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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From False Promises to Pioneering Leadership: Climate Policy in MENA

The Middle East and North Africa region is likely to be one of the hardest hit by climate change. Rising global temperatures are expected to strain the already waning water sources of several MENA nations, according to a World Bank report. This will place extreme stress on food production, public health, and access to resources for millions of people. Given that many MENA nations are already attempting to cope with social injustice, civil war, poverty, and terrorist violence, the added burdens of climate change could send the region into a crisis. Experts expect to see a particularly sharp rise in violent conflicts as resources become increasingly scarce. This is already the case in nations like Mali, where terrorist groups have exploited climate-related tensions to increase recruitment and violent extremism. There is no question that action must be taken swiftly to avert the most catastrophic effects of climate change in MENA.

On the whole, the responses of MENA governments to climate change have been inconsistent at best. Since many of the region’s economies depend on fossil fuels, their reluctance to mount a large-scale response to climate change is unsurprising. Some nations like Saudi Arabia have launched flashy but ineffective climate campaigns to gain international favor while protecting their oil. Other nations have done little to nothing to address the climate crisis. Still, there are a few beacons of hope in nations like Morocco, which are leading the charge towards a greener future for MENA. This article will examine a few of the region’s approaches to climate policy—and the inconsistencies between them that point to a need for broad, systematic intervention by the international community. 

Saudi Arabia

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is one of the most oil-rich nations in the world. According to Forbes, it ranks as the largest exporter of petroleum, which accounts for 87% of its budget revenues, 42% of its GDP, and 90% of its export earnings. Saudi Arabia also plays a leading role in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Given the nation’s reliance on oil, the international community was surprised when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman recently unveiled plans to attain net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2060. “The Kingdom, the region, and the world need to go much further and faster in combating climate change. We reject the false choice between preserving the economy and protecting the environment,” he proclaimed. The announcement made a big splash on the global stage ahead of COP26, the 26th annual UN climate summit, as Saudi Arabia was attempting to assert itself as a climate leader in the Middle East. However, a closer look at their climate policy plans reveals a stronger resemblance to greenwashing than to true environmental progress.

The Crown Prince asserted that Saudi Arabia would be using the “circular carbon economy" approach to reach its goals. This framework for managing emissions involves capturing carbon dioxide and (a) reusing it in other energy-intensive processes; (b) recycling it into other materials; or (c) storing it underground. As part of this plan, the Kingdom has also pledged to plant ten billion trees, increase the size of its protected natural areas, and generate 50% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. While this sounds promising at first glance, the circular carbon economy approach has come under significant scrutiny. Activists argue that reliance on carbon capture encourages corporations and governments to delay meaningful action like transitioning to renewable energy (note the absence of reduced oil production from Saudi Arabia’s climate plans). Similarly, scientists assert that carbon capture technology has strict limits, both economically and geologically. Overall, Saudi Arabia’s commitments have been labeled as “highly insufficient” on the Climate Action Tracker. Despite its eco-friendly rhetoric, it is clear that Saudi Arabia will not commit to comprehensive climate action in the near future due to its reliance on fossil fuels.

Iran

More ineffective than Saudi Arabia’s climate policy is Iran’s. Climate Action Tracker rates its plans as “critically insufficient,” the lowest rating a country can receive. Iran has signed but not yet ratified or approved the Paris Agreement, which means it is not subject to its mandates. This means that while the nation has established some internal programs for addressing climate change, there are few mechanisms by which the international community can hold it accountable. This is problematic as Iran is also one of the world’s major oil producers, although it is only responsible for 2.48% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Contrary to Saudi Arabia, a comparatively wealthy nation, there are questions as to whether Iran and nations like it are capable of addressing climate change on their own. Iran has been subjected to heavy sanctions by the international community over its nuclear program in recent years. It has also faced immense population growth, extreme poverty, and rising crime and violence for the last several decades. As Iranian environmental journalist Sanam Mahoozi writes, “While the Iranian government officially recognizes climate change as an existential threat, fighting it does not seem to be high up on its to-do list.” The nation simply does not have the bandwidth or funds to tackle climate change alongside the other humanitarian crises it must face.

Morocco

Contrary to the previous two nations, Morocco has emerged as a quiet and effective climate leader in MENA. The nation has maximized the potential of its desert locale and become a world leader in solar power generation—renewable sources now meet almost two-fifths of their electricity needs. Morocco first set its eyes on renewable energy in the late 2010s when it pledged that 42% of the nation’s power would be generated using renewables by 2020. The nation missed this target by a small percentage (having only 37% capacity by 2020) but saw a massive expansion of its renewable energy sector. This included the construction of the Noor Ouarzazate Solar Complex, the largest concentrated solar power plant in the world. Morocco has planned to continue the growth of its renewable energy capacity to 52% by 2030. 

Climate Action Tracker rates Morocco’s climate strategy as “almost sufficient,” which indicates that its policies are nearly on track with the 1.5°C warming target laid out in the Paris Agreement (and could be completely on track with only moderate improvements). While Morocco certainly still has progress to make, its efforts are currently some of the best of all the MENA nations. 

Common But Differentiated Responsibilities

While most agree that fighting climate change must be a global effort, there is still significant debate about exactly how much responsibility each nation should bear. For instance, Iran and Saudi Arabia emit roughly ten times more carbon dioxide than Morocco annually, yet Morocco has the most ambitious climate strategy of the three nations. This trend can be seen throughout the world, as many of the largest emitters have become “free riders,” receiving the benefits of carbon emissions without paying their share of the costs. This begs the question as to how the responsibility of fighting climate change should be apportioned. Should it be by a nation’s share of current global emissions? Historical emissions? Or should the most developed nations take on more responsibility? Some have even posed that entities like corporations should be called upon. For instance, Saudi Arabia’s state-run oil company Aramco has never been subject to meaningful regulation and is the largest source of corporate emissions in the world. Their sizable contributions to global emissions may give the argument for corporations’ participation some merit.

The United Nations attempted to settle this debate by laying out the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” (CBDR) at the 1992 Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. CBDR acknowledges that all countries share a common imperative to fight climate change. More importantly, however, it distinguishes between developed and developing nations, charging developed nations with more of the financial responsibility of climate change. This means that nations like the US, UK, Canada, and Japan should shoulder more of the climate burden in underdeveloped regions like MENA since many of its nations are unable to address the problem themselves.

Looking Forward

One of the largest hurdles for the Middle East will be the world’s transition away from fossil fuels. While some nations might have the capability for a rapid switch to green energy, such a move would be catastrophic for the oil-dependent MENA economy. Furthermore, the region’s extreme vulnerabilities to climate change make its situation even more precarious. World leaders must develop an innovative approach to climate policy and aid to address the complexities of MENA’s case. For instance, Ranj Alaaldin, a non-resident fellow at the Brookings Institution, advocates for an investment in knowledge and culture by the international community. “An investment in research and awareness could trigger a cultural shift within government and society that allows for a re-calibration of public sector reform approaches and that adjusts good governance strategies to encourage and enable innovations that alleviate climate-related challenges.”

The climate crisis poses unprecedented challenges to the MENA region, and the current support regimen has not resulted in consistent action or tangible results. The interconnectedness of our rapidly globalizing world means that nearly every nation will suffer if the MENA is devastated by climate change. Not only will the global economy face serious threats, but the world will also face the loss of a region rich in history and culture.

Make way for the King: Saudi Arabia’s Destructive Modernization

A European tourist visits Jeddah, Saudi Arabia to see the setting sun on the Red Sea and the city’s unending amenities. Driving along the highway is a blur of luxury. Wide, smooth paved roads pass by palm trees, street lights, and pedestrian pathways. Bold steel buildings jut toward the sky demonstrating the excellence of modern Arab architecture. In a square below, men and women congregate separately for the start of a music show. The city feels like it’s from the future, everything is planned. Walking along the streets, the tourist feels the pulse of Jeddah. Men wear the traditional ankle-length robe thawb with gold Rolexes and women wear the abaya in delicate silk that cover their bodies while showcasing their wealth. Modesty and exorbitance live alongside each other here. This is Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman (MBS)’s vision for Jeddah and for Saudi Arabia.

Tourists typically do not venture past the sterile limestone boulevards near the sea, but past the luxury and modernity, al-Kandarah sat. Once with the hope of becoming the next posh district of Jeddah, by 2017 garbage accumulated, water pipes broke, and buildings were abandoned. Today, al-Kandarah is rubble. This is the same story for much of the old towns of Jeddah. Among the goals of MBS’s Vision 2030 is his hope to diversify the Saudi oil-based economy to include tourism. He believes that the cracked stone façade buildings belong in the city’s past. Authorities say that the demolition of these neighborhoods is to create new areas which have proper infrastructure, amenities, and are not criminal hotspots. This reasoning follows the Kingdom’s promotion of a unique family-friendly tourism style. These residential neighborhoods, such as al-Kandarah, will be replaced by flashy art-deco apartments and retail spaces, green parks, and entertainment venues. With the fantastic modernity of MBS, what in Jeddah is lost?

In February 2022, a Twitter video circulated of a young Saudi woman walking around al-Saghr, her soon-to-be demolished neighborhood. For forty-five seconds she waves “goodbye” to the homes of her family and friends. The video ends with her message to al-Saghr: Farewell Al-Saghr, for what it contains of hope, loved ones, and neighbors. Farewell to those who taught me belonging, love, and adoration. Goodbye to the past buried among the rubble of dust.” The woman dares not show her face in the video. Her hand waves in defiance against a vision for her city which excludes her. 

The demolitions which started in October 2021 affect 60 neighborhoods and 558,000 residents, reported Amnesty International (AI). “A Jeddah Municipality document shows that project plans were finalized almost three years ago, yet the Saudi authorities failed to engage in a process of genuine consultation with residents” said Diana Semaan, AI’s MENA Acting Deputy Director. Some residents were only given 24 hours to leave after red spray paint on their doors told them to EVACUATE. Without providing proper time to residents, Saudis have become “refugees in their own country” as a Twitter user put it, posting a video of Jeddah’s newly homeless sheltered under a bridge with their surviving belongings. A displaced Saudi doctor, who wished to remain unnamed for fear of government retaliation, said that it is still unclear when or if he will receive compensation for his property’s destruction. The same went for a businessman who had invested in residential and commercial properties in Jeddah for them to be torn down only two months later.

Due to a history of repressive government control, finding residents willing to speak honestly about the demolition’s impact is difficult. In 2020, another of MBS’s grand projects displaced 20,000 people for the construction of the futuristic vacation-city, Neom. Among the displaced, Abdulrahim al-Huwaiti refused to be silent, posting a video to the internet criticizing the government. A day after the video was posted, al-Huwaiti was killed by Saudi special forces. Despite the strong threat posed by the Saudi government, citizens under anonymous usernames have posted Twitter videos and messages with the #hadad_jeddah (“Jeddah_demolition” in Arabic) denouncing the injustices.

The government portrayed the neighborhoods as criminal dens and slums, but residents suspect that the neighborhoods were targeted because “they are home to different nationalities” and, alike Jeddah itself, are socially liberal. Compensation schemes exclude foreign nationals, which make up 47% of the evicted population. Exclusion and discrimination of foreign nationals is a common story in Saudi Arabia. The labour system called kafala allows Saudi companies to employ foreign workers without adequate accommodations, and below the national minimum wage. Additionally, any worker who attempts to leave their job without consent face imprisonment and deportation. Possibly it is not buildings nor architecture that do not fit into MBS’s Vision 2030, but it is the people, themselves, that must go.

Among the MBS’s goals is to increase non-oil government revenue from SAR (Saudi riyal) 163 billion to SAR 1 trillion. He emphasizes the importance of diversifying the Saudi economy beyond oil by investing in the creation of logistic, tourist, financial, and industrial zones. Vision 2030 states that the Kingdom will “create attractions that are of the highest international standards.” For Vision 2030 to be a success from the eyes of the crown prince, Saudi Arabia must become a place that is viewed from the outside with admiration. The Vision 2030 Document reads much as a wish list to create the perfect vacation spot as it does to create a well-functioning, stable economy and society. Despite its recent forays into relaxing the stringencies of daily Saudi life, the Kingdom still remains far more conservative than its neighbors. Tourism marketing has promoted Saudi Arabia as a “family-friendly” tourist destination. “[Saudi government officials] with more moderate viewpoints see this as an opportunity to encourage more reforms in the future, as the presence of foreign tourists introduces more conservative elements of Saudi society to the potential benefits of adopting certain outside influences” while conservative constituencies appreciate that the effort will focus on the family, writes Kevin Newton, the founder of Newton Analytical, a consulting firm specializing in MENA affairs.

As the Saudi government begins to cater itself to a greater quantity of foreign national tourists, it will have more incentives to lessen the strictness of daily life. People will not be satisfied with the luxuries of the cities if they also feel the repressive hand of the government on their shoulders. Naturally, freedoms of expression and behavior would need to be extended to tourists, because if people believe that Saudi Arabia will be hostile towards them then they will not bring their business. This process has gradually already begun, despite push-back from conservative elements of the country. In 2017, cultural events such as a packed musical performances in Riyadh and Comic-Con in Jeddah, which had been outlawed, were given permission to occur in the Kingdom. “What we aim to do is create happiness,” said Ahmed al-Khatib, the Chairman of the General Entertainment Authority (GEA). A year prior, the government declared that the Mutaween, a religious police organization which harass women to remove nail polish, cover their hair, and, in an extreme example, prevented 15 school girls from fleeing a burning building resulting in their death because they did not wear proper Islamic dress, become more “gentle and kind” in their conduct. All of these changes are a ringing dinner bell to a whole host of policies which will create a more open society if just for the sake of visitors. 

Although the Saudi government’s incentive to socially liberalize comes from tourists’ sensibilities, as the Saudi economy becomes more dependent on tourism and entertainment revenue, it too will become more dependent on its Saudi hospitality workers and their sensibilities. The threat of government violence will still be present, but any suppressive actions would create more anger by the working class populations who are most subject to strict law enforcement. In 2019, the World Travel and Tourism Council (WTTC) reported that travel and tourism comprised 9.8% of Saudi GDP. In the same year, tourism totaled 12.2% of Saudi employment. As MBS continues to accomplish his goals within Vision 2030, both of these numbers will rise. Hospitality workers in Saudi Arabia will gain significant bargaining power to demand more freedom, economically and socially. They will become participants in the economy who will have a voice— whether the government wants to listen or not. No longer will they be subjects to the throne under current petroleum-based rentierism. 

Economically empowered by tourism, dissatisfied Saudis will have leverage to protest the government’s inevitable toe-stepping. If the kingdom wants to develop a strong “family-friendly” tourism sector, they have incentive to accommodate their citizens. The horror stories from Jeddah’s neighborhoods turned rubble cannot coexist with the international tourism market. More visibility from visitors and leverage in the hands of workers may make Saudi Arabia look very different in 2030; MBS may not like it.

It’s Looking a Lot like 1979 in the UK… or Is It?

I am not the first to note that Queen Elizabeth II’s death on September 8th, 2022 heralds the end of an era. For many, her presence was the one constant during these past seventy years of change, and her death has come at the tail end of a summer representing a fork in the road for Britain. Public uncertainty surrounding the fate of the monarchy has also become representative of the general sense of unease that the United Kingdom has dealt with over the past year. In the few months since Boris Johnson stepped down, inflation has skyrocketed, energy bills have nearly doubled, the pound sterling has slumped nearly to parity with the dollar, strikes have continued to intensify, the airlines have continued to face challenges, and public satisfaction with the much-lauded National Health System (NHS) is at an all-time low. As such, it comes to nobody’s surprise that the very real fears of a recession have dominated the headlines. All of this comes at the heels of a fraught few years of former PM Boris Johnson’s repeated scandals, echoes of the coronavirus pandemic, and the continued economic fallout of Brexit.

To anyone who gives even a cursory look to 20th century British history, it is hard to stave off comparisons to the political and economic situation that gripped the UK in the mid to late 1970s, which was also characterized by internal turmoil. During the unprecedented freezing winter of 1978-1979, the so-called Winter of Discontent took hold, during which the country realized the status quo was no longer tenable. Over forty years later, the country seems poised at an eerily similar turning point. While the winter of 1979 heralded Margaret Thatcher’s rise to power, the 2022 so-called “Summer of Discontent” has left the country with new Prime Minister Liz Truss. Ms. Truss has famously attempted to fashion herself as a second Thatcher, and while there are similarities between the two, there are 40 years between them and the contexts in which they are operating. While there isn’t a single solution to fix national sentiment, Britain must understand that Truss is no Thatcher and that the new government must take immediate strides for structural reform, or face a series of dark, recessionary years in the foreseeable future.

For context, in the two decades following the Second World War, Britain experienced an economic "Golden Age”, during which the country experienced its fastest ever economic growth, 2% unemployment, the construction of national motorways, increased productivity, housing construction, the establishment of a strong welfare state, and overall raised standards of living. The prosperity reached such a degree that in 1959, Queen Magazine–now Harper’s Bazaar–declared that “Britain has launched into an age of unparalleled lavish living,” where average wage was high and unemployment low. Keynesian economic thinking came to dominate the post- war economic consensus, and Britain enjoyed nearly twenty years of economic success. All of this came to a screeching halt in the mid 1970’s.

Even though the UK finally entered the European Economic Community in 1972, throughout the decade, Britain experienced mass strikes by coal miners and rail workers, the effects of the 1973 oil crisis, and widespread blackouts due to lack of available electricity. Unemployment rose once again, exceeding 5%, and inflation peaked at a staggering 25%. In 1976, the Labour Government was forced to borrow $3.9 billion from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to prop up the value of the pound sterling, which had severely dropped in value in relation to the dollar. All of which culminated in the aforementioned Winter of Discontent, where nearly every industrial union went on strike. This included everyone from gravediggers to waste collectors, NHS employees, and truck drivers. They demanded pay raises greater than the limits the Labour government was willing to give, as the government was desperate to tamp down inflation. The strikes caused massive public unrest and inconvenience amid unprecedented freezing temperatures. Unsurprisingly, the Labour government fell in 1979 and Margaret Thatcher was elected as Prime Minister.

Thatcher is perhaps the most controversial figure in modern British politics, equally reviled and beloved. Her government marked a new era in economic policy, adopting what is recognizable to Americans as traditional conservative policies. This included deregulation, privatization, an emphasis on the free market, an overhaul of relations with labor unions, and massive tax cuts. The government adopted stringent economic and fiscal policies to reduce inflation and stuck to them. And to Thatcher’s credit, they were overwhelmingly successful, as inflation was tamped down from 20% in 1980 to around 4% in 1987.

British conservatives are famously known for flip-flopping on issues and are not known for their ideological consistency. Most cynically put, the Conservative manifesto is to adopt policies that will help them stay in power and remain popular with voters. But Margaret Thatcher was famous for sticking to her policies. While there is no doubt as to the widespread suffering Thatcher’s policies caused through cuts to welfare and reduced government spending, she took the country off the brink of economic collapse. 

Returning to the present, it is easy to see where the parallels lie, and on the surface, the current economic situation does not look so different. Liz Truss, another young, female star of the party, from a state-school background, has quickly risen through the ranks to become Prime Minister. Truss has leaned wholeheartedly, and sometimes ridiculously, into this comparison, positioning herself as the second coming of Thatcher. A much-lampooned photo-op saw her in Moscow wearing a nearly identical outfit to Thatcher, and she is even known for wearing the same kind of blouse for which the Iron Lady was famous. However, there are some more meaningful parallels, perhaps best encapsulated by her Reagan-esque belief that cutting taxes will somehow spur productivity growth.

However, this is not 1979, Truss is no Thatcher, and ultimately, her policies make little coherent sense. The ongoing war in Ukraine has defined the current energy crisis, and it was recently announced that the UK was going to face a staggering 80% increase in household energy prices due to limited supply. One of Truss’s first announcements as PM was to cap the per unit cost of energy that providers can charge. This was too popular not to pursue, as the public was nearly united in a push for the government to do something about it. However, this seems to be more of a band aid on a bullet wound, as the government cannot credibly control inflation for the long term by placing a price cap on a good. 

The panic surrounding the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline sabotage is representative of this crisis and how a continued reliance on energy sources from Russia will continue to plague the UK. While Thatcher was saved by the discovery of North Sea oil, a miraculous new discovery of oil and gas resource in British waters seems unlikely. If the war drags on, which it seems likely to do, the scarcity of natural gas available to the UK will persist and prices will continue to rise, ultimately placing more pressure on the government to cover the difference, increasing the deficit––which could ultimately cause inflationary effects. Whether it be a serious investment in renewable energy sources or a shift back towards nuclear, Britain must shift away from this continued reliance on natural gas and oil, especially from foreign sources.  

Despite the inflationary effects that seem bound to occur, Truss seems determined to cut taxes, even as the government remains adamant that they will cover the shortfall between what consumers pay for energy and the market rate. The plan to avoid a fresh windfall tax on energy producers would mean pushing costs on to taxpayers, with as little as 1 pound in every 12 spent on energy support for households recouped from higher taxes on energy firms. Even Thatcher made the unpopular decision to raise taxes in 1981 to manage the deficit and inflation.

While currently Truss appears to hold steadfast in her views to not raise taxes and remain tough on labor unions, for many, she embodies the flip-flopping for which the conservatives are so well-known. For a historical example, she backed the Remain campaign during the 2016 election, but as the tide began turning, and looked as if they were going to lose, she quite suddenly changed her tune and became one of Boris Johnson’s most ardent supporters. While she has timidly announced increased government spending in the form of energy cost caps, she also remains determined to cut taxes, and reduce inflation. But this mixture is far from the Thatcherite policies that worked, and by pursuing what is popular, she remains sailing with the prevailing wind.

While Truss attempts to pursue Thatcherism 2.0, her government must face that they are operating in a completely different time and context. Thatcher was successful in dismantling the postwar economic consensus that was centered around Keynesian thought and instituting neoliberal economic policies, but Truss is operating in a country that is already neoliberalized and thus must face the fact that state intervention is necessary. The war in Ukraine is certain to drag on, and energy prices will continue to rise, especially during the coming winter when demand goes up as well. The leadership also must accept the reality that if they don’t stop the flood of discontent surrounding the party, they are in danger of losing the next general election in two years, as it was under their watch, not Labour’s, that the country has entered its current predicament. And the leader to get the economy back on track does not need to be from the Conservative party.

For millions, Queen Elizabeth II represented stability, reliability, and greatness. Now, without her constancy, the future state of the United Kingdom has been thrown into sharp relief. National sentiment is polling at an all-time low, and it's hard to find anyone in Britain who is optimistic for the future. The Conservative party must adopt hard and fast policies that take aim at the ailments of our time or risk losing the next election. But whether it occurs under Labour or the Tories, a serious change to the status quo is in order.

A special thank you to Daniel Dorey Rodriguez, who contributed much needed economic policy facts and lived experience for this piece!   

No Longer Human: Addressing the use of Artificial Intelligence in IR

Artificial intelligence is a principal instrument for international relations. In areas such as cyber security, military application, and threat monitoring, artificial intelligence isn’t just something that could change the political landscape as we know it: AI will create it. The idea of a non-human entity having a specific agency could make a massive change in politics at the international level. AI has been a doctrine of apocalyptic notions that the world will end with robots. Artificial intelligence has long been a fanciful vision for the future in cinema, art, and literature. The future, however, might be nearer than we think. Already, forms of artificial intelligence affect our everyday lives, including Google translate and search, facial recognition, navigation apps, social media, banking, and even Netflix. From the moment we wake up, AI impacts and influences our lives. Our preferences are tailored to what we are likelier to buy and what we would most likely watch and go. How is this advancement in technology going to change the political and international community? It is safe to assume that artificially intelligent systems might dominate decision-making in the future and that the next cyber attack might not even be human.

In 2022, artificial intelligence will have progressed far enough to become the most revolutionary technology ever created by man. According to Google CEO Sundar Pichai, its impact on our evolution as a species will be comparable to fire and electricity. He also warned that the development of AI was still in its very early stages but that its continued growth would be extreme, stating, “I view it as the most profound technology that humanity will ever develop and work on.” The 2022 trends of AI include advanced language modeling, no-code AI platforms, computer vision technology in business, and creative AI. In global security ventures, artificial intelligence will be increasingly more significant in handling and adequately managing. However, these 2022 AI trends do not come without a cost. Cybercrime has been identified as a substantial threat to global prosperity by the World Economic Forum, which urged nations worldwide to work together to address it. This cybersecurity threat is expansive, transformative, and critical, and with the continued rise in cyberattacks, there is massive growth in the AI market. A July 2022 report by Acumen Research and Consulting says the global market was $14.9 billion in 2021 and is estimated to reach $133.8 billion by 2030. More and more money is being put into this industry, and consequently, working together as an international community is essential in preventing catastrophic damage. Specifically for international relations, AGI might be capable of executing any cognitive or operational task for which human intelligence is currently necessary. These advancements in IR will fundamentally change how the world will look in the near future. 

In a Chatham House Report titled “Artificial Intelligence and International Affairs Disruption Anticipated,” AI can be used in international politics and policymaking in three categories: Analytical roles, predictive roles, and operational roles. In the first category, Artificially intelligent systems are already found in analytical roles, combing through large datasets and deriving conclusions based on pattern recognition. This can be especially helpful when monitoring the outputs of sensors set up to confirm compliance with, for example, a nuclear, chemical, or biological arms control treaty that might be too demanding for human analysts. In predictive roles, artificially intelligent systems may offer opportunities for policymakers to understand possible future events. One such example in the arena of international affairs would be the possibility of modeling complex negotiations. AI might take on other predictive roles with a bearing on geopolitics, contributing to more accurate forecasting of elections, economic performance, and other relevant events. The last category, operational roles, is the traditional sense of robots. The day-to-day functioning of the international system would not be expected to change if truck drivers, ship crews, or pilots were replaced with automation. Still, the large-scale replacement of existing human labor in these capacities will likely cause widespread economic and political disruption in the short to long term. MIT economist Daron Acemoglu’s new research showcases this shift in labor. From 1990 to 2007, adding just one additional robot replaced about 3.3 workers nationally. With this rapid transformation in the labor force, the ethical landscape of AI is becoming more and more significant to the lives of everyone on Earth. 

From a policy standpoint, it is essential to know what data is used, an AI model’s guiding assumptions and the kinds of practices developers employ. The Council on Foreign Relations recently conducted a conference titled “The Future of AI, Ethics, and Defense.” Speakers discussed the intersection of technology, defense, and ethics and the geopolitical competition for the future of innovation. Speakers included former secretary of defense Ash Carter, cofounder of LinkedIn Reid Hoffman, and professor at the Institute for Human-centered artificial intelligence Fei-Fei Li.  Discussing these implications of AI, Fei-Fei Li states, “We have a society that wants to respect human rights, we want to be inclusive, we want to use AI or technology for good, we can have a culture of transparency and accountability, and we can form multi-stakeholder allegiance to both push for innovation, but also put the right guardrails. And this kind of foundation in our world is our competitive advantage.”  Showcasing the ethics that need to be addressed as artificial intelligence advances, Fei-Fei Li concludes that these technologies can benefit society instead of holding it back in the long run. The accountability and transparency related to AI are crucial for the international community to maintain an ethical environment. But what exactly are the ethical challenges of AI? 

Brian Patrick Green, director of Technology Ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, addresses these challenges in his article titled “Artificial Intelligence and Ethics: Sixteen Challenges and Opportunities.” Fundamentally, artificial intelligence is increasing at a tremendous rate. Technical safety and if the technology works as intended are important for companies. Another challenge is bias and the malicious use of AI. For example, China's facial recognition system logs more than 6.8 million records daily. The Chinese government is accused of using facial recognition to commit atrocities against Uyghur Muslims, relying on the technology to carry out "the largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world today." In Russia, authorities have long used biometric data for artificial intelligence-powered facial recognition to surveil and prosecute peaceful protestors and other critics. Additionally, during the Invasion of Ukraine, Russia employed “deepfakes” in propaganda warfare. Deepfakes are images or videos created using AI that can show scenes of things that never happened or even people that never existed. This technology is still increasingly advanced and could be extremely realistic in the future. Furthermore, using AI technology to create cyber weapons to control autonomous tools like drone swarms are being developed. Russian President Vladimir Putin when speaking about the international race to develop artificial intelligence noted, “whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” 

Anja Kaspersen and Wendell Wallach are senior fellows at Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. In November 2021, they published an article that changed the AI ethics conversation: “Why Are We Failing at the Ethics of AI?” Concerning the ethical implications of AI, the article states, “Society should be deeply concerned that nowhere near enough substantive progress is being made to develop and scale actionable legal, ethical oversight while simultaneously addressing existing inequalities.” There has been some work done to address ethical concerns, however. There are many ethical proposals, but they are not always coinciding, uniform or unanimous, even in an organization like the EU. A number of publications on AI highlight the need for policies and regulations that would diminish the risks and direct AI development and use toward public benefit. Public policy and governance can ensure that global AI development is a positive-sum game increasing benefits for all. Suggestions for the  US  leadership include calls for building strategic partnerships worldwide. Balancing competition and cooperation is indispensable, for artificial intelligence isn’t just a component of policy anymore but integral in global security. 

With artificial intelligence dominating everyone on the Earth and advancing at an alarming rate, understanding ethical implications and security risks is necessary to maintain a peaceful world that benefits citizens' lives instead of harming them. Artificial intelligence has a multitude of issues that need to be addressed by the international community, including the capability of cyberattacks, the creation of cyberweapons like drones, and propaganda warfare. With the malicious use of facial recognition and privacy crises, there is a plethora of panic and anxiety for the public. With continued technological advancement, policies must be updated and executed. U.S policymakers must balance risks, benefits, and responsibilities when continuing AI endeavors. Additionally, an enormous amount of ethical issues still need to be tackled. AI research will dominate global affairs, and it can be hard to predict outcomes with this transformation. Whatever the future holds, it is clear that artificial intelligence will be a part of it, or perhaps more accurately, directly beside humankind. 

How France Lost its Mustard: A Story of War, Famine, and Western Negligence

 An unusual phenomenon has struck France in the last six months; where once sat jars of mustard lining the condiment aisle at grocery stores now sits empty. Upon first glance this may seem as just another random food shortage, likely spurred by the seemingly never-ending production and shipping issues resulting from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. But for the average French citizen who consumes one kilogram of mustard a year, and for a country that describes mustard as its favorite condiment, this is no small issue. Thus, outrage ensued. The national mustard shortage has made the product impossible to find, leaving individuals to turn to social media to beg fellow users for donations or to show off their sacred spread. French shoppers were forced to deal with a grim reality: mustard was nowhere to be found. 

At the root of this shortage lies a much larger international crisis: the war in Ukraine. Indeed, mustard production is a large part of both Russia and Ukraine’s agricultural yield. Ukraine is the fourth largest producer of mustard seed, and the second largest exporter. However, they produce a different mustard then the French, Dijon variant. The Ukrainian mustard seed is typically a milder one, and hugely popular within Eastern European countries. However, due to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, production and export of the mustard seed has stopped, forcing Eastern European buyers to turn to French mustard instead, which has upped demand for French mustard, thus causing the shortage.

Mustard seed production is not the only export that has halted ever since Putin ordered the Russian army to invade earlier this year, other valuable exports such as wheat, barley, and corn have faced similar deficits due to the conflict. The widespread fighting has significantly decreased the areas available for harvest, particularly in the territories of Kherson, Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, Mykolaiv, Kharkiv, Sumy, Chernihiv and Kyiv. 

International Food Shortages

         Ukraine’s countryside is home to some of the most fertile land on the planet. The US International Trade Administration (ITA) estimates that Ukraine possesses close to a third of the world’s black soil reserves, (a fertile and moist soil that produces the highest agricultural yields). It is thanks to this fertile land that Ukraine is commonly labeled “the breadbasket of the world.” The country produces large amounts of grain, wheat, and barley, and exports around 90% of its total production. Alongside grain production, Ukraine also exports large amounts of corn and sunflower oil. Ukraine exports its goods to all four corners of the globe, but its primary areas of export are to Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia. Ukraine sends its food to the places that need it most: developing countries that are heavily reliant on wheat and corn and are sensitive to price increases and shortages. These countries include Somalia, Libya, Lebanon, Egypt and Sudan. During times of peace, Ukraine was easily able to export its wheat and other grain products, but current Russian blockades along the Black Sea coast are preventing the trade of necessary food supplies.

         According to Ukrainian crisis management scholar, Anna Nagurney, over 400 million people across the world rely on food from Ukraine. Additionally, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization, estimates that around 181 million people could face a food crisis or famine this year, caused by shortages and increased prices. [*3] At the root of this issue lies the millions of tons of Ukrainian agricultural production that has halted ever since the war began. Now, millions of vulnerable people across the world face the threat of a deadly famine.

         For many across the Western world, this minor mustard shortage in France marked the first realization of the ongoing war’s broader implication. Since the start of the War in early 2022 the West has been largely concerned with Europe’s reliance on energy from Russia. The threat of a gas shortage in Europe has dominated Western media headlines, leaving little room for concern or interest in the ways Ukraine has supported other corners of the world. Although it is an inherent truth that a country’s media primarily focus on issues that affect its own people (European and American news sources and media cannot be blamed entirely), the neglect of this crisis reflects a deep failure within Western media to document crises unrelated to us.

The Failure of the West

Since the start of the war in Ukraine, European and American war and conflict experts have neglected to draw attention to the wider implications of the war. There has been little to no analysis or discourse on Russia’s role in Africa’s food crisis and Russian hunger politics. Instead, much of the discourse around the war in primary news outlets has analyzed the psychology behind Putin’s decision to invade, or how the West should have seen the war coming. Other popular opinions tend to focus on the war’s implications for shifting the balance of power, the return of NATO, and the impact sanctions will have on the energy crisis. What is missing from this conversation is a thorough understanding of Putin’s ambition in other parts of the world, and how war routinely affects vulnerable and dependent populations first.

By choosing to focus on the ways that the West will be affected, politicians, scholars, and other experts have fundamentally failed to understand the global stake of this war and the true global reach of Russia’s intentions. Russia is starving the Global South as a political tactic to help them win the war. Putin is employing Stalin’s tactic in the 1930’s of political famine once again to help end sanctions against Russia, and create a narrative for African and Asian countries in which Ukraine is seen as the witholder of food and fuel. Yale historian and author, Timothy Snyder, believes that Russia’s tactic of global starvation is a modern attempt at Russian colonialism. In June this year Snyder reflected on the increasing signs of starvation and tweeted that “a world famine is a necessary backdrop for a Russian propaganda campaign against Ukraine. Actual mass death is needed as the backdrop for a propaganda contest.”

The Politics of Starvation

2022 was already expected to be a year of famine and starvation, thanks to ongoing droughts and inflation, but Putin’s role has only magnified the famine’s effects. Countries have already started to prepare for increased food prices and lack of goods: “Some countries are reacting by trying to protect domestic supplies. India has restricted sugar and wheat exports, while Malaysia halted exports of live chickens, alarming Singapore, which gets a third of its poultry from its neighbor.” Snyder believes that Russia’s international famine campaign has three components, each designed to weaken a different part of the world. Firstly, Russian blockages of Ukrainian goods hope to end the narrative of Ukraine as the “breadbasket of the world” for the vast majority of countries that receive its wheat and grain, such as Somalia, Libya, and Lebanon. Putin hopes this will decrease support for Ukrainian freedom and destroy the concept of Ukrainian statehood. Secondly, Putin hopes that this famine will increase the rates of refugee migration into an already politically unstable Europe, as people from Sub-saharan Africa flee into Europe in hopes of finding food and a better quality of life. Putin’s final goal within his mass-starvation tactic is one of political propaganda. Putin plans to blame Western sanctions for food supply issues, thus creating a narrative in which the West is to blame for global starvation. A successful change in narrative for Putin will thus ensure that Russian citizens (many of which are already angry at the war and the effects of sanctions) remain ignorant and naive of the true nature of Putin’s strategic thinking. 

Russia’s need for strong and powerful propaganda is only growing, thanks to Russia’s first military mobilization since World War II, which was announced in late September. The latest increase in military efforts has led to more protests by Russian citizens angry at the Kremlin. Over a thousand citizens were arrested in cities across the country as they protested the need for the 300,000 new troops that Russian officials are demanding.

Frustration and resentment across Russia will only grow as the war continues, therefore Putin’s need to create global implications and shift Russian anger outward will only become more pressing as time goes on. By framing the issues and effects of the war as part of a larger Western-led campaign to starve the world, Putin can prevent his citizens from rising up against him. Russians are already subjected to misinformation and propaganda about the war. The Kremlin has successfully convinced millions of Russian citizens that the war is Ukraine’s fault, spreading stories that “Ukrainians had fired on Russian forces during the cease-fire, and neo-Nazis were “hiding behind civilians as a human shield.” This disinformation tactic makes Russians particularly susceptible to Putin’s lies and less likely to understand his starvation politics. 

Putin has also applied the same tactics of disinformation to African nations, in an attempt to spread anti-West and anti-UN sentiment, while gaining political influence. Putin’s expansion of propaganda to Africa reveals the true diabolical nature of his intentions. Already aware of the need to provide an explanation for the lack of resources exported from Ukraine, Russia has established at least sixteen known operations of disinformation across the continent, otherwise known as dezinformatsyia. The goal of these campaigns is to shift anger onto the West, deny Russia’s role in withholding exports, and prop up political regimes that support Russia’s political ambitions. Through the use of sites such as Twitter, Facebook, and Tiktok, Russia has actively succeeded in creating often untraceable campaigns of lies. The extent to which Russia has spread falsehoods through the continent should both alarm and frighten the West. 

         It is time for Western leaders to acknowledge the global implications of the war in Ukraine, and their correlation to famine and food shortages.  In an attempt to spread concern and awareness, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres stated “Global hunger levels are at a new high. In just two years, the number of severely food insecure people has doubled, from 135 million pre-pandemic to 276 million today … More than half a million people are living in famine conditions — an increase of more than 500 percent since 2016.” These numbers are already alarming without the added implications of war. Given these circumstances, it is vital that Western leaders work directly with countries already affected by these devastating food shortages. Similarly, Western media must turn its gaze to the international crisis of halted Ukrainian exports. Western negligence has not only led to widespread famine, but it has also allowed Putin to create a devastating narrative of political propaganda in which millions will starve as unknown casualties of a senseless war. 

The European Economy under Russia’s Threats

Early morning on February 24th  2022, Russia invaded Ukraine. While Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, and annexed the Crimean Peninsula from Ukraine, this time, the invasion of Ukraine by Russia was considered by the international community to be an act of aggression.  The invasion triggered the largest refugee crisis in Europe since World War II, more than four million Ukrainians have left the country and a quarter of the population has been displaced. In response to this invasion, the international community imposed a number of economic sanctions on Russia, in an aim to limit its power and influence in Ukraine. Economic sanctions, as defined by the Council on Foreign Relations, are “the withdrawal of customary trade and financial relations for foreign- and security-policy purposes. Sanctions may be comprehensive, prohibiting commercial activity with regard to an entire country … or they may be targeted, blocking transactions by and with particular businesses, groups, or individuals.” These sanctions have been imposed by many, such as the United States, the European Union, and G7.  

Vladimir Putin, president of Russia, has mentioned that Russia invaded Ukraine in the sole purpose of denazifying Ukraine, as well as protect its citizens who have been facing humiliations and genocides by the Kyiv regime. Ukraine has a long history with neo-nazis. Indeed, Azov is a far-right military group that has been accused of harboring neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology. The group is now part of Ukraine's armed forces. However, Putin’s claim to denazify Ukraine was quite an interesting and bold statement given that the current president of Ukraine is Jewish, and lost relatives in the Holocaust. 

This invasion of Ukraine has mostly - as expected - affected the country and its citizens. Many were forced to flee the country and seek asylum in neighboring countries such as Poland, Romania, and Moldova. However, many Ukrainians were forced to stay, and fight for their country. Ever since the invasion, Ukraine’s economy has contracted. According to the International Monetary Fund, “the loss of life, damage to critical infrastructure, trade disruption and an outflow of refugees would lead to gross domestic product falling by a minimum of 10% in 2021”. However, many countries have stepped up and helped Ukraine in these difficult times. Countries have donated weapons, funds, and have delivered humanitarian and non-lethal aid. While many countries have helped Ukraine, they have also simultaneously worked against Russia. Through economic sanctions, they hope to weaken the country and its president, Vladimir Putin. But many challenges have arisen as economic sanctions against Russia persist.    

Many Ukrainians have fled the country to a safer place. While most women and children are able to successfully escape the war and seek refuge in neighboring countries such as Poland, men are forced to stay in Ukraine to fight and protect their country. However, this conflict has greatly affected Ukraine, who found itself cut off from the world by war. Trade has been disrupted throughout the country, and according to the UN, hundreds of thousands of people inside Ukraine have been cut off from life-saving aid such as humanitarian aid due to the military encirclement of cities. Vulnerable populations in Ukraine such as elderly citizens, or the economically disadvantaged are most likely to become refugees and will have the greatest difficulty coping with rising food and fuel costs. Relief efforts are underway around the world to ensure that people's basic needs for food, shelter and psychological safety are met in the conflict zone and beyond.

Trade-wise, the conflict has disrupted the global supply chain of diverse goods, and affected international trade as a whole. Ukraine is a massive producer and exporter of seed oil, corn, wheat, and iron ore. However, since the beginning of this war, the country’s production has declined as people have fled the country and men were forced to give up their occupations to join the army and help fight against the Russians. Similarly, the concentration of wheat, fertilizer, and related production in Russia will strain food supplies globally. Securing the continuous supply of food to the countries most tied up to exports from these regions is becoming an issue. Stocks - about half of the corn Ukraine was expected to export for the season - are increasingly difficult to get to buyers, providing a glimpse of the disruption caused by the war in Russia, which accounts for roughly $120 billion global grain trade. Already disrupted by supply chain blockages, surging freight rates and weather events, markets are expecting further turmoil as shipments from Ukraine and Russia - which together account for about a quarter of the global grain trade - become more complicated and raise the specter of food shortages.        

Ports, railroads, and roads throughout Ukraine have either been closed, or taken over by the Russian army. No foreigners have really been able to get in the country ever since the start of the war due to fear. Thus, the Ukrainians that remain in the country have found themselves unable to access foreign goods and services that the country once imported. The lack of production, manufacturing, and transportation in Ukraine due to the war has also disrupted the global supply chain, as previously mentioned, which has had and will keep having a negative impact on the world’s economy and other countries that relied on Ukrainians and Russians export of agricultural goods, which consisted of a wide variety of goods. Citizens that remain in Ukraine have done so to fight for their country against the Russian army, as a result, there are fewer people than ever that work to produce and provide goods not only for Ukrainian citizens, but also for foreign citizens who relied on such goods. 

As the effects of war can be felt everywhere, other countries such as the United States and NATO cannot get involved in the conflict due to the concern that it will become a war between Russia and the West. Since Ukraine is not a member of NATO, the alliance is not obligated to defend the country. Similarly, as the United States is an ally of NATO, the country cannot get involved in the conflict, unless Russia invades a NATO country, which is not so likely to happen as this could result in World War III. However, both NATO and the United States are determined to do all that is in their power to support Ukraine. 

Their inability to get physically involved in this conflict is due to the fact that Ukraine is not a member of both the European Union and NATO. Ukrainian President, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, whose country is facing a massive unprovoked invasion from neighboring Russia, has called on the European Union to grant Ukraine EU membership under a special procedure as soon as possible. However, it is not as easy as it sounds, the process to gain EU membership is very long and many EU countries are against an expansion of the European Union. Similarly, Ukraine is unable to join NATO just yet, but the organization is committed to helping the country and its citizens in these difficult times.

As a response to the war, many countries have set up a number of economic sanctions in the aim to weaken Russia. But as these sanctions take place, a big question arises: who do these sanctions actually hurt? Economic sanctions on Russia have a goal to affect the economy of the country. SWIFT - the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication, is a Belgian cooperative society providing services related to the execution of financial transactions and payments between banks worldwide - has banned Russia. As a consequence, Russian banks are no longer able to use the financial interface to transfer money. But financial sanctions, not banishment from SWIFT, are the key economic punishments being imposed on Russia. Economic sanctions on Russia such as a ban on exports, blocking of Russian assets, sanctions against individuals, ban of oil and gas imports from Russia. Additionally, all Russian banks have had their assets frozen. But who are these sanctions truly affecting? The government? Or the people? 

As horrible as it is, economic sanctions against Russia are actually impacting Russian citizens who have seen their assets abroad frozen, and who also cannot access goods and services that they once did. The lower class in Russia is the one suffering the cost of these sanctions, but as time passes, Russia as a whole will feel the effects of these sanctions, as many foreign companies have pulled out of the country in response to its invasion of Ukraine. Sanctions would prohibit Russian energy exports, which would traumatize the European economy, which is heavily dependent on Russia, and would worsen the surge in energy prices. As companies have pulled out of the country, Russia’s GDP is expected to heavily shrink as an outcome. Russia's central bank has been struggling to stabilize the value of the ruble and prevent a sharp rise in interest rates without access to about half of its foreign exchange reserves. The Russian stock market was also closed for weeks, suspending shares of domestic companies that could plunge as soon as trading resumed. 

The sanctions also have an impact on the European and global economy, which is heavily dependent on Russia for oil, gas, and different goods. The country is also a big importer of luxury goods, so countries such as France and Italy will see their export of luxury goods decline in the next year (and more). This will greatly impact the economy of these countries as such exports contribute to a big portion of their gross domestic product. Businesses have also been hurt, they have lost a lot of their revenues as they pulled out of Russia. However, if they had stayed in the country, with the increasing number of economic sanctions, they would have suffered the long lasting effects of these sanctions on their businesses, which would have also impacted other countries that are also home to such companies.

Oil prices have gone up throughout the world. The United States, France, or the United Kingdom are all three big importers of Russian gas and oil. The “Russian oil ban” as it is called has created a lot of discontent in many European countries, whose citizens have to suffer the cost of an increase in oil and gas prices. Europe exports 45% of gas from Russia, and has pledged to reduce its purchases of Russian gas by two-thirds before the end of the year. However, an alternative must be found in the aim to reduce the price of oil and gas in European countries. Europe has become too dependent on Russia for gas, but until an alternative is found, citizens will have to deal with the increase of gas and oil prices in their respective countries. 

Overall, the economy of Europe has been slowing down as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Not only was the supply chain disrupted by this invasion, but citizens in both countries are completely left alone. No one can really get into Ukraine, as a result, the country struggles to import goods that its citizens once consumed on a daily basis. They are left with local producers and manufacturers. Similarly, countries who used to trade with Ukraine can no longer do so. Wheat and grains are agricultural goods that the country used to export, however, as a port has been destroyed, the country has been cut off from the world, unable to export its goods to countries who relied on them. But similarly, many companies have backed out of Russia, leaving citizens unable to access certain goods and services.

As Russia keeps invading Ukraine and does not seem to be willing to put an end to this conflict that has already cost the lives of many, I wonder whose economy will be the most impacted: Russia’s economy, or Europe’s economy? Both are really powerful, but the sanctions that countries in the European Union and NATO have set up against Russia have also affected more than just Russia. Although Russia’s GDP is expected to shrink this year as a result of this invasion, I wonder how much longer can the country go without the help and support of other countries, or even companies that were once in the country. Left completely alone, Russia is left with its own resources, and is fully aware that its citizens are suffering from this conflict. It makes me wonder how much longer will they be able to fund this war, and allow for its citizens, especially the lower class, to be impacted by it.

Although much has been done by the international community in response to this conflict, Ukraine is still being invaded by Russia, and many face the consequences of this conflict every day. It is extremely hard for other countries and NATO to physically be involved in this conflict as it could lead to world war III. Many fear Russia, a powerful nation that has access to numerous nuclear weapons. While it is understandable that the international community is unable to get too involved in this conflict, and with the long process that is for Ukraine to be able to join NATO and the EU, the international community is left with the options to use sanctions against Ukraine, or to donate to Ukraine, military aid, humanitarian aid, weapons, and funds. As the situation does not seem to be getting any better, the international community should do everything that is in their power to limit the influence of Russia on Ukraine, in the hope that one day, Russia will back out. 

To conclude, this conflict has taken a turn that no one really expected. While many were aware of Russia’s threats, it was still a big shock when Russia actually invaded Ukraine. As the international community is doing everything that they can to help Ukraine in these difficult times. Many countries have welcomed refugees, sent humanitarian and military aid, as well as many other resources, Ukraine and its citizens that have remained in the country still greatly suffer from this war. Russia’s citizens have also been greatly affected as the economic sanctions are directly affecting them. The economy of Russia, Ukraine, and Europe is shrinking. Unless Russia backs out of Ukraine, the consequences of this conflict will be long lasting and an entire economy will have to be rebuilt, which will take time. In the meantime, we can hope that Ukraine will be able to join the EU and NATO, in the aim to get more support and help from other countries, as Ukraine puts up a big fight against the superpower, Russia.

State of Present-Day Federalism

The modern age is seeing once again a rise in authoritarianism and decline in freedom. As much as today’s globalized age and an accompanying increased tendency of people and ideas to come together and mix or clash calls upon greater mutual understanding, patience, and pluralism, we instead witness a rise in isolationist, nationalist policies. Pluralism, or a system in which two or more groups, principles, sources of authority coexist, is by definition supposed to lead to an increase of public tolerance, inclusion, and peace even in societies featuring a complex mix of ideological and ethnic belongings.

A mechanism that seemingly goes perfectly in hand with pluralist tendencies is precisely federalism. This is because the very idea of federalism allows for a distribution and compartmentalization of power in a way that ideally echoes societal needs and provides for an appropriate division of powers and greater societal and regional cohesion. However, with much left to still be explored and better understood, different styles of federalism have developed, with some favoring division along political lines while others along social lines, each with various degrees of success in ensuring citizen liberties and preventing abuse of power that are some of the core goals of a federal order.

Given the increased complexity of national, regional, and international bonds in the globalized world, ideas of pluralism or coexistence of various often competitive entities becomes imperative. In order to further develop potential for federal political order to support this kind of pluralism leading to greater peace and co-existence in the modern world, this article will reflect on different ways in which federalism is presently working to do this in countries across the world.

The Case of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Ethiopia is one of the oldest organized sovereign states. Throughout its long history, it has witnessed a number of power changes, migrations, internal, regional, and global turbulence, for the most part managing to preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity in spite of all these threats including European colonialism and major financial crises of the past century. The Derg regime replaced its monarchy with nationalization and attempt at socialism by assassinating the last Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie and changing political and economic circumstances to match the regime’s ideology. This period of Ethiopian history featured authoritarian behavior on behalf of the regime and is remembered with censorship and brutal behavior towards civilians. Everything changed again in 1991 when the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) won against the Derg regime and established democratic rule in the country. This is now being yet again challenged as, following dissolution of the EPRDF due to internal strife and shifting power dynamics, Prime Minister and Noble prize winner Abiy Ahmed broke off with his own Prosperity Party and attempted to yet again change political scenario in Ethiopia. Opposed Abiy Ahmed’s promise on bringing prosperity and economic and democratic progress to the country stand armies labeled as rebels such as the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) that in turn labels Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s actions as power-grabbing and undemocratic. The conflict is currently revolving primarily along ethnopolitical lines and has so far caused thousands of deaths and forced millions to flee. All of this comes following a period of perceived tolerance that marked the era of the EPRDF. As such, the regime of EPRDF that was marked by political focus on ethnic federalism and need for pluralism along the often described as divisive ethnic lines, serves as a perfect example and a test to durability and functionality of federalism when uniquely framed along ethnic divisions.

The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) stayed in power in Ethiopia between 1991 and 2019. On top of its national emphasis on ethnic federalism and pluralism, it in itself featured very pluralist and compartmentalized politics. The party was actually a coalition of four political parties: Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), Amhara Democratic Party (ADP), Oromo Democratic Party (ODP), and Southern Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement (SEPDM). The very existence of EPRDF required constant collaboration amongst the leaders of each party within the coalition, with special value placed on party, local, regional, and federal elections. Ethiopia first witnessed a democratic and federal ruling arrangement following the EPRDF ascend to power. The democratically elected House of Representatives chooses the president who has largely a ceremonial role as well as the prime minister who actually holds the executive power. In order to ensure nonpartisanship and separation of powers, the 6-year presidential and ministerial terms are usually meant not to overlap with the 5-year terms of the members of the House of Representatives.

The ideas of the federal government and the ruling coalition were passed onto the entire nation as the country was federally compartmentalized along ethnic lines, with Tigray, Amhara, and Oromo, being some of the largest ethnicities within Ethiopia having their separate local politics that would often center around their ethnic grouping, space, and culture. Southern Ethiopian tribes that largely practice traditional religions and are generally fewer in number were also able to receive special protections and recognition in this way. The ideal is that each ethnicity would be able to thrive on its own terms while also functioning as one on a unified national front with a form of supra-ethnic identity that would characterize them simultaneously as Ethiopian along their other ethnic, cultural, and local markers. This practice, while practiced in its own unique way everywhere due to unique ethnic and sociopolitical make-ups of each location, is not unique to Ethiopia. Other countries that featured or continue to feature this arrangement to varying degrees of success include Nepal, Pakistan, South Sudan, and historically Apartheid-era South Africa through its locally-led Bantustans, as well as former Yugoslavia and to an extent present-day Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Ethnic federalism is presently blamed for Ethiopian political fallout and ongoing war as now that Abiy Ahmed - a member of the Oromo, the largest ethnolinguistic group of the country that has traditionally been scarcely represented in politics - came to hold substantial power, the scales quickly tipped and fragile balance was disturbed as the traditional rulers usually of Tigrayan ethnicity sided against the present status quo. Ethnic federalism is, in short, blamed for maintaining and facilitating easier inflammation of ethnic fault lines because it by nature maintains these ethnic divisions through the way it facilitates politics and attempts to maintain inclusion. However, an alternative view to ethnic federalism also persists. It is easy to quickly label ethnic federalism as the cause of all troubles when, in fact, it might be simply a manifestation of causes that are buried deeper in the past. Oftentimes, ethnic federalism was in fact an imperfect albeit rare solution to more deeply engraved ethnic divisions and internal struggles. Countries that feature ethnic federalism, as evidenced from the list above, also tend to stand witness to centuries of foreign rule and colonial oppression and have been exposed to a number of migrations and complex ethnic and religious diversity as a result of this dynamic history. Thus, ethnic federalism can appear as the only possible solution, albeit imperfect. In this way, ethnic federalism can be awarded blame for maintaining ethnic fault lines, but should also be judged with an understanding of local complexities and unique situations the country found itself in historically and presently.

The Case of the Republic of India

The Republic of India features a highly diverse and complex social and political landscape. Having gained independence from the British Empire in 1947, India cherished its freedom and democracy ever since. However, India underwent a partition with Pakistan in that same year due to disagreements often labeled as ethno-religious which echo to this day and that affected the potential for a more unified South Asia. This perhaps showed flaws in ability to accurately and in a pluralist and inclusive fashion represent all of its constituents. All of this, similar to other cases where a need for ethnic federalism seems the apparent albeit imperfect solution, is against the backdrop of complex and divisive colonial heritage. In this case too, we see a need for greater attention towards ethnic foundations of political opinion that, for better or worse given flaws of ethnic federalism, are not as emphasized in India as in the previous case of Ethiopia. Regardless, present-day Indian politics show a focus on the increasingly Hindu nationalist ruling party and the emphasis on constitutional integrity and a rather unique form of centralized federalism. India, the world’s most populous democracy, now features a complex interaction between demands of local and somewhat central federal government, with demands balanced to carefully meet local needs for self-agency and linguistic integrity with the federal government’s need for national control. The system seems somewhat contradictory yet has shown to work resiliently for more than half a century.

In the case of India, we find a scenario more reminiscent of countries that adopted ethnic federalism succumbing to the need to balance ethnic divisions and unique cultural, religious, and linguistic spaces alike to those in India, here met with a persistent focus towards an emphasized federal level politics and nationalized parliament. The nationalized, centralized federal government has seen an interruption in Indian politics, especially in the 1990s following failure of the Indian nationalist Congress party that dates back to the independence movement, to maintain its traditional overwhelming majority in the parliament and consistent regional resistance towards centralized governance as witnessed in provinces such as Assam, Kashmir, Mizoram, and Punjab in the 1970s and 80s. This resulted in a rise of regionalization and coalitionary politics in the coming decades only to be yet again interrupted with the rise of Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata party (BJP).

India serves as an example of a nation carefully balancing demands for national unity and regional cultural, ethnic, and linguistic identities without relying on often divisive ethnic federalism and clear political compartmentalization along fault lines. However, the rise of nationalist politics that now threaten to establish a scenario alike to tyranny of the majority in a country that prides itself on its pluralism and democracy that withstands millenia-old demographic and class diversity shows that this promise may be too fragile and questions ability for a more centralized federation to ensure pluralism and civilian protections. On the other hand, Indian politics has previously managed to survive threats to its division of powers and imposition of presidential over federal and constitutional rule in landmark cases such as S. R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) that ensured protection of regional administration and supremacy of federal, constitutional rule against the backdrop of presidential attempts at misusing constitutional authority of Article 356 to curb local autonomy. This means that there is still hope for resiliency of Indian uniquely centralized federal political institutions to withstand the pressure of internal nationalisms that threaten destabilization of the Indian federal system.

The Case of the Russian Federation

The largest country in the world, Russia, features its own version of federalism as well. The Russian Federation emerged following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It became an attempt to balance the traditionally highly centralized power of Russian political leaders with the vast space and diversity of people and regions it governs, against the backdrop of a modern globalized and interdependent world. The Russian Federation as such consists of a number of areas with established regional governance that are all considered equal federal subjects albeit with diverse degrees of autonomy. There are 85 such federal subjects, albeit the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are two areas that are not yet internationally recognized as belonging to Russia. The federal subjects, based on their degree of autonomy and specific national considerations are divided into oblasts, republics, krais, autonomous okrugs, federal cities, and autonomous oblasts. Of these, republics and autonomous okrugs and oblasts or areas tend to be home to specific ethnic minorities where we see a degree of federal compartmentalization along ethnic lines. Given Russia’s vast territory featuring over 193 different ethnic groups, an aspect of ethnic federalism is not surprising , albeit fears of destabilization of this vast country often results in an emphasis on the core Russian, or Slavic, ethnicity as a state foundation.

While each federal subject has its own head, parliament, and constitutional court, federal politics, especially since the turn of the century, have come to dominate the Russian political landscape. The wording of the Russian Constitution allocates the president with primary relationship to maintenance of constitutional integrity and the federal presidential head also can choose degrees to which regional autonomy is reflected in practice. Regional governance of Russian federal subjects also is set up in a way that reflects the overarching federal government’s hierarchical structure and can thus serve to additionally reflect the degree of centralization favored by the federal government on regional governance institutions, as may presently be the case given the state of Russian politics centered on its president. This leaves integrity of minority rights as well as safeguarding of the separation of powers, civilian freedoms, and decisions regarding international relations, such as the decision to sign treaties or go to war, largely in the hands of the executive branch or the president. Implications of this scenario are evident in the ongoing attack on Ukraine that does not seem to feature an approval on a federal but rather on a centralized presidential level, as well as attempts to undermine and silence all internal opposition, again showing the overwhelming real-life implications of (mis)application of federalism. A greater recognition of the importance of separation of powers and checks and balances as key characteristics of federalism, as well as greater appreciation of civil liberties and powers vested in regional governments and autonomous regions would result in a more favorable case for pluralism and inclusion of the highly diverse political, ethnic, and cultural landscape of the world’s largest country.

The Case of the United States of America

The United States of America, or arguably the first modern world democracy, features a centuries-old constitution that establishes a very clear separation of powers and voting provisions. On a federal level, it features legislative, executive, and judicial separation of powers that many modern democracies take inspiration from, while on a territorial governance level, the country features what some describe as a true example of different states with their own degree of autonomy coming together to form “a more perfect union.” Decisions on the powers granted to states vs. the federal government are constitutionally divided and inalienable. However, states: a) often compete with one another to attract businesses by lowering taxes which hurts state-funded programs, b) can experience economic inequalities across state lines, and c) there is also a degree to which federal funding can manipulate states into accepting or enforcing certain kinds of legislation to which they otherwise would not agree upon, as seen in the enforcement of prostitution, drinking, substance control, and historically even slavery laws. Similarly, there is a weakness in the US ability to respond to pressures that need a more unified central government, as, for example, in cases of grave financial distress seen in the Great Depression.

However, the US was able to withstand many tests to its political system. The challenge of the Great Depression was resolved through unprecedented overarching federal policies showing the willingness of regional governing bodies to accept a more centralized federal functioning in times of grave need. On the other hand, the US failed to uphold integrity of its democratic institutions and territorial unity in the 1860s when it underwent a civil war revolving precisely around the issue of state rights and relation of the federal government towards the country’s particularly tragic disagreement on the institution of slavery.

Interestingly, the US was initially envisioned by its first president George Washington in his farewell address as a nonpartisan entity that would as such facilitate seemingly endless political plurality and inclusion. However, since the turn of the 19th century to the present day, the US features a rigid two-party system that leaves little space for a more nuanced ideological debate in its legislative body, the Congress, that also plays a major role in the decision to go to war or engage in international economic cooperation. The US curiously also finds itself amidst international criticism for imperial tendencies and overreliance on its military industrial complex. The state of constantly being in war campaigns around the world which received a highly mixed public opinion in the last couple of decades and (mis)treatment of its territories and indigenous/minority populations only serve to enforce the aforementioned criticism and further question US ability to ensure political, ideological, and cultural integrity of all of its subjects. In the end, a greater appreciation for the role of centralized government approaches in historically maintaining the country’s stability and minority protection coupled with a less rigid division of the congressional representation of public opinion may assist the US on the path of greater pluralism, stability, and inclusion.

The Case of the Argentine Republic

The Argentine Republic stands as an example of federalism from the South American continent. Argentina features a presidential representative democracy akin to that of the US where the president is in charge of the executive power, the National Congress possess legislative power while the judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court. Argentina similarly exhibits a highly decentralized political system, with each of its 23 provinces exercising considerable regional power and maintaining considerable ability to influence debates on the national levels through representation in the legislative branch. However, regional politics tend to suffer from exclusionary practices which then translate to misrepresentation of a region or a part of the region’s population and damage the cohesiveness of politics on the greater federal level, and Argentine congressional structure also can have unbalanced representation, having often been ranked highest globally on overrepresentation of some regions in the upper chamber. This may be a consequence of the post-colonial effects that see a translation of the exclusionary elite-based politics of the Spanish Empire translated in the modern world. Argentina is additionally grappling with dictatorial experiences such as that of the military junta rule of the 1970s that curbed pluralism and civil liberties but now also serve as a reminder of the fragility and importance of federal and pluralist ideals.

 Of particular attention are also the rights of the indigenous people in Argentine areas, that have faced centuries of abuse due to European colonialism and remain at threat in the post-colonial world. While indigenous peoples and integrity of their land, language, and culture are now federally recognized and under constitutional protections that many can learn from, in practice they often still face discrimination and theft from their lands and also stand victim to exclusion from political presence, including on local, province, and federal levels. In short, the federal structure of Argentina may benefit from greater enforcement of these protections as well as from greater focus on transparent and fair elections and representation on regional levels to ensure a more balanced discussion and development in the National Congress. Additionally, Argentine development policy initiatives could benefit from a sustained focus on perceiving Argentine provinces not as homogenous isolated units, as was traditionally the case, but as interconnected entities that should be on a shared development track coupled with cooperation from both all levels of government with civil society and flourishing local initiatives.  

Conclusion

Federalism, while at its core a system of governance favoring division of powers and participation of multiple entities in a shared political process, can differ significantly in the way that it is practiced. As evidenced in the cases above, the way federalism is to be manifested is highly dependent on a country’s history, past institutions, as well as features of its political, ethnic, and cultural makeup. The unifying lessons from examples above show the need for a strong constitutional backing in establishment of a federal political order, as well as the importance of the precise and detailed wording of this endeavor and ability to enforce constitutional integrity through a clear separation of powers and rule of law. The importance of separation of powers and check of balances, as well as constitutional and federal government’s ability to maintain protection of minority rights also proved of instrumental importance and challenge no matter what region and historical background a country finds itself in. An additional consideration when establishing a federal style of governance is the need to understand implications that ethnic divisions will play on the system and how ethnic divisions can be mitigated through democratic, inclusive policies on local, regional, and federal levels to avoid divisions while ensuring freedoms of ethnic, cultural, and religious expression. Lastly, there is also a need to recognize the dynamics between central and regional governance levels, appreciating and considering the need for centralized actions as well as federal, regional divisions and autonomy, and ensuring that the two levels of government are able to coexist, maintain clear communication in the interest of citizenry, and also maintain checks and balances on each other through constitutional, judiciary, and democratic means.

The Middle East’s Stake in the Ukraine Crisis

Introduction

Scholars, strategists, and pundits alike would agree that the Ukraine crisis has escalated far beyond what many originally envisioned on February 24th, 2022. Where early pieces championed a surefire Ukrainian victory and the incompetence of the Russian military, recent articles have speculated that the conflict might rage for weeks to months from now. Although unbiased stories are difficult to find, vivid descriptions of Russian war crimes pepper the firsthand accounts of Ukrainian refugees. Initial articles, such as those reporting on Russian soldiers using children as hostages in Kyiv, shocked few. But it was on April 6th, 2022 that the first mass-media reports of torture, rape, and executions in the recaptured city of Bucha emerged. The bodies of more than 300 civilians were discovered scattered around the city and its outskirts, most clearly having been bound and immobilized before being severely beaten and shot from point-blank range. In response to this and other acts of brutality, the UN General Assembly passed an emergency resolution to suspend the Russian Federation from the Human Rights Council. With 93 countries in favor and only 24 countries—mostly common opponents like China, the DPRK, and Belarus—directly opposing the motion, it is clear that numerous states view Russia as an aggressor and support Ukrainian sovereignty.

However, this leaves 58 countries remaining that voted to abstain from the resolution, each with their own reasons for sitting on the fence. Some of these neutral states, like Angola, Barbados, or Vanuatu, likely lack a stake in the conflict and would prefer to avoid angering either side. But the diversity in these abstentions betrays an observable trend in the action, that being the Middle East’s near-universal desire to remain exempt from opining on the matter. Of the states comprising the Middle East and North Africa, only Israel, Libya, and Turkey joined with the states that pushed through Russia’s disbarment from the HRC. A majority of the remaining states refused to formally strike a side in the debate, with nations from Iraq to Saudi Arabia remaining non-aligned. Three countries in the area—Syria, Iran, and Algeria—even went as far as to officially reject the UN resolution, effectively aligning themselves closer to Russia in the wake of the conflict. Thus, one can easily see the complex relationships between the Middle East and the two forming sides in this situation. This article aims to provide an overview of American, European, and Russian relations with the Middle East and North Africa, particularly with regards to oil, as well as what stakes—if any—exist for countries in this region and what predictions surround the how these states will address the crisis as it develops.

The Middle East & The World: Addressing the Oil Derrick in the Room

It is impossible to holistically examine the Middle East’s relationships with the US, Europe, and Russia in the course of a single article. Entire volumes of literature have been written analyzing the associations between just one of these groups and the Middle East, with usually little more than lip-service provided to the others. That being said, in order to effectively organize the narrative which revolves around this issue, I have chosen to examine these relationships with respect to the common denominator present in all of them: oil. The world quite literally runs on oil. Aside from providing fuel for the estimated 1.3 billion passenger and commercial vehicles that exist across the world, oil (or petroleum) provides use in heating and electricity generation as well as in the production of the various plastics, chemicals, and other synthetic materials we use in our day-to-day lives. Understandably then, a key point of contention between states in the course of national development and prestige has been the exchange (and occasionally the appropriation) of global oil reserves. Vital players in the oil industry are largely clustered in the Middle East, with Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Iraq all possessing a billion barrels or more in oil reserves compared to the US’ 400,000. This fact alone has irreversibly transformed the Middle East into a region composed mostly of rentier states, and has further shaped the Middle East’s relationships with the major players in the Ukraine Crisis.

Historically, the United States has engaged in a complicated relationship with the Middle East as a result of its dependence on the region’s oil reserves. Dubbed the “American Oil Strategy”, politics between the country and MENA has been almost entirely influenced by politicians shoring up support in the region to secure oil for trade. In fact, the US has even gone so far as to insist on military presence in the region, and further, to ignore blatant policy inconsistencies to maintain this oil relationship. This explains, rather grimly, why America will effectively ignore Saudi Arabia’s horrid human rights record or Turkey’s incremental shift toward authoritarianism. Anywhere else, these crimes might otherwise serve as catalysts for sanctions, condemnation, or military intervention. But the US views its stake in maintaining this Oil Strategy to be far too great to be jeopardized by moral grandstanding. Although the US has made effort in recent years to decouple itself from dependency on foreign oil—largely by way of off-shore drilling and domestic fracking—the US will be at least partly reliant on overseas oil for the foreseeable future. In turn, the Middle East’s relationship with the US is similarly blemished by the latter’s reliance on Gulf oil. While some politicians in the region praise the US as a harbinger of democracy, freedom, and liberal thought, others decry America as a neo-imperialist state with the primary concern of lining its coffers. Every praise for the Abraham Accords can be met with blame for the Iraq War, War in Afghanistan, or war crimes in Yemen, meaning few in the area view the United States as a wholly benevolent power.

Europe possesses a similarly complicated relationship with the Middle East and its near-monopoly over energy. Like the US, Europe is no stranger to hydrocarbon imports from the Middle East, with figures from Eurostat’s 2020 energy memo reporting 18% of Europe’s crude oil and 12.4% of its natural gas deriving from the region. In this same report, Saudi Arabia alone was reported to have provided more than 7.8% of Europe’s crude oil imports. Moreover, the region’s historical association with Europe in regards to its oil means that this relationship is nothing new. As early as the late-19th century, the Anglo-Persian Oil Company began surveying Gulf sites for extraction. The consequences of this arrangement—especially in relation to its history of upholding authoritarian states in the interest of protecting British and French aims—have had a jarring effect on the region’s modern political and economic stability. This has led to a paradoxical relationship over time, with European states sometimes directly interfering, for example during the Gulf War, while simultaneously staying silent on other issues. Understandably then, few living in the Middle East view the European Union or its member-states in an outright beneficial light.

Starkly contrasted with these relationships is that of Russia with modern Middle Eastern states. Unique to Russia is its heavy supply of oil and natural gas, largely attributable to its massive geographic and topographic scale. As such, although Russia has historically not been one to ignore the bountiful gains of hegemony in the Middle East, it certainly is not suffering from oil crises or shortages. Russian influence in the region has been idiomized as that of a “Jack of all trades, master of none”. What this means is that, although Russia has begun to work its way into better relations with virtually all modern Middle Eastern countries—most notably Syria, Israel, and Turkey—few (minus Syria) are willing to directly align themselves too closely to the Kremlin. Part of this is historical, owing to Soviet proxy management during the Cold War, while most of it stems from Russia’s inability to deliver on its promises for aid and support. Foreign aid inefficiencies have been best shown in Syria, where the Russian Center for Reconciliation of Conflicting Sides (CRCS) has been critiqued for 717 of its 731 communities having been symbolically serviced only once over the last five years. It is for this reason that Turkey has notably denounced Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and officially labeled it a “war”. However, states in the region continue to look to Russia as an alternative to American beneficence. Although Russia has failed in many regards, it has impressed Gulf states like Saudi Arabia and Qatar along with other Levantine states simply by virtue of valuing the status quo over democratization. Where American officials might arrange for oil exchanges that include clauses—however fleeting—on the importance of liberalized economies, Russia is more relaxed, caring little about whether these countries respect civil liberties or uphold human rights. It is because of these complicated, often conflicting variables that Israel’s PM Naftali Bennett has pledged a “measured and responsible” response to the Ukraine Crisis while still hesitating on formally condemning Russia or Vladimir Putin.

All of this is to say that it has become clear in recent years that support toward the Russian sphere is slowly but surely ramping up. Where Europe and the US are constricted in their ability to influence the region based on past crimes, blunders, and miscalculations; Russia is poised to drastically shape the politics of the region. Although few states would publicly—or even privately—praise Russia and its leaders, trends in the region point toward a closeness to the Kremlin that Europe and America could only dream about.

Shut-Offs and Sanctions: Stakes At-Home and Abroad

Thus, the question remains, where does the Middle East sit in all of this? During a time when supply-chains have been disturbed, trade agreements have been terminated, and sanctions have been employed by countries everywhere, no country can sit on the sidelines. Whether they want to be involved or not, states around the world must accept the geopolitical shift that comes with this crisis, along with the immediate, tangible ramifications that come with continued conflict between Russia and Ukraine. As indicated above, the most prominent points for policymakers right now center around how to compensate for the intense reduction in oil and natural gas imports from Russia. Although Europe certainly relies on energy from the Middle East, the same Eurostat report referenced earlier in this piece pointed out that, in fact, 25% of European crude oil and 38% of natural gas actually come out of Russia. The US, although not nearly as reliant, still imports over 8% of its crude oil from Russia and continues to import 20% of its unrefined petroleum products as well. Whether or not a state directly garners its petroleum from Russia, the fact remains that consumer-side and producer-side markets alike are suffering from the conflict. World prices for a barrel of oil have skyrocketed, hitting upwards of $130/barrel in early March of this year, while drivers everywhere have complained of soaring prices, with gas hitting roughly $4.50/gallon in the US and upwards of $7.50/gallon in Italy and $8.00/gallon in the UK as of April of this year.

Obviously, the initial plan to offset this supply shortage was to contact Middle East suppliers—specifically the 7 of those within OPEC+—and increase crude oil flow into the European continent and toward the US. Initial hopes that the organization would respond eagerly to the hope of renewed demand following the COVID-19 plunge were dashed when an emergency meeting on March 2nd between OPEC member states ended with them agreeing to only raise supply by the prescribed amount (400,000 barrels per day in April). Only lasting 13 minutes, the meeting went without a mere mention of the Ukraine crisis and its pressures on the industry. Outside of OPEC, responses are not exactly positive either. Even former-OPEC member Qatar has expressed hesitation in helping the West in its scramble to secure more oil, with Energy Minister Saad al-Kaabi stating even before tensions erupted that it lacked the capacity to remotely replace Russian oil in Europe let alone abroad. Fears have only grown after this response, with Europe increasingly eyeing an outright ban on Russian oil and petroleum products and prices only continue to rise.

The situation is not without its light, of course. On March 9th, Emirati Ambassador to the US Yousef Al-Otaiba, expressed the UAE’s desire to hike oil outputs from OPEC. Saudi Arabian officials offered the same sentiments on March 10th, and countries with the capacity to continue bolstering oil supplies to Europe and the US have attempted to support the call to arms. In yet another show of the American Oil Strategy, US officials are increasingly looking to Iran to cover the difference. In the words of Alex Vatanka of the Middle East Institute, “Iran’s Achilles’ Heel is the state of its economy…and the possibility of a new [JCPOA] presents Tehran with an opportunity.” While circumstances are continuously developing and little is certain, these factors mean that hope might not be lost for the Middle East to assist the West during a time of crisis.

But it is not only in the West that the ripple-effects of the Ukraine crisis have been felt. Virtually every state in the Middle East has reported severe economic and supply consequences directly resulting from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. It was Egypt that was first hit hardest by these ramifications, specifically with respect to its food supply. Disruption in Ukrainian supply and export chains, coupled with intense sanctions placed upon Russia, have prevented Egyptian ports from receiving wheat shipments that make up 85% of the country’s grain supply. Iran too has been hit hard by the situation, with severe threats to their supply of sunflower oil, wheat, corn, barley, and soybeans due to economic obstacles. Similar stories have played out across the Middle East and North Africa, as the two combatant states collectively make up 25% of global wheat production, 15% of barley, and 45% of sunflower. Prices have escalated not just for grain itself, but also for fertilizer and general agricultural supplies, meaning countries are increasingly incapable of growing their own crops let alone relying on others. Not only does this threaten to disintegrate the global agro-economy, it risks subjecting millions to food insecurity in a region already wracked from drought and famine. Part of the issue also stems from the fact that NGOs themselves often relied on Ukraine and Russia for food security aid. This was best put by CEO of the World Food Program David Beasley with regard to continued food aid to Yemen: “We have no choice but to take food from the hungry to feed the starving.”

Luckily, this situation is also not entirely insurmountable in the region, even in the face of the worsening conflict. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar have already pledged a collective of $12 billion in aid (with an additional $10 billion promised from Saudi Arabia in the future) to Egypt. Western leaders have been similarly jolted to action by the conflict with regard to food security, as European powers and the US have begun promising increased food aid to suffering countries. A major part of the COP26 Agriculture Innovation Mission in the Middle East involves bringing 140 public, private, and non-profit partners together to normalize the region’s dependence on foreign food imports. $4 billion has been provided by the US to the program, of which a sixth of the budget is intended to be allocated toward the MENA region’s crippled agricultural infrastructure. So soon after over 132 million in the area were made victim to starvation in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and its supply-chain deficiencies, this cannot be allowed to stand. Increasing direct investment into the region should be a top priority for not just the United States but the European Union and the developed world as a whole.

As often said, in every crisis, there arises an opportunity. Growing food insecurity in the Middle East is the perfect means through which the US and EU can not only leverage its own oil stakes in the situation, but improve relations, rehabilitate their images and save lives in the process. Especially in Iran, the time is right to completely reform relations with a state which has become increasingly abrasive over the last few decades.

The Pandemic's Effects on Educational Disparities Between Mongolia's Rural and Urban Students

COVID-19 has resculpted the global landscape of education, resulting in devastating learning loss that widened the gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. By exacerbating inequities around the world, the pandemic has spurred teachers and policymakers everywhere to rethink education. While various organizations attempt to make collective statements about the pandemic’s effects on the international education as a whole, invaluable information can be gained by using a more singular lens to approach the issue of COVID-19’s impact as it relates to a particular country’s education system. As the world’s most sparsely populated independent country and one whose pandemic response has been largely successful, Mongolia makes for an interesting focus point upon which the pandemic’s effects on education can be examined. Surprisingly, there are few reports exploring the ways in which Mongolian schools have been challenged by and interacted with the pandemic. In this report, I aim to explore how the pandemic affected Mongolia and what inferences can be made regarding the pandemic’s effects on Mongolian education.

Mongolia and the Pandemic

March 9, 2022 marks two years since Mongolia first came in contact with the coronavirus through a French national working in the country. From this moment on, the nation has been grappling with serious questions regarding how to best shape government policy to combat the pandemic and keep people safe. Even before the virus found its way into Mongolia, the government had been on high alert. This trend can be seen as early as January 10, 2020, when the Mongolian government issued its first public advisory, aimed at urging all Mongolians to wear a mask. This was soon followed by the closing of borders to its neighbor China with whom Mongolia shares the longest land border. The transportation restriction meant no Chinese citizen or person traveling from China could enter Mongolia. Through the implementation of its early response to the pandemic, Mongolia had managed to entirely evade any COVID-19 deaths until December 30, 2020. The Mongolian government’s determination to rapidly implement high-impact COVID-19 prevention policies stemmed not only from concerns over its shared border with China, but also from insecurity regarding the country’s health infrastructure. “Here’s the thing: we don’t actually have a great public health system,” explained Davaadorj Rendoo, an epidemiologist at the National Center for Public Health in Mongolia’s capital and largest city Ulaanbaatar. “That’s why our administrators were so afraid of COVID-19.”

As of April 2022, the number of active COVID-19 cases in Mongolia has dropped below 1,000 for the first time since late 2020. With the number of daily infections declining and the percentage of fully vaccinated people exceeding 65%, things seem to be looking up for the Mongolian people. However, while pandemic-related policies in Mongolia seem to have enabled the country to evade overwhelming fatalities, the pandemic has inflicted serious damage to the Mongolian education system. Since all schools were closed on January 27, 2020 to combat the spread of COVID-19 among students, the education system has been forced to undergo significant, unprecedented changes. These changes disproportionately affected Mongolia’s most vulnerable students living in remote areas with limited internet access and electricity. Even in Mongolia’s most populous cities like Ulaanbaatar, the immediate switch to remote learning has left no student unscathed. While UNICEF estimates that schoolchildren across the globe have lost over 1.8 trillion hours of in-person learning due to the pandemic, it is difficult to precisely conclude how much learning loss the students of Mongolia have experienced. Data is still being collected, and the pandemic has not yet been eradicated. 

Mongolian Education: Pre-Pandemic

In order to gain a better understanding of the pandemic’s effects on education in Mongolia, it is important to be acquainted with the pre-pandemic state of Mongolian schools. Mongolia’s 2018 Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey provides valuable insight into the strengths and weaknesses of the Mongolian education system before the pandemic. Developed by UNICEF, the Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) program is the largest household survey on women and children worldwide. Its purpose has been “to assist countries in filling data gaps on children’s and women’s health statuses.” Mongolia’s 2018 MICS fortifies the argument that rural/urban educational inequity has existed in Mongolia before the pandemic, opening the doors to explore how the pandemic has interacted with that inequity. According to the report, 58.2% of rural children aged 36-59 months were attending early childhood education institutes. Compared to the 81.4% of urban children, it is evident that living in urban Mongolia comes with a higher likelihood of obtaining access to early childhood education, which has been proven to lower risks of school dropout and contribute to higher learning and employment outcomes later in life. Additionally, having access to early childhood education means that a child’s caregiver can participate in the workforce, which is key to “breaking stubborn cycles of intergenerational poverty.” Early childhood education inequity explains why higher education inequity also exists in Mongolia. According to UNESCO’s Global Education Monitoring Report, 53% of 18-22 year olds living in urban Mongolia attend higher education institutes. Compared to the 15% in rural Mongolia, it goes without saying that Mongolia’s “regional variation in poverty” contributes to wealth disparities between rural and urban regions of the country.

Turning back to the 2018 MICS, it can be observed that 4.3% of male urban schoolchildren of lower secondary school age were out of school in 2018 compared to the 8.1% of male rural schoolchildren. However, there are still some nuances to be explored, considering more female urban schoolchildren are out of school than rural female schoolchildren. This is a point upon which I would advise further research to identify what causes female urban schoolchildren to leave school and what incentivizes female rural schoolchildren to remain in school much longer than their male peers. Despite women in Mongolia being better educated than men, a gendered hierarchy still exists in which men are likely to be paid more than women in Mongolia. 

Looking beyond lower secondary school students and onto upper secondary school students, the urban/rural gap in school attendance expands. While only 7.5% of urban upper secondary students were out of school during the year of 2018, the percentage jumps to 25.9% for Mongolia’s rural upper secondary students. This can be explained by the disproportionate lack of support faced by rural students; urban students exceeded rural students in every “Support for Child Learning at School” category in the 2018 MICS— “percentage of children attending school,” “percentage of children for whom an adult household member in the last year received a report card for the child,” “school has a governing body open to parents,” “an adult household member attended a meeting called by governing body,” “a school meeting discussed key education/financial issues,” “an adult household member attended a school celebration or sports event,” and “an adult household member met with teachers to discuss child’s progress.” In the context of the social determinants of learning framework, these factors have the potential to contribute highly to student achievement but are disproportionately denied to rural students. It is important to remember that this is not due to an inferiority on behalf of rural Mongolian parents or a superiority on behalf of urban Mongolian parents. Considering that they are more likely to face poverty than their urban counterparts, rural families are more likely to work more frequently in order to support their children. This means that there is not always time for rural parents and caretakers to meet with teachers and attend school meetings or events. Additionally, schools increase parent involvement—and thus student success—by building community. While developments like Mongolia’s Rural Education and Development program have contributed significantly to tightening the gap between rural and urban schools, the inequity still remains, likely posing the reason as to why rural schools may lack the resources to engage rural families living in poverty. 

The Pandemic and Mongolian Schools

Mongolia’s 2020 MICS offers insight into how the pandemic has interacted with the increasingly urbanized country and its schools. The report’s information on early childhood education offers interesting doors through which more research could be conducted, specifically on the disparity between children of Khalkh ethnicity and children of Kazakh ethnicity. The report also found interesting data on rural school children outperforming city students in foundational numeracy skills in 2020. However, when it comes to information and communications technology (ICT) skills, urban students outperform rural students overwhelmingly. An observation is made in the report that ICT skill acquisition is “hugely influenced” by wealth quintiles. The ICT skills examined in this report include but are not limited to sending an email with an attached file, transferring a file between a computer and another device, creating an electronic presentation using presentation software, connecting and installing a new device, and using a copy and paste tool within a document. In our increasingly digitized world, the importance of ICT skills for students cannot be underestimated. Considering this, it is evident that rural students have faced more barriers throughout online learning than urban students. This is supported by Sodnomdarjaa Munkhbat’s comment to Friedrich-Ebert Stiftung Mongolia. As the Director of the Science and Technology Department at the Mongolian Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, she said, “School children were taught through classes broadcasted on TV and universities used remote learning technology. Both had to be developed and implanted on extremely short notice which put a lot of stress on teachers, professors, and students. TV classes were especially challenging.” 

The 2020 MICS also found that parents’ engagement in ger districts of Ulaanbaatar was 10 percentage points lower than those living in apartments. The study concluded that “the low rate of engagement is also common in rural area[s] and especially in [the] Western region.” When looking at the data on parental homework help, the report found parents with certain qualities were more likely to offer their child homework assistance; these qualities include having obtained a higher education, not having migrated within the last 5 years, and having attended a public school. This offers an explanation as to why in the 2018 MICS, similar findings on lack of support for rural students were identified. This information lends itself to the acknowledgement that, in order to achieve educational equity between rural and urban students, the Mongolian education system must work to enhance resources for students whose parents have not obtained a higher education.

Although the 2020 MICS offers little insight into the pandemic itself, popular Mongolian news sources like Зууны мэдээ (Zuunii medee) supplement this deficit with their article on textbook availability. “The education sector has collapsed due to the pandemic,” journalist Ch. Gantulga wrote mournfully. Gantulga points to a lack of textbook availability as a huge problem facing Mongolia during the pandemic. D. Delgermaa, a middle school teacher, told Gantulga, “I am in charge of the seventh grade. Our class has 31 children. Due to the small number of textbooks distributed by the school, only one book is used by three children. In particular, there are not enough books on Mongolian language and social sciences. Some potential families buy textbooks for their children…Some students have problems with not being able to read e-books because they do not have smartphones. If these children have enough textbooks, there will be no problem.” Put in the context of the wealth disparities between rural and urban students previously established, it is evident that more needs to be done by the Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science to repair the learning losses exacerbated not only by the pandemic but also by lack of school resources. This sentiment does not seem to have been lost on Munkhbat, who said to FES Mongolia, “The pandemic made it very clear that the education system must be ready and responsive to high risk situations. What happened this year can happen any time again. Our way forward will be to enhance online education particularly for the higher education sector. This will be embedded in the government’s strategy of a ‘digital transformation.’” While a digital transformation is likely highly anticipated by students in Mongolia, the data leaves us with an understanding that, in addition to education as a whole, digital literacy instruction is not equitably distributed to all students in Mongolia. It will be important, moving forward, for Mongolia to put adequate resources toward building all students’ ICT skills, paying special attention to rural students.

Having analyzed the state of Mongolian education before and after the pandemic, it is evident that the pre-pandemic challenges faced by rural students have been exacerbated by COVID-19. These challenges are an extension of the poverty faced disproportionately by rural Mongolians. The disparity in school attendance between rural and urban students highlights the presence of class barriers in Mongolia. These inequities may stem from disproportionate access to early education, which has been proven to result in higher learning and employment outcomes later in life. The ways in which the pandemic has exacerbated educational inequity in Mongolia is important to analyze, considering its impact may materialize as a generation divided unequally by their level of access to education. This may be seen in the construction and perpetuation of intergenerational poverty for Mongolians who were in school during the COVID-19 pandemic. Mongolia’s Ministry of Education, Culture, and Science has the ability to change this by financing high-quality schools in rural regions of the country, implementing poverty-reduction policies for rural families so that students are not incentivized to choose work over school, ensuring school resources are equitably distributed, implementing educational policies that focus on honing the digital literacy skills of rural youth, and further analyzing the ways in which the pandemic has differently shaped educational outcomes for rural and urban students.

The Case for a Third Party

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

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

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

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

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

Amnesty for the Innocent: Relocating Russian Dissenters Following Putin’s War in Ukraine

The current migrant crisis in Europe completely outpaces any similar crisis on the continent since World War II. A month into the offensive Russian war in Ukraine, nearly 4 million Ukrainians had fled the country seeking asylum abroad, with an additional 7 million being internally displaced. With the war continuing to escalate, more refugees are sure to continue pouring from the country. 

Though those refugees fleeing Ukraine seem to get the majority of the press attention, as well as the majority of the assistance from Western nations (and all for good reason), the crisis has also sparked a similar exodus of Russians and Belarusians from their respective countries. A mid-March survey concluded that roughly 300,000 Russians have left Russia since the start of the invasion of Ukraine, while liberal estimates predict the real number could exceed one million persons having already left, all largely due to crippling Western sanctions, the total collapse of the Russian ruble and the Russian economy, and a wide-scale authoritarian crackdown by the Russian federal government. At the start of the Russian invasion, thousands of Russians took to the streets, in over 70 cities, to protest the war; on the first day of the war the total number of protestors arrested was 1,900 while over 13,000 protestors had been arrested a month into the war, amounting to the largest scale protests and political arrests in the country’s modern history. Soon after, Russia would take draconian measures to ban social media outlets such as Facebook and Twitter, crack down on various independent media outlets (falsely labeling them as “foreign agents”), and implement a new law allowing the government to sentence individuals to up to 15 years of imprisonment for defying the Kremlin’s narrative regarding the war. Meanwhile, the Russian economy was totally ruined as Western sanctions and popular pressure caused foreign capital and investment to flee overnight, unemployment to soar, the ruble to deflate, and the purchasing power of ordinary Russians to dwindle. As the future economic prospects for all Russians suddenly changed for the worse, those Russians with the means to leave have done so. And because conditions within Russia seem to only be getting worse, more are sure to follow those who have already left. 

Most of those Russian nationals leaving Russia consist of the urban college educated youth as well as the middle class. The young and the middle class were most likely to work in the service sector and with foreign companies before sanctions, while this section of the population is also most likely to be critical of Kremlin talking points regarding the war. Additionally, middle class Russians (aside from perhaps Russia’s elite, affluent ruling class) have the most financial means to resettle, while they also have comparatively better career opportunities abroad; young Russians also tend to have better skill sets for work abroad and have fewer commitments and responsibilities tying them to Russia—such as family or an existing committed career—and many seek to avoid being drafted into the Russian armed forces in the midst of war. Generally, the majority of those who are leaving Russia are “academics, IT specialists, journalists, bloggers” or protestors, who all fear that the unpredictable climate within Russia could quickly make their lives impossible. Most of these Russians fleeing are destined for countries which offer visa-free entry for Russian citizens, namely Georgia, and Armenia, with other common destinations including Azerbaijan, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, and Serbia to name a few. Though the Russians fleeing predominantly consist of individuals who are adversarial towards, or are at least skeptical of, Putin’s regime, their reception has been somewhat mixed. In Georgia, for example, Russian nationals in the country have been experiencing high degrees of discrimination, both on the street in day-to-day life and while looking for apartments and opening Georgian bank accounts. That being said, the majority of Georgians remain receptive to Russian expatriates and for good reason, as Russians leaving Russia offer the country a valuable, new, educated labor market. With more than 1,000 companies being founded by Russian nationals within Georgia in the last month, the benefits of taking on Russian expatriates are undeniable. But, despite their somewhat mixed reception in Georgia and other countries, Russians have been received far worse in Western countries, namely in the European Union and in North America. The Czech Republic, Latvia, and Lithuania have all announced that they will no longer be processing visa applications from Russian applicants due to the war in Ukraine, while Greece has placed additional restrictions on Russian nationals seeking visas; meanwhile, instances of hate crimes and discrimination against individual Russians abroad in Europe and North America have skyrocketed following the invasion. Therefore, much of the world suddenly seems to be a very hostile place to many Russians, and as Russians continue to flee and seek out safe havens from political persecution and economic ruin, those countries which accommodate the masses of young and educated Russians leaving will have much to gain. Countries across Europe, but namely those Baltic states with large Russian-speaking communities, should embrace the current wave of migrants from Russia, both as a means of securing talent and educated labor but also as a contribution to the Western strategy of punishing Russia for its ongoing offensive invasion. 

Putting entry and visa requirements aside, countries in Central and Eastern Europe are among the most suited to take in Russian expatriates. For one, the Baltic countries of Estonia and Latvia are particularly suitable for Russian immigrants, as both countries already house large Russian diaspora communities. Estonia’s population consists roughly of 24% native Russian speakers, with the concentration of these ethnic Russians mainly being in the country’s Northeast, around the urban center of Narva where the percentage of Russian speakers accounts for 90% of the city’s population. Latvia maintains a similarly sized Russian population, consisting of 25% of the country’s total population, over 35% of the population of Latvia’s capital city, Riga, and 56% of the population of the country’s second-largest city, Daugavpils. Therefore, with a large Russian speaking community already being present, urban centers like Tallinn, Riga, Daugavpils, and Narva all make realistic and comfortable options for Russians looking for new homes abroad. 

Additionally, repatriating Russian nationals could serve as a highly effective strategy to encourage economic growth in some of the poorest parts of the Baltic States. For example, Latvia’s poorest region, Latgale, also contains a large Russian speaking majority, making up 60% of the region’s population. Should educated, young and middle class Russians seek residency in Latvia, they will likely resettle either in Riga or in parts of Latgale, such as the large post-industrial city of Daugavpils, as these are the two main areas with dominant or large Russian-speaking communities. Once in the country, these expatriates might contribute greatly to the economic rebirth of the country; cities like Narva and Daugavpils are both post-industrial cities where poverty and poor quality education have proven to be massive problems. Should Russian entrepreneurs resettle in Daugavpils or Narva, and start new businesses, they will surely bring with them great employment opportunities for members of those respective communities already living there, possibly leading to the revitalization of these urban areas.. And should Russian expatriates also settle in Riga or Tallinn, they can further contribute to the relative success that these two cities have been experiencing in recent years, in terms of economic development. 

Furthermore, Estonia specifically is an exceptional possible destination for many Russian expatriates, specifically those who work in fields relating to IT (a large portion of those Russians fleeing, as already discussed). Information and Communications Technology has quickly become Estonia’s dominant economic sector, contributing the most to the country’s GDP growth over the past decade. With over 6,000 IT companies calling the small Baltic country of 1.3 million home, and with Russian language, similarly to the Latvian case, still playing a major role in daily urban and business life, Estonia makes for an unrefusable opportunity for many Russians looking for better job security abroad. 

Aside from contributing to economic success, Russian immigrants might also deradicalize the Russian-speaking communities already in the Baltic. In Estonia, 89% of ethnic-Russians watch Russian state media, while only 49% follow Western media outlets; in Latvia a stark 97% of Russian-speakers watch state media while only 10% follow Western media outlets. Looking at these figures, it becomes quite clear that there is more than just a linguistic divide between Baltic-Russians and dominant Baltic national identities like Latvians or Estonians; there is also a deep political divide partially originating from the forms of media that individuals choose to consume. By contrast, the largely urban educated and young population of Russians leaving Russia are far less likely to buy into Kremlin narratives; therefore, if the Baltic countries were to take in some of these more liberal and democratically minded Russians, this could easily contribute to diluting the influence of the Kremlin within Baltic-Russian communities and alleviate their radicalism over time. 

But before any of the potential positive effects of Russian expatriates resettling in the Baltic can be felt, Estonia and Latvia will need to adjust their visa policies towards Russians. As previously mentioned, Latvia has suspended the processing of all visa applications for applicants from Russia, a move which clearly must be reversed. Estonia and Latvia should offer Russians six months to a year of visa-free stay in their respective countries, and they should offer a clear pathway thereafter towards permanent residency and citizenship. Of course, it is not enough to merely accept these migrants. The respective Baltic states, and any country accepting migrants for that matter, must do all they can to integrate these migrants into their broader, national identities and into national society. Baltic countries could offer short-term business loans to Russian migrants who meet certain qualifications and who agree to remain in the country for a certain period of time to increase their economic integration with the host society, and Latvia and Estonia could offer subsidized formal instruction in their respective national languages to improve rates of social integration. Such actions would also need to be accompanied with a massive reworking of the media narrative surrounding Russians and Russian-speakers in the Baltic. Instead of allowing media outlets to malign Russian nationals as being totally loyal to the Kremlin and complicit in the actions of the Putin regime, government spokespersons should actively counter these narratives; instead, they should paint a more fair picture of ethnic Russians, as a people living subjugated by an authoritarian regime, who live in fear for their lives and their families, and who need the help of the West in order to achieve fair standards of living. Without such a shifting of the mainstream narrative within the regional context of the Baltic, Russophobia is certain to continue to increase, social integration will be made more difficult for those Russian-speakers already living within the Baltic, and the possible slew of benefits from accepting Russian migrants will be discarded, with those benefits instead being directed to countries accepting those Russians fleeing Putin’s regime. 

Even worse, if these migrants are not given good opportunities wherever they may resettle, many of them are sure to return to Russia, where they will continue to live and work under the Kremlin’s iron fist, contributing to economic productivity and the growth of the Russian economy. For a West concerned with punishing Russia after its offensive invasion of Ukraine, accepting Russian migrants plays directly against Putin’s hand. It gives some of Russia’s brightest and most productive the promise of a free, safe, and prosperous future out of the reach of authoritarian strongmen, and it eliminates nearly any incentive to ever return to Russia, permanently depriving Russia of its next generation of skilled labor. 

Putting all else aside, the very moral legitimacy of Western liberal democracy depends on our reaction to authoritarian leaders, like Putin, who threaten peace and antagonize innocent civilians at home and abroad. The West has responded positively by helping Ukrainian victims of the Russian invasion restart their lives, safe from the shelling of Kharkiv or the bombardments of Mariupol. Meanwhile the West has ignored the desperate cries of so many Russians, who too live in fear for their lives, their freedom, and their livelihoods. Only by answering the calls of all those in need can the West truly fulfill its prerogative in safeguarding human rights and human dignity the world over.

North Korea’s Illicit Money Machine

Background: Brief History of North Korea

Following World War II, the international order was divided over the ideological governance styles and practices of democratic capitalism and communism. Particularly, the U.S. a capitalist state wanted to promote democracy and capitalism globally, whereas the Soviet Union sought a communist world order. Although the U.S. and USSR were in a strategic competition for global dominance, they never once formally engaged in a hot or live war with one another. However, throughout the Cold War, the U.S. and the USSR fought combatively via proxy conflicts. Among the very first of these proxy engagements was the Korean War. After WWII, the Korean Peninsula, which was once a unified nation, had been divided into a communist northern state known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), and a democratic, capitalist, southern state, the Republic of Korea (ROK). During the war, China sent two million soldiers along with the Soviet Union’s logistical support to aid the DPRK, whereas the ROK was primarily reinforced by the U.S. In June of 1950, due in part to the influence of the PRC and the USSR, the DPRK crossed the border and invaded its southern neighbor, intending to establish a unified communist Korean nation. The Korean War, which lasted three years, saw horrific casualties and fatalities on all sides. Ultimately, upon the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement, the war concluded, and a demilitarized zone was established between the North and South along the 38th Parallel. After the war, North Korea followed a far different trajectory than the Republic of Korea. Whereas the South experienced significant economic growth, the North was beginning to shield itself from the outside world, creating a “hermit kingdom” according to professor Mitchell Lerner of The Ohio State University, among many other experts.

 North Koreas Acquisition of Nuclear Weapons:

Beginning in the 1950s, Kim Il-Sung repeatedly emphasized the imperativeness of a ballistic and nuclear weapons program for the DPRK, as it would prevent North Korea from lagging too far behind the South. However, since 1950, the DPRK has been significantly impacted by severe U.S. and international sanctions for human rights abuses and failures to comply with international laws. Furthermore, the U.S. in addition to many Western countries has recently levied strict sanctions against the DPRK for cyber-crime offenses. Under the harsh leadership of North Korea’s first ruler, Kim Il-Sung, the DPRK actively sought methods of securing funding for a ballistic and nuclear missile program. Specifically, the DPRK frequently employs various illicit methods to circumvent the tight sanctions placed by the international community. Ultimately, the DPRK, according to many experts, wants nothing more than to ensure its continued existence and that of the Kim dynasty. Fast forward to 1984, and under Kim Il-Sung, North Korea test-fired its very first missile. Undoubtedly the employment of nuclear and conventional weapons was championed by not only Kim Il-Sung but his son Kim Jung-Il and grandson, Kim Jung-Un (KJU). However, of the three DPRK leaders, none have taken a greater interest in advancing the DPRK’s missile program than its current leader, KJU. Specifically, KJU has placed a great deal of emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and math as well as emerging technologies to advance the DPRK’s national agenda. The U.S. and the international community writ-large have condemned the DPRK’s military, scientific, and technological advancements and have issued strong sanctions against the North Korean government. 

North Korea’s Illicit Financing of its Missiles Program:

While the PRC, in violation of international sanctions, provides North Korea aid through cargo shipments, along with other measures, these means don’t outright provide the DPRK with enough capital to fully fund its desired missile program. Therefore, the DPRK utilizes several illicit activities to finance and grow its missile program. Particularly, the DPRK engages in the manufacturing and distribution of illegal narcotics manufacturing and the sale of counterfeit goods, trafficking arms globally, and producing and selling counterfeit currency. Yet, among the DPRK’s most recent lucrative financing activities for its missile program, has been its global hacking and malware campaign. Last year it was reported that the DPRK had stolen nearly $400 million worth of digitized assets from seven different attacks on various cryptocurrency platforms.  This is a significant development and should raise serious concern among states globally. According to some North Korean and national security experts, the DPRK likely goes after cryptocurrency as it is far less regulated than other forms of hard-copy currency, and thus it is easier to manipulate and bypass foreign sanctions. A recent United Nations investigation also determined that North Korea has stolen and continues to steal cryptocurrency to further finance its missile program. Yet, this all goes without stating the obvious, the DPRK is strictly prohibited by the UN from testing ballistic and nuclear missiles, let alone developing them. To be clear, it is not as if, the international community is “out to get the DPRK”, and therefore is prohibiting their acquiring of ballistic and nuclear missiles. Thus, it is inconsequential if the DPRK finances its missile program through legal or illicit means, simply financing it, to begin with, is in violation of sanctions. The DPRK both through its rhetoric and actions has proven its desire and capability to use asymmetric weapons systems against the U.S., RoK, and U.S. interests globally. Although the western media frequently discusses the DPRK missile threat and covers each test closely, there is a legitimate reason for concern. 

The employment of sophisticated offensive cyber measures by the DPRK is hardly a new tactic. Most notably, upon the release of the Sony Pictures film “The Interview”, DPRK launched an intrusive cyber operation against the Sony Corporation, leaking highly sensitive personally identifiable information. As I mentioned previously, the DPRK is extremely isolated from the rest of the world, and its citizens do not have access to the internet. Thus, this begs the question of how the DPRK can launch successful cyber-operations against the rest of the world? According to some experts, while the DPRK has limited internet access in its capital of Pyongyang, the PRC is complicit in allowing DPRK cyber military operators to come across the border and utilize China to launch attacks on its various targets. As with assisting the DPRK in evading sanctions, the PRC is highly culpable in its assistance efforts with the DPRK in cyberspace. However, the PRC has its reservations, as it greatly fears that an unstable DPRK could flood millions of North Korean refugees into China, which China lacks the resources or infrastructure to support. Beyond hacking operations, the DPRK has long employed ransomware attacks to assist in funding its missile program. Specifically, the WannaCry attack in which the DPRK targeted computers and servers running Windows operating systems, ultimately demanding ransom payments in Bitcoin. For the DPRK its global cyber ransomware operations are highly lucrative. According to the U.S. Department of Justice (DoJ) between 2015-and, 2019 DPRK ransomware hackers attempted to steal roughly $1.2 million from banks in Vietnam, Bangladesh, Taiwan, Mexico, Malta, and Africa. Moreover, according to the WIRED, DPRK secured $80 million by “tricking” a network into re-routing funds. Additionally, the FBI recently reported that North Korea stole more than $600 million in cryptocurrency, from a single hacking operation. This is a critical development as it demonstrates that the DPRK is continuing to use hack and steal operations to generate significant revenue.

Recommendations

While the international community has levied strict sanctions against North Korea, the DPRK has consistently demonstrated its formidability in cyberspace as one of the preeminent state cyber threats that the U.S. faces. However, given the nature of where cyber operations occur, there is a strong likelihood that the U.S. has been effectively thwarting the DPRK in cyberspace, though the public will never know. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate how the U.S. is doing countering North Korea’s cyber threats and illicit financing campaigns. For example, when a bomb is dropped on a target, reporters can verify that. However, due to cyber operations taking place, mostly, outside of public view, little if any substantial reporting exists to confirm such activity. Yet, after the Sony hack, it has been reported that DPRK’s internet was cut, seemingly by the U.S. and its partners. Therefore, I would suggest that the DoJ, “name and shame”, the DPRK attackers, publicly indicting them on charges. Particularly, the process of openly outing hackers is critical as many enjoy life in the shadows and will stop once they have been caught red-handed and put in the public eye. Furthermore, I recommend that the Five Eye intelligence allies actively degrade and disrupt the operating networks and information systems affiliated with the DPRK attacks. Although such an aggressive maneuver may complicate relations with the PRC, the West must take greater action against the DPRK. Furthermore, Lastly, I would advise that the U.S. financial crimes enforcement network utilize targeted sanctions to freeze the DPRK’s financial assets and that of Worker’s Party members and high-ranking North Korean military officials. While the threat from the DPRK will not dissipate any time soon, the U.S. government, international partners, along with the private sector must continue to publicly discuss DPRK’s illicit financing, while actively thwarting such activities.

How the Teaching Methods of PWIs Infiltrate the Teaching Methods of HBCUs

Thousands of PWIs (predominantly white institutions) across the United States have made themselves enticing to marginalized students, but have failed to create inclusive, safe, and accepting spaces for them. Davarian Baldwin’s, In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: how Universities are Plundering our Cities, beautifully depicts the impacts of “univerCities” as an ivory tower–a metaphorical location– where primarily privileged people are cut off from the rest of the world, enjoying their own life’s pursuits and how students, residents, and activists of the community rise up to meet the institutions. Andrew Rossi’s film, The Ivory Tower, conducts a rich cost-benefit analysis of HEIs (higher education institutions) and concludes that numerous HEI professors and faculty members disseminate information on such niche subject matter in coursework, often disconnected from students’ life experiences, notably the experiences of underserved students, such as low-income students, Black and Brown students, queer students, students with disabilities, and/or students with ACEs (adverse childhood experiences). The ivory tower’s pedagogy, or method of teaching in the higher education classroom, is deeply embedded in what Paulo Friere has denoted, in Chapter 2 of his book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, the “narrative” aspects of education in the conventional western classroom under the “banking model of education.” In the model, the teacher or educator is a “narrating subject depositing information” into the students’ minds, with their students as passive agents. The students’ life experiences become disconnected from their instructor’s “narration” because they absorb information without its full context. Not only does it exclude context, but it lacks space for student creativity and expression, and it discourages questions and the production of knowledge, which emerges from constant questioning. The “banking model of education” grants the teacher all knowledge and assumes that the powerless (students) are ignorant, which highlights the crux of the issue in western HEIs. 

Scholar bell hooks, in Teaching a Community Pedagogy of Hope, discusses the problematic ways in which higher education transformed its banking pedagogy to invoke more radical and “liberating” ideas in incrementally problematic ways. As white and cis-gendered men have dominated and continue to dominate the academic sphere, they have championed gender equality over racial equality in their analysis. To avoid being replaced in academia, they had to (at least) adopt a gender/feminist lens. In turn, this created a binary between “feminist studies” professors and “Black studies” professors, with an alternative of “cultural studies” professors thrown into the mix. “Cultural studies” professors are established by and comprised of white, cis-gendered male professors, who “recognized” and “incorporated” race and gender into their curriculum, yet primarily fear those who “question,” as Friere’s model indicates. These “liberating” ideals have infiltrated HEIs, starting in the latter half of the 20th century, and persisting across colleges and universities today, including HBCUs (historically Black colleges and universities). Not only do they exist pervasively within PWIs, but they have infiltrated HBCUs across the United States. 

At their inception, HBCUs were established to develop spaces for Black intellectualism and to center students who have been excluded from white academic spaces– academic spaces that are upheld by an economic ecosystem of racial capitalism. Students at universities are privileged consumers investing in a commodity of education, an exclusive commodity that Black people have historically and continuously been denied. As a hub of intellectual, scholarly, and academic pursuits, universities and colleges have the assets to build certain structures. Universities have also accumulated a social responsibility to not only their students, but to their surrounding community; Baldwin has effectively concluded that they have largely failed to fulfill their social responsibility to the community. 

Moreover, Friere’s “banking model of education” has permeated not just HEIs, but all aspects of western education (specifically in the U.S.), resulting in the “liberal” state of affairs that bell hooks exhibits. It is clear that there has been an infiltration of white supremacy deeply laced into the infrastructure and pedagogy of HBCUs, resulting in a manifestation of white supremacy within these spaces. This cycle of white supremacy is reinforced within PWIs and has resulted in prevalent discourse across academic and social circles regarding the notion of whether Black students are better off attending HBCUs versus PWIs. According to an NPR interview with Dillard University president, Walter Kimbrough, Black students are in search of safe learning environments due to abundant incidence and coverage of the recruitment of white supremacy on college campuses, hate crimes against Black students, among other instances of racial aggression. While HBCUs haven’t been recognized for the same more blatant forms of racism that happen at PWIs, students at HBCUs are not liberated from the dominance of white ideologies that invade academic and social spheres altogether. Research traffic has overlooked the impact of HBCUs as HEIs that perpetuate white ideologies (Feagin 2010, 189). To understand this, it is integral to note the mere control white people have over systems of power, specifically over educational systems of power. Ultimately, the incidence of white control across educational systems of power has resulted in Black Americans internalizing hegemonic methodologies–even at HBCUs. 

Moreover, the history of HBCUs reflects the United States’ failure to attain racial justice in academic and social realms. White supremacist ideas that became laced into these spheres prohibited Black people from succeeding as intellectuals, barred from reaping the benefits of any form of higher education as most HBCUs were established post-Civil War by missionaries. Northern missionaries collaborated with the Freedmen’s Bureau to create Black colleges with the intent to free Black people by providing them with primary and secondary education. The establishment and philanthropic funding of these institutions was produced by northern industrialist white men–its initial pedagogy entrenched in Christian values and moral character (Albritton 2013; Gasman 2010; Wilcox et al. 2014; Cantey et al. 2011).

 The goal of these institutions at their origin was to prepare their students for labor-based work. Leading philosophers of the moment like Booker T. Washington advocated the vocational model for Black folks, emphasizing the need for them to develop useful skills in the labor force that would help industries immediately. Washington argued that with hard work and determination in the industrial sector, Black people would eventually gain the acceptance of their dominant counterparts and of the system. Washington’s theory emerged into a pedagogy of upward social mobility across HBCUs like Morehouse College, Tuskegee University, and Spelman College in the early 20th century to present an identity that would appear “respectable” to white folks (Albritton 2013; Cantey et al. 2013). These universities offered several classes on manners and industrial labor work. The institutionalization of such a theory reifies white supremacy that has been upheld throughout U.S. history. Under Plessy v. Ferguson, slavery was justified by white men to ‘improve the lives of uncivilized Africans who were intellectually inferior.’ This frame persists in HBCUs today where the inferiority of Black students has become laced into the education system through these practices (Feagin 2010). 

Black students and faculty resisted this hegemony across Black colleges and demanded agency over their HEIs and more Black people were hired as faculty (deans, administrators, professors, etc) at HBCUs. This more radical shift paralleled a shift to a liberal arts pedagogical approach–one more closely associated with thinkers like W.E.B. Du Bois. Du Bois countered Washington’s theory of industrializing students at Black colleges and adopted a holistic curriculum of courses (Albritton 2013; Gasman 2010; Cantey et al. 2013). In the 1960s, HBCUs emerge as epicenters of student activism and resistance. At this moment, HBCUs acted as spaces of validation of Black students’ identities and dares them to use their knowledge to call for justice in the Black community, which still holds true for Black students at HBCUs today. At HBCUs in the south, college campuses were sometimes the only safe space for Black folks to safely radically organize with allied white folks (Mbajekwe 2006).  

While understanding the crucial role these institutions play, how do we sustain the strengths of the institutions while adapting to the hegemonic curriculums that have permeated higher education? HBCUs are challenged with centering Black liberation for their student population, while also preparing their students to live in a society that has been designed to favor whiteness. Although Black Americans will never have full and open access to white spheres of power, HBCUs have certainly accrued politics of respectability. However, it is no question that a radical call-to-action is necessary in order to completely restructure the system that dominates HBCUs. There should not be educators at HBCUs that cannot connect course material to the students’ life experiences, as Paulo Friere asserts. As a white student about to finish my undergraduate education at a PWI, I acknowledge that there is a lot of information I don’t know and haven’t experienced with regard to the racism that happens within the confines of HBCUs campuses, and there is information regarding the personal experiences of Black students that I do not and will not ever understand– both of which speak to my role as a scholar and activist interested in educational reform for oppressed peoples. However, it is imperative to grow aware of the notion that racism doesn’t only seep through predominantly white spaces. 

References

Albritton, Travis. 2013. “Educating Our Own: The Historical Legacy of HBCUs and Their Relevance for Educating a New Generation of Leaders” Urban Rev 44 (3): 311-331.

Arroyo and Gasman. 2014. “An HBCU-Based Educational Approach for Black College Student Success: Toward a Framework with Implications for All Institutions” American Journal of Education, 121(1): 57-85.

Cantey, Nia, Bland, Robert, Mack, LaKerri, and Danielle Joy-Davis. 2013. “Historically Black

Feagin, Joe R. 2010. The White Racial Frame: Centuries of Racial Framing and Counter- Framing, second edition. New York, NY: Routledge.

Gasman, Marybeth. 2010. Unearthing Promise and Potential: Our Nation’s Historically Black Colleges and Universities. San Franscisco, CA: Jossey- Bass.

Mbajekwe, Carolyn. 2006. The Future of Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Jefferson,

Washington, Amanda and Marybeth Gasman. 2016. “Why Enrollment is Increasing at HBCUs,” The Hill, August 22.

Washington, Booker T. 1906. “Tuskegee: A retrospect and Prospect”. North American Review, 182(593): 513–523.

Wilcox, Clyde, Wells, Jovita, Hadda, Georges, and Judith Wilcox. 2014. “The Changing Democratic Functions of Historically Black Colleges and Universities” New Political Science 3 (4): 556-572.

The Limitations of ‘Universality’

The dominant idea of ‘universality’ is a product of Western philosophical tradition whose most extensive accomplishment, at least in this regard, has been to universalize the heteronormative, white male experience. There are no doubt far more comprehensive accounts of the evolution of universality, or the universal experience, as a concept, yet perhaps one of the most well-known examples of its propagation was the French Revolution and the Enlightenment that preceded it. These historical moments arguably serve as an inaugural moment within ‘modern history,’ that the Western man became the basic, individual unit of life and its experiences; where, within the Western canon of philosophical thought, Western political and socioeconomic structures also became the universal norm. While colonialism had been well underway by the French Revolution’s inception, the development of the ideal (e.g. universal) Western man added a new dimension to colonial power dynamics: it seemingly provided a justification to “universalize” certain political norms and, of course, racial capitalism through the occupation and control of territories inhabited by non-white peoples. 

Though colonialism formally ended in the mid-20th century, the concept of the universal continues to not only be weaponized against states, as well as people and communities, in the Global South, but more broadly non-normative, non-white individuals who occupy the Global North. Universality was arguably the foundation for the rhetorical justification for the foreign policy initiatives of Western countries, specifically the US empire, in the 20th century that carried out various coups, sanctions, wars, etc to ensure the dissemination of liberal democracy, or at least the appearance of it, and, above all, capitalism. The problematic nature of the universal is also arguably apparent in bioethics and other epistemic frameworks due to its disregard, and even denigration, of non-white and/or Indigenous knowledge and experiences that fall outside of the basic unit of life- the Western (white) man.  In regards to epistemic and political structures, the concept of universalism is harmful as it not only perpetuates colonial power dynamics, but it also limits one’s ability to engage with non-Western, non-white experiences and knowledge in a reciprocal, non-exploitative manner and ultimately undermines the ability to protect biocultural rights. It is deeply important to not only remain critical of the ‘universal,’ but to actively seek out non-white and Indigenous knowledge, structures, and experiences related to bioethics. 

Various epistemic frameworks, particularly bioethics, are constructed within the context of the landed, white male and his seemingly universal experiences and approaches to life. The dichotomy between Foucault and Mbembe highlights this marriage of the so-called universal and whiteness. In “Right of Death and Power over Life,” Foucault situates the individual within the context of the French Revolution: “Western man was gradually learning what it meant to be a living species in a living world, to have a body, conditions of existence, probabilities of life, an individual and collective welfare, forces that could be modified, and a space in which they could be distributed in an optimal manner” (142). Here is an example of the Western man, presumably white and able-bodied, being cast as the basic unit of all life; the relationship between human and life has been cast in a specific context that has been univeralized- thus scholars such as Foucault ignore the plethora of ways in which such an intimate relationship can be configured. Furthermore, Foucault’s notion of biopower, while useful in some contexts, demonstrates its limitations as it is only contextualized with uniquely Western experiences. For example, Foucault argues that biopower was crucial to the development of capitalism for its labor, but makes no mention of the forced extraction of labor from enslaved peoples. Additionally, Foucault primarily discusses violence within the context of interstate warfare that encompasses entire populations, especially with the advent of atomic weapons, without mention of the violence inherent to colonial projects. Of course, these observations are arguably true to a certain extent, yet they are limited in scope as they rely on the idea of the universal experience. 

Mbembe challenges Foucault’s biopower and its omission of the experiences of formerly colonized states and peoples. He says: “Any historical account of the rise of modern terror needs to address slavery, which could be considered one of the first instances of biopolitical experimentation” (Mbembe 21). Mbembe subsequently argues that the enslaved person is kept in a perpetual state of injury where they have lost their home and rights over their body, which is another extreme type of violence. Foucault’s notion of the universal experience poses epistemic issues as it is extremely limited and lacking in imagination, despite its insistence on being universal and/or all-encompassing. When one ignores non-Western, non-white, non-male experiences, one is doing a disservice to knowledge production as it immediately limits the applicability of certain ideas and, in general, prevents the creation of a truly robust knowledge framework. Beyond the basic epistemic framework, Foucault’s insistence that the Western, white man and his knowledge are synonymous with universality ultimately upholds whiteness; it not only continues to marginalize Indigenous or other non-Western forms of knowledge, it allows for whiteness as an institution to remain above accountability. 

In terms of political practice, the prevalence of universality, particularly within the liberal international order, perpetuates colonial dynamics in real time. Mgbeoji discusses the concept of biopiracy which can be understood as “...commercial use of plants and TKUP without compensation and/or without the acknowledgment of the intellectual inputs in the improvement of the plants or in the creation of TKUP, and without gaining the prior informed consent of the owner(s) of the plants or practitioners in question” (90). Mgbeoji also argues that biopiracy is “part of the cultural war with non-Western peoples, cultures, and epistemological frameworks” (87). Indigenous epistemological frameworks are devalued and labeled as “unscientific and inherently inferior to those of Western empiricism” (Mgbeoji 87). This is insidious for a multitude of reasons: Indigenous peoples have been stewards of their local environments and biodiversity for an inconceivable amount of time; the fact that their epistemic approaches are labeled as inferior is arguably a justification of the Global North’s political practices which involve stealing Indigenous resources. Mgbeoji points out that biopiracy is framed within the idea of a “common heritage” which both the Global North and South use to fulfill certain political interests, yet the difference is that while the Global South actively seeks to control their own resources, the Global North seeks to undermine these efforts by “...proclaiming that this concept [common heritage] applies to plant genetic resources, which are found mainly in the South” (98). This not only demonstrates the ways in which universality is weaponized against Indigenous knowledge, but it also highlights how the idea of a universal experience or “common heritage” are employed to reinforce the political objectives of the Global North which are rooted in (settler) colonialism and racial capitalism, thus undermining the biocultural rights of various Indigenous groups whose objectives are antithetical to political and economic elites. 

In the context of plant resources, the idea of a common heritage implies that such resources are approached and utilized in the same way within the international community and that every individual will benefit. However, that is simply not true: different cultures approach natural resources in different ways and to obfuscate that fact is not only an epistemic failure, but a practical one too. Furthermore, under the pervasive forces of colonial politics and racial capitalism, the utilization of plant resources and their potential benefits are intentionally made to benefit various public and private actors who uphold such structures. A key example of this is the Khoikhoi’s relationship with Rooibos and how that has been exploited. The Khoikhoi are an African Indigenous peoples from Southern Africa who believe that “land is a sacred gift from nature, rather than an economic commodity” and that they “...shared commitment of a sacred duty to care for nature, as it cared for them” (Jansen and Sutherland 221-222). In terms of Rooibos, which is endemic to Southern Africa, the Khoikhoi have passed down their knowledge of the plant through generations; their traditional knowledge has long understood the physical benefits of Rooibos (Jansen and Sutherland 222-223). However, the Khoikhoi were subjected to the mechanisms of settler-colonialism, Apartheid, and, later, a new government that still did not recognize them as a legitimate group within South Africa. These processes have resulted in the theft of their land and criminalization of their traditional practices. In 2010, Nestle applied for patents to the use of Rooibos without consent of South Africa, who is the technical resource provider; however, neither of these two actors asked and/or received consent from the Khoikhoi and the San, another Indigenous group, who both are considered the traditional knowledge holders of Rooibos (Jansen and Sutherland 231). While traditional involvement of the Khoikhoi and the San were ultimately recognized, which resulted in them receiving some compensation from the marketing of Rooibos, this example highlights the ways in which Indigenous people and their traditional forms of knowledge are not recognized as legitimate actors in knowledge production, yet public and private actors extract traditional knowledge for the purposes of accumulating more profits. 

There are many ways in which we can expand the limits of our epistemological frameworks, alongside the practice of upholding and protecting biocultural rights of Indigenous communities and other marginalized groups, we must arguably abandon the idea of the universal, which includes the notion that an individual, or a series of them, can account for the experiences of everyone. The Western man cannot serve as the basic unit of life and the ways in which we understand it due to the fact that this subject has been formed by certain political, economic, and social contexts that have ultimately been replicated at a detriment to others. Instead, bioethicists should actively be seeking out the experiences and knowledge structures of Indigenous peoples, and other non-white communities, to better formulate our relationship to nature and knowledge, as well as each other. For example, the Khoikhoi have stated that they “‘have a transgenerational link to the transmission of the traditional knowledge and that this is evident in the knowledge that [they] hold and share’” (Jansen and Sutherland 223). Here the Khoikoi are expressing knowledge as something that connects community members and that it is something to be shared- not extracted. Not only does this expand the horizon of epistemology, but it also serves to create and implement more robust and respectful political practices that recognize Indigenous relationships to life and bioethical practices. 

References

Foucault, Michel. “Part Five: Right of Death and Power over Life.” The Birth of Biopolitics , St Martin's Press, 1979, pp. 135–165. 

Jansen, Lesle, and Rayna Sutherland. “The Khoikhoi Community's Biocultural Rights Journey with Rooibos.” Biocultural Rights, Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities, edited by Fabien Girard et al., Routledge, London, UK, 2022, pp. 221–240. 

Mbembe, J.-A. “Necropolitics.” Public Culture, Translated by Libby Meintjes, vol. 12, no. 1, 2003, pp. 11–40.

Mgbeoji, Ikechi. “The Appropriative Aspects of Biopiracy .” Biopiracy: Patents, Plants, and Indigenous Knowledge, UBC, Vancouver, 2002, pp. 87–118. 

Written in the Stars: Examining the Complexities and Dilemmas of Foreign Policy in Space

Space is increasingly becoming the next global arena. Growing international attention toward space as a political terrain has made countries, including the US, need to focus on implementing policies that combat straining competition and the difficulties of space traffic and debris. Not only is space becoming an important topic in international relations, but each state is also responding differently to how they wish to exert their presence in this unique field. The US, through NASA, has installed its preeminence in space through early projects like the launch of Skylab, the first U.S. space station, and the Space Shuttle. Yet, NASA has its own set of challenges and the space landscape is growing more competitive with the rise of other countries like China, Russia, and India pushing for their own undertakings. From historical significance to modern-day implications, understanding how countries respond to this modern arena is essential to predicting outcomes and looming variables when it comes to foreign policy and national security. As modernization moves forward, the Earth is no longer the only political landscape for policymakers to analyze. 

Space has long been a motivator for innovation and competition. In October 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite named Sputnik. This caused a powerful reaction, as the US in a matter of months prompted measures to build and compete with Russia’s space program. With the creation of a civilian space exploration agency dubbed NASA, the international system became even more extensive and vast, calling for long-term missions in places humans have never been before. On September 12th, 1962, President John F. Kennedy addressed Rice University in his powerful speech that committed the United States to a moon landing stating, “Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why he wanted to climb it.” He said, "Because it is there. Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.” Without fully grasping the significance of this major event, the moon landing kick-started the national intrigue in space. The world was watching as spectators as it marveled at the sheer amount of willpower and aptitude required to complete this dangerous mission. The adventure didn’t end at the moon landing and certainly hasn’t ended today.

After six successful lunar missions, NASA’s robotic programs followed with Voyager and Viking and sent astronauts into low Earth orbit with the 1973 launch of Skylab, the first U.S. space station, and the Space Shuttle. These projects not only set the US on the map for space invention, but they also showed how the global system was changing and evolving. Each U.S administration made progress in its respective areas, as different presidents sought to make their own intentions when it came to space. The George W. Bush administration pushed for a return to the moon and a trip to Mars, while President Barack Obama pushed for an asteroid mission and made a subsequent project to orbit Mars by the mid-2030s. President Donald J. Trump’s administration urged a return to the moon and directed the Department of Defense to create a branch of the military under the Air Force that would concentrate completely on threats from space. In February 2020, President Joe Biden’s administration announced its support of a space force. Interestingly, President Biden’s defense budget shows that the Space Force, the smallest brand of the armed forces, accounts for about 2.5% of total Defense Department spending. There was a $2.2 billion increase in 2022, a considerable gain that shows the elevated prominence and focuses on space for the U.S government. Concerning the president’s plans, the Pentagon released documents on May 28, 2021, responding stating the budget “funds capabilities for the contested domain of space” adding that “Competitors like China and Russia are challenging America’s advantage in space by aggressively developing offensive weapons to deny or destroy U.S. space capabilities in conflict.” Each administration, regardless of the distinct goals or plans, understands the critical role space has in security and international relations. The competitive agenda is evident in how space is becoming an embedded factor in policy, economic, and national plans. It is no longer about shooting for just the moon anymore, countries now have their eyes on the stars. 

There is still much to look forward to in the next few years as these programs continue to capture and captivate audiences. NASA’s efforts continually inspire and drive a new generation of scientists and innovators, pushing humans far from just the bounds of Earth. NASA is collaborating with the private sector for its new Artemis program, which aims to put astronauts, including the first woman, on the moon by 2024. These new and exciting projects are not the only benefit of space exploration. After more than fifty years of human activity in space, the societal benefits and the improvement of the quality of life on Earth are seen all over. In a 2009 survey, it was found that fifty percent of the internationally renowned scientists who published in the prestigious publication Nature for three years had been inspired by the mission of Apollo to become scientists. Even more so, an astounding total of 89 percent of the respondents also agreed that human spaceflight inspires younger generations to study science. These statistics give a very clear picture of what space exploration can do for the US, the world, and humankind. Not only does pursuing space exploration help accumulate valuable knowledge, but the progression also enables an improvement in technology, and the job market, and provides an opportunity for scientific discovery. 

Unfortunately, this exploration can come at a cost like the growing multinational competition among states. Although the United States has had a considerable range in space, experts say U.S. dominance in space could be contested by a range of nations. For starters, China became the third nation to independently launch a human into orbit in 2003 and its capabilities have since expanded exponentially. On January 28, 2022, China released a white paper outlining its plans and priorities for the next five years of spaceflight and exploration that gave considerable ambitious and impressive reach. The document states, "In the next five years, China will continue to improve the capacity and performance of its space transport system and move faster to upgrade launch vehicles. It will further expand the launch vehicle family, send into space new-generation manned carrier rockets and high-thrust solid-fuel carrier rockets, and speed up the R&D [research and development] of heavy-lift launch vehicles.” This plan not only demonstrates the extensive international stage but also illuminates the comprehensive census to pursue space. It isn’t just China that contests and strains this competitive nature either. During the December 6th, 2021 summit, Russia and India agreed to joint activities in a human spaceflight program and satellite navigation. These two countries promised to seek “mutually beneficial” cooperation by creating launch vehicles and developing the use of outer space for peaceful purposes, including planetary exploration. These examples show the efforts and strategies of various countries to also seek space development. Through the employment of foreign policy, countries are also establishing key relationships and collaboration models that are perpetuating change and assembling a new global network. 

Simple competition and cooperation isn’t the only factor that U.S policymakers have to pay attention to. The UN’s 2021 Outer Space Security Conference in Geneva, Switzerland held talks about the potential of an arms race and the emergence of how space will be a new harmful battleground in the future, illuminating the recent emergence of counter-space technologies. China and Russia are developing offensive capabilities, including jammers, lasers, and cyberweapons that could damage satellite operations. Benjamin Silverstein, a research analyst for the space project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, shared this concern noting,  “I contend that we are watching an arms race unfold. We’re probably past the point at which it’s prudent to focus our main efforts on preventing that arms race.” Many scholars and policymakers like Silverstein are urging countries to update diplomatic resources and establish relationships between rival actors. In an effort to contend with this tribulation, the UN panel voted 163-8 on November 1st, 2021 to create an open-ended working group aimed at preventing an arms race in space. This working group will consider threats to space systems and recommend rules for military activities in outer space, meeting in Geneva for two sessions of five days each in both 2022 and 2023 and reporting to the General Assembly in the fall of 2023. Stressing international collaboration and peaceful talks, the UN, analysts, and scholars are working together to prevent tragedies that would devastate the planet. There seems to be a thread of anxiety that is interwoven in the international community as space diplomacy becomes more and more important if not crucial in preventing war. 

The crisis in space concerning accommodating the new technology and traffic is also a concern for Earth. A growing number of private corporations, including SpaceX Amazon, OneWeb, and China’s iSpace are creating constellations of hundreds or even thousands of orbiting satellites, to provide global wireless internet coverage and other outputs. Their advent raises questions about regulation and how to include a limited resource like a satellite. Many satellites pose risks for managing space traffic and the accumulation of debris. In the MIT Technology Review by Mark Harris, currently planned mega-constellations “could generate over 67,000 ‘collision alerts’ annually, forcing operators to choose between precautionary evasive maneuvers and assuming the small risk of collision.” This could end in disaster for Earth, as orbit could become unusable because of debris. Space is becoming more and more congested, and any future treaties and global agreements must take into account these new rights and obligations of non-state actors and be proactive in these constant changes in technology. 

The employment of multilateral cooperation demands greater awareness of space foreign policy. A larger asteroid or space debris striking an urban area could kill millions, making a disaster waiting to happen. U.S. officials have pressed countries to adopt a basic set of norms and rules for operating in space. For instance, Defense Secretary Lloyd had a talk on Washington Post Live on April 30, 2021, expressing this push, “The other thing I would encourage is norms of behavior, and they talk a little bit about responsible behavior in space. Right now, it is the wild wild west. Short of you can't put weapons of mass destruction in space, or you can't build a military base on a celestial body.” A couple of months later, in July, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III signed a memo pledging the Pentagon to follow five “tenets of responsible behavior in space” operating in space with “due regard” for others and in a professional manner, limiting the creation of space junk, avoiding harmful interference, maintaining separation and safe trajectories, and communicating to enhance safety and stability. This effort needs to be collective, as competition continues to rise and technology gets developed. Innovation, although a pivotal tool for curiosity and captivation, has its setbacks. Although world leaders are reaching for the stars, there needs to be a further job on Earth to keep catastrophes like congestion and warfare at bay. Never has there been a more exciting time in space exploration, yet the shadow of potential conflict looms overhead. Nations need to continue to work together as the Earth becomes not the only arena in which conflict can emerge. There is a prevailing question that can’t help but arise after this ceaseless stress in competition and innovation continues to plague the international community: When does reaching for the stars go too far?

Green New Champions

While fossil fuel companies and politicians often blame individuals for their carbon emissions and plastic straws, environmental issues are upheld by the lasting effects of industrialization and colonization and perpetuated by systems of oppression. As fires plague entire countries, global temperatures rise, and communities remain without clean water, government policy is the most efficient mechanism for change.

Countries such as Argentina, Poland, Indonesia, and Tanzania engaged in climate protests throughout the month of January. Coordinated events by Fridays for Future brought out protesters around the globe, and people spoke out with criticisms of various environmental policies. These continued into February, and Sweden, Peru, France, and Serbia were brought into the picture. On March 25th, over 700 youth climate strike protests took place worldwide, and one billion people took part in Earth Day this April. As stated by a supporter of the UK Extinction Rebellion Movement, “This has to be the biggest year yet for climate protest.” 

In 2019, Senator Markey and Representative Ocasio-Cortez introduced H.Res.109/S.Res.59. This resolution acknowledged human activity as “the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century” and climate change as a catalyst for mass migrations, wildfires, and deadly heat stress. It noted that there will be “more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100,” and moreover, BIPOC and low-income communities will be disproportionately affected. People, infrastructure, and industry will take a massive blow without major changes in policy, and with this in mind, 14 Senators and 101 Representatives officially recognized “the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” A new vigor was brought to the movement for environmental justice. 

The Green New Deal calls for supporting community projects, updating infrastructure, upgrading renewable energy sources, building energy-efficient power sources, investing in clean manufacturing, working with farmers and ranchers to decrease pollution by the agricultural sector, restoring biodiversity and natural ecosystems, cleaning up hazardous waste, and promoting international collaboration on climate issues. It includes a lengthy section about how jobs and education intersect with these environmental goals, and it recognizes a variety of equity issues. In the past few years, however, the Green New Deal has been criticized for being “too broad and not specific enough.” To dissolve any blurry areas and rejuvenate the energy behind the 2019 resolution, a new environmental pledge was released in March. 

The Green New Deal Pledge

The general idea of the Green New Deal Pledge is for officeholders to actively push for progressive climate legislation, organize their colleagues to join the fight, and publicly advocate for the Green New Deal. More specifically, there are nine bills beyond the Green New Deal Resolution that pledges must co-sponsor within six months of their swearing-in, and they must abide by a contribution policy.

That contribution policy is for each pledge-taker to “reject contributions of over $200 from oil, gas, and coal industry executives, lobbyists, or PACs,” and the essence of this standard is to ensure that political loyalties lie where they should: with the constituents. When Senators and Representatives are propped up by fossil fuel corporations, entire movements can stall. For example, Joe Manchin, who helped stall the Build Back Better Act, had “between $1.4 million and $5.8 million held in coal companies” in 2020. Taking it back to 2019, the “combined fossil fuel contributions to ‘no’ votes against [the] Green New Deal resolution” was over $55,000,000. As shown in the past few years, big oil, gas, and coal companies are responsible for regulating big oil, gas, and coal companies. In order to hold so-called “climate champions” accountable, the pledge requires officeholders to detach their strings. 

On the topic of fossil fuels, one of the bills that must be co-sponsored is the Keep It in the Ground Act, which “eliminates new fossil fuel production projects on federal public land and waters.” It prohibits the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management from renewing or authorizing fossil fuel projects, but there are a couple of exceptions involving national security and specific legal restrictions regarding contracts. While the United States is highly reliant on fossil fuels at this point, policymakers must be conscious of the long-term effects. The use of fossil fuels results in land degradation, water pollution, and ocean acidification, and according to the International Energy Agency, no new fossil fuel projects can be implemented for the world to have even half a chance at reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. However, as Senate sponsor Jeff Merkeley stated, “affordable and reliable technology exists to gradually transition to clean energy and clean transportation.” His proposal would be a major win for progressives, and the planet.

Another bill listed in the pledge is the Environmental Justice for All Act, which would “address the disproportionate adverse human health or environmental effects of federal laws or programs on communities of color, low-income communities, or tribal and indigenous communities.” Notably, the infrastructure that distributes fossil fuels is often built in areas that impact communities with little socio-political power. For example, in regard to tribal and indigenous lands and resources, the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL) near Standing Rock would contaminate the reservation’s sole source of freshwater; the Line 3 Pipeline would harm aquatic ecosystems; the Keystone XL Pipeline would have threatened ancestral homeland with dirty tar. Additionally, BIPOC and impoverished communities are often the ones most affected by chemicals and toxic materials. Flint, a city that had dirty water for years, is 57 percent African-American with 41 percent of the city under the poverty line—but although Flint is well-known, other communities are facing similar struggles. A journal article published by Nature Communications stated that “water hardship is spread unevenly across both space and society, reflecting the spatial patterning of social inequality due to settler colonialism, racism, and economic inequality in the United States.” Furthermore, when these communities are affected, it takes longer for the problem to be solved than wealthy, white ones, as evidenced by the degree of post-wildfire cleanup and rebuilding. Climate inequality is already prevalent in the United States.

The next bill, the Civilian Climate Corps for Jobs and Justice Act, would create a climate service program “to help communities respond to climate change and transition to a clean economy.” This Act would not only assist with the completion of federally-funded projects—reducing carbon emissions, transitioning to renewable energy, responding to climate disasters, and launching conservation projects—but it would promote equity. Over 5 years, 1.5 million Americans would each receive “compensation of at least $15 per hour, full health care coverage, and critical support services such as transportation, housing, and childcare,” and corpsmembers would be eligible for educational funding. Plus, the bill would include tribal sovereignty protections and funds, and career pathways would lead participants towards green sector jobs. As previously explained, addressing climate injustice is a major part of the environmental movement, and this bill would be a step forward on that front.

The Green New Deal for Public Housing Act would also create up to 240,000 union jobs per year while reducing annual carbon emissions to “the equivalent of taking over 1.2 million cars off the road,” and it would alleviate issues like “mold infestations, lead contamination, poor indoor air quality, and unsafe temperatures.” Additionally, the bill would reduce the costs of water and energy for residents while transitioning to energy efficient, zero carbon housing, and it would showcase how the economy and climate action can be positively intertwined. 

Another bill required through the pledge is the Green New Deal for Cities, which would have the Department of Housing and Urban Development fund projects by states, local governments, and Native American nations. To receive funding, the government must have a local Green New Deal program proposal that includes commitments such as working towards zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030, and the money would be for solutions to issues like climate adaptation, pollution, and conservation on family farms. Especially due to varying levels of familiarity with local issues and resources, it is critical for all levels of government to collaborate on environmental response. The Green New Deal for Cities would allow that to happen, and it would embolden a stronger network of advocates.

Next, the Farm Systems Reform Act would help give family farmers and ranchers a better chance within a system that favors multinational meatpacking companies. One key part of this bill would include strengthening the Packers & Stockyards Act of 1921 that regulates the meat industry “from unfair, deceptive, unjustly discriminatory and monopolistic practices.” The newer bill would “place a moratorium on large factory farms, sometimes referred to as concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), and restore mandatory country-of-origin labeling requirements.” To examine the broader picture, large CAFOs create massive amounts of waste—as much as 1.4 billion tons each year—and they are not required to upkeep a treatment facility for that waste. Large CAFOs also cause water pollution that harms not only the environment, but the health of rural communities, and “The overuse of medically important antibiotics by large CAFOs has led to the generation and spread of dangerous antibiotic resistant bacteria.” Additionally, research has shown that air pollution stemming from animal agriculture causes 12,720 deaths in the United States per year. The industry has been accused of supporting profit over people, and this bill seeks to address that.

The Green New Deal for Public Schools Act would offer environmental and educational resources to children at public elementary and secondary schools, as well as Bureau of Indian Education schools. The Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy would provide grants to help convert their facilities into zero-carbon schools, and the Department of Education (ED) would award grants for hiring and retaining teachers and staff in high-need schools. The Climate Change Resiliency Program would be created under ED, helping to “increase the resiliency of public and BIE schools during climate change-related events, natural disasters, and public health crises,” and a similar grant program for state educational agencies would be established. This bill would also create the Office of Sustainable Schools within ED to carry out the administrative process of these tasks.

The Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development and Generating Renewable Energy to Electrify the Nation’s Infrastructure and Jobs Act, more succinctly known as the BUILD GREEN Infrastructure and Jobs Act, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to establish a substantial grant program for governments and other entities to invest in “electrified surface transportation infrastructure projects.” The bill outlines specific elements of maximum-sustainability projects, and it instructs the DOT to prioritize vulnerable communities and new outdoor areas. In terms of costs, grants must be at least $2 million, with certain exceptions, and a project “may not exceed 85% for planning, design, and construction purposes and 50% of the operation and maintenance costs of the project for its first 10 years.”

Finally, the End Polluter Welfare for Enhanced Oil Recovery Act is a short one, and the overall purpose is to eliminate “the use of carbon oxide as a tertiary injectant” and repeal the tax credit “for enhanced oil recovery costs.” The bill would decrease federal support for fossil fuel projects and remove a financial burden on American taxpayers. It would update royalty rates for oil and gas production, reoccupy royalties from offshore drilling, and reconstruct bidding and leasing practices for coal development on federal property. It would also help fund medical care for “tens of thousands working-class Americans” by maintaining the Black Lung Disability Fund. Within 10 years, the United States will “account for 60 percent global growth in oil and gas production,” but this legislation would help prevent more damage caused by special interests.

Responding to the Climate Emergency 

In 2022, there is irrefutably a climate emergency. The Green New Deal Pledge would create new leaders, or “champions,” of the environmental movement in the United States, and the bills themselves would affect not only Americans, but the rest of the world. While passing the original Green New Deal would be valuable, the health of our planet is declining exponentially, and we need specific steps to take as a united front. That is what the Green New Pledge is designed to do. 

Some people have said that passing the “Green New [Anything]” is far-fetched. However, almost 5 percent of Americans would “willingly participate in civil disobedience” to demand climate action, Data for Progress found that “More than 65 percent of likely voters support Green New Deal measures for cities, public housing, and school,” and already, 71 candidates and 22 elected officials are listed on the official website as having taken the Pledge with almost 50 groups as partners.As time goes on, an increasing number of people are understanding that their lives are on the line, and building a coalition committed to strong environmental advocacy is critical. Taking this Pledge is an expression of government responsibility and accountability, and ultimately, taking the greatest strides to protect this planet is not a “radical” path forward.

Drafted Into Abuse: The Experiences of Female Soldiers in North Korea’s Military

Notice: This paper includes discussions of sexual and gender-based violence.

Founded in 1948, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, better known as North Korea, is considered to be the last true Stalinist regime. Similar to other communist nations, such as the Soviet Union and China, North Korea prides itself on gender equality and freeing women from the responsibilities and social roles that held them back from fully supporting their country. In 1946, North Korea passed the Sex Equality Law, followed by a stipulation in Article 22 of the 1948 Constitution that “women in the D.P.R.K. are accorded equal rights with men in all spheres of government, political, economic, social and cultural activity. The state protects especially mothers and children.” Articles in the 1972 and 1990 Constitutions continued the trend with the statements that “women hold equal social status and rights with men” and of the country’s contribution to the creation of “various conditions for the advancement of women”, respectfully. For most of its existence, the North Korean government, and the Kim regime - Kim Il-Sung, Kim Jong-Il, and Kim Jong-Un - maintained a relatively stable society, with work requirements, food rations, and set salaries for all citizens. However, in the 1990s, North Korea fell into an economic crash and famine following the fall of the Soviet Union and subsequent loss of aid support. The hardships, better known as the Arduous March, went on to drastically change the role of women in North Korean society. During the famine, the government required citizens to continue working despite a lack of salary. Women were in a unique position in the labor force, as, unlike other communist nations, North Korea emphasized the role of mothers and recognized the role of the housewife as a valid alternative to state employment. The country began this acknowledgment of housewives and mothers near its founding, with the 1946 Labour Law prohibiting women and children from “toilsome or harmful labour”. As the nation continued to grow, the North Korean government never officially denounced the traditional Confucian hierarchies, particularly in reference to gender roles, providing many women the leeway to leave their state jobs to be housewives after marriage. The amount of women leaving the workforce after marriage had grown to over 60 percent by the mid-1980s. This supplied them with the freedom and time flexibility to pursue other opportunities to provide for their families as they were no longer expected to perform jobs in the traditional labor force. As more women pursued informal methods of income generation, a market economy known as the “jangmadang” was created and women quickly gained a unique social status as the primary breadwinners and caregivers of their households. Yet, this was not the case for all women in North Korea. Women in the military were denied the same status and opportunities, and while their responsibilities and roles have changed over the past thirty years, the change has not occurred parallel to the overall status change of women in the general population. While the economic and social positions of women in North Korea have changed over the past three decades through greater financial and social independence, those changes have not been mirrored within the military as enlisted women remain subjected to grueling and unequal tasks, poor sanitary conditions, and a mass culture of abuse and discrimination. 

Understanding the background of the issue is essential when approaching the roles of women in North Korea’s military. The relationship between women and the military can be broken into two major time periods; 1) prior to a reported mandatory service requirement in 2015 and 2) post the requirement. South Korea and internationally based news agencies first began reporting on the mandatory service requirement in January of 2015, however, the details of the exact policy remain ambiguous. One article, published by Daily North Korea, stated that the directive establishes military service as “mandatory for eligible women between the ages of 17 and 20,” with enlistment length lasting up to five or six years.  It must be noted, however, that reports surrounding the mandatory service requirement may not be entirely accurate due to the lack of clear sources or data, and it is possible that it is instead a highly encouraged enlisted policy, similar to what men in North Korea experienced throughout most of the country’s history. For the purposes of this analysis, attention will be paid to the policy in 2015 as a marker in shifting attitudes and expectations surrounding the military service of women. Prior to 2015, primary accounts - mostly from defectors - present that joining the military was viewed by women not as a duty to the country but as a way to rise up in social rank, as many of those in higher military positions were in a higher class or members of the Korean Workers’ Party. One defector, Lee So-Yeon, served in the military for about a decade and served as a signals specialist along the Demilitarized Zone. During an interview with The World, she stated her reason for joining was to “become a low-ranking member of the ruling party.” Even as women gained social and economic status due to the market economy, the country’s strict hierarchical order made it difficult to move between class levels. Additionally, during the famine in the 1990s, many who enlisted did so due to the appeal of a daily meal. For many, especially women, who had less pressure to enlist, joining the military could create a path to a better future. 

Following the reported mandatory service requirement in 2015, the number of women in the military unsurprisingly grew from an estimated 2.38% of the country’s total population in 2015 to an estimated 2.62% in 2018. According to South Korean news sources, women were now expected to serve from the age of eighteen or nineteen until they were twenty-three. This five-year service expectation is half of what is set for men, who are typically in the service for ten years. The change can be explained in part by the reported population decline in North Korea, which has contributed to a similar decline in military size. Enlisting in the military was now no longer a tool for increasing social status. Rather, it is now a responsibility. While women who care for family members or children face less pressure to join, many do not marry or have children until their late-20’s, due to the preexisting service expectations for men. As a result, there is less ability for women to pursue market opportunities or keep themselves out of the pressure of contributing to North Korea’s workforce and military.

Central to the experience of any soldier is the expected tasks and duties. For the women in North Korea’s military, these expectations varied heavily from that of male soldiers. After joining, women undergo training similar to that of their male counterparts. They reportedly have slightly shorter physical training regimens during the day. However, the overall daily schedule is relatively the same. In addition to the physical training demands, many women soldiers are also expected to perform the cooking and cleaning for their units. They are viewed as “ttukong unjeongsu” according to author Juliette Morillot, a term that directly translates to “cooking pot lid drivers” and references the traditional attitudes around the gender roles and responsibilities of women. The requirements end up being overwhelming to the soldiers, who have to juggle their training, position tasks, and domestic duties simultaneously. 

North Korea’s government has presented itself as a beacon of gender equality, the military being no exception. However, under that phrase is a culture of Confucian values creating social hierarchies. Women in the country are subject to inadequate sanitation and hygiene, an issue that is worse for those serving in the military. Primary to this is the issue of menstruation. North Korea’s society shuns the idea of periods, considering them impure and taboo to discuss, making it difficult for women to receive the care they need. Women outside of the military have access to jangmadang where they can purchase makeshift sanitary products. For example, some defectors described how women would oftentimes buy medical gauze to use as pads, cloths that could be washed and reused, old used clothing, or socks to use as pads. Those in the military, however, are cut off from the jangmadang and are forced instead to use military gauze or reused sanitary pads that could only be cleaned and reused during the night, when male soldiers were sleeping. As discussed, female soldiers are subject to the same intense physical regimens as their male counterparts, a requirement that limits their ability to swap out dirty hygiene products and stresses their body’s limits. Some recounts by defectors claim the complete loss of periods due to the physical training, stress, and inadequate nutrition - most troops, male and female, are reportedly provided bowls of rice and corn for meals, with meat and candies reserved for special occasions. Following the 2015 policy change, the Kim Regime announced it would start providing sanitary products to its female soldiers, however, little is known about the follow-through or the amount that was distributed.

The tasks of women in the military went beyond physical training, cooking, and cleaning. For a majority of North Korea’s history, one of the most prominent images of women in the military was of the Kippumjo, a “pleasure squad” of approximately 2,000 women and girls that provided entertainment for the Kim regime, high-ranking officials of the Workers’ Party of Korea, and distinguished guests. The squad was formed under Kim Il-Sung sometime in the 1970s and was reported to be disbanded in 2011 by Kim Jong-Un. It is also important to note that in 2015, news agencies began publishing articles that Kim Jong-Un was reestablishing the Kippumjo. During its active period, teenage girls, typically between the ages of 15 and 19 would be recruited by officers based on their height and appearance. One defector by the name of Mi Hyang claimed to have been a member of the Kippumjo. She recounted being conscripted while in high school when officers visited her school and was then trained for six months before beginning her service. Members of the special force received greater benefits than other women in military service. They were reportedly provided with new appliances and a stipend. Reported duties for the members of the Kippumjo varied from dancing and singing to massages to sexual favors. While the Kippumjo has reportedly been disbanded, the culture of gender discrimination within North Korea’s military has not.

Despite the lack of attention to female bodily autonomy and needs, North Korea maintains a hyper-feminized image of how women should appear and behave. This is highlighted by the intense beauty standards faced by women both within and outside of the military. For the general female population, the rise of the market economy and greater economic freedom has allowed for more expression in fashion. Since the 1990s, women’s fashion has evolved to embrace clothing reflective of the nation’s first lady, Ri Sol-Ju, with brighter colors, lace and sequins, and feminine cuts. It could be expected that this hyper feminization would not occur within the military, as women there would be expected to be equals to their male counterparts and focus on their tasks and position. Yet, women in the military are still expected to maintain appearances.  While the pleasure squadron, the Kippumjo, has been disbanded, female soldiers are expected to maintain basic aspects of their feminine image. In fact, when the Kim Regime released the state-sponsored cosmetics brand “Pyongyang Cosmetics Industry,” it distributed products to many female aviation units. In short, the country expected women to be capable of maintaining their feminine qualities despite their intense training, lack of sanitation, and domestic duties.

Arguably the harshest part of the experiences of women in North Korea’s military is the expansive sexual assault and rape culture. Despite a lack of exact numbers, reports from defectors have shown that rape and sexual assault are part of the norm for many female soldiers. Defectors would report that even if they themselves were not assaulted during their time in the army, they knew of many others who were. While Pyongyang claims that it does not tolerate any form of sexual assault towards its soldiers, cases are seldom pursued. Cases that are pursued are rarely found in favor of the victim, and many more are shunned into silence by a culture of shame. Some women are frightened into silence through threats to “block their chances of joining the party if they refuse or attempt to report the abuse.” Rhetoric is presented to blame victims and put the focus on women’s actions rather than on the violations by men. This creates a system of victim-blaming, one which takes the blame away from perpetrators and puts it on the female victims. Female soldiers are unable to receive care, on top of the already lacking menstrual hygiene and the pressure to keep quiet. Instead, they are forced to suffer in silence.

Despite sexual assault and harassment being common knowledge for women in the military, they are still forced to struggle on their own. In the case of sexual assault, victims are oftentimes on their own, as a culture of shame and victim-blaming is prevalent even among other female soldiers. Sexual assault is viewed as something to be expected and is normalized to the point that the country has established the idea that women must act in a certain way to avoid violence. The issue is so expansive that in order to avoid social blame, women are willing to undergo dangerous abortions. Especially in the military, where a pregnancy could ruin one’s social status and career, some soldiers use anthelmintic medicine, tighten their belts, or roll down hills to force miscarriages. If able to, some pursue illegal surgical abortions, with potentially life-threatening consequences. Sexual assault and rape also put them at risk for injury, sexual-transmitted illnesses, or post-traumatic stress disorder. Enlisted women are especially vulnerable to sexual violence due to the male-centric hierarchal nature of the military, with social values and limitations cutting them off from seeking comfort, medical care, or legal recourse, leaving them on their own to cope. 

Not only is the mental and physical health of the women in the military impacted by the tasks and discrimination that they face during their service, but their social roles and the country’s economy as a whole are also affected. Women outside of the traditional workforce were able to participate in the market economy during the 1990s, including women who were not tied up in the military operations that came as a response to natural disasters and flooding. As North Korea continues to work towards increasing its military capabilities despite a dwindling population, its focus on pressuring enlistment among women limits their ability to provide food for themselves and their families as well as to participate in the country’s now semi-legal and quasi-capitalist markets. Taking women out of the markets will eliminate the primary organizers and parties involved, potentially decreasing the strength of the country’s overall economy. Additionally, as women are pushed into the military, they will potentially lose the social statuses that they gained as a result of the jangmadang. Following the Arduous March, women had become the primary “breadwinners” for their households and also gained greater freedoms as divorce rates rose and extramarital affairs became less taboo. This status is inherently linked to the market economy, and if women are taken out of the equation, it is likely that both will reverse. 

As North Korea gains increased attention on the international stage, many look to its growing military capability and unique economic structure. North Korea’s military growth has involved technological developments in cyber, missile, and nuclear capabilities. Simultaneously, the country developed its market economy through the jangmadang. However, both of these involve one specific group, the women of North Korea. As the country attempts to balance its ambitions, declining population growth - from 1.54 percent in the 1980s to 0.49 percent in the 2010s - and diminishing military size - from an estimated 6.6 percent of the population in the 1980s to 5.2 percent -, it turned to women as the solution. Women had been part of the solution to famine and economic decline thirty years ago, as their unique social status allowed them to become the primary breadwinners and base of a new market economy during the Arduous March in the 1990s. Women currently make up an estimated 51.5 percent of the country’s population, yet, as previously stated, only 2.62 percent of women currently serve in the country’s military. As a result, the female population remains a largely untapped resource for military growth. From the 1990s onward, women managed to gain a higher social status and earn greater freedoms, even if those freedoms are not comparable to those of other nations. Despite these changes, the status of women within the North Korean military saw little movement. While the country’s campaign to increase female military enlisted, domestic responsibilities, lack of sanitary products, beauty standards, and sexual assault have continued to dominate their experiences. As North Korea pushes forward on its current path, it puts its economy at risk, as well as the status of its female population. The removal from the market economy and the cultural shame around traumatic gender-based experiences in favor of the stagnant military status threatens to dominate the experiences of women and force their social advances to regress.

Does Peacekeeping Work?

When the average American thinks of UN peacekeeping operations, they tend to think of failures. Images of dead Americans being dragged through the streets in Somalia, Blue Helmets failing to prevent the Rwandan Genocide, and the failed safe zone in Srebrenica spring to mind. Younger generations might think about sexual abuse and exploitation scandals involving UN peacekeepers and a cholera outbreak caused by peacekeepers in Haiti. Empirically, a 2022 Gallup survey found that only 37% of Americans thought that the United Nations is doing a good job, compared to 58% of Americans at the turn of the millennium. In the American imagination, peacekeeping is an expensive failure.

The actual results could not be more different. UN peacekeeping is, in actuality, a highly effective institution that is capable of protecting civilians and building peace in post-conflict countries. This essay will try to debunk the common American perception of the success of UN peacekeeping, building on the existing scholarly literature. The essay will then conclude by examining how these different understandings of UN peacekeeping came to be, and why the misperceptions surrounding UN peacekeeping matter.

Let’s start at the beginning of a UN peacekeeping operation, its deployment. Despite popular perceptions of peacekeepers as cowardly or conflict-shy, the existing academic literature suggests that peacekeepers deploy to the most difficult combat zones, rather than the easiest. Hegre, Hultman, and Nygard 2019 find that UN peacekeepers tend to deploy to the most difficult conflicts with the highest casualty rates and weakest central governments. In these countries, such as the DRC, South Sudan, and the CAR, conflict is widespread and both governments and rebels frequently attack civilians. Within countries, peacekeepers will continue to put themselves at risk by deploying subnationally to the most dangerous parts of the country. Ruggeri, Dorussen, and Gizelis studied eight peacekeeping operations and found that peacekeepers deploy to areas, such as near international borders, where conflict is most frequent.

While getting peacekeepers to the right places is important, what matters more is what they do once they get there. After hundreds of thousands of civilians died under the UN’s watch in Rwanda and Bosnia, the UN developed a new doctrine known as the “Protection of Civilians” (POC). This task put direct protection of civilians, including the use of force to do so, at the center of modern UN peacekeeping operations. In doing so, it moved past a previous emphasis on neutrality and restraint that handicapped peacekeepers facing active atrocity situations. This new POC doctrine should on paper address many of the failures that occurred in the 1990s, where the Protection of Civilians was not part of the peacekeepers' toolkit. So, the question is: can peacekeepers protect civilians? 

The answer is yes. Many studies, such as the Uppsala Conflict Data Program and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project, have taken advantage of new data sets on violence against civilians to study what impact peacekeepers have had on violence against civilians in the areas they deploy in. The vast majority of these studies have found that the presence of peacekeepers has a statistically significant negative effect on violence against civilians. Phayal (2019) examined the UN peacekeeping in Darfur and found that the deployment of peacekeepers “restrains belligerents from targeting civilians.” While several mechanisms have been established to explain this, the most common has to do with the cost-benefit analysis of potential perpetrators. Although attacking civilians runs little risk and thus incurs little potential cost, attacking civilians protected by armed peacekeepers backed by the international community has a higher cost and is, thus, less likely to occur. Using a variety of different cases and methodologies, this same conclusion is found by Melander (2009), Hegre, Hultman, and Nygard (2019), and Kathman and Wood (2016). 

In South Sudan, for example, as many as 200,000 civilians fleeing violence gathered in IDP camps around UN bases in late 2013, forming “Protection of Civilian sites.” UN peacekeepers have guarded those sites ever since, protecting those civilians from other larger ethnic groups in the region who had previously attacked them. At the same time, the UN has started to work to create the necessary conditions for civilians to return home and for the South Sudanese government to take over security provision.

While the literature shows that peacekeepers are able to successfully protect civilians in their areas of operations, there are a few key caveats to keep in mind. First, Payal and Prins 2020 found that, while peacekeepers are successful in preventing attacks by rebel groups, they are less able to protect civilians from government forces.5 Given the need for host state consent for most peacekeeping missions and the fact that most peacekeeping missions are mandated to support and improve the host government, this isn’t exactly surprising. We also have to consider the role of respective capabilities in protecting civilians. Di Salvatore (2018) found that peacekeepers were less capable of protecting civilians as power asymmetries grew. Conversely, however, Haass and Ansorg 2018 found that peacekeepers are better able to protect civilians when they are better equipped, funded, and trained. This makes logical sense, peacekeepers are more effective the better their advantage is over possible perpetrators, and vice-versa.

However, the Protection of Civilians is only a short-term objective. The long-run objective is to create a sustainable peace where peacekeepers are no longer needed. The evidence suggests that peacekeepers are able to accomplish this. Fortna (2008) analyzes the role that UN peacekeepers have in armed group decision-making during civil wars. She finds that the presence of peacekeepers alleviates mistrust and miscalculation and prevents escalations, thus leading to a higher success rate of peace implementation. Kathman and Benson (2019) provide empirical support for this idea. They found that the deployment of additional peacekeepers decreases the length of the conflict. Peacekeeping deployments can also prevent conflicts from spreading to other nearby countries. Beardsley (2011) empirically finds that “the risk of armed conflict onset increases by 71% on average when a neighboring state experiences a conflict without peacekeeping.”

An example of this can be seen in the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL). The mission was deployed in 1999 to replace a regional peacekeeping operation that had failed to contain the countries civil war. Following several high-profile failures including the kidnapping of peacekeepers and internal divisions, the mission was able to regain the trust of the public and create the necessary conditions for peace. They ensured the withdrawal of Liberian rebels across the border, disarmed local groups, and implemented national elections. The mission withdrew in 2005, and conflict in Sierra Leone has been minimal since. So we’ve seen that peacekeepers frequently accomplish their two primary objectives (protecting civilians and building peace). However, that’s not everything they can do. Reeder (2018) found that peacekeeping deployments are associated with better health outcomes, as quantified by vaccination rates. Reeder and Polizzi expand on this theme of service delivery in their 2021 article, where they found that peacekeeping deployment is associated with better education outcomes in their areas of deployment. In both cases, this is because peacekeepers help create a safer environment for other groups (such as government agencies and NGOs) to deliver services such as health and education. Finally, Bakaki and Bohmelt (2021) found that UN peacekeeping deployments increase the environmental quality in their areas of operation. The existing literature shows that UN peacekeeping is incredibly effective at a variety of different tasks across a variety of different countries, despite frequently deploying to the most dangerous combat zones. However, as mentioned earlier, this is not the perception that most Americans have of UN peacekeeping. There are several theories why this might be the case: the first has to do with media coverage. The failures of UN peacekeeping in the 1990s were highly publicized on major American news networks such as CNN. This is because often, such as in Bosnia and Somalia, they involved US forces. They also frequently deployed to geopolitical or human rights hotspots such as Rwanda. Times on the security council have changed since the 1990s, however. While peacekeepers still deploy to the most dangerous areas, they avoid the conflicts where great power competition is at its strongest (such as Afghanistan, Syria, and Ukraine). Instead, peacekeepers deploy to “under the radar” conflicts such as in the Central African Republic, Mali, and South Sudan. Peacekeeping’s success stories have received far less press coverage than its failures, and the end result is that peacekeeping is perceived as a failure by the media-consuming public.

Another potential cause of the gap in peacekeeping’s public perception has to do with the US’s perceived relationship with the UN and the idea of American exceptionalism. While the US government has always been a decently strong supporter of the UN, the US public has been less supportive. Part of this can be explained by the idea of American exceptionalism, the nationalist and widespread idea that American civilization is superior or exceptional to all others. In this context, the UN represents a threat: as an organization that could potentially overrule America’s sovereignty at home, such as the UN’s role in organizing climate change agreements, and decision-making abroad, such as the UN's refusal to authorize the 2003 invasion of Iraq. There’s a reason that the UN has emerged as a common actor in conspiracy theories, including those that deal with hot-button domestic topics such as gun confiscations. It’s no surprise then that nationalist Americans wouldn’t support UN peacekeeping because it can be construed as a threat.

This is unfortunate for two reasons. In the short term, some US politicians have decided they don’t need to support UN Peacekeeping. The Trump administration previously refused to pay its needed UN dues. Given that the US is the largest UN’s financial contributor, this had a significant negative effect on peacekeeping effectiveness. The Trump administration knew it could get away with unilaterally not paying its bills because the US public by and large doesn't care about peacekeeping. In fact, UN ambassador Nikki Hailey bragged that “Just 5 months into our time here, we've cut over half a billion $$$ from the UN peacekeeping budget & we’re only getting started.” The backlash was minimal and the US only started to fully pay its dues during the Biden administration. 

In the long term, US distrust of the UN has limited the US military's ability to contribute. The US has remained mostly withdrawn from UN peacekeeping since the 1990s. Despite its large and effective military, the US currently contributes only 31 peacekeepers out of nearly 80,000 total. As the US withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan, the US has a large number of effective units that it could contribute to UN peacekeeping operations (recall that better funded and equipped militaries, such as the US, are better capable of protection).

However, the idea of deploying US forces at any scale is ludicrous in the current environment given the American public’s current hostility to peacekeeping operations. The only way to improve that public opinion, and potentially awaken a sleeping giant in the form of the US military, is to begin to counter the incorrect narratives about peacekeeping that have sadly become commonplace amongst the American public. 

References

Bakaki, Zorzeta, and Tobias Böhmelt. “Can UN Peacekeeping Promote Environmental Quality?” International Studies Quarterly 65, no. 4 (December 17, 2021): 881–890.

Beardsley, Kyle. “Peacekeeping and the Contagion of Armed Conflict.” The Journal of Politics 73, no. 4 (2011): 1051–1064.

Fortna, Virginia Page. Does Peacekeeping Work?: Shaping Belligerents’ Choices after Civil War. Book collections on Project MUSE. Princeton: University Press, 2008

Haass, Felix, and Nadine Ansorg. “Better Peacekeepers, Better Protection? Troop Quality of United Nations Peace Operations and Violence against Civilians.” Journal of Peace Research 55, no. 6 (November 1, 2018): 742–758.

Hegre, Håvard, Lisa Hultman, and Håvard Mokleiv Nygård. “Evaluating the Conflict-Reducing Effect of UN Peacekeeping Operations.” The Journal of Politics 81, no. 1 (January 1, 2019): 215–232.

Kathman, Jacob, and Michelle Benson. “Cut Short? United Nations Peacekeeping and Civil War Duration to Negotiated Settlements.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 63, no. 7 (August 1, 2019): 1601–1629

Kathman, Jacob D., and Reed M. Wood. “Stopping the Killing During the ‘Peace’: Peacekeeping and the Severity of Postconflict Civilian Victimization.” Foreign Policy Analysis 12, no. 2 (April 1, 2016): 149–169.

MELANDER, ERIK. “Selected To Go Where Murderers Lurk? The Preventive Effect of Peacekeeping on Mass Killings of Civilians.” Conflict Management and Peace Science 26, no. 4 (2009): 389–406.

Phayal, Anup. “UN Troop Deployment and Preventing Violence Against Civilians in Darfur.” International Interactions 45, no. 5 (September 3, 2019): 757–780.

Phayal, Anup, and Brandon C. Prins. “Deploying to Protect: The Effect of Military Peacekeeping Deployments on Violence Against Civilians.” International Peacekeeping 27, no. 2 (March 14, 2020): 311–336.

Reeder, Bryce W. “The Spatial Concentration of Peacekeeping Personnel and Public Health During Intrastate Conflicts.” International Peacekeeping 25, no. 3 (May 27, 2018): 394–41.

Reeder, Bryce W, and Marc S Polizzi. “Transforming Zones of Exclusion to Zones of Inclusion? Local-Level UN Peacekeeping Deployments and Educational Attainment.” International Studies Quarterly 65, no. 4 (December 17, 2021): 867–880.

Ruggeri, Andrea, Han Dorussen, and Theodora-Ismene Gizelis. “On the Frontline Every Day? Subnational Deployment of United Nations Peacekeepers.” British Journal of Political Science 48, no. 4 (October 2018): 1005–1025.

Salvatore, Jessica Di. “Obstacle to Peace? Ethnic Geography and Effectiveness of Peacekeeping.” British Journal of Political Science 50, no. 3 (July 2020): 1089–1109. 

Uniting Europe: How Closing the Digital Divide Between Eastern and Western Europe Will Strengthen the EU

Putin’s invasion of Ukraine destabilized the entire international world order by bringing war back to Europe, but more importantly it has revealed the greater need for stability and unity between Western and Eastern Europe. One method to counteract Putin’s threats and to improve the international standing of the European Union is to close the digital divide between Eastern and Western Europe, thus working to unite the continent, bring technological innovation to regions previously untouched by it, and promoting EU initiatives and popularity. The OECD defines the digital divide as “the gap between individuals, households, businesses and geographic areas at different socioeconomic levels with regard both to their opportunities to access information and communication technologies (ICTs) and to their use of the Internet for a wide variety of activities.” The technological gap also reflects broader socio-economic issues of the impact of Communism. 

A Geographical Digital Divide 

The history of the digital divide lies in the legacy of the Cold War, a difference in economies, and the devastating impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Technology innovation has defined much of the European Union in the twentieth century. The member states involved have sought to digitize their economies and industries, while also setting the world wide standard for regulations regarding data and privacy. Yet, Eastern European countries, both in and out of the European Union have largely failed to adopt the same technological success of countries such as Germany and Finland. 

The root of this issue is an economic one. Eastern European countries tend to be poorer than Western Europe and thus have less financial resources to spend on investing in new technological projects or working to adapt to modern tech innovation. The Cold War deeply impacted Eastern Europe’s ability to adapt to technology. Although the internet boom occurred after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the countries under the Iron Curtain had already been cut off for decades from Western modernity. Despite the Soviet Union heavily promoting science and technology during its reign of power, the eventual weakening of their economy and the larger socio-economic issues of the late eighties prevented the Soviet Union from maintaining their high standards of technological innovation. When integration and trade between East and West finally started, the East was forced to exist in a state of perpetual “catch up” compared with their Western peers. 

The European Union has welcomed more and more former Soviet countries into its membership. In 2004 the largest enlargement took place, in which the EU added Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Since 2004 many Eastern European countries now play a role in the EU, but according to a report from the World Bank, they lack “​​the composition of spending across innovation activities and the allocation across the different types of technologies.” While the EU has attempted to spread its technological incentives throughout all states, the fact remains that some member states are better at adapting and implementing new technology given their stronger economic stability or prior interest in technological advancement. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic both worsened the digital divide but also highlighted the need for change. WIth in-person connection no longer a possibility, companies and economies were forced to adapt to a more digitized world, in which many firms moved entirely online. Member states such as Germany proved to adapt more easily to the digitalization required by the conditions of the pandemic and even thrive under it. During the pandemic, the city of Berlin developed the Digital Skills Map (DSM) to promote the sharing of ideas and encourage  “pan-EU dialogue around how digital developments are transforming the labor market. It also seeks to showcase the many effective interventions designed to boost digital skills, while giving a local voice to the EU debate around the future of work at the same time.” The success of Berlin and other cities across EU member states proves that there are benefits to the digital shift caused by the pandemic: businesses will no longer struggle to conduct work from peripheral regions, and both consumers and businesses have a better knowledge and understanding of digital tools. 

In contrast to Germany’s tech success story during the pandemic, a report from OECD revealed the devastating nature of the digital infrastructure challenges in the Western Balkans. The biggest issues in this region consisted of the low digitalization of households and the limited number of enterprises that were able to employ teleworking. The inability to shift to teleworking and digital work processes meant that businesses were far likelier to experience labor shortages caused by movement restrictions. Now that the pandemic has exposed the digital divide and the need for change, the European Union can actively begin improving digitalization within their Eastern European member states. 

Role of the EU 

The World Bank’s report on the digital dilemma in Europe reveals that there are three key goals for Europe’s digital future: “competitiveness, market inclusion of small and young firms, and geographic cohesion.” The report explains that for the European Union to achieve these goals they must better invest in the three types of digital technology, which are transactional, informational, and operational. Taking this information into account, the EU must now help member states including Bulgaria, Croatia, Poland, and Romania, to properly invest in technology creation and adoption. The report also details the distinction between the three most prominent digital technologies: transactional, informational, and operational. According to the World Bank, transactional technologies, mostly e-commerce related, are the only ones truly capable of achieving the European Union’s goals, due to their ability to bring together all forms of the digital sector. 

Bridging the divide between rural and urban areas is key to promoting technological development. Romania’s cities, such as Bucharest, have much higher rates of transactional technology initiatives compared with more rural areas where digitalization barely plays a role in local firms. Specifically targeting rural regions will also benefit the member state as a whole, as it will allow greater investment and collaboration between regions. 

The European Union should also work to promote telecommunication policies (policy concerned with the economic regulation of interstate as well as international communication, across the broader region). One way for Eastern European countries to improve digitalization is by driving competition through tech creation, but to do this they need to establish an institutional and legal environment that is ideal for tech development and can guarantee them the support of both public and private investors. Therefore promoting telecommunications policies is the quickest and most effective way to establish stability and legitimacy, thus drawing in external support. Ideally, states such as Poland and Bulgaria would create a telecommunications market with lower costs, greater competition, and a more diverse array of services provided. 

The Success of Estonia 

Despite many Eastern European member states being decades behind in regards to their Western peers, one nation stands out as an anomaly and example of the success of digitalization. Estonia, a former Soviet republic, has achieved the unthinkable. The nation state has achieved unprecedented digital success thanks to a variety of factors, and serves as a model for all other European Union member states.

The origins of Estonia’s digital success can be traced back to the early nineties when a group of amateur politicians developed a public digital architecture that specifically targeted IT. The goal was to promote IT as a public skill that would improve socio-economic skills nationwide. Estonia built up their digital network through the creation of small networks with dedicated government workers and support from the private sector. The collaboration between both public and private sector proved tremendously in creating a digital state which collaborated effectively. Since all sectors were being digitized at the same time, they were able to rely on each other for support and collaboration, such as the simultaneous development of cybersecurity alongside the online banking sector. Much of Estonia’s success can be attributed to its young politicians who possessed the energy and drive to completely rebuild Estonia, the close networks already in place, and their decision to digitize right as the internet was entering the mainstream world. However, there are still aspects of Estonia’s success story that other countries can copy. 

Estonia focused on convincing their citizens of the benefits of digitalization early on by creating digitization projects specifically designed to make their citizens' lives easier; this helped to convince skeptics and united the population. The digital Estonian ID card was launched in 2002 with a digital signature in place to allow citizens to make legally-binding decisions remotely and use their digital signature to easily sign documents. When asked about his country’s success, Chief Information Officer of Estonia, Siim Sikkut, stated that “ Digital leadership needs to be continuous across different administrations. This also involves a deeper understanding of the need to educate not just the wider society, but also government officials behind the transformation.” He also stressed the importance of creating a streamlined and efficient system: “one of the most important factors that helped streamline the government structures, authorities and databases is  the once-only-principle which exists to this day. This means that any type of data related to an individual can only be collected by one specific institution, thereby eliminating duplicate data and bureaucracy.” Studying the principle factors behind Estonia’s success reveals that other Eastern European countries must first focus on creating transactional technologies that better their citizens' lives through transparent, cooperative, and efficient digital systems. 

The EU’s Future in Eastern Europe

Closing the digital divide between East and West also begs the question: What would a digitally united and equal European Union look like? There are a multitude of ways in which digital cooperation would improve the EU’s status both on the continent and internationally. The end of the digital divide would help unite EU member states and promote the overall stability and success of the European Union. It would ease the burden felt by states such as Germany, Finland, and Estonia, who currently possess strong digitized systems, and allow then to confidently invest in the CEE countries (Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). The CEE countries do not possess the same economic power and stability of the ‘Big Four (France, Germany, Italy, and Spain) who do not need to rely on digital innovation efforts to promote their economies and international investment. However, greater digital innovation would most certainly draw in international investment which would strengthen Eastern European member states and the EU by extension. 

The  European Union is considered by many to be the leader in data privacy regulation. The institution has set precedents through its legislation that have created global benchmarks through privacy regulation. Despite angering many American tech companies through their strict enforcement of data protection legislation, the EU has remained firm even in the face of outlash from Google over the Digital Markets Act which prevents Google and Apple from collecting data from different services to offer targeted ads without users’ consent.  By demanding data protection of their member states and the outside world, the EU has been able to shape the global standard through its creation of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) which has become the de facto global network. However, implementing greater digitization efforts in Eastern Europe would also provide the EU to ensure that their data protection regulations are more deeply ingrained throughout the continent and provide more opportunities to demonstrate the norm of implementing data privacy regulations in states with newly developing technologies. 

The past decade has severely weakened the European Union. Brexit, a damaged relationship with the US, China’s growing desire for tech domination, and now Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has damaged the EU’s internal and external reputation as a strong and powerful institution, but by solving the digital divide the EU would show the world the strength of their initiatives and their dedication to improving access to technology for citizens across all member states. Closing the digital divide does more than benefit the CEE countries, it also allows the EU the chance to redefine itself in the face of Russian aggression, Chinese domination, and American tech companies' anger over data privacy regulations.