The Soviet Time Capsule

Jay Ramesh

If you wanted to walk east from the Moldovan capital, Chisinau, to Ukraine, you’ll eventually reach the Dnieper river. As you cross the river, you might think you’re in a dream- a strange land that seems stuck 40 years in the past. A time capsule encompassing an entire region. You’ll see statues of Lenin, abandoned soviet factories, and military officers in Soviet uniforms driving around 1980’s trucks and saluting soldiers. And to top it all off, this strange land officially doesn’t even exist.

Welcome to Transnistria, a fully functioning Soviet time capsule. Buildings and cars from the 1980s dot the landscape while the Soviet hammer and sickle dot its flag. The breakaway-state even has its own national bank, passport, and currency. Although it declared its independence from Moldova in 1990, no UN members recognize its existence, including Russia, who sends it financial aid and even provides the state military forces.

This strange place arose from a conflict over language. Transnistria was linguistically split between Ukrainian, Moldovan, and Russian language speakers, so when Moldova declared independence and proclaimed the national language to be Moldovan, Transnistria rebelled and declared its independence. After a brief civil war, the region was granted autonomy under a ceasefire and remains de facto independent to this day.

Sheriff Holding is by far the most powerful corporation in the region. On November 29, 2020, the Renewal Party, heavily backed by Sheriff, secured 29 out of the country’s 33 parliament seats, and the company is already backing the president, Vadim Krasnoselski. The company owns supermarkets, gas stations, a tv channel, and even the stadium of Transnistria’s soccer team.

Recently elected Moldovan president Maia Sandu has publicly stated that one of her primary goals is to oversee the removal of Russian forces from Moldova. Though tensions haven’t flared in the region yet, this may be a long and difficult process, if at all possible. Despite having a fifth of the population of Moldova, Transnistria has an army more than double that of Moldova- 10,000-15,000 soldiers, supplemented by around 1,500 Russian troops. Additionally, Transnistria boasts a massive arms stockpile along with tanks and warplanes while Moldova lacks a single tank or warplane. Russian military forces also regularly drill with Transistrian forces, keeping the region prepared for any military situation.

Transnistria may not be officially recognized by any UN members, but it certainly has authority through brute force to enforce its own independence/autonomy. 40 years later, the region seems stuck in the 1980’s- a small piece of the Soviet Union still functioning to this day. As things may not change in the region anytime soon, those who travel from Chisinau to Ukraine will be able to step 40 years into the past whenever they cross through Transnistria- the state that technically doesn’t exist.

How America Should Be Responding in the Pacific and Beyond

Suhas Nannapaneni

With growing acknowledgment from Admiral Philip Davison, head of America’s Indo-Pacific Command (INDOPACOM) that China could “overmatch” US forces within five years, it has become ever more crucial that the US invests in indirect defensive measures in addition to traditional Pacific defense. 

Currently, Congress has authorized a $2.2bn fund for the Pacific Deterrence Initiative (PDI) which is far short of the $22.7bn that American commanders are asking for the next five years. Given these funding limits, the question becomes where to strategically place America’s troops, planes, ships, and missiles in order to deter further encroachment from Beijing. Although the US has many large bases in South Korea and Japan, China has an immense advantage in ballistic and cruise missiles. Currently, China has 1,250 ground-launches ballistic and cruise missiles with a range between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, whereas the US only has a conventional ballistic missile with a range between 70 and 300 kilometers. 

This disparity puts Taiwan, South Korea, Japan, and much of the Philippines within range of Chinese air strikes and forces the US to look further into Micronesia in order to establish securable large bases. Most notable, of course, would be Guam which INDOPACOM describes as “our most crucial operating location in the western Pacific”.  The American territory is distant enough from Chinese missiles but close enough to act as a springboard for bombers and other weapons. Furthermore, America could also set up bases in the nearby Palau and Marshall Islands. Although these islands are still at risk from Chinese cruise missiles fired from ships and submarines, INDOPACOM has requested to spend $4.4bn over the next six years to bolster the island’s air and missile defenses.

Despite America’s top brass recognizing the need to invest more in the Pacific, it is far from a given that America could victoriously face-off with China directly. Currently, China has the largest navy in the world with 350 ships and submarines in comparison to US Navy’s 293. Although the US outpaces China in tonnage (2:1) and aircraft carriers (10:1), China spends less than 1.5% of its GDP on defense, well below the NATO threshold. In a Pacific arms race, there are few guarantees on purely military grounds, 

This is why the US needs to also focus on the “gray zone”.  Namely, working with Asian allies to project force at critical maritime junctions and increased cybersecurity measures as it is sure to become a crucial component in modern warfare. 

Firstly, America must make use of its strategic allies in Japan, South Korea, India, and even the Philippines. With India sizably increasing its Navy’s budget, it is important to make strong pacts with the nation that has control of the Andaman Islands. These islands control the entrance into the Straits of Malacca, perhaps the most crucial of geographic chokepoints for China’s dependence on Middle Eastern Oil. Furthermore, defensive access to international waters surrounding South Korea, Japan, India, and the Philippines, in addition to our own territories in Micronesia would give Western powers a distinct advantage in blockading China’s growing Navy. 

Domestically, in the face of China’s hack of thousands of Microsoft customers on the heels of Russia’s own hack, it is clear that the US must invest in more formidable regulations as well as cyber defense. In the new age of warfare, when cyberattacks can shut down electric grids, internet servers, and government communications, network security is vital in preparing a potent defense.

A Tryst with Destiny

Nehru’s Domestic Political Legacy

Rohan Rajesh

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru played an outsized influence in modern India’s history. He was a key member of the Indian National Congress (INC) during India’s freedom struggle and a close friend of Mahatma Gandhi. He served as India’s first Prime Minister and laid the foundation for secular democracy in India. Today, however, his legacy is questioned, particularly by supporters of the ruling Hindu-nationalist party. He is variously blamed for India’s Partition, India’s poor post-independence economic growth, and for losing territory to China. Some of this criticism is warranted, but for a man of Nehru’s stature, nuanced analysis is required. In this article, I will analyze Nehru’s domestic political legacy in laying the foundation for Indian democracy. In future articles, I will examine Nehru’s economic legacy and his foreign policy legacy.

Background

Nehru was born in Allahabad to a Kashmiri Pandit family. His father, Motilal Nehru, was a prominent lawyer and an INC politician (he, like Jawaharlal Nehru, served as its President). Jawaharlal Nehru became a barrister (where he served as an advocate in the Allahabad High Court) and rose up the ranks of the INC. He returned to India from England around the same time as Mohandas Gandhi. The two would transform the INC from an organization of elite Indians to a more representative institution, advocating for Indian Home Rule and (after the 1919 Amritsar Massacre) Indian independence. Nehru’s incredible command of the English language made him an effective negotiator, and he successfully internationalized the independence movement.

World War II and Partition

When the Second World War broke out, Britain forced India to join the war effort. While Nehru and other Congressmen opposed fascism and Japanese imperialism, they were outraged by the fact that Indians were never consulted before being made to join a war of imperialism. Memories of the First World War (in which Indians provided aid and service but were given repression in return) led the INC to launch the Quit India Movement, which essentially demanded that Britain give India independence before India would join the war effort. The British government responded by jailing INC members throughout the country. During this time, Mohammad Ali Jinnah and his All-India Muslim League supported the British and canvassed support among Muslims for the creation of a homeland for India’s Muslims – Pakistan. 

When the war ended, the jailed INC members were released. But the political landscape they were used to had changed significantly. A war-torn Britain meant that freedom for India was not a matter of if but when, so the INC and Gandhi had lost much of their grassroots appeal and moral sway among Muslims and Indians in general.  Eventually, a combination of these factors and many more led to the Partition of British India into Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan (If you want to learn more about why and how Partition happened, I highly recommend this book). Freedom had come at a huge cost. 

Post-Partition Crises

As a result of Partition, millions of Muslims fled to Pakistan, and millions of Hindus and Sikhs fled to India. During this unprecedented population transfer, millions were slaughtered, raped, and abducted in a communal frenzy. Neither India nor Pakistan knew what to do with the situation. The situation was complicated by the fact that hundreds of millions of Muslims remained in India. However, Hindu and Sikh refugees, having barely survived atrocities by Muslims in Pakistan, came into India and began baying for the blood of Muslims. Hindu-nationalist groups began canvassing support among Hindus for the upcoming elections, and the communists were making inroads in West Bengal and in the princely state of Hyderabad (which was annexed by India in 1948).

Nehru and his government had to manage this situation while also integrating India’s princely states and drafting a new constitution. During the British Raj, Britain directly controlled only some of the territory of India. A significant portion was under the control of nominally autonomous princes. These were known as the princely states. When independence was achieved, there was confusion as to the fate of the princely states. Some assumed they would become independent nations, but Indian nationalists were keen on integrating these states. Some were extremely tiny, landlocked, and/or depended on India for their economic survival, and these states were easily integrated. Three states posed an issue for India: Kashmir, Junagadh, and Hyderabad. If you want to learn more about these disputes, read this article of mine.

A New Constitution and Old Concerns

In terms of the Constitution, similar to the US process, Indian leaders had to balance a variety of competing interests. While India would become a democracy, there were niggling questions on the official language, the role of religion, and, of course, caste. Nehru wanted a strong, centralized state to enable his ambitious economic program. At the same time, Nehru was a committed democrat and secularist who wanted to include all Indians in the political process to avoid another partition. After years of deliberation and compromise, the Indian Constitution was adopted on January 26th, 1950, and India became a republic. This was a truly fascinating experiment. Never before had a land with so much diversity and poverty been successfully assembled into a democratic republic. Many observers (particularly in the West) predicted that a hundred new countries would be created, that Hindu supremacy would overpower the government, or that the military – the one national force – would reign.

Identity Wars

Indeed, India was racked by some of these issues. Just eight years after the Constitution was adopted, the Nagas of Northeast India were in open revolt. Linguistic minorities were demanding the reorganization of the provinces along linguistic lines. In the same vein, the Sikhs were demanding the reorganization of Punjab to create a Sikh-majority state while the tribals (known as Adivasis) demanded a new state, Jharkhand, to be carved out of Bihar for them. While Dalits and Adivasis were given reservations and protections in the Constitution, caste discrimination persisted, particularly in the villages. Conservative Hindus demanded a ban on cow slaughter and opposed any attempt to reform “Hindu law.” 

Nehru was adept at balancing these demands and using his own personal popularity to gain legitimacy and political agency. He gave in to the creation of linguistic states but launched the military against separatism in the Northeast. He opposed the creation of a Sikh state because he saw the consequences of religious borders in Partition (a Sikh-majority Punjab was later created in 1966 after his death). Jharkhand would only be created in 2000. He also shepherded the Hindu Code Bills through Parliament and over the objections of conservative Hindus, which reformed Hindu law to promote women’s rights and limit the influence of caste. 

Importantly, Nehru also gave Muslims a significant voice and representation in the government. Muslims were very insecure in this partitioned India, having lost all of their provinces and a significant portion of their population to Pakistan. They no longer had reserved seats in Parliament (although to be fair, many Muslim leaders supported ending this reservation to prevent further religious separatism). Their loyalties were already being questioned, and events in Pakistan did not help. In 1950, anti-Hindu massacres broke out in East Pakistan (today Bangladesh), leading to another refugee crisis. The refugees brought with them reports of Muslim atrocities. Nehru was instrumental in calming communal tensions and keeping India together. Significantly, Nehru also postponed reforming Muslim personal law. Nehru wanted to do so but recognized the insecurities of India’s Muslims. Unfortunately, some of the discriminatory aspects of Muslim personal law have persisted seventy years later and continue to be used as fodder for Hindu nationalists as examples of “pseudo-secularism” and “minority appeasement.”

Lapses of Judgment

Although Nehru was a committed democrat and secularist, there were lapses of judgment. He did not get rid of some of the colonial tools of repression, particularly the charge of sedition. The charge has frequently been used by successive governments to muzzle activists and opposition leaders. In 1957, the state of Kerala elected the first non-INC government when the Communist Party of India (CPI) formed the government after winning 60 out of 126 seats and allying with five independents. The CPI began implementing an ambitious agrarian and educational reform plan. However, Nehru used the anti-communist backlash and violence as an excuse to dismiss the state government (yes, the central government of India can do this), setting another undemocratic precedent for future governments.

Conclusion

Overall, this article does not do justice to the truly daunting task that faced Nehru in leading an independent India. Consider the current process of integration in the European Union. The UK has already left the EU, and this happened without an overbearing central government, communal tensions, and grinding poverty. Indeed, India in 1947 more closely resembled Europe in the Thirty Years’ War of the 17th century. Despite the predictions of those naysayers, India has remained a single territorial unity, has continued to have free and fair elections with peaceful transfers of power respected by all political parties, and has never been subject to a military coup.

Belt and Road in East Africa

Robert Cole

Drivers along almost any major road into or out of Kenya’s capital city of Nairobi will notice two things: huge, heavily guarded construction projects focused on a new railroad, and billboards professing the close relationship between Kenya and China that made said project possible. This project represents “the biggest investment in Kenya since its independence” and is part of China’s global Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The initiative uses Chinese loans and sponsored construction projects to increase Chinese diplomatic ties abroad and build a global commercial presence with China at its core. Chinese BRI projects stretch from Piraeus in Greece to Maputo in Mozambique to Jarkarta in Indonesia and constitute one of the largest foreign investment projects ever undertaken. Though it is truly global in scale, few places show the potential positives and negatives of the initiative so clearly as East Africa. 

The potential for benefit is certainly enormous. Africa has largely been passed over for foreign direct investment, after spending decades under the colonial thumb of western governments, more focused on resource extraction than building civilian infrastructure. As such, Chinese money aimed at a truly “win-win” scenario at the People’s Republic claims could be the catalyst for a new age of African development. Chinese investors, backed by their government, have a much more significant appetite for risk than their western counterparts and are willing to invest in countries like Uganda and Rwanda where the political climate is seen as a deal-breaker by the US and its allies. In Kenya, China has become one of the largest job creators in the country, putting money in the pockets of workers and thereby helping to expand the nation’s middle class. Greater connectivity with the world spurred by BRI projects would also allow African countries to increase their export economy and increase economic activity. Infrastructure that speeds the transport of goods from the interior to coastal ports would increase the comparative advantage of African producers and make them more competitive on the world stage. 

The Belt and Road Initiative is not, however, a perfect system and elements of it have been widely deemed as abusive toward the target countries, particularly in Africa. According to reports from the New York Times and several other Kenyan and international outlets, Chinese-funded projects are rife with accusations of persistent racism directed at Kenyan employees by Chinese managers. On a larger scale, there are concerns that China is engaging in “debt trap diplomacy” wherein it makes loans to poorer countries it knows they cannot hope to pay back, eventually seizing port facilities and other infrastructure as collateral. Indeed, East African countries have seen a sharp and concerning increase in debt owed to China, with Kenya and Djibouti both at risk of losing major port facilities to the Chinese government. Another risk comes from Chinese domestic industry itself. Though disputed, there is some evidence that China is engaged in large-scale dumping of industrial supplies like cement, glass, and steel into the African market in an effort to release domestic supply in light of falling domestic demand. African producers cannot compete on price with Chinese dumped goods, and fold under this new flood of supply. In Kenya for example, cement exports to other parts of East Africa fell by nearly 40% in 2017 thanks to Chinese dumping. As such, Chinese business practices in Africa run the risk of crushing local industry if it continues to use the region as a dumping ground to support its own flagging domestic economy. 

On balance then, Belt and Road presents a challenge to the US and its allies, but also an opportunity. Refusing to engage with Chinese projects at all will only serve to drive countries closer to China and misses out on a key opportunity for cooperation. However, the US and other democracies should be wary of letting China set the tone of such projects, which often double as propaganda for its authoritarian model of government. On the whole, however, the initiative is still very young and its risks and benefits are far from certain. Global leaders should keep a close eye on the program and develop comprehensive plans to counter any harms BRI may generate, without becoming carried away by more hysterical predictions. Most importantly, more consideration should be given to the underlying problems that are leaving many countries in East Africa with nowhere to turn except China and how the international order has failed to solve them. 

A Linguistic Tour of the Indian Subcontinent

Rohan Rajesh

The fact that the Indian subcontinent is a diverse land is well-known. Every major religion has a presence in the subcontinent, and each region has multiple ethnic groups with their own food, culture, literary traditions, etc. But many countries have this type of diversity, and globalization and migration are only increasing their heterogeneity. What sets the Indian subcontinent apart is language. The sheer scale of the subcontinent’s linguistic diversity makes one question how these countries have managed to stay together. Indeed, almost all of the subcontinent’s countries have faced linguistic strife, whether it be demands for recognition and statehood to separatism and civil war. Nonetheless, linguistic diversity, when well-managed, is great not only for that country but the world. To understand these issues, let us take a linguistic tour of the Indian subcontinent.

First, we need to understand the concept of language families. Just as related species can be grouped into families (ex: Felidae is the family of cats), related languages are grouped into language families. The largest language family in the world is the Indo-European language family, with more than 3.2 billion native speakers. This family includes most of the languages of Europe (including English), Iran, and the north of the Indian subcontinent. The Indo-European family is also far larger than the second-largest family – the Sino-Tibetan language family – which includes most languages spoken in China, Tibet, and Myanmar and has around 1.4 billion native speakers. 

To understand the subcontinent’s linguistic diversity, let us compare it to Europe. The vast majority of Europeans speak Indo-European languages.  These include speakers of English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, German, Italian, Russian, Greek, Armenian, Romani, etc. There are also significant populations who speak Uralic and Turkic languages. Uralic languages in Europe include Finnish, Hungarian, and Estonian. The Turkic languages in Europe include Turkish and Azerbaijani (which is considered by some to be a dialect of Turkish). There are also languages spoken by a relatively small population, including Maltese (a Semitic language descended from Arabic), Basque, and the various languages of the Caucasus region, like Georgian, Chechen, etc. Basque is interesting because it is a language isolate, meaning it is not related to any known language family.

Like Europe, the majority of the Indian subcontinent speaks Indo-European languages. However, unlike in Europe, Indo-European languages face stiffer competition from speakers of Dravidian languages, Sino-Tibetan languages, Austroasiatic languages, and Kra-Dai languages. In the subcontinent, the languages of the Indo-European family are largely in the Indo-Iranian sub-family (which, by a number of languages, is the largest branch of the Indo-European family). That subfamily mostly includes Indic languages descended from Sanskrit (ex: Hindi-Urdu, Bengali, Punjabi, Nepali, Marathi, Gujarati, Kashmiri, Sindhi, Sinhalese, Dhivehi, etc.) and Iranian languages (ex: Pashto and Balochi). With the exception of Sinhalese (the dominant language in Sri Lanka) and Dhivehi (the dominant language of the Maldives), most of these languages are concentrated in the northern part of the subcontinent. 

Dravidian languages dominate in South India. These include classical languages (Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, and Malayalam) and several tribal languages like the phonetically fascinating Toda language. Bucking this geographic trend is the Brahui language, a Dravidian language spoken in Baluchistan, in the northwest part of the subcontinent in western Pakistan. There are also pockets of Dravidian languages spoken in eastern India.

Speakers of Sino-Tibetan, Austroasiatic, and Kra-Dai languages consist of around 3% of the subcontinent, but given the subcontinent’s large population, that is around 40 million people. The Sino-Tibetan languages are mostly spoken in the Himalayan region and the northeast of India. They include Tibetan, Dzongkha (the predominant language of Bhutan), Ladakhi, Balti, Sikkimese, Boro, and Kokborok, among many others. The subcontinent’s Austroasiatic languages are predominantly spoken in the east and northeast of the subcontinent and are related to Vietnamese and Khmer. In India, Santali and Khasi are the major Austroasiatic languages. Finally, one should mention that there was once a Kra-Dai language (a family that includes Thai and Lao) spoken in the Northeast known as Ahom. The Ahom language (having been supplanted by the Indic Assamese language) is considered dead, but there are ongoing revival efforts in the Ahom community.

While Europe has one language isolate, the subcontinent has several, but they have only a few speakers spread among tribal communities across the region. The most notable is probably Burushaski, which is spoken in the mountains of northern Pakistan. There are also several languages spoken in the Andaman Islands, which are administered by India, many of which have become or are on the verge of extinction.

Despite the incredible variety of languages in the subcontinent, contact between speakers of different languages has led to certain features spreading across the region. Two features that bind many of these languages across language families include a Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) word order (English has Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) word order) and, most famously, retroflex consonants (pronounced like a “t” or “d” in a stereotypical Indian English accent), which are used in languages as different as Burushaski, Kashmiri, Malayalam, Pashto, and Santali. Thus, some linguists describe the Indian subcontinent as a sprachbund (German for a “language alliance”), which is a region with common linguistic features that transcend language family. 

Of course, there are exceptions. Kashmiri has a predominantly Verb-Second (V2) word order, like German. Many of the languages of the Northeast (including the Indic Assamese, the Austroasiatic Khasi, the Kra-Dai Ahom, and various Sino-Tibetan languages) lack retroflex consonants and actually form their own sprachbund within the subcontinent! 

Further, most of the subcontinent’s languages have been heavily influenced by foreign languages, like Arabic, Persian, Portuguese, and (of course) English. Thus, the Tamil and the Hindi-speaker refer to their lawyers as Vakils (from Arabic), and most Indians call their keys chavi, chabi, chabhi, etc. (from the Portuguese chave). Meanwhile, many (especially the educated) will liberally sprinkle English in colloquial speech. A charitable person may say this is a natural result of the influence of English as an imperial language and a language of education. An uncharitable person will say it's because many on the subcontinent (my family included) do not study their own language intensively and substitute English words when they don't know the word in their native language, and this is due to the perception of English as a language of economic opportunity. Regardless, do not be surprised if you encounter this “code-switching” in phrases like rombo thanks (“Many thanks” in colloquial Tamil) or mujhe call karo (“Call me” in colloquial Hindi-Urdu).

// Note: It is important to point out that historically, Indian languages have themselves significantly influenced the vocabularies of English via the Silk Roads. Many terms for plant-based products in English come from Indian languages, often via Persian, Arabic, and Romance intermediaries: aubergine, ginger, indigo, mango, orange, pepper, sugar, etc. 

In English (particularly British English), there are a lot of terms we use on a regular basis with roots in Indian languages. Some words were imported directly from Indian languages (some of which were, in turn, borrowed from Persian and Arabic). In contrast, others are native but came into English via Persian, Arabic, and even Japanese. Some examples include avatar, calico, cashmere, catamaran, cot, cushy, guru, karma, khaki, pajama, pundit, shampoo, shawl, thug, yoga, and Zen, among others. These examples are a testament to Greater India’s significant cultural impact worldwide over the ages. //

As with the rest of the world, there are fears across the subcontinent that this incredible diversity is being steadily erased. As mentioned above, many in India resist the influence of Hindi. In Pakistan, the same fears occur with the dominance of Urdu. Throughout the subcontinent, the specter of English looms large. Civil wars have been fought and genocides perpetrated over language policy in Bangladesh (when it was East Pakistan) and Sri Lanka. South Indians decried the “imposition” of Hindi as the sole official language in the 1960s, leading to the retention of English as an official language.

However, the major languages, which have at least ten million speakers and are official in a state or province, are unlikely to disappear. It is the many tribal, unrecognized languages like Burushaski, the Andamanese languages, Toda, and hundreds of others that are at great risk. Unfortunately, there are not many solutions. How do you convince parents to teach their children their mother tongue when languages like English and Hindi-Urdu will improve their child’s chance of having a better livelihood? The easiest solution would be to make learning these languages mandatory for native speakers, but that would generate (and has historically generated) significant resentment. After all, why should my children have to learn their mother tongue, English, and Hindi when Hindi-speaking children only have to learn their mother tongue and English. 

I believe the best solution would be for everybody to learn their mother tongue, English (which is the de facto link language of the subcontinent), and a language from a different language family. This would preserve endangered languages and encourage every group to learn about each other's cultures, reducing divisions. In an ideal world in which politicians do not opportunistically use linguistic identity to divide voters and get elected, this would have been implemented across the region. For the loss of language is a loss of a culture, and the loss of a culture is a loss of the very soul of humanity.

Arab-Israeli ties are normalizing, but there remains one important hurdle

Suhas Nannapaneni

With the decline of pan-Arabism, normalization of Arab-Israeli relations, rise of a dangerous Iran, and exit of the United States from the Middle East, the next decade will likely see a monumental shift in the geopolitics of the Middle East – specifically regarding Israel and Saudi Arabia’s not-so-secret backdoor alliance. However, even if the two nations’ governments can formalize an alliance, it does not solve the issue of the extremely embittered population of Arab countries who still refuse to recognize Israel.

In August 2020, the U.A.E announced a deal to allow regular air travel and diplomatic communications with Israel. This was followed by similar announcements from Bahrain, Oman, Sudan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia. Although each nation has specific reasons for easing relations, there are overlapping factors relevant to Arab-Israeli relations at large. Namely, pan-Arabism has declined in legitimacy and influence at the Palestinian’s expense resulting in the priority of bilateral diplomacy over multinational coalitions.

Oman began accommodating Israeli lawmakers, Bahrain hosted Israeli business delegations, Qatar worked with Israel to supply aid to the Gaza Strip, and Saudi Arabia acquired Israeli weapons. 

Another factor that has fostered better relations is the rise of Iran following the Arab Spring. No single nation could contain Iran which has vested interests in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen. This motivated a backdoor-alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and by extension, the other Persian Gulf States. 

However, as is often the case with modern geopolitics, the potential for unprecedented levels of transregional commercial activity is just as important as national security concerns. The prime example would, of course, be the Belt and Road Initiative, but a similar vein of geopolitics is being practiced within the Middle East as well. Here, two unprecedented economic projects reveal further pressure on Arab-Israeli relations. 

The first is the Tracks for Regional Peace Initiative which was announced in 2019 by the Israeli foreign office and endorsed by then-President Donald Trump. This Initiative plans to create a transregional railway to further connect the trade of Europe and the Persian Gulf, bypassing the more tumultuous maritime routes of the Strait of Hormuz and the Strait of Bab al-Mandab. Specifically, the rail would link the Israeli port city of Haifa to Jordan and onwards into Saudi Arabia. Here, the new supply chains would connect to the ports of Bahrain, Oman, and the U.A.E. Only in Jordan and Oman does additional rail need to be constructed to link the hubs of the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf – which means the initiative could be completed in a relatively short period. Israeli analysts believe that by 2030, $250bn would travel on the tracks each way, contributing much to the non-oil economic sectors of the Persian Gulf. 

The second major economic initiative is the Saudi-planned megacity of Neom situated at the entrance of the Gulf of Aqaba which comes with a cost of $500bn. It seeks to not only tap into the trade which passes through the Red Sea, but to expand into high-tech industries following the blueprint of Israel. The purpose of the mega-city is to propel the Saudis into the post-oil era, earning it the highest priority from Mohammed bin Salman.

However, Neom also seeks to create connections with Egypt and Jordan across the Straits of Tiran. Part of Neom’s city plan is the construction of a 10-km bridge across this trait. However, the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt recognized the waters of the Gulf of Aqaba and the Straits of Tiran as international waters. Any infrastructure that crosses and blocks the straits would require a rewriting of the treaty. So, this means that the completion of the megacity of Neom would require Saudi Arabia to formally recognize Israel in order to negotiate – a major step towards normalizing Arab-Israeli relations. 

Despite the national security concerns and common ground created by economic initiatives, there exists a major hurdle – public opinion in Arabian countries. In a poll conducted by the Arab Opinion Index (2019-2020) which asked how citizens would react to their country diplomatically recognizing Israel, there was an overwhelming majority who opposed the consideration. In Lebanon, 94% opposed. In Jordan, 93%. Egypt, 85%. Qatar and Kuwait, 88%. And Saudi Arabia, 65%.

With heightened sensitivity towards popular discontent and the outbreak of multiple civil wars since the Arab Spring, Arab countries realize that a normalization of Arab-Israeli relations cannot simply happen between government officials behind closed doors. Whether they like it or not, Arab governments require some commitment from their people which will shape to be one of the largest domestic issues in Arab countries in the new decade.

Bhutanese Refugee Populations in Nepal and the United States

James McClure

As a result of government discrimination of the Nepali people in the 1980s, approximately 100,000 Nepali-speaking Bhutanese fled Bhutan by 1993. While the majority of the refugees have been resettled in either Nepal or the United States, up to 18,000 refugees remain displaced in camps as of 2015, according to a United Nations report. The unsanitary conditions and lack of access to adequate medical care within refugee camps facilitates rapid disease spread. When refugees are resettled in a nation granting them asylum, there is potential for pathogens acquired within camps to be introduced to susceptible hosts in the new nation. A study from 2019 highlights that multidrug-resistant bacteria were found in resettled Bhutanese refugees in Ohio. According to the conclusions of these researchers, “population mobility imposes threats to the distribution of antimicrobial drug-resistant organisms”. When refugees lack proper access to healthcare in spaces of transition such as refugee camps, there is risk of the introduction of infectious diseases to novel environments.  

According to an Infectious Disease Surveillance study of six Bhutanese refugee camps from February 1991 through June 1996, leading causes of death within the camps consisted of “measles, diarrhea, and acute respiratory infections”. While the burden of these communicable diseases was significant within the camps, it is also possible that these diseases were introduced to communities that the refugees inhabited after being resettled. Researchers found that disease control interventions, such as routine measles vaccination and Vitamin A supplementation, reduced mortality rates by 75% less than 4 months after implementation. By improving conditions within camps, disease spread amongst refugees and potentially non-refugee populations was greatly reduced. 

Film Review: Quo Vadis, Aida?

Emma Holmes

The official start of the Bosnian War was on 6 April 1992 and the official end of the war was 14 December 1995. It included the longest siege of a capital city in modern warfare, the Siege of Sarajevo, which started on 5 April 1992 and lasted until after the war on 29 February 1996. The Bosnian Serb (for more background information on tensions within Bosnia and Herzegovina please read my previous post about nationalism) soldiers, with backing by the JNA (Yugoslav People’s Army AKA Serbia), stationed themselves on the mountains surrounding the valley and rained down bullets on the defenseless civilians below. Their goal was not only the death of Bosniaks and Croats, it was the complete erasure of these ethnic groups. Why else would they have burned the National Library at the very beginning of their siege, destroying countless ancient manuscripts?

Cultural destruction did not end, or even begin, with the Siege of Sarajevo. The Bosnian Serbs burned down mosques, churches, and other libraries throughout the country. Genocide was widespread, with the most well-known location of it in the United Nations “safe zone” of Srebrenica. The Srebrenica Genocide occurred in July 1995, and within roughly two weeks, the Serbs under the command of General Mladić had killed over 8,000 people -- the majority of whom were Bosniak men.

Quo Vadis, Aida?, a film shortlisted for the Oscars, tells the story of the Srebrenica Genocide through the lens of Aida, an English teacher turned United Nations translator. As the Serbs approach the city, we see the civilians rush to the UN base hoping for the safety that was promised them. The UN Commander stationed at the base requests an airstrike only to find his superiors on holiday and unable to provide any support. Aida spends the first half of the movie trying to get her husband and two sons inside the base (it had closed after a small amount, leaving thousands sitting outside through the night), then trying to find a way for them to safely leave as the Bosnian Serbs approached with no sign of stopping and no sign of the UN stepping in. 

Eventually, a commander in the Serb military approaches the base and demands to be let inside. The UN lets him and a few of his soldiers in the base to see whether it is only civilians or if there are any soldiers. The UN does not disarm them. A few scenes later we see the men sent on one group of buses in one direction and the women and children are sent in another direction. They know there is little chance that they will see each other again. Mothers try to dress their sons as daughters. The UN helps keep the peace, and more, as the refugees are loaded onto the buses.

Even with a language barrier (I watched the movie on a Bosnian website with Bosnian subtitles to translate the Dutch and English and nothing to translate the Bosnian), I was able to understand what was happening through prior knowledge, what language I could understand, but mainly through the superb acting. Aida’s desperation as she searched for a way to save her family. The hopelessness shown by the UN commander. The fear of the citizens of Srebrenica. The acting is not the only phenomenal aspect of this movie, the storytelling and filmmaking are too.

One aspect Quo Vadis, Aida? really excelled at showcasing in the Bosnian War is how Bosnian Serbs are not foreign invaders. These are neighbors that they knew before the war and have to live with afterward. In a couple of the scenes, we see Aida interacting with a Serb soldier who seems to be a former student of hers, he even knows her family as he asks how, and more specifically where, they are.

It does not end there, the most powerful scenes were at the end of the movie. Aida visits her old apartment in Srebrenica to find the same commander who entered the UN base living there. She teaches English to his son. We see Aida walking through what appears to be perhaps a gym with the remains of victims laid out on the floor. Wives, sisters, and daughters walk around hoping to recognize the belongings of their deceased loved ones. Then we are watching a school play and in the crowd are both perpetrators and victims of the Srebrenica genocide, watching their children together.

While Quo Vadis, Aida? is only a brief overview of the Srebrenica Genocide, it is a powerful message to those who continue to deny its existence and are given platforms on which to do so. The victims of the Srebrenica Genocide are not forgotten.

More links if you would like to learn more about the Srebrenica Genocide and Quo Vadis, Aida?:

Remembering Srebrenica: https://www.srebrenica.org.uk/

Interview between Angelina Jolie and Jasmila Zbanic (director of Quo Vadis, Aida?): https://time.com/5944790/angelina-jolie-jasmila-zbanic-quo-vadis-aida/

A review in Foreign Policy Magazine on Quo Vadis, Aida?: https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/02/27/quo-vadis-aida-best-foreign-film-oscar-shortlist-bosnia-srebrenica-massacre-genocide/

Photos from Srebrenica: https://apnews.com/article/ec01765d17e8c27ead9c3f3ea6e6ca36

The Human Rights Watch report from October 1995: https://www.hrw.org/report/1995/10/15/fall-srebrenica-and-failure-un-peacekeeping/bosnia-and-herzegovina#_ftn1

The War Powers Resolution

Joshua O’Brien

[The Congress shall have Power…] To Declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and Make Rules Concerning Captures on Land and Water

         U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States

         U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

On February 25, 2021, the United States carried out airstrikes in eastern Syria, on targets associated with Iranian-backed militias. The strikes were carried out in response to the rocketing of American coalition personnel in Erbil, Iraq ten days prior. The strategic wisdom of the strikes is debatable, though they seem to be fairly proportional as a response action. But the bigger debate in Washington is not about the strike itself, but the Constitutional and legal mechanisms behind it.

The Constitutional excerpts at the beginning of this post are the origin of this debate. The President is the commander-in-chief, but only Congress can declare war. So…what about military actions short of war? Following heightened involvement in Vietnam, Congress created the War Powers Resolution to answer this question. Passed in 1973, over President Nixon’s veto, the War Powers Resolution requires that the President notify Congress of any military action within 48 hours and forbids commitments for more than 60 days. For engagements exceeding these parameters, Congress is to provide either a declaration of war (which it has not done since the Second World War), or an Authorization for Use of Military Force.

Last week, Congressional representatives complained that they had not been sufficiently notified of the Syrian strike, as required by the Resolution. Their complaints put the Resolution into the spotlight once again. The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since its inception. Presidents will formally abide by its terms, but often assert that they do not have the constitutional requirement to do so. Congress asserts that the Resolution is valid. The Supreme Court has never provided an opinion, as no cases involving the Resolution have been adjudicated before it. It is likely to remain untested indefinitely, in part because neither Presidents nor Congresses are eager to risk curtailments to their war authority.

So, the War Powers Resolution continues, contentiously. Though it complicates the constitutional command authority, it does force the President and Congress to confer on protracted matters of foreign policy, or at the least engage the dissenting opinions of Congress before the use of force. It might be inelegant, and perhaps harmful to credibility, but it does force the democratic system to engage in debates on what could otherwise be one of the more autocratic tools of foreign policy. Or…at the very least, it forces debate on the constitution. To be determined if anyone in Congress will meaningfully dissent to the Syria strike.

Another Day, Another Air Strike

Jay Ramesh

Syrian dictator Bashar-al Assad condemned US air strikes on Thursday, Feb 25, urging the US to not adhere to the “law of the jungle”. However, it appears that Biden has already marked his territory.

As catchy as the title would have potentially sounded, the air strikes were carried out by piloted F-15E Strike Eagles, not drones. Precision-guided munitions destroyed 9 facilities in Syria near the Iraqi border that Hezbollah and other Iranian-backed groups had been using as supply depots. The strikes were in retaliation for a series of rocket attacks on the city of Erbil, Iraq last week. The rockets struck a heavily defended air base within a civilian airport, killing a US contractor and injuring several other American military personnel.

Regarding the airstrikes, Pentagon press secretary John Kirby said, “The operation sends an unambiguous message: President Biden will act to protect American and coalition personnel,”. Several US coalition partners, members of Congress, and Russia were all notified before the strikes, yet the attack raises several decades-long questions regarding presidential authority to authorize such strikes.

So what does it all mean?

Internationally, it means that Biden has asserted early on that he’s willing to practice the same forms of interventionism the Obama and Trump administrations practiced, albeit with more restraint. Biden has announced that he does not want to escalate tensions with Iran, but the strikes served as a warning that attacks on US military interests, as well as US allies, should expect consequences and retaliatory deterrence.

At home… well, it’s a bit more complicated.

The Trump administration wrestled with Congress and bi-partisan lobbies over questions regarding presidential authority to launch such strikes. Kirby cited Article II of the US Constitution and Article 51 of the UN charter as authority for carrying out retaliatory air strikes, framing it as a defensive strike to protect US personnel, but Congress has bigger fish they’d like to fry.

In a rare example of non-party solidarity (and accountability), many Democrat leaders spoke out against the strikes, holding Biden to the same standards they held Trump to. Senators Bernie Sanders, Tim Kaine, and even Republican Senator Rand Paul all voiced decades-long concerns over Presidential authority in military actions. 

The debate stems from a day we can Never Forget: a provision that expanded the presidential War Powers Act in the wake of the 9/11 attacks and the Iraq war. This expansion of presidential authority has enabled the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations to become infamous for launching drone strikes in foreign countries against hostile military targets, with civilians oftentimes being caught in between.

The Democratic dissent within the party is significant as, although it’s not entirely on progressive-establishment lines, it’s a chapter in a larger story about a struggle between progressive and the establishment factions of the Democratic party. Instead of falling in line as has been the norm for several decades, this may be one of the first rifts in a theme we saw during the Trump administration- party members sticking to values over larger party interests. Virtuous as it may be, Republican deviation during the Trump administration led to policy failures and gridlock, so it’s important to watch Congress and see if a similar break occurs and impedes policy agendas within the Democratic party.

Vaccine Diplomacy

Joshua O’Brien

It is no surprise that the national and international crisis of this pandemic will require national and international policy to correct. This includes vaccines. Vaccine nationalism is a huge problem that world health and trade authorities warn will cost global safety from future mutations, and prolonged harm to the economy. This is not to mention the moral and ethical harm of refusing cooperative policy in the pandemic. The issue of vaccine nationalism has been addressed to some degree by the ACT Accelerator and its fourth pillar, COVAX, which is working to fund and provide vaccines to non-Western countries. 

But far more insidious than vaccine nationalism is vaccine diplomacy. Vaccine diplomacy sounds like a wonderful idea, but the term is misleading. Vaccine diplomacy is less about creating global policy, and more about using vaccines to advance political and security strategies. Recently, India and China have made use of vaccine diplomacy to strategically provide their own domestically produced vaccines to strategically important countries. China has sent vaccines to partners in Sub-Saharan Africa and even Serbia. India has sent doses to Nepal and Sri Lanka, both in a strategic calculation to offset China. 

On one hand, this diplomacy seems like a responsible effort to protect developing countries from vaccine nationalism. On the other, I shudder to consider the political and moral ramifications as vaccine diplomacy is worked through Foreign Ministries, rather than Geneva. COVID-19 vaccines, vital to ending the acute phase of the worst pandemic in a century, should not be issued on a grand strategy agenda in Beijing, New Delhi, Washington, or elsewhere. It is obvious that vaccines are a moral imperative far above political consideration, and that an effective diplomatic effort to protect countries against vaccine nationalism would be a multilateral effort in Geneva, rather than a bilateral one between capitals. Though I am not optimistic, I hope that states employing such political considerations will redirect their efforts to assisting the World Health Organization and the COVAX initiative instead.

Rewriting Hong Kong’s History

Jennings Dixon

Although I’m not personally a historian, I do know that the way in which history is told is hardly ever objective. Historians tend to inject their own biases and opinions, and it’s our job as readers to pull out the subjectivity and evaluate it. Sometimes that’s difficult to do, particularly when you’re in fear of a government that could punish you for being too critical. That’s what students and teachers in Hong Kong now face as their history is getting rewritten.

Maybe sometime soon I’ll write a post about Hong Kong’s contemporary history, because it really is fascinating. Their relationship with the UK and China is pretty unique. But for now, all you need to know is that Hong Kong is technically under a “one country, two systems” agreement with China, which means that they should be operating without Beijing's influence. Unfortunately for Hong Kong, China is a bit too nosy.

A lot of things have happened in the past decade or so that has severely restricted Hong Kong’s autonomy, bringing it a lot closer to China and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The newest way in trying to evaporate Hong Kong's autonomy is by rewriting its history. A new book called The Chronicles of Hong Kong has been published. It goes back 7,000 years and covers everything there is about Hong Kong. Remember when I said that historians like to inject their own biases into their writings? The Chronicles of Hong Kong is certainly no exception.

The content is inherently anti-Hong Kong. It calls Hong Kong’s 2014 pro-democracy protests “illegal” while praising the late 1960s pro-communist protests. It stresses that since 1997 when the UK relinquished its power over Hong Kong, that Hong Kong is a part of China. Not autonomous like it should be, but a unit of the CCP. The book’s goal according to some is to erase a separate Hong Kong identity, and to ensure allegiance to Beijing.

A powerful way to eradicate culture is to assimilate its people. Get rid of their unique heritage by feeding them the message that the oppressor’s culture is their own. This is scary, not only for Hong Kong’s culture but also for its democracy and shrinking autonomy. The Chronicles of Hong Kong is being taught in schools. These political messages are being taught to the new generation of Hong Kongers. They are learning to be loyal to Beijing and not Hong Kong. Students and teachers aren’t allowed to be critical of the book either; they have to take the information at face value. Propaganda can be dangerous, and I’m curious to see how this affects Hong Kong’s inevitable future.

The Reasons Behind the Success of Indian Americans

Rohan Rajesh

There’s no denying that Indian Americans have become incredibly influential in American society, politics, and the economy. Indian Americans are the wealthiest ethnic group in the United States. As of 2015, of Indian Americans aged 25 and older, 72% had obtained a bachelor’s degree, and 40% had obtained a postgraduate degree, whereas of all Americans, 19% had obtained a bachelor’s degree and 11% had obtained a postgraduate degree. In 2019, households headed by an Indian immigrant had a median income of $132,000, compared to $64,000 and $66,000 for all immigrant and U.S.-born households, respectively. One of the more obvious testaments to the economic achievements of Indian Americans is the prevalence of Indian-origin CEOs in Fortune 500 companies, including Adobe, Alphabet (Google’s parent company), Microsoft, Mastercard, and (until recently) PepsiCo.

Indian Americans have become politically influential as well. There have been two Indian-origin state governors – Bobby Jindal of Louisiana and Nikki Haley of South Carolina. Despite numbering at only 4 million (around 1.2% of the US population), both Democrats and Republicans have taken painstaking (if not embarrassing) efforts at appealing to the demographic, and this Congress has a record number of Indian Americans. 

One reason is that the population of Indian Americans exceeded the 2020 margin of victory in several swing states (including North Carolina), and that population is growing rapidly. Another is that the wealth of the community allows for significant campaign contributions. In the 2020 primaries, Indian American groups contributed more than $3 million, which is more than all of Hollywood’s contributions. It’s believed that the Indian American population contributed around $16 million to the campaigns of Democratic candidates in 2020. The most obvious testament to the growing influence of Indian Americans is that in electing Senator Kamala Harris (the first-ever Indian American Senator) as Vice-President, America has also chosen its first Indian American Vice-President. 

But why has this small group, a relatively recent addition to the American melting pot, been so successful almost everywhere? The truth is that the journey was not easy, and many Indian Americans had key advantages coming here.

Indian Americans first began immigrating to the United States towards the end of the 19th century. Most were Sikhs from the Punjab (though they were frequently classified as “Hindoos”), who came to California to escape poor conditions in British India. In 1907, 400 to 500 white men attacked Indian Americans to drive them out of California. At the same time, anti-miscegenation laws prevented Indian American men from intermarrying with white women. But it was legal for “brown” races to mix, so many Indians married Hispanics. Finally, Congress passed the Barred Zone Act in 1917, ending immigration from India. The first Indian to become a naturalized US citizen was Bhicaji Balsara, a Parsi (i.e., a Persian-origin Indian) who was determined to be “suitably white” by the courts in 1909. But other Indians were barred from naturalization in 1923 by the Supreme Court in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, in which the majority ruled that Indians failed to meet the definition of “white.”

However, this situation began to change with the end of the Second World War. As the Cold War began ramping up, the United States needed to counter the Soviet messaging that the ideal of America was sheer hypocrisy as American society and institutions were anti-Asian and anti-Black. In 1946, the Luce-Celler Act allowed an annual quota of 100 Indians and 100 Filipinos to immigrate to the US. In 1956, Dalip Singh Saund (a Democrat) became the first Asian American, the first Indian American, the first Sikh American, and the first member of a non-Abrahamic faith to be elected to Congress. He narrowly defeated Jacquelin Cochrane (a Republican aviator who served in World War II) to become the representative for California’s 29th district. He was re-elected twice.

In 1965, the Immigration and Nationality Act was signed, leading to record immigration from Asia, including India. At the same time, people from other parts of India (i.e., not Punjab) and the Indian diaspora (particularly from other former British colonies) came. Many came as engineers, physicians, and business owners to escape the lackluster pre-1991 Indian economy. In the 1990s, many Indian Americans (including my parents) immigrated to the US with the IT boom. This trend particularly sharpened when Y2K necessitated the immigration of many programmers from India to fix computer systems before the new millennium threatened to break them. 

Because of our prevalence in highly skilled labor, many have labeled us (and other Asian American groups) as “model minorities” in order to contrast us with supposedly problematic minorities. The truth is that we had it easier compared to other minority Americans. Indian Americans who came to the United States were already the cream of the crop. They were also raised to speak English and go to university. African Americans, on the other hand, came as slaves. When slavery ended, they were held down by Jim Crow, sharecropping, redlining, and white flight. Indian and Asian Americans also began moving en masse to the suburbs, deepening the divide.

Now, this is not to imply that Indian Americans do not face problems in the US. Anti-immigrant sentiment has had ugly effects on the group. In 2017, a Kansas man shot and killed an Indian-born engineer, Srinivas Kuchibhotla. Before firing the shots, he yelled, “Get out of my country!” As with other Asian groups, the identity, loyalty, and belonging of Indian Americans have been and will continue to be doubted. A case in point came when President Trump instituted policies that disrupted the legal immigration system, particularly harming immigrants from India. While President Biden has reversed these policies, the pendulum of populism will certainly rear its ugly head in the form of anti-immigrant sentiment post-Biden.

With the election of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, many of those policies will likely be reversed, but anti-immigration sentiment is almost as old as the republic and will rear its ugly head sooner or later. That said, it has been a long journey from the Sikh farmers who were targeted by racist laws and men to the election of an Indian American Vice-President. As our political position becomes more permanent and powerful, we should begin to advocate more for disadvantaged communities. After all, the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that allowed most of us to be here rode a wave of Civil Rights legislation advocated by African Americans and other groups who continue to bear the crushing weight of America’s racial inequities.

Germany, The Fourth Reich?

Suhas Nannapaneni

As the discrepancy between the rich and poor countries in the European Union become ever clearer with the Coronavirus pandemic, one returns to the ever-present question: is Germany the backbone and leader of the EU, or does it use its dominant economic capacity for more self-interested purposes?

One can hardly deny that Germany is the preeminent leader of the European Union. It is one of the many reasons that the United Kingdom has decided to exit the EU. When Britain joined a united Europe, it envisioned nothing more than a free-trading area. Since Britain’s entrance into the union in 1973, the nation has opted out of legislative and regulatory issuances when London refused to transfer its sovereignty to unelected officials of the European Commission in Brussels. Brexit has reissued the question as to what the purpose of the European Union is – either a Europe of sovereign nation-states, or a European super-state.

With this question gnawing at skeptics, if one enters any EU meeting in Brussels, it becomes quickly clear that it is the Germans running the show. Charles Michel, the former prime minister of Belgium, may be the one technically in charge of the European Council, but it is unmistakable that Angela Merkel (who has been chancellor longer than the leaders of France, Spain, Italy, and Poland have been in office combined) is the one with access to all of the levers.

Of course, Germany never endeavors to garner the image of a strong continental power – for obvious historical reasons – but it is undeniable that the single market of the EU has allowed Germany’s economy to prosper efficiently resulting in high exports without worrying about an appreciating currency since it is weighed down by many debtor nations such as Greece and Spain.

The Euro was introduced at the beginning of the millennium to level the playing field of Europe, and to converge prosperity rather than have each country regulate its economy selfishly. However, since its inception the currency has disproportionately helped Germany. In contrast, Italy’s per capita GDP in 1999 was €1,000 above the eurozone average; by the end of last year, it had fallen to €4,000 below average. All the while, Germany has been able to send 40% of its exports to EU countries while importing relatively little. Currently, Germany’s unemployment stands at 4.6% with the EU average being 8.3%, with Spain recording the highest rate at 16.2%.

Yet, during the crisis when many countries look to Germany for aid, Chancellor Merkel has offered little chance for direct relief. When the European Union agreed to create a 750-billion-euro recovery fund, it had been held up by conservative nationalist governments in Poland and Hungary who object to having the money being conditional on observing the EU Concepts of the Rule of Law, a policy that threatens their sovereignty. 

Germany’s attitude of issuing controlling conditions on the European Union monetary policies is reminiscent of the fallout of the Great Recession in the late 2000s. Then, Angela Merkel set out to punish so-called “fiscal miscreants” and those unable to control their banks such as Spain. The chancellor refused President Barack Obama’s request to loosen credit and fiscal austerity. During this difficult period, Merkel issued a stance of everyone for themselves while protecting Germany’s cushy trade surplus with its euro-area partners.

Germany’s control of the EU goes further than its ability to profit from the euro and other EU countries while making much-needed fiscal and monetary assistance contingent on a nation’s willingness to transfer more of its sovereignty to the EU – and by extension, Germany. The recent decade’s immigration influx from Muslim-majority countries has unleased mighty centrifugal forces in Europe. Countries such as Italy, Hungary, and Poland declare themselves incapable and unwilling to handle thousands of African and Middle-Eastern refugees and migrants. In response, Germany sought to block EU fiscal policies to resuscitate Italy’s economy resulting in it sinking into a recession in 2018.

However, the stark alternative available to the nationalist governments of Hungary and Poland does not offer much hope. If in the distant future, the European Union was dissolved over irreconcilable economic differences and a rise in nationalist sentiment (like Brexit), Europe is left with the undisputed leader which can now play the disputes of the now-fragmented European nation-states with selective trade agreements and alliances reminiscent of the Great Power politics that dictated Europe in 17-19th centuries.

Genocide Olympics

Jennings Dixon

I love the Olympics. I look forward to seeing so many countries around the world come together and compete. The Olympics always projects an astounding message of unity while also displaying the world’s greatest feats of athleticism. And with the pandemic having postponed Tokyo’s summer Olympics back a year, we will get two Olympic games in a six-month period.

This summer, we get to watch swimming, diving, tennis, etc. in Tokyo. Then in January, figure skating, snowboarding, and curling in Beijing. I personally was surprised to hear that Beijing would be hosting the Winter Olympics. It feels like I was watching the 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics just yesterday, so it’s strange to have the same city host again so soon. Some aren’t happy that China is hosting after a quick turnaround; others aren’t happy for more serious reasons.

China’s government is not the poster child for justice and equality. In recent years, Xi Jinping and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) have committed serious atrocities to various groups and regions in and outside its borders. From silencing Tibet to squashing democracy in Hong Kong, Xi has been ruthless to those who create dissent or difference to the CCP and their views. One horrific example of this is in western China in Xinjiang with the Uyghur minority group.

Uyghurs are a Muslim ethnic group that lives in the autonomous region of Xinjiang. They make up nearly 50 percent of the population there. Uyghurs have been subjected to appalling abuses, including mass surveillance, indoctrination, and forced sterilization. There are Uyghur concentration camps. Uyghurs are victims of genocide. Xi and the CCP are leading these oppressive efforts, and have not received any serious consequences from anyone on the world stage.

As Xi and the CCP prepare to host the Winter Olympics, many human rights organizations are calling for boycotts. They believe that by allowing China to host the games, it sends China the message that the atrocities they are committing are acceptable. By boycotting and petitioning to have them moved elsewhere, it shows that the world does not condone such human rights violations. Some leaders of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) are downplaying the tragedies, and think that the Olympics should not be about politics or making a statement.

I personally disagree with the IOC. I think it’s dangerous to let a government actively committing genocide host a unity event like the Olympics. We saw it in 1936 when Berlin hosted. Hitler and the Nazis became the center of the world stage, which helped validate them as leaders, and ultimately warrant genocide of the Jewish population. It’s destructive and it’s alarming. I don’t think it’s ever a good idea to doubt what a leader like Xi can do.

This leaves me asking the question: what can we do? And I’m honestly not sure. I think the athletes have a bigger burden to bear. Do they go to the Olympics and compete? Fulfill what they have dreamed and worked for their entire lives? Or do they sit it out to protest an oppressive regime? Do such symbolic acts really affect change, or are they just merely for show? These are not easy questions to answer, and I’m glad my athleticism is not Olympic material, because this would tear me apart.

Impact of COVID-19 Lockdowns among the Vietnamese Population

James McClure

Despite Vietnam’s COVID-19 vulnerability due to geographical proximity to China as well as its under-resourced public health sector, the nation has successfully avoided a catastrophic surge of coronavirus cases. By utilizing the authority of the single-party central government to detect and isolate cases early on as well as provide clear and consistent health messages to citizens. Significant mismanagement of the 2003-4 SARS epidemic caused the Vietnamese government and population to be more cognizant of the risks of rapid COVID-19 transmission. While the prompt government response prevented mass casualties, particularly among the most epidemiologically vulnerable, PTSD, anxiety, and depression have still impacted millions of Vietnamese people.

As a result of lockdown restrictions, schools, language centers, as well as many other nonessential businesses have been shut down. Loss of income and the ensuing economic uncertainty has created intense anxiety for millions of Vietnamese people who have lost work during this pandemic. These restrictions have also placed additional stress upon people who wish to immigrate to Vietnam. The Vietnamese government has virtually banned all entry of foreign nationals to prevent the spread of the disease over borders, which has forced people who wish to enter the nation to do so by illegal means. Immigrants who successfully enter Vietnam are likely to experience severe negative mental health outcomes, due to lack of access to the nation’s health care system.

Buddhism and Nationalism

Rohan Rajesh

Of all the major world religions that have fallen to virulent nationalism, the fall of Buddhism was particularly surprising. After all, Buddhism eschews fervent nationalism because that would entail attachment to something, even if it is an abstract, modern concept like the nation-state. Further, Buddhism is quite unambiguous on the question of violence – abstaining from violence is the right path. Yet, one of the genocides being committed today is occurring in Myanmar, a country whose population is around 88% Buddhist. In Sri Lanka, another majority Buddhist country, a surge in Sinhalese Buddhist majoritarianism threatens to unleash a repeat of one of South Asia’s deadliest conflicts. 

For a faith that was revolutionary in its ideals of equality, compassion, and ending suffering, the actions of Buddhist nationalists is shocking and disturbing. If these deadly impulses can take hold in one of the most peaceful religions in the world, what hope is there for the rest of us? It is therefore important to ascertain the origins of Buddhist nationalism and the potential consequences for nationalism in other religions.

For much of medieval history, Buddhism was a persecuted religion, particularly with the Turko-Muslim invasions of North India. Buddhism had been in decline before the Muslim invasions due to competition with revitalized Hindu philosophies, but Hindu kings continued to support Buddhist institutions, such as monasteries and universities. The Muslim conquest of Afghanistan and the establishment of the Delhi Sultanate in North India eliminated that patronage. The destruction of the ancient monastery-university of Nalanda by the forces of General Bakhtiyar Khalji of the Delhi Sultanate all but eliminated Buddhism from its traditional Indian hearth. At the same time, Hindu-Buddhist dynasties in Indonesia and Malaysia were replaced by Muslim ones. To be fair, in Southeast Asia most scholars believe this process was peaceful and a result of trade. At the same time, Hinduism continues to thrive in Bali and the Ramayana and Mahabharata (the two great Hindu epics) are extremely popular throughout the region. Still, this fraught history and the declining global Buddhist population (currently only 7% of the world population) have fed into this narrative of Buddhism disappearing due to the spread of Islam, which has fed into hysterical anti-Muslim sentiment in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. The 2001 destruction of the Bamiyan Buddha statues in Afghanistan by the Taliban did not help erase those anxieties.

The violence against Rohingyas in Myanmar and the rise of Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism also have specific local factors. In Myanmar, the Rohingya (as well as Muslims in general) are associated with Bengali migrants who came from British India when Myanmar was also under British rule. During British rule in the subcontinent, there was significant resentment among locals against Indian migrants, Muslim or otherwise. This is why Rohingyas are consistently demonized and referred to as “illegal immigrants” and “Bengalis” – doing so enables locals to “other” the Rohingyas and justify their ethnic cleansing. The Myanmar military (which effectively controls the country) also incites these passions to divide the population and cement its control. This is similar to how the Japanese military co-opted Buddhism to radicalize the population before World War II.

In Sri Lanka, Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism traditionally targeted the Tamil minority. Originally, conflict between the Sinhalese (who are mostly Buddhist) and Tamils (who are mostly Hindu) was largely ethnic in nature. The end of the Sri Lankan Civil War led Sinhalese Buddhist nationalists to find another group to fuel their anger. Muslims became a convenient target for multiple reasons: most of them speak Tamil, many are business owners, and there has been a rise in conservative Salafist influence in the community. The 2019 Easter bombings did not help the situation though anti-Muslim riots had occurred earlier in 2018.

Although Buddhism, unlike other major religions, consistently and unequivocally opposes violence in any situation, ethnic nationalism allows Buddhism to be coopted not as a religion but as a marker of cultural identity. Indeed, the rise in Buddhist nationalism is explained by factors familiar to us in the West – an insecure majority population. As Madison noted in Federalist 10, when one group comprises the majority of the population of a country, it is easy for minorities to become persecuted. I believe that regional integration is a potential solution to the problem of ethnic nationalism. When no group forms a majority of the population, every group can be protected. However, that is a long-term solution. In the short-term, the international community needs to monitor and sanction individuals and groups who perpetrate violence. However, given the strategic importance of Myanmar and Sri Lanka in great power competition in the Indo-Pacific, it is unlikely that that will happen. It should be noted that many moderate Buddhist monks have spoken out against anti-minority violence and authoritarianism in Myanmar and Sri Lanka. Such forces should be supported and provided larger platforms to preserve ethnoreligious peace and to prevent one of the most radically peaceful philosophies this world has seen from becoming a by-word for ethnocentric violence.

Qatar: A Stunning Reversal of Fortune

Robert Cole

The Biden administration’s recent decision to suspend US support for the Saudi led coalition in Yemen probably does not automatically make most people think about Qatar. A tiny Gulf state with a population of less than three million, few people in the West likely think about it at all. Yet with the election of Joe Biden as American president, and particularly with his course change on Yemen, few countries have gained more in such a short span. Only a few months ago, Qatar’s position in the Middle East was less than ideal. Under embargo by four of its regional allies, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, the UAE, and Egypt, it was being forced to turn to Iran and Turkey for investment. Now it finds itself released from the embargo, a more diversified economy and a potential regional power broker. How did this happen? 

First, it is important to understand the regional dynamics it exists within. The Middle East has four major Muslim powers, namely Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Iran. While much ink has been spilled in the contention between Saudi and Iran, all four are constantly vying for regional influence and have competing interests, particularly since the Arab Spring in 2011. The uprisings themselves are where Qatar enters the picture. The Qatari government supported many of the anti-government groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood that took to the streets that year, in stark contrast to its conventional allies in the Saudi-led faction. It is important to note though that when Yemen erupted into violence in 2014, it stood with the Saudis in intervening on behalf of government forces. However, its cozy relationship with proponents of the Arab Spring such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its ties to Iran resulted in the Egyptian and Saudi-led embargo beginning in 2017. This left an extremely messy political situation, where Qatar was at once aligned with the Saudis against the Houthis in Yemen, with the Turks in supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, and in relations with Iran over a few commercial and political issues. Tacit American support for the anti-Qatar embargo essentially held the whole situation at a standstill, consigning the tiny Gulf state to an unenviable political position. 

Then came the 2020 US presidential election. President Trump had invested heavily in a relationship with Saudi Arabia, which along with the kingdom’s poor track record on democracy and human rights left it with few friends in the Democratic Party. Faced with the prospect of a US administration much less likely to be permissive of its bad behavior and fearing a Qatari embrace of Iran, the Saudis and their allies ended the embargo on Qatar shortly before President Biden was sworn into office. This was the first major win and it brought an added bonus: economic independence. Before the embargo, Qatar was effectively dependent on its Arab neighbors for basic goods such as milk, but the extended suspension of trade forced it to become self-sufficient, thereby removing a political bludgeon from the Saudi arsenal. The less pro-Saudi presidency also meant a curtailing of American support for the coalition in Yemen, announced at the beginning of February. The implication here is that major arms sales to the UAE and the Saudis will come under greater scrutiny from American officials, but the decision very significantly does not affect Qatar, a country that still has a stake in Yemen, as we previously noted. 

Qatar then has a trinity of advantages in 2021 that could make it a serious regional player. Economically, it escaped a damaging embargo and diversified its economy. Militarily, it picked up an advantage in arms supply from the US and made itself appealing to a new administration looking to put some distance between itself and the Saudi/Emirati coalition. It enjoys good relations with Iran, a key target of US diplomacy, without becoming an Iranian proxy. Freed from the thrall of any one regional hegemon and possessing a strong hand to play, Qatar could be a serious power broker in the Middle East and a valuable ally for years to come.

Mental Health of Migrant Workers on the Myanmar-Thailand Border

James McClure

According to recent estimates, more than 2.4 million migrant workers reside in Thailand. The majority of these workers arrived from the neighboring nation of Thailand, and many do not obtain any type of legitimate registration for their residency. Unfortunately, employers rarely respect the human rights of these migrants, as researchers characterize unsafe working conditions and abusive behavior by employers as “systematic and institutionalized” within this region. In a study examining the mental health of migrant workers in Thailand, the most common stressors across industries were identified as being forced to work overtime or while sick, as well as verbal abuse.

Health policy created by the Thai government has done little to aid the situation of these migrants. While registered migrant workers can legally access national healthcare, unregistered workers face cultural and linguistic barriers to receiving proper treatment. Government health clinics are generally inaccessible to unregistered migrant workers, as they often require the presentation of a work visa to receive treatment. NGO clinics are not always an effective solution either, as migrants are often subject to long wait times for treatment in comparison to private clinics. While some employers provide health insurance for workers, low-wage positions that are occupied by migrants rarely provide this opportunity. Even in situations where migrants have proper access to Thai healthcare, physical health is prioritized over mental health treatment. 

Canada’s Ban on Single-Use Plastics

Zoe Hatsios

Canada is known for being the stereotypical ‘friendly neighbor’ of the United States - it’s looking like  the term will extend over the Atlantic soon enough as well. What started as one of Prime Minister Trudeau’s campaign promises is set to bring full effect in 2021, just the first step of the government’s plan to achieve zero plastic waste by 2030.

So what was this monumental move? Canada banned single-use plastics (products designed to be used once and then disposed of, including plastic grocery bags, straws, stir sticks, six-pack rings, cutlery, and hard-to-recycle foodware). As of 2020, Kenya has the strictest ban - and 34 other countries have some sort of ban as well.

Countries are banning these products because they are incredibly harmful pollutants, especially for aquatic life. Canadians alone produce an estimated 3.3 million tons of plastic waste per year, and more than one-third of plastics are created for single-use.

These products have an average usage-life of 15 minutes, yet have the ability to kill over 1 million marine animals annually. This begs the question: why aren’t single-use plastics at least partially banned everywhere? Shockingly, some states in the US have legislation that preemptively prohibits bans on plastics. As with most environmental issues, there is a clear zero-sum cost-benefit calculation between economic/capitalist expansion and environmental dangers.

If several more European countries follow the trend of Canada, France, and the UK, for instance, it may suggest that the United States may take some efforts to follow suit. Especially in an era where every move China makes could propel Xi’s empire ahead of the US economy, it has become increasingly important for America to stay one step ahead in these types of matters. Only time will tell, but hopefully this news could provide an (although dim) light at the end of the tunnel.

I’ve linked some pages that will be worth your while to read, especially if you’d like more information on the topic. This is a hefty subject, but hopefully these quick facts were a helpful beginning to more thoughtful analysis on how this issue will be handled moving forward, and how environmental politics may have a future impact on international relations.

https://www.chatelaine.com/news/canada-single-use-plastic-ban-faq/

https://oceana.ca/en/blog/canadas-plastic-problem-sorting-fact-fiction

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/08/map-shows-the-complicated-landscape-of-plastic-bans/#close

https://plasticoceans.org/the-facts/#:~:text=We%20are%20producing%20over%20380,at%20least%20several%20hundred%20years.