War By Another Name: The Failure of Economic Statecraft

As the Trump Administration prepares to depart office and give way to that of Democratic President-Elect Joe Biden, its foreign policy legacy is intimately tied to the policy of sanctioning foreign governments for perceived misbehavior. President Donald Trump’s displeasure with the Obama Administration’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a landmark nonproliferation treaty that all but eliminated Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons, led him and a cadre of Iran hawks from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to former National Security Advisor John Bolton to level various sanctions against Iran. The so-called “maximum pressure” campaign has crippled Iranians’ standard of living while doing preciously little to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities or its various destabilizing efforts in the Middle East. In total, the Trump Administration has also either strengthened existing sanctions or levied new ones on thousands of people, countries, or entities. Furthermore, President Trump has revelled in his capacity to deploy sanctions against adversaries of his “America First” foreign policy, threatening to “totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!)” in October 2019 in response to Turkish aggression against Syrian Kurds.

Like never before, Washington has adopted sanctions as its foreign policy tool of choice. Given America’s financial dominance, place in the international system, and numerous allies, this is perhaps natural. But in the age of the novel coronavirus, it is well to ask whether the immense humanitarian costs of sanctions coupled with the existing crises of climate change and pandemics are justifiable or even tolerable in the pursuit of American foreign policy objectives.

The Purposes of Sanctions

Traditionally, economic sanctions are best understood as efforts by governments or multilateral bodies to shape the strategic decisions made by state or non-state actors in the international system. In their practical application, sanctions may take numerous forms ranging from travel bans and asset freezes to arms embargoes and foreign aid reductions. Targets of sanctions can range from terrorist networks such as al-Qaeda to states. States and multilateral institutions such as the United Nations (UN) may impose sanctions for a variety of reasons. In the statist context, a state may impose sanctions on another nation or actor that undermines their interests whereas both states and multilateral institutions may deploy sanctions in response to perceived or recognized violations of international law or norms. For example, the UN sanctioned North Korea after its first nuclear test in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and the U.S.’s Global Magnitsky Act freezes the assets of Russian officials alleged to have committed grave human rights violations and bans them from entering the U.S.

Sanctions are valued by their supporters because, as Benjamin Coates of Wake Forest University writes, “Sanctions have served as both the idealist’s dream and the realist’s cudgel. They have promised to the powerless a world free of war and discrimination while giving the powerful tools for domination.” Coates also notes, however, “The legitimacy and appeal of sanctions rest on blurring the lines between these two outcomes; the more Washington turns to unilateral sanctions, the less legitimacy the practice may have,” which will be explored more later in this piece.

In more recent times, there has been a debate over the efficacy of so-called targeted sanctions compared to broader economic sanctions. The Global Magnitsky Act is an example of targeted sanctions, which apply only toward certain individuals so as to minimize the suffering of innocent civilians. Human rights advocates argue that targeted sanctions address what they view as the fundamental problem with the international sanctions regime- that they are poorly conceived to change state behavior and instead subject civilians to needless suffering even as oligarchs and dictators evade their impact.

Do Sanctions Work? If So, Are They Worth It?

The practice of economic statecraft more or less emerged not when the U.S. became the undisputed leader of the global economy or during the Cold War, but rather is likely as old as economics and statecraft in their own right. The early 20th century, however, is as close as one can get to the genesis of international sanctions, defined neatly by Coates as “a collective denial of economic access designed to enforce global order.” An increasingly interdependent world during and after World War I served to illustrate the intersection between military and economic warfare. After all, the British Empire was constructed around British financial and commercial dominance reinforced by the world’s preeminent navy. During World War I, Britain put this to work in a crippling blockade of Germany that led to malnourishment that would ultimately take the lives of hundreds of thousands of civilians. 

The establishment of the ill-fated League of Nations after the war included in its covenant a provision mandating that any nation that started a war of aggression be punished with an embargo. Facing complete isolation from the global economy, the theory as supported by President Woodrow Wilson went, nations would be deterred from invading their neighbors. This provision enshrined into international norm sanctions as the preeminent multilateral tool of enforcement for world peace.

League of Nations sanctions ultimately failed to deter Italy from invading Ethiopia, a League member-state, and from subsequently falling into the orbit of the Nazis. Though the U.S. government would enact the Trading With the Enemy Act (TWEA) during WWI barring trade with Germany, TWEA would ultimately prove unsuccessful in deterring the Nazis from territorial conquest. In 1941, after Japan invaded Indonesia, President Franklin Roosevelt invoked TWEA to seize all Japanese assets held in the U.S. Britain followed suit and the sanctions cost Japan access to 75 percent of its total foreign trade and 88 percent of its imported oil. Japanese hardliners then used the sanctions as justification for the bombing of Pearl Harbor. Instead of coercing Japan to renounce its territorial conquests as Roosevelt had hoped, the sanctions emboldened Japanese hardliners aghast at an aggressive use of American economic power to the point of deploying military force.

Following Harry Truman’s invocation of national emergency powers during the Korean War to activate TWEA, the emergency remained in power for decades to follow, leading to the imposition by future presidents of sanctions on Cuba, Cambodia, and others. Then in the 1990s, the use of sanctions really began to take off, The UN Security Council, now bereft of the Soviet veto power, imposed sanctions some 12 times during the decade compared to only twice (against Rhodesia and South Africa) in the previous four decades. Human rights abusers in Yugoslavia and Rwanda and state sponsors of terror like Sudan and Libya were some of the notable targets, and the efficacy of the sanctions remains suspect.

Iraq

But the most noteworthy target of the 1990s sanctions boom was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Just four days after Iraq invaded neighboring Kuwait in 1990, the UN passed Security Council Resolution 661, imposing the strictest sanctions up to that point in history on Iraq. Interestingly enough, even as the U.S. led the Gulf War coalition and the effort to sanction Iraq, it had supported Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War just a decade earlier and just two years earlier had refused to sanction Hussein for his use of chemical weapons against the Kurds.

The Gulf War sanctions, which imposed a nearly complete arms, trade, and aid embargo, absolutely crippled every sector of the Iraqi economy while exacting an unfathomable humanitarian toll. When partnered with the U.S. aerial bombardment of the country’s energy and sanitation facilities, the sanctions brought about a public health crisis. The arms embargo was so broad so as to include anything that could conceivably be weaponized, including computers and tractors, goods with a clear civilian need in a nation whose electrical grid was destroyed and whose access to food was inhibited. Limitations on Iraqi exports (namely oil before the OIl for Food Programme was introduced) made it more difficult to fund humanitarian aid, while the ban on the importation of chlorine effectively made water purification impossible. 

In total, according to the World Health Organization (WHO)  the average Iraqi’s caloric intake dropped to a low of just 1,093 per day by 1995, with “the vast majority of the country’s population...on a semi-starvation diet for years.” Food rationing enacted in the mid-1990s by the Iraqi government in response to the sanctions left Iraqis deficient in nutrients critical to fetal development, leading to sharp increases in stillbirths and congenital heart disease during the decade. Mortality rates for children under five years old increased fivefold between just 1991 and 1995. The public health system lost 90 percent of its funding, overturning half a century of progress.

By any measure, the Iraq sanctions, to say nothing of more than thirty more or less consecutive years of war, completely destroyed the standard of living and physical health of multiple generations of Iraqis, all as Saddam Hussein remained in power into the 2000s and long after Iraq had ceased its WMD programs. The only change spurred by this act of economic coercion was that the Iraqi people who had suffered for decades under a dictator now found themselves suffering under the twin terrors of both that dictator and the full weight of  international economic punishment.

Cuba

The Iraq sanctions program was a multilateral, decade-long endeavor. On the other hand, America’s ongoing sanctions war with Cuba is the exact opposite: a six decade, all-encompassing campaign of economic warfare imposed unilaterally. Initiated by President John F. Kennedy in 1962, the program of economic and political isolation of Cuba is now the longest-enduring trade embargo in world history. The Cuban sanctions program is the byproduct of five major statutes and a hodgepodge of executive actions. The 1962 Foreign Assistance Act was cited by President Kennedy when he enacted a complete trade embargo between the U.S. and Cuba and amendments that same year to TWEA allowed for Kennedy to expand the embargo to cut off travel to Cuba. George H.W. Bush and a bipartisan majority in Congress expanded the embargo in 1992 with the Cuban Democracy Act (CDA), preventing foreign subsidiaries of the American government from trading with Cuba and preventing vessels from loading and unloading freight in America if they had conducted trade with Cuba within the preceding 180 days.

The Clinton and Bush administrations further sanctioned Cuba via the Helms-Burton Act and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act, which codified the embargo into law, prevented the embargo from being lifted without congressional approval and confirmation that Cuba had sufficiently democratized, and effectively prohibited private financing for exports to Cuba and restricted tourist travel to Cuba. Despite the Obama Administration’s “Cuba thaw” that re-established diplomatic relations, relaxed trade and travel sanctions, and removed Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism (SST) list, the Trump Administration ratcheted the trade and travel sanctions right back up and they threatened to add Cuba back to the SST list. 

Six decades after Cuba traded an American-friendly corrupt dictator with no regard for human rights (Fulgencio Batista) for a brutal dictator allied closer to Moscow in Fidel Castro, the sanctions have made Cuba no more democratic and the people of Cuba have been made much poorer. The UN estimates that sanctions have cost the Cuban economy $130 billion in total and U.S. sanctions force Cuba to source medicines and medical devices outside the U.S., inducing additional transportation costs on Cuba’s most precious export. Even the American economy is hurt by the embargo and other Cuba sanctions. A 2017 economic analysis performed by Engage Cuba, a pro-engagement group, concluded that the Trump sanctions and diplomatic rollbacks could adversely affect more than 12,000 American jobs in manufacturing, tourism, and shipping, and that the embargo costs U.S. businesses and farmers almost $6 billion a year in lost export revenue.

Moreover, the head of the office that handled SST issues during the Obama Administration justified Cuba’s removal from the SST list in the fact that, “it was legally determined that Cuba was not actively engaged in violence that could be defined as terrorism under any credible definition of the word.” And when President Obama sought to have Cuba removed from the list, he invited Congress to review the decision during a 45-day period, and they could have stopped the removal with a joint resolution, but even the completely Republican-controlled House and Senate of the time refused to take action.

Within the context of the coronavirus, Cuba’s pandemic response has been hindered by the embargo, which has obstructed the delivery of ventilators, facemasks, diagnostic kits, and other vital medical supplies. As President Obama declared “It is clear that decades of U.S. isolation of Cuba have failed to accomplish our enduring objective of promoting the emergence of a democratic, prosperous, and stable Cuba. At times, longstanding U.S. policy towards Cuba has isolated the United States from regional and international partners, constrained our ability to influence outcomes throughout the Western Hemisphere, and impaired the use of the full range of tools available to the United States to promote positive change in Cuba.  Though this policy has been rooted in the best of intentions, it has had little effect…[W]e should not allow U.S. sanctions to add to the burden of Cuban citizens we seek to help.”

Venezuela and Iran: The Failure of Maximum Pressure

“Maximum pressure” has been the Trump Administration’s policy of choice for both Iran and Venezuela. In the case of Iran, the approach of an inundation of sanctions was meant to be a sharp contrast from the Obama Administration’s detente centered around the landmark Iran nuclear deal. Iran had been in full compliance with the nuclear deal and remained in compliance for more than a year and a half of American sanctions after the U.S. withdrawal, and those sanctions have proved to accomplish precisely none of their goals, be they regime change, bringing Iran back to the negotiating table for a “better deal,” or Iran abandoning its nuclear program. Instead, Iran has increased its stockpile of enriched uranium eightfold and exported a significant amount of its petroleum despite the sanctions, all as Iran’s hardliners have seen their credibility at home increase thanks to the sanctions campaign. 

Rather than succumbing to American pressure, Iranian hardliners found it a useful talking point to rally against, finding themselves in common cause with human rights activists who noted that the sanctions denied many Iranians access to life-saving medical treatment. All of the failures of the maximum pressure campaign can be summed up in the words of a statement made by Iranian womens’ rights activists, “While sanctions proponents claim to care for the Iranian people, their policies have left an entire nation weary, depressed and hopeless. Sanctions, and economic pressure, target the fabric of society.” 

In Venezuela, maximum pressure took the form of a more explicit regime change effort against the dictator Nicolas Maduro. But while before 2019 U.S. sanctions against Venezuela targeted Maduro, Trump’s newest sanctions focused on the state-owned oil and natural gas company PdVSA, which provides the country with thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenue, as well as other major sectors of the economy. The economy-wide suffering brought on by these sanctions (in distracting from his corruption and domestic crackdowns) gave Maduro greater credibility when he claimed that the U.S. was a foreign power seeking to destroy Venezuela and its people. All the while, Maduro has tightened his grip over the country, his opposition has been weakened, and Venezuela has drawn closer to American adversaries like Iran, Russia, and North Korea.

Conclusion and Policy Recommendations

These cases are indicative of a broader problem in U.S. foreign policy. Too often, sanctions have become Washington’s default foreign policy weapon of choice, as it slaps sanction after sanction on governments with which it disagrees without the slightest concern whether American objectives would actually be achieved by them and whether humanitarian suffering would be exacerbated. While targeted sanctions and arms embargoes occasionally serve American interests well in combating global human rights violations and war crimes, more generalized economic sanctions “are too often designed to inflict maximum pain on civilians, not empower them,” in the words of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN). This reliance on sanctions has undermined Washington’s ability to pursue diplomatic solutions to global problems, undermined international solidarity with its foreign policy objectives, and far too often ends up hurting the very people Washington claims to be supporting.

The overwhelming majority of academic studies have concluded that sanctions rarely achieve their stated goal, with one paper estimating odds of only even partial success as low as 34 percent. Moreover, the longer sanctions last, the less effective they tend to be, as fatigue sets in for the imposing party while the target becomes more adept at evading sanctions.The pain of sanctions is widely dispersed and deeply felt by the people in sanctioned countries even as they bear no responsibility for the actions of their governments. Similarly, even in cases where sanctions are meant to combat tangible and concrete human rights abuses, such as in the cases of Cuba, Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and North Korea, research suggests that even more human rights abuses occur when widespread (non-targeted) economic sanctions are in place than without them. As strongmen face foreign economic pressure campaigns that threaten to topple them, they try to cling to power by any means necessary, including by doubling down on repression of critics.

While there remains a future for targeted sanctions and arms embargoes to more effectively promote human rights and de-escalate conflicts, the constant reliance on harsh, generalized economic sanctions ought to be reconsidered and questioned. Any strategy to promote human rights and democracy that far too often augments the positions of strongmen and incites famine is inherently counterproductive and unnecessarily cruel. If this lesson cannot be understood now, in the midst of a global pandemic as the humanitarian impacts of sanctions prevent citizens of foreign governments from accessing food and vital medical care, then Washington’s obsession with sanctions will never be broken. For those advocating for a foreign policy that emphasizes diplomacy and puts human security at the center of global initiatives, there can be no path forward that prioritizes warfare- military or economic.

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

The Present Crisis and Institutional Relevance of Dignity

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

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

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

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

Toward a Dynamic Ontology of Dignity

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

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

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

Integrating Somatic Practices of Preserving Dynamic Dignity into Institutions

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

Police Brutality, Colonialism, and Coronavirus in Kenya

For over eight minutes, police officer Derek Chauvin kept his knee on George Floyd’s neck as Floyd told the officers, “I can’t breathe.” As the video of his murder spread beyond Minneapolis where the incident happened, protests erupted around the world. In Nairobi, Kenya, at least seven of these protests took place, but while the trigger was the murder of George Floyd, hundreds of people were drawn to the protests due to Kenya’s own issue with police brutality. Abuse and murders by police officers in Kenya have been a persistent problem since the British colonial period, and since the near beginning of this year, it has gotten worse. In an attempt to shut down the protests and prevent people from going out during the coronavirus lockdowns, the government has revived a colonial law called the Public Order Act. Since then, acts of police violence have increased to the point where many protesters have backed off due to fear. 

The History of Colonial Policing in Kenya

The British Colony of Kenya was established in 1920 and came to an end in the 1960s. The developments during these years set a major precedent for substandard policing. The police received considerable powers of surveillance, as demonstrated through the Stock and Produce Theft Ordinance which allowed for more abilities in stop and search, and they also extended police presence in order to gather information and show their capabilities in seeking out crime. Additionally, a director was added to the Criminal Investigation Department Special Branch to focus on “political” policing. This created a system that was “arbitrary, unaccountable, and often violent,” and during the Mau Mau Revolt, the efforts toward adequate policing declined even more. 

The Mau Mau Revolt was an armed rebellion initiated by the Kikuyu, a native ethnic group in Kenya. The uprising began because land was taken from the Kikuyu during the colonial period, and about 1.5 million Kikuyu people were thought to have “proclaimed their allegiance” to the Mau Mau campaign by 1952. The British declared a state of emergency that year, and their crackdown on the rebels was unrelenting. The police began a series of mass arrests, and they took Kikuyu suspected of Mau Mau involvement to detention camps. The conflict between police, rebels, and suspects continued, and in 1954, Operation Anvil began. Tens of thousands of Kikuyu were taken from Nairobi to detention camps without being told why. The discriminatory, drastic sweeps continued from there, which set a precedent of allowing police officers what is essentially free rein. 

Although Kenya achieved independence 57 years ago, remnants of colonial laws are still intact. Even after the rewrites of the Constitution, the most recent being in 2010, archaic laws which criminalize making noise on the street, allow police to arrest people without warrants, and overall intimidate Kenyans remain. It shows. For instance, the 2017 Human Rights Report by Amnesty International placed Kenya in the top slot for police shootings and killings of civilians. Taking into account police brutality as a whole, 3,200 incidents were recorded in 2019. Incidents of police violence have been prevalent within the nation for many years, and 2020 has been even more brutal. In February, there were eight documented police killings in Kenya, and March was the beginning of a downward spiral.

Two Public Health Issues: Coronavirus and Police Brutality

On March 12 of this year, the first case of coronavirus was reported in Kenya. By that point, there were fourteen countries in Africa with coronavirus cases, and Kenya’s government implemented certain flight restrictions. It soon became apparent that more restrictions were needed to protect Kenyans, and in an effort to halt the spread of coronavirus, the government invoked the Public Order Act — another law that had been on the books since the colonial era. However, this action bred a different type of danger. As with many colonial laws, it gives a significant amount of power to the government in the name of keeping the peace. As Foreign Affairs described, the overall aim of the Public Order Act is to criminalize poverty, and it allows police to “round up pretty much anyone they choose, anywhere they choose.” Many have used it to justify police violence.

While getting people off of the streets is certainly a public health issue, the route which the Kenyan government took in order to achieve that mission created an entirely separate public health issue. As explained by Dr. Maybank, chief health equity officer and director of the Center for Health Equity, “People are dying. That’s our business, whether they are dying through a slow violence, such as structural racism, or COVID-19 or direct violence, like police brutality.” While attempting to stop the spread of one public health issue, the Kenyan government cultivated an environment for another one. A dawn-to-dusk curfew was imposed on March 27, and at least six people died from police violence within the following ten days.

Yassin Hussein Moyo was shot in the stomach while he was standing on his own balcony alongside his siblings, watching the police crackdown from three stories up. Moyo was just a 13-year-old boy, and he bled out while at home with his family. A motorcycle taxi driver named Hamisi Juma Mbega was another person lost to police violence. Mbega was among those who broke curfew, but he only did so in order to take a pregnant woman who was in labor to the hospital. He was beaten by the police and subsequently died from his injuries. The unfortunate irony of this is that Mbega was a former police officer himself. Calvin Omondi was also a motorcycle taxi driver who died from police beatings. He was on his way home at the beginning of curfew, and he lost control of his motorcycle when a group of officers attacked him. Idris Mukolwe was hit by a teargas canister and was laughed at by officers when he tried to stand up. Moments later, he collapsed and died. Yusuf Ramadhan Juma had a mental disability and was found in the hospital after being beaten. Eric Ng’ethe Waithugi decided to lock himself into the pub that he worked at along with a few others because curfew was approaching. Police officers broke down the door and shot teargas into the pub before hitting him and eleven others in the pub with wooden clubs. Waithugi died from being beaten by more than 20 officers.

According to Human Rights Watch, abusive behavior from the police began even before the start of curfew. They broke into shops, took food, and extorted money from civilians. Notably, the police also used tear gas, chased after people and then beat them with batons, and fired live rounds all before dusk. It got so bad that the President of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, made a statement: “I want to apologize to all Kenyans for some … excesses that were conducted.” Kenya’s health ministry also condemned the police abuses. However, those statements did not create any tangible change. Since President Kenyatta’s apology, police officers have continued to whip, kick, and herd people together — something counterintuitive to the purpose of a coronavirus lockdown. 

Protests Against Police Violence Stomped on by Police Violence

When George Floyd was murdered by police officers back in May, and protests were ignited all around the world, it made sense for Kenyan people to take part. As a resident of Kenya named Lilly Bekele-Piper said, “People came out because they can recognize that violence in their own communities.” Furthermore, many Kenyans recognize that their police forces stem from racism and colonialism, and police brutality is an institutional issue that needs attention. However, it is that very issue that conflicts with the ability of Kenyan people to protest. With the combination of coronavirus restrictions and the aforementioned colonial laws like the Public Order Act heightening police violence, a lot of Kenyans are terrified to be out on the streets. The police chief of Nairobi, Philip Ndolo, explicitly said that protests are not allowed: “It is outlawed, it is not legal, and no permit has been given.” With that statement in mind, it is difficult for people with a strong concern about police brutality to protest against it when large gatherings are remarkable breeding grounds for police brutality. 

Now that violence, and even death, are so conspicuously placed on the table, protests have become increasingly scattered, causing many of the people who are working toward an end to police violence in Kenya to feel alone in the fight. As the problem of police brutality has become worse, the conditions for combating the problem have become worse. Organizations are struggling to gain the momentum necessary in order to have a fighting chance against police violence, and coronavirus brings yet another significant challenge to those who are working to stop police brutality, diminish the dangerous precedents of policing, and get rid of detrimental colonial laws. The stain of colonialism on Kenya’s government, laws, and police force combined with the effects of the international coronavirus pandemic have led to the worsening degree and frequency of police brutality, as well as the silencing of the public. 

Macron’s Ideal France: Free Speech or Blasphemy?

Muslims across many parts of the world remain in disbelief after hearing President of France, Emmanuel Macron’s  problematic comments in early October pertaining to characterizations of the Prophet Muhammad, which are considered blasphemous to Muslims, and calling Islam a religion that is in crisis all over the world today’ as he unveils plan to defend secularism. Comments as such have prompted wide-scale protests to occur in many Muslim countries ranging from Bangladesh to Turkey, with placards demanding an apology from Macron. However, it is critical to consider how this is not an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of characterizing the Prophet Muhammad and breeding fear and distrust, allowing anti-Muslim sentiments to manifest through censorship and gradual political repression of Muslims in France. This pattern thus has led to small and large scale terrorist attacks, perpetuating even more of a divide between Macron’s vision of secularism and tolerance and acceptance of Islam within the country. While another recent statement from Macron stated that he understands the frustration of Muslims over the displays of these cartoons, these words and the continuation of the Prophet being used as satirical relief simply does not demonstrate  the empathy needed for French and Muslim communities. The French in wanting to uphold secularist ideals have perpetuated a common belief that Islam is opposed to secularism and modernity, while an overarching argument held by Muslim communities argues that the Prophet Muhammad’s satirical presence is disrespectful and furthter contributes to the Islamophobia in France. This paper will breakdown a recent knife attack which prompted Macron’s comments earlier in October, the Charlie Hebdo publications of the Prophet, as well as the societal norms and legalistic steps that have reinforced anti-Muslim sentiments, concluding with what actions have taken in place thus far in Muslim communities across the globe and what practices must be implemented for substantial change to occur. 

Charlie Hebdo and Free Speech: 

Charlie Hebdo,  a left-wing, anti-establishment newspaper is part of a tradition of serious satire in France. While its publications have a reputation for mocking everything — powerful politicians, pop culture, religion — there has always been a particularity for lampooning Islam and Muslims, often with raunchy cartoons. The newspaper’s interest in depicting the Prophet has stemmed back to 2011 when it showed a cartoon of Mohammad and a speech bubble with the words: “100 lashes if you don’t die of laughter.” Despite the fact a firebomb was targeted at the publishing building, the company relentlessly went forth with reproducing the image with other caricatures in a special edition distributed with one of the country’s leading newspapers. Over the years, caricatures have varied in narrative, such as of the Prophet Muhammad wearing a turban in the form of a bomb; which could be easily interpreted as a direct attack on Muslims as a group and disregard for Islam. Many Muslims have objected towards any representation of Allah or Mohammad, or to irreverent treatment of the Quran, and such incidents have inflamed protests in the past, which have escalated to violent methods. 

Among Muslims who live in France to the French government, there has been a spectrum of opinions; whether to interpret these cartoons as offensive and Islamophobic or as an example of free speech and free media. Debates on freedom of expression are difficult exercises, often characterized by equivocation and self-contradiction. To answer the question if these specific publications are really blasphemy, it is quite simple: Mohammed is a well-respected figure among Muslims, who often perceive cartoons and other material critical of him as an attack on their Muslim identity. Along with a tradition of not depicting God or the Prophet, part of the offense may also come from the fact that the cartoons can appear explicitly designed to provoke. Thus, publications that print such cartoons may often be attempting to provoke an extreme response in order to make a statement about who belongs in European secular culture. At the time of the attack, the French government responded with an uptake in a military presence throughout the country along with comments made by the government that they are at war with radical Islam. 

Have Laws in France Helped to Alleviate the Situation? 

Prior to the publications in Charlie Hebdo and the nonviolent and violent responses it has invoked over the years, there have been protracted debates about the compatibility of Western values and Islamic ethos. I argue that the consideration of controversial policies continues a pattern of stigmatizing Muslims as a group within the country. One of the laws introduced in 2010, banning the “Niqab,” a full covering that some Muslim women choose to wear, only leaving the eyes exposed and can be fined up to 150 euros ($172). It is critical to note here as well that laws as such have not been excluded to just France. Countries such as Denmark and the Netherlands have passed similar bans on face-covering garments, thus displaying an overall apprehension towards specific religious symbols.  

The law perpetuated opinions that, from a security standpoint, it would not do anything, but rather infringe upon a person’s right to manifest their religious beliefs in a specific way. Not only did this hinder the  right to practicing Islam in a specific way, but there has been an increase in divisive rhetoric of “us versus them” among secular what right-wing consider “pure” French citizens and French Muslims who have citizenship. It is these Muslims living in France who categorize themselves as ‘French Muslims’ as their primary form of belonging, but an identification bolstered by ambivalent interpellation as, on the one hand, they are subject to suspect by members of the French nation under the policing and surveillance procedures of France's crackdown on Secularist ideals. People have recalled experiences of  receiving direct insults, threats and even physical violence towards them if they carried on wearing the full face veil. This sense of isolation among Muslims living in France also specifically comes from the fact that ministries of education have been more lenient with allowing other religious symbols, such as necklaces with the Star of David, etc. Not only has this created a divisive environment, but unrest and fear among Muslim Youth who are trying to uphold their religion’s beliefs and visions of their parents as well as assimilate in society. People narrate their experiences as being seen in a “negative light, feeling judged and an overall lack of trust” towards them. France, dating back to the colonial period has been for the most part more conservative than other countries. It sees itself as the heart of European secularism, hence immigrants are thrown the options of assimilation with the French system or isolation. 

Over the years, this has manifested as many immigrant families, specifically their children, feeling the brunt of rigid secularism. There has been a law since 1905 that separates church and state. The original objective with this law was to regulate religion, in this specific context, symbols attached to the Christian faith; projecting an overall notion that religious beliefs were inferior thinking and a form of alienation. The historicization of this law is generally rooted in the longstanding idea that faith should be confined to the home and not public and political matters, a tactic to promote supremacy of the state and state leaders. However, it is ironic to examine that while the intention of the law was to prevent social alienation, in a contemporary context it has justified behaviors in alienating people who wish to practice their religion publicly with peace and respect. There is a growing number of Muslims within France who feel that the bannings towards religious symbols are not done on equal terms, but are vocal representations of growing islamophobia in the country and the act of adhering to rigid and exclusionary ideologies as a scapegoat. Muslims don't often fit into this cookie-cutter model of what it means to be French, with the cultural and religious liberty of Muslims entrapped by the Western European set-up of institutions, thus positing a loss of respect and empathy for majority and minority communities within France. 

What is Being Done: The Muslim Community Steps Up 

The culmination of rhetoric represented through France’s legal fixtures, coupled with Macron’s comments over the years pertaining to Islam, and Charlie Hebdo have triggered a variety of responses from Muslims. On October 16th, there was a knife attack outside a French school in which a man of Chechen origin beheaded Samuel Paty, a teacher who had shown pupils the cartoons of the Prophet in a civics lesson, justifying that the pictures were examples of freedom of speech and expression. France has had multiple incidents of displaying cartoons of the Prophet, which are considered blasphemous by Muslims. In a statement this past Tuesday, Macron paid tribute to Paty, describing him as a “quiet hero” dedicated to instilling the democratic values within young students. Members of the Muslim community in France have consistently denounced the French government’s support of these cartoons being published and shown on a number of platforms and schools, describing them as going against the precepts of their religion. The upsurge of these recent most attacks have further charged the already anti-Muslim and anti-Islam atmosphere. 

The perpetuation of anti-Muslim rhetoric has prompted  further effort onpart of the Muslims in Europe to ascertain the impeccability of their community. While there have been bolder and violent responses, the other side of the spectrum shows protests as a means to legitimize the voices of Muslims. Protests with up to 40,000 people rallied in Bangladesh’s capital, Dhaka, and many other countries condemning Macron’s comments, so much as to wishing to boycott French products in their countries. Arguably, the mainstream complacency of Muslim voices was disrupted as the demand for active public visibility by them rises. The demand for equal representation and visibility in the public sphere by Muslim Europeans had brought conflicts of interest to the surface. These conflict of interests include a growing need among Muslim communities to defend themselves and the religion they practice; for others to recognize the respect every Muslim has for Prophet Muhammad, and an overarching consensus to not be looked upon as enemies of the European social fabric, but as friends, students, and neighbors; everyday citizens just like the next person. 

The Future of France: What Lies Ahead?

While there have been varied responses towards France’s position on the Charlie Hebdo cartoons to the upsurge of what is considered as a rise in Islamic radicalism in France, the path towards change must be addressed. European Muslims want to be assured that they are not marginalized, excluded or considered as second class citizens. Institutional and legal alienation must cease. In the backdrop of this, the potency of Muslim radicalism and the radical need to find social space to assert their voice will die a natural death, if the circumstances of socio-economic marginalization, dislocation, political and economic disenfranchisement are suppressed- if not entirely eliminated. There is potential to uphold a secularist ideal within France but still remain respectful of every majority and minority community. Islam remains a social capital tying up an estimated 30 million currently in Europe. Countries such as France have served as beacons of hope for Muslim refugees wanting to start new lives in their country, but as analyzed above, with a number of people who remain on a pendulum of creating a better life for themselves and their families and lingering feelings of alienation, isolation, and antagonization towards their beliefs. Muslims wish to settle permanently in Europe, with the vast majority wanting to live in peace, that European integration policies have been erratic and inconsistent and that only a tiny minority of Muslims are engaged in radical activities. The work of policymakers, then, is to figure out how to prevent these individuals from acting impulsively, on the basis of some unpredictable trigger. This can only be done if there is a motivation and sense of need to build belonging that will prevent extremists from feeling destructive. If they feel alienated from their society and feel they don’t belong there, then they can also feel that other people deserve to suffer or die, manifested through small and large scale terrorist attacks. If anything, differences should be celebrated among people, not highlighted in order to create tension and heightened polarization. The contribution to dialogue in order to cease these tensions is through education. Our generation plays a critical role in enforcing intermingling and true understanding and empathy among people in society regardless of race, gender, and religion. We need to promote the dignity and honor of those around us, to encourage interfaith dialogue, and understand others. We are all part of the larger journey to understand one another’s experiences and respect one another, but how and who we learn this from, has a great effect on our efforts. 

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.