rid of combatants in civilian and city institutions. This has already been proved to help; local communities such as local councils, social leaders, and civil society have arbitrated between armed groups and created local ceasefire agreements. In order for the UN to localize and promote inclusivity in the peace process, each negotiating actor should have 50 percent women in their delegations, and the UN Special envoy and the Chair of Redeployment Coordination Committee must communicate regularly with women and require the inclusion of women, the youth, southerners, and other marginalized social groups in legal texts. Making each actor's voices heard will help cement a long-lasting solution to prevent future uprisings and violence.

If the war comes to a resolution, the next step is to unify the country by rebuilding the state. To implement an inclusive governing system, Yemen should transition to a decentralized federation. In a federation, the central government would not have much overriding power over the governorates. Each governorate would have a higher degree of autonomy and will get to control more of their internal affairs. For example, a governor should not be appointed by the president, rather through local elections. For local elections to be efficient, they must be supplied with sufficient infrastructural resources by the central government. In addition, to prevent the overpowering of the central government, the constitution must be well-written by all parties to ensure that the central government cannot use broad statements to excuse its over-bearing interference and exploitation of governorates. This will address the issues raised by the Houthis, who want more voice in Houthi-majority governorates, and southerners, who want more authority over their resources as well. Because each governorate would have greater control, there would be less marginalization and exploitation of different regional and religious groups, and there would be a boost of participatory democracy. This is essential, as Yemen has been a historically tribal society, with multiple ethnicities, religions, and communities.

The central government must be anti-corruption and be represented by all groups. Corruption creates distrust of the government, which could lead to more protest and violent conflict. To combat anti-corruption within the central government, there must be several key players, including a coalition of politicians, civil society organizations, senior government officials and private businesses. This coalition can mitigate corruption problems, especially when it comes to the central government abusing its power and not integrating revenues into all governorates to invest in Yemeni communities and create stronger infrastructure and economic opportunity. The central government must also be responsible for rebuilding damaged infrastructure, especially the sewage and electrical systems, roads, and buildings for medical facilities, government, and other essential purposes.

Strong local governance is an essential key to Yemen's government system. The absence of local authorities and councils negatively affect the governorate's leadership, as well as the representation of civil society organizations. Governorate Hadramawt is a good example of the importance of local authorities. Local authority in the governorate Hadramawt brought about local culture and social awareness that prohibited this community from getting involved in the war. The reason for this is that the governorate had communicated with all political, social, and religious figures in the community. Hadramawt is currently creating an advisory council for the governor, which consists of the political, social, and intellectual leaders. This advisory council would hold repeated discussions on issues in the governorate and how to solve them. Hadramawt is a strong example for why local authority is important, and this must be a framework followed by other governorates. Local councils maintain the social fabric of Yemeni communities and keep them stable and secure, therefore they must be preserved and strengthened to give Yemenis voices in their communities.

Moving forward, local councils must have political rights for elections, and local councils must have some autonomy to not be dissolved by the central government or be misused to benefit the central government. To strengthen local governance, it must have the power to manage and develop local resources, provide public services such as medical facilities and schools, and create jobs for the youth. Local authorities must have the power to manage development and construction projects and manage local resources that meet the governorates expectations of development and public services. The local authorities must be able to grant licenses to industrial, trade, services, and investment companies. Local governance must invest in schools, as education is a fundamental factor in elevating the citizens in terms of economic class, decreasing inequality between boys and girls in education, creating human capital, and eventually allowing for educated citizens to improve technologies for infrastructure and industries.

To begin reforming the economy, Yemen must find a way to generate revenue. One way is to improve the agricultural sector and move away from dependency on food imports. To improve the agricultural sector, the central government must invest and develop a functional irrigation system, which has been weak due to insufficient water and land resources. Despite this, Yemen can take advantage of its diverse climate to produce different agricultural products throughout the year, and implement more terraced agriculture infrastructure, which has worked in the past. The private sector must be incentivized to produce more agriculture and sustain limited resources. There also needs to be the implementation of policies that give tools for large and small farmers, such as the agricultural techniques and education, a good irrigation system, marketing opportunities, business practices, agricultural mechanization, fertilizers, and management of crop and yield.

Before the civil war and currently, Yemen has had a weak production base and insufficient economic diversification. Therefore, aside from the agriculture and petroleum sector, there must be other high productivity sectors in Yemen. This includes the fisheries sector, the food industry, the construction industry, and other industries such as tobacco products, cement, and metals. For example, Yemen can improve its fishery sector due to its advantageous geographic location. Yemen has a 15,534-mile-long coastal strip that spans across the Red Sea, Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden, and the Arabian Sea. This provides enough diverse aquatic life to sustain Yemen's fishery sector. The central government must invest in this promising sector by providing sufficient infrastructure and tools for fishers. This is essential because this will tackle part of Yemen's dependency on outside food sources and massive unemployment.

Another product that could potentially be used to export is qat, a plant that contains a stimulant that many people enjoy chewing. Though Yemen has had issues with qat addiction and replacing other agricultural production with qat production, it can still be used for an advantage in exports. If there is government regulation on the amount of qat being produced, qat can be a small potential industry that can help with exports for Yemen. Lastly, Yemen has historically exported coffee to numerous countries and can revive this past triumph by using fertile lands throughout Yemen. Yemen has sufficient land for cultivating coffee beans and can use this as an advantage for exporting and generating revenue. Traders can buy coffee from farmers and sell them among international businesses, which they have done before. Other sufficient foods that can be planted are almonds and vegetables, which are great for the economy and the people. Of course, this is only a small amount of what Yemen can expand with sufficient infrastructure.

Outside assistance is needed in Yemen to jump start Yemen’s economy again. Donor assistance in long-term development projects is what will help rebuild the economy. When Yemen’s political leadership is stable and there is an established government, international organizations must reopen their offices in Yemen. The World Bank must re-open the 32 development assistance projects they were working on before the war, as they were worth over 500 million US dollars over many sectors. In addition, organizations such as USAID must re-establish their aid relief programs when it is safe. The World Bank’s Damage Need Assessment calculated that Yemen needs post-conflict rehabilitation projects, and the Ministry of Planning and International Cooperation calculated that Yemen needs at least 100 billion US dollars to reconstruct Yemen. Yemen cannot rebuild by itself, as its economy is damaged and collapsed. There must be external assistance to redevelop Yemen to have a starting point to drive its economy upwards.

In conclusion, the most important aspect of Yemen's development is firstly coming to a stable political solution, which can be helped by an inclusive peace building process. It is only after this war is resolved, and all internal tensions are resolved, that Yemen can begin reconstructing all aspects of its country by decentralizing the government, promoting economic diversification and development, and strengthening local governance. This will take decades, but it can be done if the process leading to development is inclusive, since Yemen is very tribal, ethnically diverse, religiously diverse, culturally diverse, and regionally diverse. For this reason, the only way the country can rise up is if everyone has a voice and is there to pull it up together.

Rape Culture in Pakistan

Content Warning: Discussion of rape and sexual violence

Pakistan remains in shock and disbelief after a woman was gang raped by robbers in front of her children near a motorway in the city of Lahore on September 9th. In the midst of the coronavirus pandemic, thousands of citizens have headed to the streets in an immense outcry. Horrendous acts, such as gang rape, continue to occur despite citizen outcry and condemnation from the government. According to a 2017 report from the Madadgaar National Helpline 1098, nearly 93% women experience some form of sexual violence in public places in their lifetime in Pakistan. However, this event is not an isolated incident; in fact, this is a culmination of a  festering issue in the country, which consists of  regular threats, harassment and a growing rape culture. The perpetuation of rape as a repeated crime with little to no repercussion has stemmed from multiple discrepancies within the judicial system, a chasm among societal norms and behaviors, and  a lack of education towards sexual violence and sexual protection. While women’s rights activists have stepped up to the plate,in terms of supporting and facilitating a nationwide Aurat March in 2019 and 2020, there is still a considerable amount of work that needs to be done from the ground up. This paper will breakdown the event in detail, the societal norms and legalistic fixtures that have reinforced crimes such as rape, concluding with what actions have taken in place thus far from the Pakistani people and what practices must be implemented for substantial change to occur. 

Motorway Incident 

While this incident of gang-rape was not the first Pakistan has witnessed within the country, it is crucial to consider specific details of this case which ultimately resulted in a considerable amount of pent-up rage and frustration among citizens. It was around 3am on September 9th when a woman, who is  a resident of France, and her two children were driving back from relatives in Gujranwala, Pakistan. She ran out of fuel and per the advice of her relatives, she called the motorway emergency numbers for assistance. It was reported that after waiting for approximately an hour for help to arrive, two armed men broke into the woman’s car, stole a considerable amount of money and material possessions, and proceeded to rape her in front of her two children. 

Despite the horrendous circumstances of that night, it was what Umer Sheikh, a senior police official, had to say the following morning on national TV that displayed a widepsread problem with the system. Umer Sheikh appeared in front of the media and implied  that she had been partly to blame. First, he questioned why she had not taken a busier road, given that she was driving at 10 pm, and then when on to state that she should have checked her fuel before departing. Sheikh also added that the woman, who is a French resident, was traveling under the impression that Pakistan is as safe as France. It is one thing for an individual to experience this level of trauma and abuse then to see the most senior police official, who is meant to empathize with citizens and protect the community at large, instead blaming the victim for what happened that night and holding that person solely responsible for their own safety. This was one of many breaking points in Pakistan, resulting in protests calling for a host of demands, such as the termination for the senior police official to improve police accountability. Immense questioning and eyes are pointed towards the victim rather than the criminals or the traffic who failed to arrive in a timely manner. Despite the fact that two suspects have been found and are being held for questioning, the central problem remains: instead of being treated with empathy, the victim's actions are critiqued thus normalizing victim-blaming and a flawed justice system. 

Systemic Behaviors on the Ground 

Along with this motorway incident, a flood of rape cases has reached the media. This case was only five days after a 5-year old girl was found murdered, raped, and torched. In roughly the first two months of 2020, as many as 73 incidents of rape have been reported, including five gang-rape cases. It should be  reiterated that  these statistics are only considering cases that have been reported.. It is imperative to consider the multitude of victims and their ordeals which have gone unnoticed, specifically how normalized behaviors and attitudes have made it seem as though Pakistan is at a standstill or has even backtracked when it comes to handling acts of rape and sexual violence. Difficulty in getting the courage to report such cases reflects cyclical gendered practices deeply entrenched in a patriarchal society where women in some cases are exploited in the name of religious and cultural norms. For example, honor is a social value tied to virginity and modesty with men deciding if these virtues are being met. Societal behaviors place more responsibility and pressure on the women to uphold a certain image which dictates the way she should dress and how loud she should be in public; behavior outside of these frameworks appear as conscious indicators to attract male attention. 

A big part of the problem lies within the language and terminology that is used when discussing issues like rape in Pakistan. Pakistani activists highlight that the problem persists due to  people immediately blaming the victim and their family-  Blame goes to the victim for roaming around freely and  the parents are blamed for not taking ‘proper’ care of their child. That is the way rape has always been framed within Pakistani society. Additionally, the rape has always been tied to a female’s modesty and her family’s honor; thus rape is often portrayed  as a loss of her piety and good character and respect of her family. It is disheartening to see a system that leaves families suffering because of  societal notions of dishonor and shame and victims not receiving the justice they deserve, while perpetrators are essentially roaming free. Social attitudes and norms embody larger narratives in society which tell women ‘not to get raped’ instead of turning the focus towards telling men ‘not to rape’; thus women  treat major or minor acts of sexual harassment as trivial and are willing to accept  that they are objects of sexual desire and not human beings who should be treated as fairly and equally as their male counterparts. 

Do Laws in Pakistan Actually Help Women? 

When it comes to acts of sexual assault , Pakistan tends to utilize religion and interprets Islamic ideology to understand crimes such as rape and how it should subsequently be handled. There is a large chasm in ideology and tolerance when considering the fair treatment of women that are based on set laws meant to protect them. While there have been fine-tuned laws, with the intention to help victims of rape with legal process of reporting the crime and taking it to the courts, evidence shows these efforts have not been as effective. 

In 2016, the Pakistani parliament broke massive legislative ground when it passed laws to increase sentences for rapists, making it mandatory that the culprit must be imprisoned for 25 years, and those who commit honor killings of women, as an attempt to close a loophole that allowed many of the killers to go free. Despite these promising changes, in 2016 alone, 370 rapes were registered in the country and 3100 cases were still under investigation. Data shows  that the cases are increasing with the passage of time despite the presence of a legal mechanism of protection. Another factor is the lack of political stability in Pakistan, which enables perpetrators of all sorts of gender-based crimes against women to go unpunished, as government action on both national and local level remains absent. It was a Jirga that decided in 2002 that Mukhtar Mai was to be gang-raped as recompense for a sexual assault committed by her brother. Jirgas, or tribal courts in the rural regions, is a nuanced version of the justice system, which operates on centuries-old codes of honor; this tribal code believes that women should essentially succumb to the orders of male relatives. Over the years, there has been increasing tensions between judiciary challenging the old tradition of jirgas known for providing quick justice. Most people prefer the jirgas’ style of quick and rough judiciary due to the formal legal system being categorized as cumbersome and corrupt, with cases taking years to reach a final verdict. 

The crackdown towards the criminalization is also heavily dependent on which party is holding majority seats in parliament and the importance they place on the particular issue. When accepting his role in office, Prime Minister Imran Khan’s particularstance on social justice and change for all, led to him  condemning the rape that occurred on the motorway in a tweet stating, “They [rapists] should be given exemplary punishments. In my opinion, they should be hanged at the chowk [intersection].” Despite the bold nature of his tweet, a month post incident, no major action has taken place in legal terms. However, this has been the most responsive action by parliamentary government in the last few years. It was in 2017 that Khan’s opposition and former party in power, the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) that the government decided that the solution to Pakistan’s inefficient and politicized judicial system was to provide constitutional cover to Pakistan’s centuries old jirga system. This ultimately displayed at one point the government not only accepting their fault of maintaining a weak judiciary based on self-interest, but consciously wanting to promote a system without considering the negative repercussions it would have towards women’s rights in Pakistan.  

What is Being Done: The Role of Everyday Women 

 The World Economic Forum ranked Pakistan 151 out of 153 countries in its 2020 Global Gender Gap Index Report. The Aurat March -- or Women's March -- has been held across Pakistan on March 8 for the past three years, attracting thousands of citizens, both men and women, intending to demand gender equality, minimum wages for the working class, and bodily rights in the context of sexual harassment and for police support victims in filing for criminal reports, along with raising slogans against sexual harassment and gender-based violence. Women’s rights activists, such as Fouzia Saeed, who founded the first women’s crisis centre in Pakistan, believes progress is being made and that mindsets are changing within society. While women are claiming their own voice through the Aurat March, and with the movement’s message gaining sustainable traction and support through the use of media, there has also been a great amount of backlash. In relation to this year’s March 8th demonstrations, conservatives conducted a smear campaign against feminist activists. Throwing stones at protestors and destroying placards were tied with the justifications deeply embedded in socio-religious norms, stating that it was a highly Western campaign that simply just wanted to promote vulgarity. The status of women has been a social tripe which has evolved into finding an autonomous voice, the the danger of strengthening prevailing patriarchal cultural norms that use Islam as the justification. 

The Future of Pakistan: The Beacon of Light Ahead 

The Aurat March displays itself as a catalyst for detailed guidance and hope, due to its multi-dimensionality and holistic approach of synthesizing the key issues coupled with strategies and solutions to tackle these daunting tasks. The Aurat March was one way to bring women of all ethnicities, classes, and religions onto one platform. Everyday should be a women’s day in Pakistan- there should not be temporary outrage and anger exhibited towards isolated events; this should be a continuous struggle against rigid socio-religious behaviors. Attention should turn towards easing the pain and helping the survivors and their families. Breaches in law enforcement hindering the healing process for these victims should be held accountable. Law enforcement must also see potential good that can come from partnering with NGOs that can send professionally trained female facilitators to accompany the victim when reporting the crime, with the purpose being to ensure the welfare of the survivor. Furthermore, it is an impreative to look  at rape as a heinous crime, rather than an infliction on the victim’s character or honor. Bold reforms and bold attitudes will be needed to bring about this outcome. None of this can become a reality unless the grit and the will of the Pakistani people manifest as the main driving force. None of this can be possible if women are not given positions where power resides; ultimately women must step outside domestic roles to attain their basic rights. 

The UN Needs a Full-Time Military Bureaucracy

The UN, as of August 2020, had 71,786 men and women as a part of their armed forces, deployed in 14 separate peacekeeping missions. In terms of the number of troops actively deployed to combat zones worldwide since the end of the cold war, from any given country, only the United States during the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could top that total . 

Because of this it is extremely startling that, since its inception, the UN’s army has been Frankenstein's monster of differing parts. Every infantry battalion, helicopter squadron and field hospital is loaned to the UN’s command from a Troop Contributing Country (TCC).  The various staff officers that command the forces, as well as staff mission headquarters and the UN bureaucracy in Turtle Bay, are all on loan from their home militaries for a one to two year  period. This system, while it has been the UNs since the beginning, puts it at an unnecessary disadvantage. To improve the efficacy of UN peacekeeping, the UN must create its own staff  officer corps, and furthermore, a fully independent military of its own.  

Military contingents to the UN, particularly in eras like the 1990s where UN peacekeeping needs were high, have been entirely unsatisfactory in quality. Tales of units arriving without ammunition, food, or guns are frequent. Bangladeshi units in Rwanda, for example, arrived without any rations or ammunition. Even in intense, internationally encompassing conflicts such as in the Bosnian War (1992-1995), units often take orders from their respective capitals and national political leaders instead of their UN force commander, with disastrous results. 

The failure of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, and the failure to prevent the massacre of 8,000 civilians in Srebrenica specifically, highlights what happens when the current system fails. UN forces were charged with defending a “safe area” of tens of thousands of civilians deep within Serb-controlled Bosnia. When the Serbs assaulted the safe area in July 1995, the ad-hoc UN/NATO command and control fell apart. The Dutch defenders were unable to coordinate support from nearby Norwegian and Pakistani units, or air support from NATO. They then surrendered, leading to the massacre of thousands in the safe areas. 

While the nucleus of a UN military was in the UN charter and was planned by its founders, a standing UN army was never founded, instead relying on ad-hoc troop contributions from member states. While a standing UN army would improve matters far more than a simple staff officer corps would, the idea of a standing army is currently unfeasible due to a lack of member state support. An appropriate compromise, that provides valuable expertise while tempering member state concerns, would be the creation of a staff officer corps. 

Staff officers are the brain of any UN military mission. Staff officers serve as the  commanding officer of the mission, are responsible for gathering needed intelligence, planning  major operations, and ensuring logistical concerns are all met. Back at the UN’s headquarters in  New York, staff officers are charged with planning new operations, ensuring these missions actually receive the needed  troops from member states, and in general serve as the Pentagon for an army in the middle of 14 separate military operations.  

The UN, as of May 2019, has approximately 3,500 staff officers serving the roles listed above. Unfortunately, none of these officers are permanent UN staff. They are  loaned by member states, for periods of either one year of field service or two years at  headquarters, before being recalled back to their own national armies. Creating a permanent UN  staff, in place of the current loan system, would maintain institutional knowledge, allow the UN  to develop critical skills, and ensure that best talent stays in the UN.  

UN-led peace operations are highly complex, multidimensional missions. They frequently  involve providing quick and deeply needed humanitarian aid, disarming combatant groups,  improving human rights conditions, organizing elections, strengthening rule of law, etc.. Importantly, most of these tasks are outside the conventional spectrum of military operations. Most military officers do not receive significant training on peace operations during their initial training, instead focusing on conventional and unconventional warfare. 

While peace operations is a part of most officers' training, and there are many transferable skills, staff officers often have their clock expire and are sent back to their national armies, just as they learn the nuances of how to carry out their tasks.  This is further complicated at the higher ranks. High-ranking officers, such as Colonels and  Generals, may have significant military training and leadership experience, but are often thrust into significant UN roles with little experience with peace operations.

For example, the four force commanders of the UN’s four largest operations (MINUSMA in Mali, MONUSCO in the DRC,  MINUSCA in the CAR, and UNAMID in Sudan) have only spent three or so years of their decades-long military career in UN peacekeeping. UN capabilities would therefore expand if its military leadership had decades of  experience with peacekeeping specifically, instead of military matters in general.  

In addition, there is a general skill gap growing in the ranks of current staff officers. A  recent UN report noted that there are a lack of officers with needed skill sets in civil-military coordination, military planning, and specialized skills like bomb disarmament, drone use, and map analysis. In addition, that same report found that the UN needed more  french speaking female officers, as well as reiterating the need for high quality leadership. The  best way to plug these persisting skill gaps comes in the form of a permanent UN staff officer  corps. The UN can establish much needed training schools and officer training programs with the  knowledge that they can spend six months training an officer in a skill like GIS (Geographic Information System, a way to analyze geographic information) analysis, and not have  them leave the organization six months after that. In addition, the UN could select applicants who possess the needed skill set instead of relying on member states to hopefully contribute officers with the needed skill set.

Lastly, the UN can actually gain access to some of the talented officers that it currently can't recruit. While in some militaries, UN service is viewed as a highly coveted assignment that  develops valuable intercultural skills and experience in conflict zones (particularly European and  African militaries), in other militaries it is viewed as a career dead end. This is particularly true  for the US military, who has rarely contributed military forces to UN missions since the 1990s.  This is particularly worrisome, since the US military currently possesses the largest, best trained, 

and most experienced staff officer corps in the world. It allocates $18,459,000 to officer education, currently maintains an officer corps 80,000 strong, and has extensive experience from Iraq and Afghanistan.  By establishing a staff officer corps of its  own, the UN could effectively poach military officers from armies that traditionally would never  send these officers to the UN, promising them better benefits and chances for career  advancement.  

Because of all of these reasons, the UN needs a full time military bureaucracy. It can still  rely on its member states as sources of new staff officers, which every country produces through  officer training programs and military colleges. But once they are in the UN system, they are  permanently loaned to the UN, with its own rank and  promotion system, instead of only a few year long temporary loan.  

Critics have two main concerns about any form of UN-led military. First, many  ideological conservatives worldwide have concerns about a non-state entity having a military. It’s a pillar of modern sovereignty theory that only the state, through its armed forces and police, can make use of legitimate violence. An army that is fully loyal to an international organization, instead of only loaned to it, is a violation of those norms. Having only the staff officers be loyal to the UN, instead of the entire force as a whole, is a strong compromise. In this new world order, only the brains of the UN’s army would be fully loyal to the UN, the metaphorical arms, body, and legs of the being would still be loyal to the various UN member states.  

In addition, critics contend that an international staff would be unwieldy at best due to the massive cultural and institutional differences in each separate officer's background and  training. However, these issues can be overcome with strong intercultural training and by officers simply  gaining more experience in the international work environment. These are best developed with a permanent corps. The ability for multicultural staff to work well provided they have common training and methods has been highlighted in recent years by the success of recent NATO and EU  joint military commands, such as IFOR in Afghanistan.  

In 2020’s conflict-ridden international stage, UN peacekeeping has become more necessary than ever before. The number of conflicts, UN missions, and UN peacekeepers rises every year.  Furthermore, UN peacekeepers are more and more willing to engage in violent action as part of  these operations, significantly upping the stakes and reiterating the need for a strong officer  corps. 

Creating a permanent officer corps for the UN would go a long way towards improving  the capability of UN peacekeeping missions, while at the same time meeting the concerns of  member states who are afraid of a “UN army” becoming a serious power in world military  affairs. The secretariat and the security council should seriously consider implementing this  policy if they want to improve the efficacy of peacekeeping operations at limited political and fiscal cost. 

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.

The Modern Midas: How Mineral Economies Hinder Political And Economic Progress

Upon cursory review, the prospect of striking large amounts of mineral wealth appears to be a cause for celebration, evoking romanticized notions of great periods of developmental transformation, like the California Gold Rush or the Texas Oil Boom. Such enticing imagery, however, only serves to veil the potentially regressive economic and social reality of such abundance. There exists a growing discourse validating the resource curse paradox, an economic theory that correlates a nation’s mineral plenitude with an inhibited rate of economic and social progress. While such a relationship might initially seem counterintuitive, upon the examination of the phenomena that underpin such a claim, one may find that there exists a substantial amount of evidence that warrants further consideration in the policy making process in relation to nations dependent on resource rents, especially those in the oil-saturated Middle East. 

Defining the Resource Curse and the Nature of the Rentier State

First coined in 1993 in his book Sustaining Development in Mineral Economies, economic geographer Richard Auty outlines the resource curse paradox, in which he notes that the economic and social welfare of nations wealthy in hydrocarbons and hard minerals were “inferior to those of non-mineral economies at a similar level of development” despite the flow of wealth one would expect from the additional means of taxation and foreign exchange. He explains that much of this dissonant relationship is due to the nature of a nation’s mining and extraction industries being more dependent on foreign capital than domestic labor, with most export revenue leaving the country to feed back into foreign capital investment and leaving the exporter with only residual tax revenue. Auty’s most compelling explanation of the resource curse’s hindrance to development, however, lies within his observation of how mineral economies are often at the mercy of the economic phenomenon known as the Dutch disease. Originally referring to the Netherlands’ lagging manufacturing sector, the term refers to a change in “exchange rate movements following a large inflow of foreign currency… due to a natural resource discovery… , foreign aid, or investment” and the subsequent detrimental economic impact on a country’s industrial and agriculture sectors. As a mineral economy subjects itself to large flows of foreign investment, its domestic currency appreciates to the level wherein the prices for non-mineral exports become too expensive to be competitive. Meanwhile, these periodic influxes of foreign wealth result in consumers demanding a “shift to the production of domestic goods that are not traded internationally” to accommodate increased consumer spending, ultimately resulting in all non-mineral market sectors collapsing in favor of consumer goods. Whilst there exists a counterargument that the flow of foreign capital would offset any need for other export industries through comparative advantage, one must not discount that, in allowing the Dutch disease to take root, developing nations with mineral economies leave themselves at the mercy of often volatile mineral markets amidst shrinking sectors that would otherwise ameliorate crises in the event of scarcity. There exists a visible testament to this in the form of Venezuela's ongoing financial crisis. From 2007 to 2017, Venezuela's liquid steel and automotive manufacturing industries fell by 93% and 98%, while its rice and corn production fell by 58% and 55%, respectively. Whilst these declining industries may have had their losses previously concealed with petrodollar-funded imports, the oil glut of the 2010s and subsequent reduction of Venezuela's imports by three quarters from 2012 to 2017 served to mark how truly fragile a mineral economy can be, as one may witness from the subsequent commodity shortages and scarcity that have greatly served to perpetuate the ongoing political violence. 

Whilst the long-term economic risks posed by a mineral economy’s unwillingness to diversify exports has the capability to drive developing democracies into economic ruin, it is this very same lagging development allowing other developing nations to perpetuate autocratic governments, particularly within the context of the petroleum-rich rentier state. Brought into modern discourse through the writings of former Egyptian Minister of Finance Hazem El Beblawi, the rentier state is characterized by its dependence on “external rent… to sustain the economy without a strong productive domestic sector”, more often than not through rents on mineral resources, with “the government [being] the principal recipient of the external rent”. Such a term is often used in the context of the various petroleum-exporting nations of the Middle East, particularly;Gulf States such as Saudi Arabia who possess oil profits that comprise over 90% of their respective budget revenues. Due to the state being the primary medium of distributing these mineral rents to its citizens, the government is able to freely “[distribute] favors and benefits to its population”. This, when coupled with the minimal or nonexistent taxation in most rentier states, creates an environment that is inherently contradictory to the democratic social contract of government representation at the cost of taxation. Instead, political apathy dominates as a citizen of a rentier state has little incentive to participate in civil society or agitate for social change. Furthermore, in the event that mounting political pressure does lead to calls for democratization, the state’s absolute control over mineral rents ensures that it is able to mollify any dissenting groups through favorable rent payments. One may see this phenomenon at work in the wake of the initial Arab Spring protests in Tunisia, after which the Kuwaiti government announced that each citizen would receive the equivalent of $3,500 and free food staples for 13 months, or through Saudi Arabia’s $10.7 billion social welfare increase following the fall of Hasni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt. This pacificatory of state patronage may also take a less overt form through government mandated employment, with rent-funded programs such as Saudi Arabia’s Nitaqat and Qatar’s Qatarization initiatives offering their citizens guaranteed job security in the public sector for the sake of preventing job insecurity from adding to the costs of living in an autocratic state. 

Preparing for a Post-Rentier Future 

Despite the elaborate way in which this unique form of social contract has upheld authoritarian rentier states for decades, there does exist a growing trend that indicates such regimes--particularly those in the Middle East--are to inevitably plan for a post-rentier future. With OPEC crude oil prices having fallen by 38% from 2019 to 2020 and the COVID-19 global economic crises resulting in economic contractions for the majority of rentier states, many rentier states both abroad and in the Middle East have found themselves unable to sustain their generous distribution of rents. Such crises serve a twofold detriment to the rentier state, as they not only highlight said governments’ atrophied public health institutions in favor of those that produce resource rents, but also the inability of such states to sustain its pacification measures when under economic duress. In such cases, upper-class citizens in rentier states who have offered guaranteed employment, namely the Gulf States, have engaged in an en-masse departure from their countries of origin in an effort to secure financial stability elsewhere, resulting in overwhelming waves of capital outflow. For a country directing their rents primarily towards the middle class, however, the consequences of this pressure to abandon the rentier system appear to be much more severe, resulting in explicit civil unrest. Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari’s 2020 decision to cease the country’s long standing and popular subsidization of oil and electricity, spurred by the need to reallocate oil rents to combat the coronavirus, has resulted in the mass eruption of protests that threaten to undermine the foundations of the current Nigerian government. For increasingly youth-saturated rentier states such as Saudi Arabia, a nation with 25% of its population being below the age of 14, typical rentier systems of mollification such as state-mandated employment may find itself no longer able to guarantee employment to the eventual influx of youths entering the workforce. With the insidious regression caused by the resource curse made apparent, one must reconsider if the United States’ attempts to embargo foreign nationalized oil industries truly do serve only as mere economic retaliation. Though the United States has been criticized for its recently tightened sanctions directed towards Venuzuela’s state oil company, Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA), for their admitted role in harming the nation’s economy through “accelerating a decline in oil production”, policy-makers must consider the true value of accelerating recovery at the cost of allowing Venezuela to depend on an industry responsible for siphoning its agricultural sector and leading it into its current crisis. 

Though the United States itself can hardly be considered a rentier state, policy-makers must be wary of its constituent states’ susceptibility to the resource curse, namely the states of Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming, who draw 72%, 54%, and 39% of their respective net tax incomes from mineral severance taxes. It is apparent that the same 2010s oil glut responsible for Venezuela's economic downfall has not left these oil-dependent states unscathed, with Alaska in particular, a state dependent on energy taxes for 90% of its general fund revenue, dropping by as much as 84% from its 2007-2013 average. Whilst the United States possesses the necessary economic and political institutions to mitigate persistent economic regression in such instances, it is necessary that policy-makers regard the reality that even the United States is not immune to the economic fragility wrought by the resource curse, and ensure that states that normally flourish from severance taxes do not do so at the expense of a diverse industrial base and neglected non-mineral industries. 

In light of how mineral wealth gnaws at the foundations of the democratic social contract and supports regimes built upon apparati of repression, one must use this knowledge to both understand future global trends concerning the rentier state and the operational possibilities such an understanding offers. For rentier regimes that have indicated that they are ready and willing to diversify their economy in preparation for a post-rentier future, it is recommended that the United States  accelerate this transition via selective multilateral trade negotiations. However, the United States must also prepare itself for the inverse concerning rentier regimes expected to enter a period of mass civil unrest following the collapse of the rentier system if it is to successfully prevent possible regressions into failed states.

Notwithstanding the presence of a strong social contract and relatively stable democratic institutions, the United States must nonetheless acknowledge its constituent states’ susceptibility to the economic vulnerability wrought by the resource curse, and is urged to take any steps it deems necessary to diversify its local economic sectors. In regards to its dealings abroad, however, it is apparent that the US may capitalize on the rentier state’s dependence on mineral wealth through embargoes on such goods, forcing any repressive regimes build upon the rentier system to diversify their economy and subsequently develop in a way that facilitates a civil society conducive to democratic ideals.

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.

For a Few Rocks More:

One day, the stars and planets we look at will look back at us, for there will be people on these far off rocks. Space will change everything; it will probably change your life, and it will definitely change your kid’s life. What the internet was to Generation Z, space will double or triple in impact. Its presence will permeate every aspect of our lives to the point of cliche (if it already isn’t). Yet, when space is mentioned, it is talked about as a “few acres of snow,” to quote Voltaire’s satirically disparaging description of North America in Candide. However, just like North America, space is the next “few acres of snow”that will come to massively influence the lives of everything and everyone.

Talking about space as a real thing that humanity will inhabit seems wacky and far away, but we are in the middle of the exploration phase. When the expansion phase comes, then we will realize how much potential is just above us, in the vastness. Space is massive, larger than any human can possibly imagine, so when I refer to space expansion, I’m referring to an expansion within our solar system. Nevertheless, going into space and building colonies will fulfill cultural milestones, make trillions of dollars, influence great technological advancements, and, tragically, stain the sky with blood. Will all this energy dedicated to space settlement improve society? Why go into a region that is ridiculously difficult and expensive to access when we are packed to the brim with huddled masses demanding food, water, healthcare, and shelter? Why jump to the sky when the foundations we lift off from are as shaky as the spaceships we will hurtle into space? 

The answer to the question is that the fundamentals that shape our current global society make space travel inevitable. Globalization, growing populations, exponential resource consumption, and capitalism generally incentivize expansion. The issue then is whether this expansion into Space is a positive or negative trend. I hope, and I believe that the offerings of Space that we use will be a net positive for the average citizen of the world. Space has the potential to stimulate life-saving innovations, economic prosperity, sustainable resource acquisition, and even cultural reinvigoration. 

However, the key word is net, meaning that just because Space can benefit society, does not mean that benefit will be distributed roughly equitably or that Space will benefit us all. Maybe, in a hawkish act of hubris, some mustachioed military advisor will use a military space satellite and laser the fertile soil of Earth with the devastation of a nuclear bomb. 

Whether the changes will be net good or bad (I think it’ll be net positive), the changes from space exploration will change the DNA of our society, and, due to safer and more targeted genome editing, probably ourselves. Governments, including the one in Washington, should start planning for this eventuality now, with state and local governments following up in a few decades. A planned out grand strategy for space affairs and expansion will mitigate costs from the monumental changes that await once our spaceships bathe in the voluminous rays of Sol. 

The Timeline of the Second Age of Discovery 

Is 1961, the year Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space, the new 1492? Look at the timeline a certain way, and the comparison is strikingly prescient. In 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue, and “discovered” the new world. 115 years later, colonists from the Virginia company would land on foggy shores in the backwaters of the Powhatan confederacy and found Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in the Americas. Following the Jamestown timeline then, Jamestown: Mars edition should be a thing in 2076, exactly 115 years after Gagarin made his earth shattering voyage.

Is the metaphor perfect? No, old world colonization and conquest of the New world began around the early 1500s, but the Jamestown comparison creates a strong framework to think about the phase we’re in around space exploration. 

Space travel is a cost-inhibitive exercise. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket has been praised for dropping the price to send an object into Space to just $2,720 per kilogram. That’s a big drop from the past, but just that cost, combined with laborious construction, testing, and maintenance requires large investments, meaning that only entities with a lot of capital can build the infrastructure required for space travel. The same was somewhat similar in the Age of Discovery where building colonies was capital intensive due to the large amounts of ships, supplies, and people that were needed to maintain a permanent settlement. 

In both situations, private companies (the Virginia Company in 1607, SpaceX & Virgin Galactic today) worked with their respective governments to maximize legality, capital and synergies. Just like the first settlements and expeditions into America, space exploration will not initially be dominated by the private or public sector, because both sectors benefit from a partnership. 

It may feel strange to dedicate thought, time, and money into space exploration when the world is already so chaotic and complex, but I imagine that Europeans must have thought the same way during the 1500s. The Renaissance was in full force lifting the non-Byzantine & Islamic parts of Europe from the “dark ages.” The Reformation, along with its court intrigue, wars, religious fanaticism, and social upheaval ravaged the attention of millions of Europeans. At the battle of Mohacs, the Ottomans reached their territorial zenith, and were then decisively halted 50 years later at the battle of Lepanto. The Gutenberg press introduced new methods of mass communication, and led to the aforementioned Reformation. In England, Henry VIII was busy deciding whether to divorce, behead, or remain with his wives. To many in Europe, just like today, the colonization of new lands was a sideshow viewed with varying degrees of interest by the general public. 

Just because space may seem like a sideshow, doesn’t mean it will remain as such. Sooner or later, I’d contend in 30-50 years, it will be put on center stage. As mentioned earlier, there are a variety of economic, social, and demographic factors that will drive space expansion. Put even more simply, there’s a lot, like in the trillions a lot, of money to be made in space, and that money will drive investment in Space and send us into the stars.

The Fattest Cash cows Float in the Vacuum

There are several major industries associated with space. The most developed are telecommunications (you’re reading this article on a phone which is only connected to the internet through a satellite in space) and scientific research. The next are defense and space tourism, both of which I’ll discuss later. However, the two big future industries that will make trillions of dollars are space mining/resources, and space colonization. The colonies in Space are a bit farther away from space mining operations, but the local economy that will be created from these colonies will be incredibly high-risk, high-reward long-term investments that will attract venture capital like a moth to a flame. 

Regardless, the biggest money makers in the foreseeable future of Space will be in mining operations on the practically limitless amount of rocks orbiting the Solar System. Goldman Sachs, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Ted Cruz have all argued that the first trillionaires will get this insane wealth through space mining. The most obvious thing that can be mined on these rocks, most of which are asteroids, is an unearthly amount of precious metals and minerals. Gold, Copper, Platinum, Silver, the metals that are the backbone of all industrial nations, are all present in inexhaustible quantities. Just one large, rich asteroid would crash the market for these metals if it would be stripped of its metals immediately. There are dozens of asteroids in very close proximity (relative to space) to Earth that have billion dollar valuations, and the potential profit from these asteroids at current prices would be in the trillions.

Like many things in life, the reality of asteroid mining is orders of magnitude more complicated and expensive than on paper. One method to mine asteroids would be to physically push them into the Moon or Earth’s orbit, and mine them from this closer distance. Even so, all methods will be done mostly by automated spacecraft. 

Space agencies have experience landing automated space drones on asteroids. In December, a Japanese spacecraft will return with an asteroid sample, and on October 21st, NASA successfully put a spacecraft on the Asteroid Bennu, a tiny rock the size of the Empire State building. The craft should return to Earth with a sample of Bennu by 2023. In 2022, NASA plans to launch its Psyche mission which will send a probe to the near metallic asteroid Psyche 16. While technologies to mine asteroids are there, they haven’t been combined effectively enough to do so for a profit. 

Nevertheless, large mining companies are looking into Space as a long term strategy. Collecting rocks in Space will be a laborious, though eventually profitable industry combining the efforts of private mining companies, national government, space agencies, and private space companies. This current lack of technology to mine asteroids will stunt growth for some time, but that will change once the technology is created. The boom is coming: Just wait. 

There’s another, equally pragmatic but not as short-term profitable reason for asteroid mining: Climate change. Mining is incredibly toxic to the environment. It’s a major fossil fuels emitter, it’s incredibly resource intensive, and the pollution of some mining operations have turned local ecosystems into toxic wastelands. By offplaneting mining operations, vital minerals and metals can be extracted in an environmentally friendly way because the extraction isn’t happening in a terrestrial environment. Spaces, once used for mining, can be transformed into natural reserves, parks, commercial space, or housing. There’s another

In Space we find the elixir of life in great quantities: water. Currently abundant on Earth, water exists in even greater amounts within our Solar System. Mining water may seem redundant, because Earth is full of water, but having water in Space will incentivize space exploration, space expansion, and conflict mitigation all while making a hefty profit. 

Ground into its elements, water is just two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. It’s this hydrogen that has a purpose: As Hydrogen fuel. This technology already exists. It’s used, albeit in different forms, in cars as a fuel cell and as rocket propellant. Creating a hydrogen supply chain through Space however, could be revolutionary in the revenue it generates, and the expansion in Space it would streamline.

What would a space-based hydrogen supply chain look like? There are multiple ways in which it could take shape, and depends a lot on technological discovery, and industry/government investment. However, I’ll adapt one postulated Bloomberg TV and mix in other sources and discoveries.

Imagine, a white, speckled dot surrounded by a sea of multifarious illuminations approaching in the distance. A spacecraft’s thrusters are seen going into a slow burn as they gracefully pivot into a landing position. Just over the crest, a bright gleam emanates from a metallic, plastic creation on the surface of the moon. Set to synthwave, a mining colony, almost completely robotic, comes into full view and reveals itself in its barest glory. It’s the beginning of a fascinating operation.

There’s a variety of things to be mined on the moon. Rare earth metals which can be used from everything to buildings to computer processors, Helium-3 which can be used for nuclear energy, and water which is what I’ll be focusing on. Water on the moon exists primarily on the poles, but a recent landmark discovery found water on the surface of the moon. Once mined, the water is separated into hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen is converted into a fuel. Then it is carried by rockets to a refuelling station in between the earth and the moon or in low earth orbit (less than 2000 km from Earth). Alternatively, these cargo rockets can carry hydrogen fuel back down to Earth where they can be used to fuel trucks, busses, trains, or cars.

These refuelling stations are incredibly important as they act as gas stations in space. Spacecraft and satellites need not carry all the fuel they plan to use or rely on costly launches from Earth. Launching spacecraft from Earth is expensive because Earth’s gravity and atmosphere are hard, and thus expensive, to break through. On the moon or a large asteroid these worries are greatly diminished, making them cheaper long term options to build colonies after a risky initial investment. Thus, not only could we make orbital hydrogen stations, but we could also cost-effectively supply them with a lunar mining colony. 

An orbital hydrogen station, our gas station in space, could greatly increase the capabilities of private space companies and space agencies to explore and colonize the solar system. Ships won’t need to carry as much fuel. They’ll need enough for launch, and then can immediately refuel to travel in Space where there is much less gravity and fuel goes much farther. Therefore, future spacecraft can be designed to store more cargo and passengers. 

Additionally, a refuelling station can mitigate the space trash problem. Most satellites in low earth orbit are decommissioned and left to float in orbit when they run out of fuel. The ISS is a notable exception, but it’s still an exception. These floating metal husks contribute to a growing space trash problem where remnants of rocket boosters and satellites can fall from the sky (though most burn up in our atmosphere) or destroy existing satellites. By refueling satellites from hydrogen mined on the moon or an asteroid, space agencies will increase the functionality of their satellites. This saves money, and greatly reduces space waste.

This is all possible with available technology and some surprisingly cheap investment. In a report by over a dozen industry experts, they made a case that a hydrogen propellant production facility would take only 4 billion dollars (about the same cost as a Las Vegas luxury hotel) of initial investment to complete a project that would eventually generate 2.4 billion dollars annually. The biggest problem wasn’t technological or financial, the authors argued, but rather of capability. No single organization can do this by itself, but with cooperation between government space agencies, private space companies, and other related industries (mining & chemical), this project is ambitious and risky but feasible. 

The specifics of what happens next are murky. The farther into the future one looks, the harder specific predictions are to make. However, the infrastructure that’s built to support space mining operations are conducive towards the construction of space settlements on asteroids, the moon, and the big, red prize: Mars. 

The mining of metals allows newly built settlements to have nearby accessibility towards construction materials, which would complement hypothetical 3D printing capabilities already on board the spacecraft. And mining water would provide new settlers with a self-sufficient water supply which would reduce dangerously unreliable and expensive logistical support from Earth. Moreover, water can be used to grow crops, can be turned into oxygen, and can, of course, be used in conjunction with solar panels to produce local energy.

The financial opportunities from Space are large from the outset, and will continue to expand as technology advances, and as settlements are created. After all, these settlements will desire goods and services which will likely be facilitated by a capitalist economic structure, or at least AN economic structure. That means that new companies will be created and old ones will expand to fulfill these new demands. Jobs will be created to make sure these demands are completed. The physical expansion into Space will force a supplementary economic expansion, and that will be a net societal benefit.

This is what I mean when I explain the likely inevitability of expansion into Space. Physical expansion fueled by scientific and financial opportunity will create an economic expansion which will bring in more people and start a positive feedback loop. The UN estimates that by 2100 the world population will peak at 11 billion people. These new people will want to live somewhere, and they’ll want to live with the same access to goods and services that is found with most abundance in the Global North. 

By 2100, space colonies won’t take in these extra people, but they’ll create an infrastructure for that to happen, and free up key spaces. Land intensive industries may offplanet, freeing up land in addition to being more eco-friendly, and new resources and industries created through space exploration and expansion will enlarge the global pie of resources and access to luxury goods.

We are in the Jamestown timeline 2.0, and the incentive to keep going in this expansive direction exists from an environmental, financial, and as will be discussed, cultural perspective.

The Cosmic Golden Age

For Space to be an important aspect of the culture, it must first filter into the mainstream culture. This is already somewhat the case. Science Fiction novels like Asimov’s Foundation series, Heinlein’s The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, and Liu Cixin’s The Three-Body Problem and shows like Star Trek, Babylon V, and the Twilight Zone have influenced policymakers, entrepreneurs, and cultural influencers of today. However, space travel is presented as a fantasy or future fiction to think about later. In the future, Space won’t be in the future because the discoveries and achievements made in the Cosmos will be part of that present discourse. Space travel will slowly be presented as more realistic and less futuristic. 

The, anybody-can-go-into-space narrative will somewhat ironically first be portrayed by the elites through the form of space tourism. Though they won’t be the only non-Astronauts to go into space- the Challenger shuttle was, before it tragically exploded, supposed to transport the first teacher into space- they’ll be the first, largest, and most publicized group of non-Astronaut individuals to break free from Earth’s gravity. 

SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic, the three big private space companies, are all making the infrastructure for space tourism to happen. All of them will have flights around the end of the decade, but the tickets are in the hundred thousand dollar range, and thus will for a time be only accessible for the billionaires. 

Nevertheless, the media coverage on Facebook, Instagram, TMZ, and cable news will be such that if marketed well these billionaire astronauts will inspire a common dream for people to also want to go to space. If Dwayne Johnson, Taylor Swift, Elon Musk, and MrBeast go to space, many people would want to follow in their footsteps. 

The cultural desire that the elite would first get to experience and then permeate into the mainstream is the tip of the iceberg of space’s cultural impact. The actual iceberg could be the golden age created from space. It’s an argument rooted in history. The core benefits when the periphery of a state enlarges. Essentially, the core of a state benefits when the state’s periphery, the area around the core, gets larger.

Europe went through the Enlightenment, and the Industrial/Scientific revolutions as it expanded during the Age of Discovery. Rome’s success was derived from its massive conquests. The Inca’s achieved their very brief golden age when Pachacuti and his successors blazed through the western South America. The Han of China achieved their golden age when they conquered the Xiongnu. Each case has their own exceptions and contextual considerations, but the common thread is that as these states expanded, the core benefitted. Economies grew, order was maintained, and a cultural flourishing began. In this sense, as many of Earth’s nations expand into space, they will reap the financial and cultural rewards of this new land.

There are two criticisms of this core/periphery dynamic that space expansion avoids to a large extent. First, is that as a multipolar world expands into space they will fight over resources. Secondly, past expansions have nearly always been morally inhumane. As Tacitus (technically Calgacus said it but Tacitus probably made it up so I’m attributing it to him) famously described Roman conquest, “they make a desert and call it peace.” European colonial states, Chinese imperial states, the Aztecs, the Songhai, the Mongols, and the Caliphates of the Arab world all achieved their expansion through a variety of methods, one of which included brutal, bloody, exploitative conquest. 

The first is a more valid concern in Space, but remember, there is infinite space in Space. As humans get farther and farther away from Earth, there’ll be more and more uninhabited space to build mining colonies and settlements. Constant expansion is sustainable because there’s no end to space.  There’s no need for conflict if one’s possible opponents are looking for resources in a completely different direction from Earth. There’ll be less conflict during Earth’s forays into space because states have some scientific, moral, and economic incentives to collaborate. It’s more cost efficient and moral if China, Russia, and the US collaborated to put a colony on Mars than if the three fought over who goes where. However, in the initial stages, when only a few asteroids, moons, and planets are effectively colonizable, there could be room for conflict, and that’s a genuine threat policymakers will have to manage.

The second is, fortunately, less likely simply due to the fact that nobody lives in our Solar System. There might be aliens, but they’re either bacteria that won’t do much besides inspire more people to go into space and study it. Or, they’re aliens so powerful that there’s no counterplay against them except hope they don’t care enough to exterminate everyone. Besides these unlikely possibilities, there’s nobody to conquer, no one to enslave, and nothing to kill. This simple fact will make space colonization much less bloodier than anything Europe approached in the 16th-19th centuries. 

However, just because no one lives outside of Earth’s orbit now, doesn’t mean that in the future space colonizers will become unwilling indentured servants, or suffer from similar forms of exploitation. These concerns will be addressed in the second installment of this article, but when looking at net outcomes, more people will benefit than they will lose from the coming centuries of space exploration and expansion.

Space will revitalize stagnant cultures with common dreams and goals. New jobs, new money, and new technologies will create new industries for people to be creative with and to thrive in. The philosophers will have a field day, the scientists will literally have a field day, and the entertainment industry will film, mock, and write about both having their field days. How this golden age will specifically manifest itself is unpredictable, and how much the gold will shimmer depends on how the bounties of space are managed by policymakers and society writ large, but it can be a golden age.

Conclusions from the Bright side of the Moon

Whether our society becomes more or less dystopian in the next century is difficult to predict. Books have been written on the subject for centuries, and while some predictions are prescient, some are wildly off the mark. However, I believe that space, in the hundred years, would mitigate a dystopia, not enhance it. Sure, technology developed from space colonization may be used by malicious actors, but the predicted trends don’t indicate that this will outweigh the social gains from Space.

Nevertheless, these negative possibilities may happen, and thus deserve to be discussed. Wherever there is the possibility to fail, governments should create policies and strategies to mitigate these shortcomings. I plan to do so in my next segment, where I’ll talk about the reverse of space colonization, and what may happen if malicious actors game the political, economic, and social systems that exist within space and the ones that interact with Earth. The Moon may be bright, but travel into the land where the sun don’t shine, and there is a vast, haunting dark side.

Rise of the "Global South": Potential of Mercosur and Regional Organizations

Our world remains on the path of globalization in spite of the challenges posed by nationalism, extremism, xenophobia, coronavirus etc. Even in the particularly challenging times of a global pandemic, countries are persistent in maintaining their global connections and, in particular, economic ties, in order to continue benefiting from world trade and business opportunities.

Of course, it is undeniable that globalization, here defined as increased interconnectedness of the world politically, economically, and socially, can also lead to tension, marginalization, and increased levels of inequality in spite of greater economic profits. What bears witness to this is the fact that, although world poverty has decreased in the last decades, global levels of inequality kept on rising. 

Therefore, it is apparent that though there is potential within the current system, there is a need for a rearrangement, or better yet, a fresh perspective and an alternative to current operational mechanisms in order to address the downsides of the current track of globalization and allocate its benefits proportionately throughout humanity. 

One way in which the present state of inequality is manifested is through the very division of the world into the “global north” and the “global south” (terms which will remain under quotation marks due to their relativity and many connotations to be briefly elaborated on below). Whereas some countries have seen proliferation in democracy, human rights, a rise in GDP and standard of living, and deserved thus to be placed in the “developed nations” of the “global north,” others have suffered from political instability and economic uncertainty, which have landed them into the “global south.” 

The terms themselves point to the assumption that it is countries in the northern hemisphere, on the continents of North America and Eurasia that have prospered the most. Nevertheless, there are notable exceptions of Central America, North Africa and a good chunk of South Asia which are all considered to at least economically be south. Conversely, those states south of the equator, with the notable exception of Australia, are somehow condemned to particular challenges in further economic development under this “global south” definition. 

These terms may thus imply geographic significance, but the exceptions listed above point out to the fact that a country’s positioning from the equator cannot be quite directly linked to the country’s GDP. Instead, no one country or one particular group of people is doomed to failure as terms may imply. The matter is actually far more complex and it seems that the current system and institutional complexities of globalization are at play. Thus, the countries seen as most “developed” and suitable to compete in the current system are those that have well-established  markets and a well-arranged flow of goods. Those seen as best role models would be the US and the European Union which, not coincidentally, also happen to be major creators of the current global system. 

Countries of the South American continent, in particular, have not been given a significant role in the creation of the current globalized system, which is evident in the fact that none of the permanent UN Security Council seats belong to a South American state and that South American countries are certainly not in the top stakeholders in associations such as the World Bank. This means that trade and political systems dominating the current track of globalization are not based on these countries' values and interests, so political decisions and trade flows are likely not to be inclusive and reflective of the region's perspectives, instead disproportionately more benefitting what is seen as the “global north,” which in this way largely reinforces the status quo and maintains reliance and dependence of the south on the north. 

Regardless, there are still ways in which South American countries can advance their representation and role in the current system. One way that South American countries are increasing their competitiveness in the world market, which the current system necessitates, is by creating a strong regional body of their own, in likeness of that of the European Union, which was itself created in order to increase Europe’s competitiveness. 

This body is Mercosur, a South American regional organization formed in 1991 when Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay signed the Treaty of Asuncion which established political and economic union, thus creating a South American trading bloc. The Treaty of Asuncion emphasized the “importance of securing their countries a proper place in the international economy” and the Treaty, they concluded, “must be viewed as a further step in efforts to gradually bring about Latin American regional integration.” 

This treaty gave birth to Mercosur as an embodiment of that commitment and, though its success is staunchly debated, it remains a strong base for moving the integration of the region of Latin America forward, as an economic model of the “global south”  heading into the mainstream flow of globalization. This article will outline the challenges to the growth of Mercosur, as well as the potential and necessity of this organization for the future of Latin America and the so-called “developing world.” 

Mercosur’s historical trajectory: Challenges and Successes

Since its conception in 1991, Mercosur remains with only four members, which are the original founding members. This is also reflected in its logo featuring the four stars of the southern sky’s famous Crux constellation, and the South American continent, but with special focus and light shone on the permanent and founding members, thus bringing special attention and significance to the founding members. 

Venezuela had a brief flirtation with the group when it joined in 2012, but was suspended in 2016 due to the Maduro regime’s high levels of corruption and failure to comply with the group’s commitment to democratic values coming from the 1998 Ushuaia protocol on Democratic Commitment. Paraguay, one of the four founding members, was also ironically suspended from 2012 to 2013 due to doubts regarding its democratic stability, though this was seen as a political affair meant to allow space for Venezuela to enter, given Paraguay was the only center right government at the time that did not agree to accept leftist Venezuela. 

These events shed some light on a widespread problem of political stability of the organization given that the last decade saw political play and tension that led to these fractures. There is also tension coming from economic pressure between Argentina and Brazil, the two largest economies of the bloc, which further complicates things and often blocks Mercosur countries from expanding trade outside of their bloc and Latin America. 

This political instability and economic tension sheds light on the reason Mercosur is taking longer than the EU to integrate more members and connect the continent. There were, for example, attempts to create common currency similar to European euro, which would combine the Brazilian “real” and the Argentine “peso” to make the “real peso” (which also reaffirms who the two major players of the bloc are), but this idea is still debated and the countries remain worried of the risk of inflation that the region has witnessed too many times. 

This is not to say that Mercosur does not remain in many ways a revolutionary body in nature. It is the largest trading bloc of the region, worth roughly $3.4 trillion, followed by the Pacific Alliance, which includes Chile, Colombia, Mexico, and Peru, at about $2 trillion. Mercosur has also succeeded in naming Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Peru, and Suriname associate members, which all have reduced tariffs in trade with the bloc, with Bolivia in the process of acquiring full membership. 

Furthermore, Mercosur’s decision-making body, called the Common Market Council, provides a high-level forum for coordinating political and economic policy, and its presidency rotates alphabetically to each full member every six months. While Brazil and Argentina remain in a competition for regional dominance, Mercosur manages to facilitate cooperation and balance, and has survived major stresses such as Brazil’s 1999 currency devaluation and Argentina’s 2001 financial crisis while remaining  the largest trading bloc of the region, which adds credibility to the organization. Aside from trade benefits, citizens of the four full member countries have the ability to travel, work, and live anywhere within the bloc without restrictions.  

Mercosur’s Present-Day Significance 

 Following the coronavirus outbreak, most Latin American countries instituted strict lockdowns and are still amongst the most affected countries of the world, with half of the top 10 countries with highest number of cases worldwide being in Latin America as of September 2020, even though Latin America comprises only less than 8.5% of the world population. 

The impact of these lockdowns on the regional economy is unprecedented, with massive spikes in regional unemployment rates. Brazi, in particular, is suffering a historic record with 50% of the population out of work, and projected reductions of 6% in GDP that could set the region’s growth back for a decade and exasperate the region’s structural challenges. 

While all of these economic challenges pose threats to promoting regional integration and creating a common currency,  regional integration may be a key factor in reviving South America’s broken economy. This type of integration will in fact be crucial in mitigating the challenges posed by the  pandemic, which call for a transparent, interconnected regional body where ideas, trade, investment, and innovation are well-facilitated, and where a high value is placed on political, social, and economic stability. 

These promoted values and mechanisms would directly confront the impacts of a pandemic that is drastically reducing investment and productivity rates, exasperating the usual regional challenges. Mercosur is currently positioned in a way that makes it very suitable for bringing as much of the Latin American region as possible to the negotiating table and facilitating greater cooperation, and this opportunity should not be missed in today’s critical period. 

Mercosur Going Forward

Another potential impact of Mercosur lies in its increased trade with countries outside of the bloc, with deals recently having been made with the  EU and Egypt. The deal with Egypt is into its fourth year and may encourage further trade opportunities between Mercosur and the Middle East. However, the deal with the EU, in spite of years of negotiation and drafting, is now being lagged due to Amazonian deforestation concerns brought about by France, which Brazil, on the other hand, sees as protectionist policies on behalf of France which often attempts to, through protectionist policies aimed at strengthening domestic production by avoiding competition and free trade, protect its own industries. 

Whether the protectionist allegations on behalf of France and the EU are true or not is less important than Mercosur’s position in this deal and the need of the “global south” to step away from dependence on the “global north.” It is important to note that, unlike the EU, Mercosur has begun its career not only as an economic treaty organization but has also included elements of political and social integration, as well as a clause relating to environmental protection. These policy elements add to the value and unique identity of Mercosur. 

In addition, in order to allow for the truly long-lasting, sustainable, and authentic development of Mercosur, the region, and the so-called “global south,” it is important that Mercosur remains aware and true to these foundational policies no matter the outside pressures. This is why deforestation of the Amazon is not justified and future deals should be focused on issues such as environmental safety as well as the rights of indigenous communities, which Mercosur should see itself as a key actor in protecting and putting forth.  In fact, the original 1991 Treaty of Asuncion mentions the “optimum use of available resources”  “preserving the environment,” as well as “economic development with social justice.” This is exactly the alternative vision and priority that the current globalized system needs in order to improve its trajectory and something Mercosur can and should pride itself in. 

One important deal currently being drafted, and of great importance to the southern hemisphere’s economic platform, is between Mercosur and Singapore that would cover a variety of issues, such as further easing trade barriers, boosting intergovernmental negotiation, providing space for e-commerce, supporting micro and macro enterprises, etc. Though this deal is also facing a delay, due to Argentina’s need to focus on the economic crisis at home ignited by the pandemic, the deal has huge potential due to Singapore’s immense experience in similar deals and its connection to Association of Southeast Asian Nation (ASEAN) countries, which are another significant bloc of the “global south.”

Thus, cooperation between ASEAN and Mercosur is exactly the kind of increased economic activity between the countries of the so-called “global south” that this article is arguing for. This would gradually shift the focus of globalization from the “north” and allow for better worldwide integration, expansion and diversification of available perspectives on development in the mainstream climate of the international community. It is important, however, not to let the pandemic slow down the process, and actually understand the benefit that integration and cooperation during the pandemic can have in the long-term. 

In this way instead of continuing the current trends of environmental damage, sidelining of minority and indigenous groups, disregard for multilingualism and multiculturalism, and lack of concern for increasing inequality, there would come an age with a new perspective. Still, this can only be attainable if emerging economies of the so-called “global south,” and particularly so in South America, are able to stay true to their constitutional and regional agenda that, unlike northern counterparts, begin their focus with regard for these very issues. The “global south” has had time to observe and learn from mistakes or shortcomings of the current system which made it possible to have such holistic treaties as 1991 Treaty of Asuncion that made sure Mercosur actually positions environmental and social health as its priority where the EU and the US had to learn from their mistakes and are reluctant to, as stakeholders in the current system, take on a fully different base for the way they conduct business. Bolivia, a contender for membership in Mercosur, prides itself in being a plurinational state and actively recognizes historical injustices and works on maintaining its indigenous languages. If such examples remain prominent in the region, and are reflected in both text and actions, then the “global south” will provide a truly viable fresh perspective the current system needs. 

Conclusion 

Globalization continues to be challenged and it is certainly lacking even integration and provision of equal opportunity to citizens of the world in its current trajectory. Thus, greater integration amongst the countries of the so-called “global south” will allow for greater opportunity to be achieved in order to allow for diversification of major players in the global economy and political thought, allowing for more voices to be heard, including of those who have been largely on the losing end of the current neoliberal policies that govern the world as is the case with current “developing world of the global south.” Instead, the Latin American region and the “global south” as a whole can develop a system of support amongst the countries disadvantaged by the system and thus provide an alternative to what is positioned by those who are more likely to reinforce the status quo they benefited from.

To achieve this, it is important to turn to organizations such as Mercosur, that has already had some success in integrating the region, and make sure it addresses the political and economic instability, as well as increase its cooperation with other blocs of the “global south” aimed at political, economic, and social integration, such as ASEAN and the African Union and decrease dependence of the south on the north. These corporations would eventually begin to tip the balance of world trade, and allow these regions to promote economic equality and political independence on their own terms. 

However, it is important that these organizations use their advantage of being newer and able to offer a new view to global development and progress. Mistakes of the past, such as disregard to ecological and social health that has been an unfortunate and gruesome collateral product of the current track to globalization as spearheaded by the “global north,” should be avoided, and this are some of the hopes and still insufficiently explored potentials that emergence of a strong southern market would bring to the stage. 

Worlds Collide: The Significance of the Abraham Accord and the Future of the Middle East

Introduction

On September 9th, Christian Tybring-Gjedde—member of the Norwegian parliament and populist Progress Party—nominated US president Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Tybring-Gjedde was shortly followed by Swedish MP Magnus Jacobsson, and most recently four Australian law professors led by Dr. David Flint. All of these come ahead of the recent peace deals between Israel and the Persian Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and the Kingdom of Bahrain. These three parties have issued their support for Trump on grounds of their personal appreciation for his sentiments regarding the corruption of Western governments and unfettered immigration. This is not even the first time Tybring-Gjedde has espoused his support for Donald Trump, with the MP formally nominating Trump in 2018. The peace deal in the Middle East instead serves to underline how these individuals have interpreted the success of Donald Trump’s administration at home and abroad. Understandably, a fair deal of press has begun to circulate over this issue. Not only has partisan debate arisen concerning the nature of the deals themselves, but additionally over whether the President is deserving of these nominations. 

In regards to the Abraham Accord (the Israeli-Emirati treaty), the Director for the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic & International Studies Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated: “This will radically change the way Arab states will deal with each other and their problems.” Not only is this a win for Israel and its people, it is telling of a marketed shift away from the hegemonic control of Saudi Arabia and more autonomy in how the Gulf States—and the Arab World as a whole—deal with interstate issues. However, other commentators are less impressed. In mid-August, Steven A. Cook of the Center on Foreign Relations (CFR) correctly predicted Bahrain’s deal, but noted silence from Saudi Arabia and opposition from Qatar, Turkey, and most notably Iran. 

Similarly, Trump’s nomination has received an apparent partisan reaction. For Republicans, these peace deals have provided an easy point of praise for the Trump administration in the foreign policy realm. Jared Kushner—who was heavily involved with the deal—took the opportunity to praise Donald Trump for his “historic peace effort”. Alabama 2nd District candidate Barry Moore similarly expressed that the UAE-Bahrain-Israel peace deal was “truly a historic moment”. Opponents to Trump have conversely flipped his praise to contrast it with his failings in the foreign policy arena. Some have claimed that Trump has destroyed the US reputation for foreign policy entirely, and that this is only a drop in the bucket in a history of failures. This is the same debate which has prompted whether the successful Middle East summit is truly a landmark win.

Aside from partisan divides in Congress, negative reactions to the Abraham Accord have gained traction mostly out of their comparative analyses. Though some journalists praise the work of Trump’s Emirati-Bahraini delegation in securing the treaty, they report that this success follows a similar trend of foreign policy in the Trump Administration. Rather than nurturing friendships and maintaining alliances, critics of the “Trump Doctrine” laude it for comprising of diplomatic stunts; policies made to impress and awe rather than inspire change. For instance, Trump’s talks with North Korea are lauded as an act of grand-standing. They do more to inflate the ego of the administration than do anything productive.

Still, supporters and opponents alike argue the possible historic weight of these talks. Rather than looking to the past to influence policy in the Middle East, the Abraham Accords have attempted to “look forward”. Where treaties with other countries have been mostly done out of a means to discontinue armed conflict and align interests with the US, the Abraham Accords have been signed purely out of the interest of opening new roads for discussion with Israel and paving the road to increased measures of diplomacy in the region. The ramifications of the Abraham Accords are far-reaching, and it’s necessary to grasp them fully before judging the weight of them completely.

Before the Abraham Accord

It is no secret that Middle Eastern politics are complicated, but they become near unnavigable when the debate over Israel is thrown into the mix. The origin of this issue has to do with the creation of Israel post-World War II to give a homeland for displaced Jews. This decision fell in line with proposals from Zionists since the dawn of the 20th century, who were eager to escape persecution in the West by having their own ethnic homeland. Unfortunately, regardless of historical claims to the region, over the millennia, the region had become home to a significant Muslim Arab population. In a textbook example of decolonization, the British Mandate of Palestine was partitioned to arbitrarily grant land to the new Jewish population. As history suggests, the outcome of this plan led to a bloody civil war. Although this civil war is long over, its outcome has culminated in a micro-level cold war between Israel and Palestine. 

The Arab World has had mixed approaches to the Israel-Palestine conflict. Historically, Arab leaders of Sunni and Shi’ite stripes opposed the state’s very creation, and went out of their way to avoid interaction with it. While more moderate clerics and liberal politicians have been open to acknowledging Israel’s existence and opening talks, few countries have been willing to open diplomatic relations. Prior to the Abraham Accord, the only Arab nations to have recognized Israel were Turkey (1949), Egypt (1979), and Jordan (1994). In spite of their recognition of Israel, there remain complications to their relationships.

Turkey’s recognition of the state of Israel was certainly important for the era, yet primarily derived from Western influence on Turkish foreign policy during the Cold War. Egypt’s relations similarly came out of the involvement of the United States with the Camp David Accords. Anwar Sadat, president of Egypt, was seeking a closer alliance with the US and thus acted to service the broader interests of his own country. The treaty between Jordan and Israel was most deliberately influenced by the Westwith US president Bill Clinton politically pressuring and promising to forgive Jordanian debts for a peace deal with Israel after years of conflict. None of the countries who signed peace deals possess a significant amount of kindness toward Israel in their populace. According to an opinion poll from Vox, as of 2013, Turkey and Egypt held a favorability rating of Israel amounting to 8% and 1% respectively. Much of Jordan’s population is descendent from Palestinian refugees, who near-universally view Israel and its Jewish population with animosity.

The source of this animosity between Arabs and Israelis is at once simple and complicated. According to the Anti-Defamation League, well over 74% of the Middle East harbors anti-semitic views. For everyday Arabs in the Middle East—specifically those of the Muslim faith—Israel is an extension of Western imperialism and Jewish conspiracy. Thus, Zionism (the ideology advocating for the establishment of a Jewish state, specifically in the historic area of Palestine), its advocates, and Israel itself must be eradicated. Although more liberal elements of the Middle East have tried to claim that they are simple anti-Israel rather than anti-Jewish, it is clear that this is merely a dog-whistle to justify anti-semitic policies in the Middle East.

However, the more complex part of this equation is that there are social and political barriers to peace between Israel and Arab states as well. While individuals in the region value their religion greatly—the very name of the Abraham Accord is an eponymous reference to Jews and Muslims being children of Abraham—support of Palestine remains a key issue for Arab officials. Bolder countries like Qatar have directly supported Palestinian paramilitary groups, but for a majority of the Middle East, the question of supporting Israel cannot even be approached because it effectively abandons their support for Palestine. Thus, not only are Israelis left with little hope due to cultural divides, but for political and social obstacles as well.

On a geopolitical scale, the Middle East’s concentration of power has gravitated toward Saudi Arabia in recent years, primarily in response to the growing threat of an Iranian superpower. The reasons for this are varied. There is certainly something to be found in the rivalry toward Sunni and Shi’a sects of Islam for which the Saudi and Iranian governments serve to respectively represent. In the absence of a modern caliph, modern Sunnis have the House of Saud to look to in the containment of the Shi’ite threat of the Ayatollah Khamenei. For modern Shi’a Muslims, the revolutionary theocracy of the Ayatollah is a necessity to spread a Pan-Islamic revolution outside of the bounds of Iran.

It is because of this divide between Muslims then that Middle Eastern states act mostly in allegiance to Saudi Arabia. For instance, it is the means for the Saudis (and to an extent the Qataris) to justify their intervention in the Yemeni Civil War in providing arms to fight against perceived Iranian influence and the growth of Shi’ite Islam. Thus, the common foe of Iran has served to unite the Gulf and Levant states around Saudi Arabia, just as the problem of Israel has served to divide them.

Impact of the Abraham Accord

Through the Abraham Accord, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates have broken away from the common consensus among the Saudi-led coalition that Israel should be disavowed and Palestine should be supported. While the duo are far from the first countries in the Middle East to normalize relations with Israel, they do follow a common trend in the quest for closer relations with the United States by extension. These treaties represent more of a political move by the elite than a rising consensus among the populace. Whether the rest of the Arab World is to follow remains unclear, and highlights a discrepancy in the allegiance of these ambitious Gulf States to their counterparts as well as their hegemon: Saudi Arabia. 

To understand why the UAE and Bahrain agreed to normalize relations, a quick recap of recent events between the US and these countries is needed. The Abraham Accords point out that its signatories are “Recalling the reception held on January 28, 2020, at which President Trump presented his Vision for Peace.” The direct reference of this quote comes from the ambitions of the Trump administration to solve the Israel-Palestine conflict. Critics of the plan—while noting its complexity and adherence to a two-state solution—have lambasted it for being too one-sided and giving preference to Israel over Palestine.

However, whether the Vision for Peace is possible is a digression. The point is that the involvement of the United States in this agreement is salient even in the wording. Mention of the United States are only made three times, but it is where they count: in outlining the US’ future involvement in a “Strategic Agenda for the Middle East” and in “Expressing deep appreciation to the United States for its profound contribution to this historic achievement”. Just as with the Camp David Accords, there is a reason that Donald Trump is an official signatory of this treaty: because it is part of a larger goal to divert states in the Middle East toward recognizing and opening ties with Israel.

Interestingly, just as with Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan, neither the UAE nor Bahrain have particularly favorable views of Israel or its people. In the former, the lead-up to the Abraham Accord was one of skepticism and outrage toward the government. The phrase “Normalisation is Treason” trended among Emirati citizens, though particularly among ethnic Saudi youth. A petition—the Palestine Charter—opposing normalization reached more than one million signers from the Emirates. Only because of fear of government crackdown and the desire for a closer relationship with the US did Bahraini citizens quiet their dissent against the treaty. While the elites of these countries have signed the deal, its people are not so sure.

In addition, there are definitely ramifications for the greater Muslim World at stake, especially in the Gulf. Although Oman—and, surprisingly, Sudan—have agreed to seek relations with Israel, other states like Kuwait have condemned the treaty and Saudi Arabia has specifically demanded the condition of Palestine incorporating the Israeli-controlled Jerusalem as its capital for peace. Iran more ardently opposed the treaty alongside Turkey and the people of Palestine. These actors claimed that the peace deal of the UAE and Bahrain with Palestine was not only wrong, but a violation of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative which had been reaffirmed by both signing parties in 2017.

The future of the Middle East is an uncertainty. It is clear now that we will not be seeing a universal recognition in the Middle East of Israel any time soon—there is simply far too much ground to cover. But there is more to this peace deal than the outcome of Israeli sovereignty. For one: the Abraham Accord denotes a marked shift in the power dynamics of the Middle East. Where the UAE and Bahrain might have gone along with the indifference of the Saudis toward Israel—perhaps even outwardly supporting Palestinian revolutionaries—just a few years ago, this move has revealed a weak link in the armor of the Saudi coalition. Not only are the two Gulf states now more isolated from their Sunni brethren, but the alliance itself is now more unstable than it was previously.
Ultimately, what will be the final result of the Abraham Accord is hard to say. Brzezinski of the CSIS who I referenced earlier acknowledges: “The biggest losers are probably the Palestinians.” The heaviest role of the Middle East in refusing to acknowledge Israel was a sense of pan-Arab solidarity. Sans the influence of outliers, it was part and parcel of Middle Eastern policy since the Bush administration that Israel was in an underdog battle with the US in its ring against the rest of the Arab World. Now, it has put that dynamic into flux. While we will have to wait and see what the future holds, one can only hope that the redefinition of Middle Eastern policy will follow a more peaceful, more cooperative path in the wake of the Abraham Accord.

Post Covid World: What Happens to the Eurozone?

After the shocking results of the United Kingdom’s referendum to withdraw from the European Union (EU) in 2017, Euroscepticism has spread throughout EU member countries outside of the United Kingdom. Pew research center concluded that the amount of Europeans who are no longer confident in the EU is on the steady rise.

Despite the rise of Euroscepticism across the general region of members in the European Union, Europeans have different opinions regarding the eurozone and the European Central Bank (ECB). A survey conducted by European Parliament in 2018, concludes that the ECB has gained increasing public support since 2013. Although recent polls show the positive support for a single monetary policy, COVID-19 places this sentiment into question. COVID-19 has economically damaged many nations in the European region and arguably more so nations that have the Euro as their national currency. 

The future of the EU as a whole was unknown when Great Britain formally left the Union and is a deeper mystery with COVID-19 added to the mix. Although a different institution, the Eurozone faced challenges and obstacles that needed solutions. The Eurozone addressed issues that came before and after the pandemic.

A History of European Monetary Cooperation

Before the ECB was created and adopted by its initial members, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was established in 1990 by the central bank governors of European countries to promote coordination among central banks and economic convergence between nations in the region. The implications behind regional integration and economic convergence were both economic and political. 

Economically, regional integration alleviates any challenges that stem from the flow of commodities, services, capital and/or labor. Economic convergence of developing European countries combined with their connectedness to European superpowers like France and German would increase the economic growth of the region by increasing the opportunities of trade and investments. Additionally, coordinating macroeconomic policies reduces the probability of countries falling into economic recessions but also the capability to recover quickly from a crisis in the likelihood that one occurs.

Politically, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and Soviet Union occurring less than ten years prior, regional integration was a large step towards strengthening liberal ideologies in the international order. Economic regional integration was also a political move that attempted to deter the re-emergence of communist powers by not only connecting small developing countries with powerful liberal countries but also helping in their development. At the time when the EMU was first created, it was vital that the implementation of a singular currency and monetary policy for a group of nations was done through a slow transition thus easing countries into high levels of integration rather than abrupt quick transitions that are short lived. 

The work of the Economic and Monetary Union is primarily categorized under three stages that laid the foundation for the euro currency to be used across states The policies or measures implemented at each stage brought member countries one step closer to regional integration which is reflected in the final stage of the EMU by fixing the exchange rate and creating a singular monetary policy for all member states  to follow. These policies that are still seen in the main objectives of the ECB are known as quantitative easing which result in a more open economy that makes borrowing money from banks easier. In theory, if the lasting effects of quantitative easing stimulates a national economy, expanding quantitative easing policies to a group of member states within the same region should stimulate economic growth on a larger scale. Given the hypothetical benefits of easy business exchanges over a group of several states, coordination of monetary policies needed to be done at every stage to ensure the success of the ECB.

Different measures implemented within each stage center around the theme of coordination. For the eurozone, coordination is the most significant form of diplomacy that determines the functionality of the institution. Without the coordination of monetary policies as well as other policies such as labor and capital movement, the eurozone would not operate as smoothly as it has so far. This form of coordination seen in the region produces a level of regional integration that stretches.

The Functions of the ECB

Despite having a singular monetary policy, the ECB can maintain cooperation and coordination through different frameworks which either consult or decide what is the optimal monetary policy for the region at a given time. More specifically, monetary policies which are under the responsibility of the ECB are establishing the value of the currency and interest rates. Overall these policies affect the supply of money, foreign exchange rate as well as the rate of different forms of investments. As a collective of national central banks, there are three primary bodies which are each delegated the responsibility to make some form of decision. The governing council is recognized as the highest body within the ECB that analyzes recent economic and monetary developments to determine if interest rates or lending rates need to be changed. In total there are 25 members in the Governing Council which include the 19 central bank governors of the eurozone as well as six members which make up the second governing body which is known as the Executive Board. The primary responsibility of the Executive board is to handle the daily operation of the ECB. The last operating body of the ECB is known as the general council which is composed of the central bank governors of all central banks in EU countries. As this position is made up of governors of non-eurozone banks, this council acts as more of an advisory council to the other two governing bodies. At different points in time, these three governing bodies have come together to properly address economic crises both on a national and global level.

Structurally, one way the ECB has responded to national and global economic shocks has been through the creation of resolution mechanisms that are to further aid and supervise the central banks of ECB member states in central bank operations and also oversight to macroeconomic policies. These mechanisms were created with the hopes for member states to equitably benefit from being in the eurozone.

The First Decade of the ECB

Positive results can be seen within the first decade of the ECB. With much action from the ECB being inspired by the work of the German Federal Bank, the ECB was able to maintain an inflation rate at a maximum of 2%. Policies that drew upon the unorthodox approach of economic and monetary policy, caused for the economy of the region to grow at an especially high rate. The low inflation rate that was maintained throughout the first decade mitigated the risk of increasing prices that were affected by high global oil prices. Even during global economic shocks, consistently low interest rates increased countries’ capabilities to lend more from other countries. Smaller economic shocks which occurred in the early 2000s, pushed the Executive and Governing Council to create forms of buffers that would act as safety nets in case of different shocks. 

While in the short run, increased borrowing could be beneficial and finance different projects and programs, but this rate of borrowing is sustained for an extended period, specific monetary policies could make national economies vulnerable to financial crises. Tight and regulated fiscal policy is an optimal strategy for countries to upside the possible risks towards financial crises. Even in the early years of the ECB, the need for a disciplined fiscal policy was acknowledged but the global financial crisis placed extra significance on the notion of the regulated fiscal policies. In total, member states in the ECB saw positive benefits within the first decade but the global financial crisis ultimately determined the success of the European Central Bank for the second decade of its existence. 

ECB’s Shortcomings: a Case Study of the Greek Financial Crisis

It is worth noting that the European Central Bank only requires monetary policy to be uniform through member states. The creation of fiscal policies, on the other hand, is left to the discretion of national governments. Among member states, there is minimal to no coordination between fiscal policies which raises issues that challenge the efficiency of the ECB. Due to fiscal and monetary policy in combination affecting overall economic activity of the economy, the lack of coordination for fiscal policies can cause some countries to be restricted in the event of an economic shock. The Grecian financial crisis which began in the late 2000s was so severe due to the restrictive ability to change monetary policy and the lack of discipline for fiscal policy. Although fiscal policies could help member states recover to some extent, intense policy intervention is needed for economies to sustainably recover from shocks. National financial crises like the Greek financial crisis emphasized the significance of fiscal policy coordination between the member states of the ECB. 

The origins of the Greek financial crisis can be dated back to the 1980s when Grecian fiscal policies surrounded the expansion of increasing government spending and borrowing. When Greece entered the eurozone and ECB, implementing ECB quantitative easing policy combined with their own fiscal policy made Greece a country that was perceived to be a safe place to invest in and could easily borrow money from other countries. Greece’s membership in the ECB increased competition for German goods and deepened their inability to pay off their debt. Since Greece maintained their fiscal policy up until the global financial crisis, the low inflation rate established by the ECB restricted Greece from changing monetary policies that would better alleviate some of the crisis they are placed in. 

As mentioned earlier, the ECB was structurally inspired by the German Federal Bank given that they were the most powerful bank at the time. As a result of their power, much of the monetary policies created were influenced by the state of Germany’s economy. In the context of the Greek financial crisis, ECB monetary policies based on the state of Germany’s policies created tensions between Greece, the ECB and Germany who were divided on how the ECB should respond to the financial crisis. Greek believed that the ECB should forgive some of their debts while Germany was hesitant in debt forgiveness and changing monetary policy for Germany. The tensions between these three actors extended to the point where Greek almost left the eurozone and ECB due to the lack of sympathy from the ECB and large eurozone lenders like Germany.

In total, there are three major critiques that affect the effectiveness of the ECB. The first critique of the ECB was previously mentioned was the lack of fiscal policy coordination among member states. The lack of fiscal policy coordination partially makes fiscal policy coordination less effective. The second major critique of the ECB is the large role Germany has influence over the monetary policy of the ECB. As a result of this, it places states at different economic levels than Germany to be subjected to monetary policies that Germany would benefit the most from. The third critique is the confidence in quantitative easing. Since its inception, the ECB has placed great confidence in quantitative easing monetary policy. The ideology behind having constant quantitative easing monetary policy does not necessarily benefit the regional economy in the long run.

Policy Recommendations

Given the three large critiques that impede upon the efficiency of the ECB, reforms which would focus on a significant theme of coordination. Better coordination across different policies that within and outside of the responsibilities of the ECB will not only promote the founding theme of regional integration, but will also evenly distribute the benefits of a single currency across different member states. Proposed recommendations are catered towards the two significant bodies of the ECB seeing as they make much of the significant decisions for the eurozone.

The Future of the Inter-American Development Bank is in Trouble

The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) is rarely the world’s premier diplomatic spectacle. However, the recent election of the institution’s new incoming president proved to be yet another realm of conflict between the hardline administration of President Donald Trump and Latin American nations seeking greater autonomy over their own affairs. 

A Break with Precedent

Established in 1959 by the Organization of American States (OAS), the IDB has grown to include some 48 sovereign nations, with 26 of them borrowing states (which the bank lends to)  which primarily consist of Latin American countries.The IDB is the largest multilateral financier of the Latin America and the Caribbean region, and coordinates various policies to combat income inequality, climate change, and other challenges facing the continents.

Historically, the process of selecting a leader for the bank has been a compromise between the U.S. and the countries of the region. While the U.S. is endowed with 30 percent of the voting power in the assembly, the Latin American nations possess just over 50 percent of the voting power and it has been a long standing precedent that the president of the body is from Latin America (and the executive vice president is usually American). In fact, since the organization’s inception, the president has always come from a Latin American country. As Michael Shifter and Bruno Binetti write, “Selecting a Latin American as president has been a way of respecting regional autonomy and giving other governments involved a sense of ownership in the institution.”

In a Trump Administration preferring coercion to cooperation in the region, there has never been any place for this precedent. For example, in June of this year, without any prior consultation with IDB members, the White House announced that it intended to nominate Mauricio Claver-Carone to be the next president of the body. Not only would Claver-Carone be the first American president of the IDB, he also brings historically little experience to the table. Claver-Carone notably has zero experience in a federal central bank or even in the finance industry at all. He is neither an economist nor a politician, but rather a lawyer by trade, who has served as a lobbyist and member of the board of directors for the hard-right lobbying group Cuba Democracy Advocates and briefly as an adjunct professor at George Washington University. Claver-Carone’s complete history of governmental service adds up (chronologically) to a brief stint on the Trump transition team, a year as an adviser at the Treasury Department, five months as the acting U.S. representative to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), then finally less than two years as a Latin America advisor on the National Security Council (NSC). In comparison, the first president of the IDB- the Chilean Felipe Herrera- was a former finance minister of his country, general manager of its central bank, and Executive Director of the IMF before his election to the presidency (and he was later a nominee of the Salvador Allende government for United Nations Secretary-General). The second president, Mexico’s Antonio Ortiz Mena, led the Mexican social security office and finance ministry for almost two decades prior to his presidency. The two successive presidents served extensively in the private banking sector, and then later as central bankers or finance ministers (with Claver-Carone’s predecessor serving also as Ambassador to the United States of Colombia) before assuming the presidency. In addition to breaking the geographic precedent, Claver-Carone’s selection represents a clear break from the typical occupational profile of an IDB president.

These twin precedents- of Latin American heritage represented and relevant occupational experience- have long formed the backbone of this particular project of regional integration and multilateralism. It was in defense of these norms that this nomination was condemned by a plethora of different states with differing relationships with the United States, as well as dozens of former prime and foreign ministers and Obama-Biden Administration officials. The European Union and Canada called on the body to delay the vote until after the American presidential election, while Argentina, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, and the majority of voting nations (but not vote share) opposed the nomination and sought to have it delayed indefinitely. Even the staunchly conservative government of Chile characterized Claver-Carone’s election as “clearly inadequate” and deemed his criticism of dissenting nations as needlessly “aggressive.” 

Domestically, while most Congressional Democrats have opposed the nomination (chiefly Sen. Patrick Leahy-VT ), Cuban and Venezuelan hardliners like Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) endorsed Claver-Carone. They were joined internationally by a myriad of Trump-aligned governments, including Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guyana, Haiti, Japan, and Paraguay. In the end, Costa Rican and Argentine candidates withdrew and Claver-Carone won election to the presidency despite the strong opposition movement, which will surely loom even larger should Joe Biden win the White House in the middle of Claver-Carone’s allotted five-year term. 

What Would a Claver-Carone Presidency Look Like?

The IDB is by no means a perfect organization. Its financial support for the Camisea natural gas project in Peru, responsible for mass destruction of the Amazon and the violation of the rights of indigenous peoples, is one example of its service to private interests and manipulation by capital. A region long plagued by gross inequalities is now embroiled in a struggle with the twin terrors of the coronavirus and the climate crisis and cries out for public investment and aid. Claver-Carone’s proud embrace of the Trump Administration’s combative, belligerent, and punitive Latin American policy risks derailing these future aid efforts. As a public intellectual and an NSC staffer, he has been the face of a right-wing campaign to reinstate draconian  sanctions on Cuba on top of the existing U.S. embargo. This is in reaction to the Obama Administration’s “Cuban thaw” that broke with the strategy of punishment that has been condemned routinely by the United Nations and has deprived Cubans of vital medicine and food, all while enacting no political change on the island. At the NSC, Claver-Carone attempted to apply the very same “maximum pressure” tactics to the dictatorships in Venezuela and Nicaragua with similarly disastrous results. His exceedingly ideologically narrow conception of American interests and power in the region, as well as of the region’s problems, has amounted to punishment for punishment’s sake.

Within the context of the history of American intervention in the region, Claver-Carone’s appointment makes sense. But that is not a compliment. From the 1901 Platt Amendment that proclaimed legitimate the American occupation of Cuba by subjecting the island to permanent policy vetoes from the American sugar companies’ representatives in Congress to the Reagan Administration’s full-throated support for anti-communist death squads that committed war crimes in El Salvador and Guatemala, American foreign policy in the region has been weaponized without constraint on behalf of commerce. Fetishization of capitalism on America’s side has led the U.S. to betray its principles, compelling it to overthrow democratically-elected governments to create the so-called “banana republics” so that American produce companies could sell cheap fruit. Cold War groupthink led the U.S. to support “S.O.B.s” like Rafael Trujillo, Anastasio Somoza, Roberto D’Aubuisson, Augusto Pinochet, and Jorge Rafael Videla even as they presided over heinous massacres. The IDB was one of the last areas of U.S.-Latin America relations in which the U.S. reserved some degree of autonomy for the region, seeking to rule by consent, not coercion. Indeed, in negotiating the outlines of the IDB and its predecessor (the Inter-American Bank), the Roosevelt and Eisenhower administrations agreed to a substantial minority share of the vote and a concessional lending program in the IDB to counter any allegation of financial domination.Yet the Trump Administration, with its antiquated policy paralleling the Monroe Doctrine and forged by its former figurehead and Claver-Carone’s mentor, John Bolton, is dead set on instead turning the IDB into yet another sphere of American hegemony and rule by fiat.

A New Cold War? Or a Failure to Learn the Lessons of the First One?

Furthermore, Claver-Carone, Trump, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have made clear their intentions to turn the IDB and other Latin American fora into areas of protracted great power competition in a contrived “new cold war” with China. Since 2001, Chinese economic and political influence in the region has grown tremendously, in tune with broader trends of increasingly salient Chinese soft power worldwide. Chinese and Latin American officials have often exchanged visits while Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Ecuador, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Venezuela have inked “strategic partnerships” with China in recent years. Some 19 countries, furthermore, are participating in the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which is centered around infrastructure investment. 

Trade between China and the region has increased from $17 billion to over $300 billion since 2002 while U.S. aid to the region, aside from a temporary increase during the Obama Administration, has largely declined. The Trump Administration, rather than helping the people of Haiti rebuild their infrastructure, ensuring the Colombian peace accord holds, or supporting anti-corruption efforts throughout the region, instead cut aid to Central American countries with large numbers of asylum seekers and threatened military action against Venezuela. Diplomatically, China is also seeking to isolate Taiwan internationally by persuading remaining Caribbean and Latin American countries that recognize Taiwan to flip. Panama, the Dominican Republic, and El Salvador have all flipped from Taiwan to the PRC in recent years. 

While it is clearly true that China’s influence is growing in Latin America, the strategy of weaponizing the IDB in some sort of essential bipolar power struggle badly misreads both history and the present. It is important to note amid the discussion of a second Cold War that even in the first Cold War, a plurality of the region’s states were members of the Non-Aligned Movement, rebuffing both superpowers. Similarly, many Latin American countries today (like El Salvador, Mexico, and Brazil) prefer to maintain good relations with both Washington and Beijing. Urging them to take sides and reduce all ties with China is unlikely to work and needlessly antagonizes a fellow IDB member (in China) whose cooperation is necessary to combat the climate crisis, one of the most crucial tasks of the IDB. 

Specifically, during his campaign for the presidency, Claver-Carone argued that he would further capitalize IDB Invest, the private sector lending group for the bank. This focus on private sector investment, intended to counter the BRI and similar Chinese investments, works to strengthen private enterprise and compete with China even as governments of all stripes in the region cry out for public investment in public health infrastructure and social spending to combat inequality. This strategy would only further entrench inequality and extend the needless suffering of the region’s people to do little more than stick it to another member of the IDB whose cooperation on the principle issue of our time is necessary. 

Conclusion

Though the history of American intervention in Latin America and the Caribbean is checkered, previous administrations understood the need for Latin American autonomy as a prerequisite for the multilateral legitimacy of institutions created with the assistance of the U.S. Yet today in the name of America First, the Trump Administration, through the selection of Claver-Carone, has sought to assert American dominance. Yet if this dominance has to be imposed from the top down, by decree rather than consent, it may be vulnerable to organized resistance from within the organization.

Lesbian Identity in Patriarchal Capitalism: Contradictions of Capitalist Modes of Production

In 1993, the Lesbian Avengers marched on Washington DC, “a direct-action group focused on issues vital to lesbian survival and visibility”. They were new, they were edgy, and they were sexy. The national narrative was that of a Copernican pop culture revolution, with sapphic love smack dab in the center. The Rolling Stone magazine called lesbians “The Hot Subculture”, while other publications were pumping out articles about “lesbian chic”. At first glance, one would think this marked a turning point in the American public’s acceptance of homosexuality. But some at the time were skeptical, pointing out that there was something missing from this supposed revolution: lesbians. The portrayals at the time were not centered around lesbian women, but on the concept of lesbians as an object, a fashion trend, an aesthetic. “The Message?”, Kara Swisher wrote in 1993, “America, come say hello to lesbians – they’re hot! Sexy! Out there!”. Was this truly a step forward, or were the old lesbian stereotypes of the hairy-legged, man-hating hag merely being traded out for fresh new ones? 

The sexy, trendy lesbian is common in todays media. In a series of interviews with lesbians about the “lesbian” category of porn, many women pointed out that lesbian porn was not made for lesbians, but for men. One woman spoke about a time at a party where she kissed her girlfriend, and a male stranger took the opportunity to tell her how hot it was, “like it was for him, and not because we were in a relationship”. To many people today, “lesbian” is more likely to evoke a category of porn than a category of human. The cultural acceptance of lesbians we see today is not as liberatory as it is often portrayed; rather, it is an attempt to appropriate the resistance to the contradictions of patriarchal capitalism. To explore this, we can examine the historical development of homosexual identity, and produce a framework for understanding how lesbian identity is constructed today.

Lesbian, historically, has meant a number of things. In the same year as the Lesbian Avengers march, Senator Jesse Helms justified his vote against Roberta Achtenberg for assistant housing secretary with the now infamous sentence: “Because she’s a damn lesbian”. At the time, lesbian as a term for woman who got ‘too uppity’ was common and had been for a long time. But while the history of categories of sexuality is long, it is not as long as many think. In fact, the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” were coined in the 1860’s. To understand what Lesbian means today – and it means a number of things – we have to understand how we got here. The answer has massive implications for not only the gay liberation movement, but for the entirety of the modern capitalist system.

There is an important distinction that must be made here between the act of sex, and sexuality. It is the distinction between sex as an act of reproduction and sex as a desirous act performed autonomously. The act of sex is ahistorical, present throughout human history. Sexuality, however, is historical. While sex as an act has been present in every species which reproduces sexually, it was only at a specific historical moment that humans began to attach societal meaning to that sexual instinct. It is a modern development.

Saying that sexuality is a modern development is not saying that we only recently developed sexual desire, but that only recently has sexual desire been constructed as a societal concept rather than and individual experience. Many modern modes of thought which attempt to apply contemporary understandings of sexuality fall flat against this. Today, the primary sexual division is that of homosexual/heterosexual, but that was not always the case. Instead, the division was between procreative and non-procreative sex. While that division is often interpreted in the context of modern concepts of sexuality, this is a mistake. It is a conflation of homosexual behavior with homosexual identity. Homosexual behavior refers to the ahistorical act of sex, while homosexual identity is the application of social meaning to that act. Homosexual activities in private occurred, but to quote John D’Emilio, “there was, quite simply, no ‘social space’ to be gay’”.

This is most prominent in an examination of legal systems approach to sex. Foucault, in The History of Sexuality, points out that the ways that historical societies discussed sexuality “were all centered on matrimonial relations”. This phenomenon extends further and is especially enlightening in reframing discussions of what is often labeled as homophobia, allowing us to understand it in the context of procreation. In colonial England, the average birthrate was over seven children per woman of childbearing age. The labor of children was needed for the family unit to act as it did, a self-sufficient organization. John D’Emilio writes, “Sex was harnessed to procreation. The Puritans did not celebrate heterosexuality but rather marriage; they condemned all sexual expression outside the marriage bond and did not differentiate sharply between sodomy and heterosexual fornication”. 

This is further supported by the original definitions of heterosexuality and homosexuality. Up until 1934, heterosexuality was defined as “morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex” by the Merriam Webster dictionary before being redefined as “normal”. The cause of this transformation can be attributed most clearly to the economic changes stemming from the industrial revolution. No longer did one need a large family to reproduce a personal workforce, and so sexuality was released from reproduction. If you can work for a wage in a factory all by yourself, the economic need to create children to support you was gone. The conditions for the formation of a homosexual identity came into existence in the form of the capability of an individual to make a living outside of the heterosexual family. Capitalism’s individualistic ideology, a result of an economic structure which drastically reduced the lower classes reliance on others for their own survival, changed the social order which had made the family the primary home of socially recognized sexual activity. The formation of the concept of sexuality was not the result of the creation of sexual desire, but of the social recognition of existing desire which was brought about by the industrial revolution. In short, economic agency is a necessary preliminary for the social recognition of desire.

This, however, poses a fairly perplexing question. “How is it”, D’Emilio asks, “that capitalism, whose structure made possible the emergence of a gay identity and the creation of urban communities, appears unable to accept gay men and lesbians into its midst?”. Despite the individualism it perpetuates, capitalism cannot be seen as antagonistic to the heterosexual family – in fact, it is the opposite. Capitalism is reliant on the family. For the property-owning class, the family created a system for passing on property, while the proletarian family is needed to reproduce the workforce. Any economic system must be able to reproduce its means of production, and an aspect of that is labour power. If the system uses more than it can create, it will not last, and so for that system to maintain itself it must contain the means of its own reproduction. When it comes to labour power, the means of reproduction is the family unit. The family creates children and sets them up to become laborers themselves. 

As Friedrich Engels explained in The Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State, modern marriage in capitalism turns the family into a primarily economic institution. “[The monogamous family] was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love, with which it had nothing whatever to do; marriages remained as before marriages of convenience. It was the first form of the family to be based, not on natural, but on economic conditions – on the victory of private property over primitive, natural communal property”. As he points out, literature in the past which referred to love, and romance invariably did so in the context of infidelity. “This first form of individual sexual love, the chivalrous love of the middle ages, was by no means conjugal. Quite the contrary. In its classic form among the Provençals, it heads straight for adultery, and the poets of love celebrated adultery”. Marriage was economic, and love played no part in it.

But, again, while capitalism does rely on the family, it is ideologically antithetical to it. The family is collectivist, while capitalism is individualistic. It is a contradiction at the heart of our economic system, an ouroboric crisis at the core of our systems of production, one which systematically degrades the entire concept of the family. The destruction of the family has been a common talking point in western politics for at least the last two hundred years. In the 19th century, proletarian women entering the workforce resulted in a scandalized middle class concerned by the perceived threat to family life. Anti-suffrage propaganda often made use of similar language, portraying suffragettes as unwed bitter spinsters. And today, homosexuality has been similarly blamed for this timeless war on the family. The family is a central institution of modern society. It is the institution through which our society, and more importantly, our workforce, is reproduced. There is a reason its destruction is such a subject of fear – its collapse would pose a massive existential threat to our society.

This is the framework by which we can understand the historicity of heterosexism within capitalism – not as ex nihilo, it does not come from nothing, but as a natural consequence of a contradiction within capitalism. Capitalist individualism, which created the conditions for the formation of homosexual identity, is a threat to itself and to its reproduction, making obsolete the very structures by which it perpetuates itself. While bourgeois marriages serve the function of retaining wealth in the upper class through inheritance, inheritance has no meaning to the class which owns nothing. This contradiction is deadly to capitalism, and so capitalist ideology reinforces the idea of the family in abstract terms, no longer a source of economic utility, but a place to find personal emotional value and to satisfy our need for intimate relationships. This façade has turned love and the family into euphemisms, categories used to protect capitalist reproduction.  

The entire process of reproduction is made up of similar contradictions. As D’Emilio points out, society continues to view childrearing as a private process, of parents as the owners of their children and as responsible for their lives, yet childrearing is largely socialized in education, media, and other industries which reproduce children not in terms of their physical birth but as vessels for capitalist ideology. And it is in this contradiction that the need for homophobia forms as a natural consequence – capitalism is internally unstable as a result of the contradiction between its individualism and its need for reproduction, and so it passes on the blame. When homophobes talk about the destruction of family values, they are not wrong. The family as we know it is being destroyed, but it is not feminists, lesbians, or gay men who are responsible, it is capitalist individualism. 

And this is not the first time for capitalism. Nancy Fraser, in “Contradictions of Capitalism and Care”, explores the history of women’s rights under capitalism in the United States. She identifies three points in which the inherent contradictions of capitalism and growing sentiments of women’s emancipation came to a head. Fraser lays out three distinct historical periods defined by the ways in which women related to the economy: “first ‘separate spheres’, then ‘the family wage’, now the ‘two-earner family’”. Each of these came about after the previous social order was in contradiction with some other aspect of society to the extent that it had to be resolved, lest the entire structure collapse.

And through all of these, the institution of the family remains at the core of the contradiction, unable to justify itself against capitalist individualism. Heterosexism and homophobia are the consequences of this contradiction, forces which arose to protect and justify an institution which cannot justify itself. We are seeing an institution which still has important economic value, in that the family is needed to reproduce the workforce, but has lost its ideological justifications and is in conflict with the ideals which were formed by the very economic system which depends on it.

Lesbians in particular become the victims of this contradiction. While the presumed revolution of lesbians sparked in part by the Lesbian Avengers did change societal constructions of lesbian identity, that transformation was not liberatory. Out of the hateful frying pan, into the objectifying fire.

A Taxonomy of Lesbians

Having developed a historical roadmap of the development of lesbian identity, we can now create a taxonomy of lesbian identity to allow for a categorization of cultural representations of presumed sapphic love. This taxonomy will reveal that at the core, female desire is at best incidental to patriarchal constructions of lesbian identity, and that the true basis for these constructions is as extensions of male heterosexual desire. 

There are four forms of lesbian identity which are permissible within heterosexual modes of thought and patriarchal society. These describe not the individual experiences of lesbians, but the cultural narratives which presuppose heterosexual male supremacy and struggle to justify that supremacy within a quickly changing society. If lesbian desire can be defined as genuine female sexual desire towards women, these forms each represent ways in which it is constructed against that definition.

The first form is lesbian desire appropriated into heterosexual identity. This takes the definition and removes the “towards women” aspect and reformulates lesbian relationships as heterosexual. This is best exemplified by the heteronormative question of ‘which one of you is the man in your relationship?’ often directed at lesbians. It is an attempt to apply heterosexual gender roles upon a relationship which, by its very existence challenges those roles.

The second is lesbian desire as denied in the absence of male desire. This takes the definition and removes the “sexual” aspect, on the assumption that without male desire, lesbian relationships cannot be sexual. Where the first form solves this problem by turning female desire into male desire, this simply removes desire. The ironic concept of “Sappho and her friend” in LGBTQ circles describes a person who, upon observing explicit female homosexual desire, ascribes to it platonic meaning. 

The third form is lesbian desire as an object of male desire, objectification. This takes the definition and removes the “female” aspect, turning lesbian desire as a whole into a tool for external male desire. An obvious example of this is the fact that lesbian pornography and portrayals of lesbian sexuality in general is created with male consumption in mind. This can be confirmed easily by asking a lesbian how well they think lesbian sexuality is portrayed in media. This form removes the entire dynamic of lesbian relationships, transforming them from the relationship between two individuals into a single object for the male gaze.

The fourth form is lesbian desire as an obstacle to male desire. This takes the definition and removes the “genuine” aspect, reframing lesbian desire as an illusion in the face of the “true” form of sexual desire, which is male desire. The male chauvinist idea of “flipping a lesbian”, or that lesbians just have not met the right man yet, are not only examples of this concept in action, but testaments to how dangerous they are. Sexual assault of lesbians by men are a serious problem today and cannot be distanced from these portrayals. These perspectives on lesbian desire not only deny women autonomy over their own identities but justify violence in the name of that denial.

We could continue to provide examples of ways in which lesbians are reframed to allow them to fit into the definition of women as defined by men. The concept of “inversion”, which eventually faded into obscurity in favor of the concepts of transgenderism and homosexuality, was used to explain men or women who would show same sex sexual desire, explaining that through the idea that they must be a woman carrying male desires, or vice versa. While this concept is not in use much today, it is hardly rare to hear someone describe lesbians as being “manly”. However, the important point here is how absolutely absurd this is. The structures which contribute to the male centered definition of woman are not simple, they are not natural, and they are not easily maintained. There is a purpose for these structures that justifies them.

A very obvious parallel here is in the historical development of female identity. The first question that must be asked is, what are women? This is not as easy to answer as it might seem, as the historical context of women is difficult to unpack. How “woman” as a category is defined is a complex set of issues, issues which will be important to our point. To quote Anita Sarkeesian, “In the game of patriarchy, women are not the opposing team. They are the ball”. It is for this reason that it is even up for debate whether or not women even exist in the historical sense, if women’s existence within patriarchal societies is as an object rather than a subject.

This is the frame for our investigation into the ontology of women. We must accept that women’s existence is in some sense contingent, socially defined in relation to male power structures. Sarkeesian was referring to the example of stories where women’s victimhood acted as a plot device for the male protagonist, where the stories “[trade] the disempowerment of female characters for the power of male characters”. We can see similar tropes emphasized by the existence of metrics such as the Bechdel test, a measure of female representation which points out the dearth of stories where two women talk to each other about something other than a man. Saying women’s existence is contingent does not mean that the physical existence of people who identify as women is contingent, but that social recognition of women is based upon their relation to men. Male is the default, female requires justification.

So then, if women are truly contingent upon men, what are women without men? In The Straight Mind, Monique Wittig makes the claim that women are fundamentally others, that men are not different, but women are. The relationship between the sexes is not that of “sex one/sex two”, it is “normal/other”. “Woman” is compared to a slur, as it is a signifier which indicates oppression and has no meaning outside the context of the “heterosexual systems of thought and heterosexual economic systems” which formed them. The heterosexual relationship, which Wittig defined as “the obligatory social relationship between ‘man’ and ‘woman’”, is the only source of meaning for the category of woman. It is for this reason that she ends her essay with the infamous phrase, “Lesbians are not women”.

Skeptically accepting this conclusion for the moment, we can apply this mode of thought to history as a means of testing it. If women have historically been defined in relation to men, and if this definition was supported by and in support of the structures of society, Wittig’s argument will be supported. 

Before the expansion of our understanding of sexuality, there were two forms of built social relationships that were socially recognized. Monogamous marriage in the heterosexual form defined by Engels, and friendship. As mentioned before, on the societal level, sexual relationships outside of the economic procreative marriages were largely left alone by social structures. In those marriages, the woman was subjugated by the man, made entirely contingent to him, objectified. So, we turn to the realm of friendship to answer our question of whether or not women have been allowed a sovereign existence in any sense.

Sharon Marcus’ Between Women explores female friendship in Victorian England, making a number of claims about its nature. It begins by identifying the roles of women as defined in the 1839 book The Women of England, a female conduct book. These were “daughters, wives, and mothers”, each examples of ways women were positioned in relation to men via the familial sphere, but there was a fourth role women were allowed: friend. Between Women as a whole makes the case that the role of friendship was not just a potential aspect of Victorian society for women, but a socially recognized role. 

This places the claim that “woman” is a category only in relation to “man” in jeopardy, or at least requires it to be qualified. While Marcus explicitly rejects the idea that female friendships were “an attempt to press women’s bonds into patriarchal service”, she does acknowledge that Victorian acceptance of female friendship was “because they believed it cultivated the feminine virtues of sympathy and altruism that made women into good helpmates”. So, while women did have lives that were not defined by men, this is nothing new to our argument. The argument is not that the individuals categorized as women never exist outside of their interactions with men, but that the category as a whole is recognized by society in its relation to men. 

What Marcus shows us is not that women were socially treated as independent of men, but the opposite in fact. Those genuine friendships between women were revolutionary, they marked a shift in society. They exposed the growing contradiction between the societally accepted definition of women as being an “other” to men with the cultural move towards individualism. This is the ontology of “woman” today. Women are a contradiction, individuals within a category that does not reflect the truth of their lives. 

The sapphic non-women demonstrate this ontology. Lesbians are the ultimate opposition to the definition of women as being contingent to men, and as such pose a threat to the patriarchal construction of women as such. Like female friendship, cultural acceptance of lesbians is not a sign that the patriarchal construction of women has been thrown aside, but a sign of the contradiction. Today, the appearance of socially accepted lesbian relationships in spite of the very category of “woman” being meaningless outside its relationship to “man” represents an inherent contradiction within our social and economic institutions that is coming to light, and exposes the ways in which those structures must cover for themselves. 

What then, is the future of this contradiction? If we are to follow Nancy Fraser’s argument, as well as the point of Sharon Marcus, the contradiction female sexuality poses can be resolved only through a dramatic shift in the structure of things, as a crisis arises, a shift which is by no means inevitable. In The Perverts Guide to Ideology, Slavoj Zizek examines the turbulent history of capitalism. “Capitalism is all the time in crisis. This is precisely why it appears almost indestructible. Crisis is not its obstacle. It is what pushes it forwards towards self-revolutionizing permanent, extended self-reproduction – always new products”. Crisis and contradiction alone are not necessarily threats to capitalism. 

The situation of female sexuality is not a result of independent societal attitudes, rather it is societal attitudes which are a result of material economic conditions. The family is the result of a mode of production which necessitates constant reproduction and expansion of its workforce, and of the societal reverence given to private property and inheritance. Heterosexism and homophobia are themselves birthed out of the contradiction between the family and the individualism of the economic system it supports. Even the idea of “women’s liberation” is itself arguably contradictory. The category of “woman” is defined in relation to oppression, and so long as gender categories hold societal weight will continue to do so. It is a term that is meaningless outside of oppression. The systems which crafted the chains cannot break them, they can only dress the chains up and promise that they are gone. 

This is because the only freedom an established system can offer to those it oppresses is freedom to participate in that oppression. Chizuko Ueno, in Nationalism and Gender, described neoliberal’s offerings of equality to women as the choice of ghettoization or integration. Women are given the choice to either segregate themselves from men, to accept different treatment by society, or to integrate, and be allowed to participate in male society. But participation could never be equal, and while women could be doctors, lawyers, soldiers, they would always be second-class doctors, second-class lawyers, and second-class soldiers. As capitalist individualism sows the seeds of the annihilation of the family, the institution it relies on, neoliberal notions of equality call into question the very basis of its structure.