Coup in Niger

Niger has stood alone as a U.S. partner in the Sahel, remaining a democratic voice in the African region primarily controlled by terrorist regimes. Neighboring states, including Nigeria and Chad, are currently under the control of the extremist organizations al-Qaida and the Islamic State group. Niger, once a promise of early democracy, fell to a coup on July 26, 2023. Niger's democratically elected President, Mohamed Bazoum, was overthrown by General Abdourahmane Tchiani. In the months following this change in government, President Biden held off on declaring these events as a coup until October 10, 2023, when the United States government released a statement announcing the end of its efforts to reinstate Niger’s democratically elected leader. 

In the months between the coup and Biden’s official statement, the American government held off on officially labeling the removal of Bazoum as a coup because of the associated policy implications. Formally declaring the end of Niger’s democracy resulted in the United States and France halting their foreign assistance programs in Niger. 

While the U.S. government has stated that humanitarian aid will continue to flow to Niger, the lack of further funding and civilian assistance from the United States reaffirms America’s precedent of largely ignoring humanitarian crises in non-democratic, extremist states.   

When Nigeria served as a base for Pentagon operations, Niger’s citizens received aid and military services from the United States. However, with the rise of a jihadi regime, the United States sees no future economic or political benefit from the region and is abandoning its investment in Niger. 

Niger is a country facing extreme poverty, extreme effects from climate change, and desertification. Niger’s population is vulnerable. Previous United States investments provided stability and opportunities through aid and military training. The decision of the American government to halt further support from being sent to Niger places additional strain on a population at risk of seeing their fundamental rights and freedoms revoked.

The civilians elected Bazoum with the hope of progress and development. The coup declaration has forcibly removed their hope and elected leader from them. Niger’s humanitarian conditions have worsened since the coup: borders have been shut down, markets are inflating, food shortages are prevalent, and trade is near nonexistent. 

Niger is a country dependent upon humanitarian assistance and foreign aid. However, since an extremist regime now controls them instead of an agreeable democracy, the civilians' struggles have become less worthy of investment from the American government.

Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Nagorno-Karabakh: The post-Soviet Conflict You’ve Never Heard About

Most Americans have never heard of Armenia and Azerbaijan, two neighboring counties located in the Caucasus region with a complex shared history. Last month, when tensions flared between the neighbors, it was only a culmination of the more than 30 year dispute largely unknown in the United States. So, what is this conflict and what is it about? What happened in the past month, and what does it mean for global and regional dynamics?

Armenia and Azerbaijan were both Soviet republics under the USSR, and their relations remained largely unremarkable until 1991, when dissolution of the Soviet Union led to both nations declaring their independence and setting territorial boundaries based on the lines of the former Soviet ‘oblasts’—lines drawn by Stalin which ignored ethnic geographies. This led to conflict, as the region of Nagorno-Karabakh (interchangeably called Artsakh) was given to Azerbaijan despite being around 95% ethnically Armenian. The region declared its own independence from Azerbaijan in the Republic of Artsakh, but was never internationally recognised. Tension resulted in the First Nagorno-Karabakh War in the early 1990s, resulting in over 30,000 casualties, and Armenia occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and surrounding Azerbaijani territory. Nagorno-Karabakh, with its capital and main city of Stepanakert, became heavily reliant on Armenia for economic, military, and humanitarian support delivered from Yerevan, and was governed as a ‘de facto’ part of Armenia.

This uneasy settlement did not last, however, with frequent border clashes and larger conflicts flaring up throughout the years, notably in 2016. In September 2020, the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War saw intense fighting in the region, and Azerbaijan regained some of its sovereign territory occupied by Armenia in the previous conflict. Thousands died, and the conflict came to an end after several weeks when Russia negotiated a peace settlement. Armenia retained a small portion of Nagorno-Karabakh, including Stepanakert, and the region’s safety was guaranteed by the presence of a Russian peacekeeping force. The Russian presence also guaranteed Armenia the use of the Lachin Corridor, a small road intended for the delivery of supplies and support to the Armenian exclave.

This uneasy peace lasted for only 2 years, however, since in December 2022, the use of the Lachin Corridor was disrupted. Azerbaijani ‘eco-activists’ supported by Baku occupied the corridor and completely cut off the Armenian support to Artsakh, including medical, food, and other humanitarian shipments. Armenians in and outside of the exclave feared that this blockade was an attempt at ethnic cleansing of the region by Azerbaijan. From that point until last month, the 150,000 ethnic Armenians living in the territory lived in the midst of this humanitarian crisis.

With all of this history in mind, we can look at what happened recently in Artsakh: at the end of September, Azerbaijan completed a military takeover of the breakaway region, which will officially cease to exist by the beginning of 2024. Over the course of several days, a heavy bombardment of the region began, leading over 100,000 ethnically Armenian residents to flee to Armenia. International concern has centered on the possibility for ethnic cleansing and a cultural genocide of the historically Armenian region. The takeover of the region has had several consequences for Armenia, the region, and the global order.

First, recent events have led to a major shift in Armenia’s relationship with Russia. As a previous Soviet republic, Armenia has had close relations with Moscow for many years, including the use of Russian peacekeepers in guaranteeing the stability of the region. However, new actions have signified a shift in Armenian-Russian relations, perhaps related to the perception that Russian peacekeepers failed to help Armenia and in doing so, failed to fulfill obligations of the earlier peace deal. Earlier this month, Armenian lawmakers ratified the Rome Statute, joining the International Criminal Court. Crucially, countries who are parties to the Rome Statute are asked to arrest Russian President Vladimir Putin if he travels to their territory, following an ICC arrest warrant related to the war in Ukraine. Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan also suggested that Armenia needed to “diversify [its] relationships” concerning its sovereignty and security. This is a major shift from previous, much friendlier, relations, which led to rebukes from Moscow and heightened tension. It heralds not only the decline of Russia’s soft power in the region, but also the growing influence of Western powers such as France and the United States.

France and the United States have been increasingly influential in the region recently, with France sending military weapons and defense systems to Armenia, and US Secretary of State Antony Blinken warning that Azerbaijan could soon plan to invade Armenia. An increase in Western concern, however, has not been followed by concrete action or allyship. France and the US are both members of the Minsk Group, which they co-chair with Russia. The Minsk Group, a subsidiary of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), is dedicated to conflict resolution and a peaceful end to the dispute regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. Despite this mandate, the group has achieved very little in concrete results.

As leading members, France and the US could be doing much more to step up in a crucial period for Armenia and human rights globally. When compared with other ethnic or territorial disputes in the Middle East or in Eastern Europe, it is clear that the same attention and concern has not been paid to the conflict in the Caucasus. Despite both EU and US threats and ultimatums, the Azerbaijani takeover of Nagorno-Karabakh occurred and has gone largely unopposed. As Armenia fears a complete invasion, and with Turkish and Azerbaijani military exercises occurring near their respective borders, this is a highly concerning time for regional security and stability, especially with the conflict in the Middle East rapidly growing.

With Russian influence in the region already declining, negotiating this conflict could be a crucial way for Western powers to ensure stability in a region where actors such as Russia, Turkey, and Iran compete for power. However, despite the benefits of Western intervention—increased regional stability, as well as the protection of human rights—it is unlikely that any concrete action will occur. Sanctions on Azerbaijan are unlikely due to the gas deals which the European Union has signed with Baku. Disregarding other concerns about Russian gas in Azerbaijan, the EU’s shift toward alternative energy sources following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine have led to growing ties to Azerbaijan.

With the EU unlikely to take any action against a crucial energy partner, and the US so far unwilling to act, it is worth asking whether European and American promises of ensuring human rights and promoting peace globally bear enough weight when it comes to the Caucasus, and whether Western powers are missing a key opportunity to expand their influence in a previously Russian-dominated region.

The Urgency of Global Action: Sudan's Ongoing Civil War as a Wake-Up Call

As the world runs rampant with global conflicts, Sudan’s ongoing civil war serves as a stark reminder of the absence of the urgent global commitment needed to prevent such crises and promote stability.

Sudan, a country marked by a rich tapestry of ethnic diversity, has witnessed recurrent conflicts driven by competing interests, historic grievances, and power struggles. The current war, like previous ones, has resulted in a humanitarian crisis of immense proportions, with representatives from Doctors Without Borders warning that the medical sector is on the verge of collapse. Since April 15th,  an estimated 9000 lives have been lost in this conflict, with over 5.6 million forced to flee their homes and many more are at risk due to food shortages and the breakdown of essential services. This war marks another tragic chapter in the nation’s tumultuous history. It is imperative that the international community act swiftly to halt the violence and facilitate peace negotiations through diplomacy, humanitarian aid, and support for internally displaced persons. 

The conflict stems from a fight for dominance by the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, otherwise known as Hemedti, the country’s deputy and head of the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) paramilitary group. In 2019, these men played a pivotal role in the military coup which sought to remove President Omar Al-Bashir from office. However, tensions have arisen from negotiations about how to integrate the RSF into the country's military in order to restore a civilian-led government. As a result of the power struggles between the SAF and the RSF, Sudan has grappled with ethnic tensions, economic difficulties, rampant infighting, and extreme instability. Many have reported an uptick in sexual violence and rape in the midst of this conflict as well. The repercussions of this ongoing civil war underscore the imperative for global cooperation and the responsibility to protect civilians from the atrocities of war. 

The global community's response to ongoing wars in countries like Russia and Ukraine should ideally be similar to the response to conflicts in countries like Sudan or Ethiopia, but unfortunately, they are not. While the pleas of Sudan, and countries such as Ethiopia, fall on deaf ears, the international community's response to these regional conflicts will ultimately shape the destiny of these nations, as well as reflect whether global actors possess collective commitment to peace, justice, and human rights. The international community cannot afford to remain passive in addressing these conflicts. The turmoil in regions experiencing conflict of disastrous proportions demands immediate action, and the world's nations should work collectively to bring an end to the suffering and pave the way for a brighter future for the respective peoples of Sudan and other nations experiencing devastation at the hands of war. The time to act is now, and it is our responsibility to face this challenge head-on, without hesitation or reluctance.

Response to Hamas Invasion: The World Needs a Strong America

After getting in an Uber this summer in Germany, I learned that the driver was Iraqi, and he was delighted that we were Americans. He was very curious but in fact concerned. He recounted to us how optimistic his community in Iraq was in 2003 that the “Americans could pull it off” by deposing Saddam Hussein and just how much the rest of the world looks to the United States for stability. He then emphasized the growing concern in Germany over the war in Ukraine, his concern over the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and overall European concern with increasing isolationist sentiment within the United States. The last note he addressed to us upon our leaving was “the world needs a strong America.”

It has become quite apparent over the last several years that the world has entered a new phase, and the current status quo cannot be self-sustaining. Hopefully, with the recent invasion of Israel in addition to the ongoing one in Ukraine, this fact becomes more recognized. However, to realistically address this development, changes must be made within the domestic sentiment of the West. The current isolationist movement amongst certain members of Congress is inherently dangerous, and the persistent hesitancy of key European countries, including Germany, to divert significant amounts of resources to their militaries is perilous. 

In a Wall Street Journal article from January, Gordon Lubold records Seth Jones, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, as stating in an interview, “The bottom line is the defense industrial base, in my judgment, is not prepared for the security environment that now exists.” Over the past decades, the American defense industry has experienced significant consolidation, and Jones adds that it is “better suited to a peacetime environment.” As the West devolves into debate over who is to blame for the ongoing conflict in Israel and whether to offer continued support to Ukraine, the most relevant takeaway from the recent developments in Israel is that the United States cannot exclusively shift its focus to the Pacific region as it has been attempting to do, and Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, and organizations such as Hamas, will not operate independently of each other. For instance, in a podcast with the Hoover Institute, host Peter Robinson refers to a leaked memorandum from Air Force General Mike Minahan referring to the intensifying situation in Taiwan, “My gut tells me we will fight in 2025. United States presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Chinese President Xi Jinping a distracted America. Taiwan's presidential elections are in 2024 and will offer Xi Jinping a reason to attack.” With large swathes of Americans expressing discontent over American support for Ukraine or Israel, one can understand Xi Jinping’s rationale, and one can further agree with General Minehan as stockpiles resources are diverted towards Ukraine and returned to the Middle East.  

It is my opinion then that the current international situation is not only no longer a peacetime environment but is in fact a Cold War environment, and a return to George Kennan era policy is necessitated by the wars in Ukraine and Israel and Chinese agitation in the Indo-Pacific. It is, therefore, time for attention within the United States to refocus outward, for a policy of containment to regain its traction, and for the defense industrial base to be rebuilt. These requests are not merely conjured within the American foreign policy establishment but rather those millions around the world, including my Iraqi-German driver, the citizens of Ukraine, Taiwan, Israel, and numerous other countries, whose opportunities for stability and prosperity necessitate them. 

As Washington dithers over Speaker, Germany leads on Ukraine, Israel issues

As Russia’s war in Ukraine rages on, with fighting recently passing the 600 day mark, much of the attention of Western governments has shifted to addressing the fallout from Hamas’ October 7 surprise attack on southern Israeli kibbutzim and the following Israeli retaliation. With violence in the West Bank increasing amid punishing Israeli airstrikes across Gaza and the potential for Lebanese Hezbollah to join the fight in the coming days, the leaders of the United States find themselves in an unenviable position of simultaneously addressing two major conflicts, a task made harder by the continued vacancy of the House of Representatives’ speaker seat. In the midst of the Middle East chaos and debates among American policymakers over the continued provision of funding to Ukraine, an unexpected leader on such issues has emerged: Germany. 

Though Germany’s political leadership and military posture did not inspire confidence in its allies that it would stand by their side to actively oppose Russia during the leadup to Putin’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, the nation’s actions since full-scale war broke out in Europe have departed from its previous tendencies. Soon after Russian tanks and troops poured into Ukraine, Chancellor Olaf Scholz began the nation’s defense Zeitenwende (major change/shift), abandoning previous hesitation, guided by the country’s ever-present consideration of its painful past, to provide lethal aid to nations at war. Since the first days of the war, Germany has consistently provided embattled Ukraine with armaments and ammunition to increase its defensive and even offensive capabilities, though its trademark hesitation to make substantial unilateral defense decisions surfaced again in the discussion over the provision of NATO-spec tanks to Ukraine. After weeks of back-and-forth early this year, Washington and Berlin announced that they would both provide modern main battle tanks to bolster Ukraine’s armored divisions. To date, Germany has provided 60 Marder infantry fighting vehicles, 20 Leopard 1 A5 tanks, and dozens of potent Gepard self-propelled anti-aircraft systems to Ukraine, surpassing many observers’ expectations and establishing Berlin’s position as an active leader in addressing global security challenges. 

As days now stretch into weeks without an elected Speaker for the US House of Representatives, questions have arisen over the direction of the nation’s response to the events in Israel and Gaza and continued US aid to Ukraine. Now, Germany and other US allies are not waiting for Washington’s lead in addressing both conflicts. With its announcement that it would provide a second “winter package” of defense aid for Ukraine on October 10, Germany demonstrated its increasing willingness to stand by the beleaguered nation regardless of Washington’s policy direction, which has been recently called into question by Republican pushes to reduce or eliminate assistance for Ukraine from spending bills. Providing another advanced Patriot air defense system and equipment earmarked specifically for Ukraine’s special forces as they lead a bogged-down counteroffensive signals to both Kyiv and Washington that Germany remains committed to Ukrainian defense. 

In addition to announcing further Ukraine aid in the midst of US partisan bickering over budgets and national security priorities, Germany has taken an active role in responding to the Israel-Gaza crisis. This past Tuesday, Chancellor Scholz touched down in Israel to begin his “solidarity visit” with Israeli leadership, following German Minister of Foreign Affairs Annalena Baerbock’s prior visit on October 13, when she met families of Israeli hostages and viewed sites of Hamas rocket attacks. After meeting with Israeli leaders to express support and push for increased humanitarian aid provision to Gaza, Scholz gave a joint speech with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, warning Iran and its proxy, Hezbollah, not to join the fray. Shortly before leaving Israel, Scholz and the entourage of press traveling with him had to take cover as Israeli air defenses engaged several incoming rockets over Tel Aviv’s airport. As the first Western leader to conduct such a solidarity visit after the October 7 attacks, Scholz put into action Germany’s commitment to Israeli security, described as a Staatsräson (reason of state) for years, and further established Germany’s role as a leader in the European response to the regionally destabilizing events of the past few weeks. 

As Ukraine’s counteroffensive continues to notch slower-than-hoped gains against occupying Russian forces and the simmering Middle East conflict threatens to boil over into a regional war, European nations, including Germany, will persist in forging their own paths in their responses to these crises. For Germany-watchers, these most recent declarations of support for Ukraine and prompt shows of solidarity with Israel represent the ongoing evolution of German foreign policy as the nation adapts new stances in response to a rapidly changing world. Though President Joe Biden announced his intentions to request extensive funding for both Israel and Ukraine during his October 19 Oval Office address, when this funding request will be brought to a vote is anyone’s guess as Rep. Jim Jordan’s nomination for the Speaker seat was recently withdrawn; internal Republican schisms suggest that many potential candidates would also fail in their bids. As Biden continues such attempts to signal American steadfastness through addresses and visits, Berlin will likely remain a first-mover in response to developments in these conflicts.

The Rafah Crossing

Lately, it has been beyond gut-wrenching when I try to monitor the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza. I have found it difficult to even open any social media platforms simply because of the horrific images plastered across my screen. However, if I am this distraught simply from looking at images and hearing horrific explanations of what is taking place in Gaza, I can not imagine the fear and vast range of emotions Palestinians must be feeling while surrounded by these horrors. To briefly summarize the current situation, on October 13, Israel warned Northern Gazans to evacuate toward the South, threatening Gazans and their safety unless they quickly evacuated. 

This would mean 1.1 million people would need to evacuate within the coming days, regardless of the fact that many Gazans may not have transportation or be able to leave safely. An ongoing war is taking place in their home and bombs are flying as they try to escape, yet there is nowhere to escape. Israel is blocking off all exits from Gaza and the last remaining exit is called the Rafah Crossing. That being said, even as Gazans try to escape to safety they are still being attacked and killed in areas that are expected to be safe, such as hospitals. What is the international community doing to help Palestinians escape this ethnic cleansing? Where can Palestinians possibly turn to for safety? My hope is that Egypt will open up the Rafah Crossing for Palestinians and guarantee their safety from Israel. 

The Rafah Crossing exists between the North border of Egypt and the South border of the Gaza Strip. It is heavily monitored and very few people are allowed through without an official pass from Egypt and Hamas. However, this may be one of the only areas where Gazans can escape the daily terrors of war. Egypt has yet to open the Rafah crossing and is instead asking for assistance from Israel to allow humanitarian aid to be given to Gazans through this border, but Egypt does not want to accept refugees at this time. This is a terrifying humanitarian problem for all countries and I hope to see global powers such as the US and the UK stand up against it. Thus far, little action to provide aid and resources to Palestine has been taken. These refugees deserve aid, a safe place to reside without the fear of being murdered, and simply to be treated as human beings. 

Reflections on Ukraine

Max Pollack

I heard, or more accurately overheard, an interesting conversation this past weekend about the Russian invasion of Ukraine. I was at a small shop and this woman was talking to the owner when I walked in. She was mentioning how we really shouldn’t be giving Ukraine billions of dollars because “they’re also a bad country”. I am a fairly opinionated person but usually, I know when to keep my mouth shut for the sake of peace but something about this made me feel compelled to reply. I said something about the intelligence the US was getting on Russian weapons and military doctrine along with being able to test a whole bunch of American defense systems. I don’t think she quite understood my point, but I keep thinking about that conversation.

Ukraine certainly has a corrupt government. Some of the corruption is due to the past 30 years of Russian interference in the country, some of it is due to a similar oligarch culture as a lot of the former USSR, and some of it is due to lax anti-corruption laws. But a corrupt government does not mean that we should let Russian flags fly over Kyiv or allow the massacres and mass rapes of Ukrainian civilians to continue.

Another philosophical issue tied to this is the debate over the countries that the US has a special obligation towards. The EU supports Ukraine because of a shared ‘European’ identity (although it really is an anti-Russia European identity). The United States has special promises to protect the national sovereignty of countries within certain alliances (NATO, ANZUS) or with countries we have a previous history of governing or defending (Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Compact of Free Association States) with an exception for Cuba. Others include our fellow liberal democracies (Israel, Sweden, Finland, Taiwan) and the Monroe Doctrine which would theoretically still apply if a European power decided to colonize the Americas again.

Where does Ukraine fit on this list? They are a struggling democracy, but not quite liberal yet. The US is a signatory to the Budapest memorandum in which Russia promised to respect the sovereignty and borders of Ukraine, so there is a previous agreement in place with the United States but it’s nowhere close to a collective defense agreement. So why is Ukraine such a big issue for the Biden administration? Three reasons: intelligence, geopolitics, and ideology.

I have already mentioned the intelligence argument. Every piece of Russian hardware and every troop maneuver is being watched closely by the alphabet soup that makes up the Intelligence Community. Russia has been America’s number one military opposition since WWII, and the number of tanks, helicopters, missile systems, intelligence, and other hardware that has turned out to be crap when compared to current DoD technology is both reassuring and scary. Scary in that it increases the odds that this war will turn nuclear. Reassuring in that a conventional war with Russia would be easily won by American troops. Other western countries are also getting intelligence and practice. The program to train Ukrainian elite troops in the UK is good practice for British forces to train soldiers if there needs to be another draft.

The most famous political adage is “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. The post-Maidan Ukrainian government wants to be western aligned. This is better than having a second Belarus situation in Europe. We supported groups with much less moral authority in the Cold War due to their anti-Soviet stances. Russia is no longer communist, but it is still a dictatorship with an anti-western, anti-democratic, and anti-freedom regime. More countries supporting that regime would cause the US to lose soft power. America wants to show that it can support smaller countries militarily to show its allies that they should stick with America. Taiwan, South Korea, the Philippines, and Japan are looking at American support of Ukraine to feel better about tensions with China. Kuwait, the UAE, and Israel are looking in the face of the Iranian threat. The eastern border of NATO is looking at the US in case of further Russian invasion plans. Support of Ukraine will allow the US to restate its hegemony in the West.

Lastly, the Ukrainian government in power is western aligned in thought. Zelenskyy declared martial law and has done things like ban opposition parties, but this is understandable when there is total war in the country. Situations such as wide-scale invasions are why martial law exists.

American ideology is one that encourages human rights and democracy. While we aren’t a perfect country and often do bad things, we have stuck to that goal pretty well. Our allies are the freest in the world, and our enemies tend to be the worst human rights abusers in the world. There are human rights-abusing countries that the US supports such as Saudi Arabia and South Sudan. The countries that America has historically provided support to in Europe, and East Asia all have good traditions of freedom. Grenada has had a stable and democratic government since Operation Urgent Fury in the 80s. The future rebuilding of Ukraine after the invasion is over will allow the US and the EU to help shape a more democratic Ukraine. If done right, there will emerge a New Ukraine that is stable, sovereign, and free that will eventually join the EU and NATO. I am unsure of which future this war is heading to, but that is the best outcome. America has a duty to Ukraine to ensure that it cannot only rebuild physically after the war but heal and improve. If the moral argument doesn’t work, I am sure American construction companies have a few words to say about future rebuilding contracts.

I doubt anyone reading this needs an argument for whichever side they support in the invasion of Ukraine. But there are still people who listen to figures like Tucker Carlson who obfuscate the reality on the ground. Most countries have the right to sovereignty and the US proved that defending sovereignty is a cause of war in the First Gulf War. Kuwait is a monarchy and not the freedom-loving type, but we defended them from an unjust Iraqi invasion. How much more so of a cause do we in the West have to support Ukraine from Russian invasion?

I doubt the woman in that story is a PWAD major or sees things from a national security perspective. But the Biden administration needs to do a better job explaining why aid packages are needed for Ukraine. America is increasingly divided and supporting Ukraine should be unifying yet it is not. Either politics as a whole is divisive beyond anything since the 1960s (or maybe the 1860s), or the messaging is off. And I would much rather end these blaming misconceptions on bad messaging. There is no justification for the behavior of the Russian government and Vladimir Putin. The fate of Ukraine, not just as a political entity but as a culture, language, and ethnicity lies at a crossroads. The fate of the Ukrainian people lies at a crossroads in this invasion. The images of Bucha are just going to be the tip of war crimes that will come out. If you give a mouse a cookie, he’s going to ask for a glass of milk…and if you give Putin Ukraine….

Crisis in Thailand: Why Four Plus Four Does Not Equal Eight

Robert Cole

Last week, Thailand’s Constitutional Court ruled that sitting Prime Minister General Prayuth Chan-Ocha could remain in power following a challenge that he was exceeding the constitutionally established term limit of eight years.  The court reasoned that the constitutional provision did not apply since it was only ratified in 2017. From the outside, the decision feels patently absurd; General Prayuth has served for eight years as Prime Minister, following a military coup in 2014 that ousted the elected civilian government, and the relevant section of the Thai constitution does not include exceptions for officeholders whose terms began before it was enacted. Nevertheless, given the degree of military control over the Thai government, the decision was expected by most observers. 

The court’s decision was delivered against a backdrop of simmering tensions within Thai society. A wave of protests shook the country in 2020 amidst calls for reform of the powerful Thai monarchy, which has amassed more power in recent years under King Vajiralongkorn. Closely allied with the military junta that officially wields power, the monarchy has aggressively sought to prosecute critics through the country’s lese majeste laws. The King has also brought the royal finances and several military units under his direct control. Though these protests ultimately came to an end due to harsh prosecution of hundreds of participants through the lese majeste laws, with the accused receiving up to fifteen years in prison for each count. 

The divisions within Thai society that these protests represented run deep. On one hand, the monarchy is a tremendously significant part of Thai civic culture, an icon of national pride and sovereignty in the only Southeast Asian country to never be conquered by a European empire. The crown also has deep ties to Thailand’s dominant Buddhist faith, to which 93% of the population adheres. Though there are reportedly divisions within the monastic community over politics, the government has imposed strict limits on the involvement of monks in politics, forbidding them from being involved in the 2020 protests and barring them from voting. As with nearly all social movements, the economy also plays a significant role. Thailand has one of the lowest rates of economic growth in the region, and suffered like most countries from the economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic. With millions of people getting poorer as their king consolidates control over a fortune in crown property, disgust with the ruling regime only has only increased. The salacious personal life of the monarch has not helped to quell concerns about the institution he embodies. King Vajiralongkorn succeeded his father in 2016, and has spent much of the subsequent time living abroad in Germany, while also being the first monarch in modern times to take more than one wife. Compared to his father, who was seen by the public as a paragon of morality, this has been quite a tone shift.

The decision to allow General Prayuth to remain Prime Minister has reactivated these simmering resentments, with members of the political opposition calling for protests. How the military and the monarchy will react is yet to be seen. Will the government mercilessly crush dissent as it has in the past, or will reformists finally begin to gain ground? It is impossible to tell for certain.

The Politics of an Embassy Bombing

Robert Cole

The American diplomatic corps is not designed to be a self-sufficient entity. It cannot provide for the needs of its significant populations in embassies and consulates around the world on its own, but instead relies on employing locals to serve as cooks, cleaners, and embassy staff. These people are critical to the normal functioning of American diplomacy and bringing in trustworthy, skilled employees is a matter of national security. In less stable parts of the world, these people are risking their very lives by being associated with the American government. It stands to reason therefore that it would be a major priority to make sure that those assisting the US would be well compensated for the risks they take. That has not always proven to be the case. 

Last year, the US agreed to de-list Sudan as a state sponsor of terrorism in return for compensation for the victims of the 1998 bombings of US embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. However, the families of victims have protested the final settlement, arguing that they have received substantially less than their American counterparts and that bystanders wounded by the blasts have received nothing. Such a move does little to improve America’s reputation abroad, particularly in a region where China has taken a deep interest. A US decision to support those caught in the crossfire of its conflicts is both the right thing to do and critical to encouraging talented foreigners to aid its diplomats and soldiers. 

As President Biden prepares to draw down the US troop presence in Afghanistan, he should keep this in mind. Many Afghans worked with US soldiers, often as translators, in America’s longest war. Many are concerned that they will be unable to get an American visa to get out of the country before the final withdrawal, leaving them and their families vulnerable to violent retribution by the Taliban. Should the US have to stage another foreign intervention, the corpses of Afghan translators will likely loom large in the minds of locals otherwise willing to assist. 

Petty politics about putting Americans first in compensation and assistance schemes after a disaster or war is short-sighted. There are over 15,000 active members of the American foreign service, and 16,000 US soldiers deployed across over 150 countries. If they cannot find local support, it puts the entire American strategic network in danger, not to mention their lives.

Civil War in Sri Lanka and India’s Vietnam Part II

Rohan Rajesh

Last week, I began a series on Sri Lanka’s civil war. I wrote about the demographic situation in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka’s colonial history, the major pre-Civil War events, and the rise of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In this article, I will discuss India’s involvement in the conflict and how the conflict became India’s Vietnam.

Indian Involvement

From 1983 to 1987, India’s intelligence agency – the Research and Analysis Wing sided with the LTTE and other Tamil separatist groups. This was because of outrage among Indian Tamils (on whose votes Prime Minister Indira Gandhi and her Indian National Congress party were dependent) over human rights abuses against their brethren by the Sinhalese-dominated government and military and due to Sri Lanka’s increasing closeness to Pakistan and the West (this was the Cold War after all). While the Indian government did not want an independent Tamil Eelam to be formed (because that would have excited the secessionist-adjacent views of prominent Indian Tamil leaders), they nonetheless chose to support the LTTE. Tamil separatists also gained support and refuge in Tamil Nadu.

In 1987, President Jayawardene asked Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi (Indira Gandhi’s son) to help mediate and end the conflict. Under an accord signed by Colombo and New Delhi, an Indian Peace Keeping Force (IPKF) was flown into Sri Lanka, a ceasefire was declared, and the Sri Lankan government gave political concessions to Tamils. Eventually, 48,000 Indian troops would be flown into the island. This created resentment among Sinhalese nationalists (who viewed it as a violation of Sri Lankan sovereignty) and the LTTE (who thought India supported them). The LTTE dragged its feet in disarming, so, in October 1987, the IPKF launched Operation Pawan to eliminate the LTTE stronghold in Jaffna. They succeeded, but it was a Pyrrhic victory due to the loss of life and the fact that the IPKF was now viewed as an occupying force among Sri Lankan Tamils. The LTTE regrouped in the jungle and harried and sniped the beleaguered IPKF, who were not used to this type of irregular warfare. The Indian public demanded that the troops be returned. The debacle was a significant factor in Gandhi’s losing the 1987 election, and his successor pulled out the last troops in 1990. 1,200 Indian soldiers were killed, and the entire affair was referred to in the press as “India’s Vietnam.” 

In 1991, a now-out-of-office Rajiv Gandhi was campaigning in Tamil Nadu when a 17-year-old girl approached him with a bouquet of flowers. Little did Mr. Gandhi know that a bomb was hidden in those flowers. Thenmozhi Rajaratnam (alias Dhanu) was an LTTE suicide bomber and succeeded in killing Rajiv Gandhi. 

Conclusion

Thus ended a dark chapter in India’s history. Memories of the IPKF blunder are not as powerful in India as the memory of the Vietnam War in the United States. I suspect that this is because the Sri Lanka intervention was followed by increasing Indian confidence from its economic rejuvenation, its acquiring of nuclear weapons capabilities, and its defeat of Pakistan in the brief but tense Kargil War while America was reminded of Vietnam by the quagmires in Afghanistan and Iraq.

But the brutal conflict raged on in Sri Lanka, and its legacy is keenly felt today. Only in 2009 did the war end when the Sri Lankan military decisively defeated the LTTE and regained control over the Tamil-majority areas. However, 40,000 mostly Tamil civilians were killed in the last stage of the conflict alone with serious allegations of human rights abuses being leveled against the Sri Lankan military and the LTTE. 

There are multiple lessons to be learned from the war. India’s limited ability to influence the course of the conflict reminds us that no actor has a monopoly on global influence. The powerful militaries of India, Russia, and the United States were brought to their knees by ill-equipped insurgents hiding in jungles and caves. The assassinations of prime ministers in India and Sri Lanka over the mistreatment of Tamils demonstrate the awesome power of linguistic identity. Ultimately, the conflict shows that one cannot brush aside minorities for political exigency.

The War Dogs go Marching Home

Jay Ramesh

Not all War Dogs go to heaven, but most of them will be heading back home to the US. In the midst of a large-scale troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, the Pentagon is looking to avoid making mistakes similar to the ones in Iraq. As long as the Afghan government is firing rounds at Taliban strongholds, someone’s going to need to be selling them the bullets. That’s where contractors come in.

War dogs, a popular term for civilian arms contractors, are the lifeblood behind any military-industrial complex. They supply the guns needed to fire at other people, and as long as there’s a conflict in the world, you can bet that there will be war dogs selling arms. The Taliban is still fighting the Afghan government, and Afghanistan needs arms to equip its soldiers. But recently, things have become a bit complicated.

The US war in Afghanistan had been raging for almost 18 years before former president Donald Trump dramatically deviated from traditional US policy and negotiated with the Taliban. In February 2020, a peace deal was signed between the two parties, in which the US agreed to finally withdraw all troops from the country by May of 2021. That deadline has since been symbolically moved by the Biden administration to Sept. 11, 2021, but the process of withdrawal has already begun.

At the time of the peace deal, there were 12,000 US troops stationed in Afghanistan, but by the beginning of 2021, there were an additional 18,000 contractors still working in the country. These contractors, some working for other departments such as USAID, are also withdrawing, casting doubts on the future of the Afghan military and future stability in the region. 

The task is proving to be a logistical nightmare. The inability of Afghanistan to handle the coronavirus pandemic has made matters worse, as around 1,000 US citizens are being evacuated from the country due to medical emergencies. Despite these problems, the military has been using a Transport Isolation System, an evacuation method developed to combat the 2014 Ebola outbreaks, to safely evacuate US citizens infected with the virus.

But alongside questions of the sheer logistics of the US withdrawal lie uncertainties about the future of Afghanistan. The nation relies on US contractors to provide much of its military equipment, including helicopters and aircraft. Aircraft and helicopters rely on maintenance to be provided by contractors and engineers, so the entire state of the Afghan air force is potentially at risk.

As the US begins to withdraw and leave ghosts of the past behind, the legacy of the War in Afghanistan will live on. The troops may be heading home, but thousands remain dead as the country struggles with four decades of almost constant conflict. When the War Dogs go marching home, they will be leaving behind a broken, war-torn nation in which the Taliban still remain, over two decades later. The future of Afghanistan is as uncertain as ever.

Covid and the Mafia

Robert Cole

Organized crime, much like a disease, becomes stronger when its host is weaker. Since the 1800s, Italy has been the home of various criminal organizations collectively known as the mafia. Now reeling from a particularly difficult struggle with covid-19, the country has experienced a resurgence of these groups that is spreading across Europe and even as far as the United States. This process has been aided by increased globalization, years of slow economic growth, and a decades-long shift in law enforcement focus away from organized crime and toward Islamist terror threats. 

In 2020, Italy experienced more deaths than any year since World War II. With the spring of 2021 came the latest in a string of tight lockdowns to try to minimize spread, but it also shut down the economy so tightly that some Italians can no longer afford food. Closed businesses leave owners with no income and willing to sell for low prices. This is where the mafia steps in, offering to buy out businesses for basement prices or providing families with food in return for favors later. An extortion hotline in Italy has received a 100% increase in the volume of calls, as the mafia comes around to collect. The Italian government has been slow to step in to help distressed citizens, and legal loans from the government can be too slow or come with too many requirements that small businesses cannot meet. 

The mafia’s growth doesn’t just affect Italy however. According to the head of Europol’s organized crime division, organized crime is the single largest threat to European security, outranking terrorism or immigration. Distressed businesses from Spain to Slovakia have been infiltrated by the mafia, which it uses for money laundering and as bases of operation. Many countries, afraid of taking the PR hit associated with admitting to a mafia problem, have sat on their hands as the problem grows. In the US, the mafia is reportedly strengthening its Italian connections, working more closely with the infamous ‘Ndrangheta syndicate. The American mob is also aided by the fact that much of the FBI’s attention has been drawn toward terrorism following the 9/11 attacks, with its associated task forces maintaining less than 10% of their pre-attack personnel numbers. 

This concerning spread of organized crime can still be counteracted by international law enforcement cooperation and by a comprehensive effort to support those at risk of mafia predation. The resurgence of the mafia reveals the side effects of economic crisis and how hard times in one country can generate regional insecurity. The damage wrought by organized crime will likely cost more than solving the underlying economic distress that enables them, a fact that should be remembered as the world looks to rebuild in a post-covid environment.

Civil War in Sri Lanka and India’s Vietnam: Part I

Rohan Rajesh

“When you deny me my language, you deny me everything”

— A Sri Lankan Tamil Member of Parliament

The two biggest challenges to nation-building in South Asia have been language and religion. Unfortunately for the island nation of Sri Lanka (known as Ceylon until 1972), the two intersected, which led to the longest civil war in South Asian history. The conflict led to the death of 100,000 people and has cast a shadow over Sri Lanka to this day. In the midst of this chaos, India (which had been dealing with its own separatist movements) tried to resolve the conflict, but, in doing so, ended up getting caught in a quagmire frequently likened to the Vietnam War. The result was the deaths of more than a thousand Indian soldiers, the assassination of a former prime minister, and no resolution to the conflict, which continued to rage on for almost 20 more years. 

This is the start of a two-part series. In this article, I will give background about the demographic situation in Sri Lanka, Sri Lanka’s colonial history, the major pre-Civil War events, and the rise of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. In the next article, I will talk about India's involvement in the conflict and its effects.

Background

For centuries, Sri Lanka has been home to many ethnic groups. The two largest are the Sinhalese and the Tamils, both of whom have immense pride in their cultural heritage. While the Sinhalese comprise 74 percent of the population, are 90 percent Buddhist, and speak an Indic language (Sinhala), the Tamils dominate in the north and east of the island (as well as in the South Indian state of Tamil Nadu), are 90 percent Hindu, and speak a Dravidian language (Tamil). Matters are complicated by the fact that Tamils are divided between Sri Lankan Tamils, who have lived on the island for millennia, and Indian Tamils, who arrived as indentured servants to work on tea plantations during the era of British colonialism. Indian Tamils were marginalized and less educated than other groups. They were also excluded from citizenship very early post-independence and did not participate in the interethnic bloodletting that followed. Both the Sinhalese and the Tamils often argue about who were the original settlers of the island, leading to two very different outlooks on how the new state should be developed.

The Costs of Colonialism

In 1948, the United Kingdom gave independence to the Crown Colony of Ceylon, one year after partitioning its Indian possessions into India and Pakistan along religious lines. For all three countries, language proved a divisive issue (along with religion, of course). In India, fears of Hindi hegemony (particularly among Tamils) led the government to retain English as a link language. In Pakistan, fears of Urdu hegemony (particularly among Bengalis) led to civil war and genocide in 1971 and the independence of Bangladesh. In Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese and the Tamils (encouraged by politicians) feared the hegemony of the other, leading to a catastrophic downward spiral.

The roots of the conflict stem from, as usual, European colonialism. Bubbling under the surface of Sri Lankan society were deep-seated resentments among the Sinhalese Buddhist majority over centuries of marginalization by European colonial rulers, particularly the British, who actively favored Christians and insulted Buddhist culture and institutions. At the same time, British divide-and-rule policies favored Tamils in terms of government employment. Tamils’ proficiency in English (due to American Christian proselytization efforts) led to their overrepresentation in the bureaucracy. Thus, anti-British, anti-Christian, and anti-Tamil sentiments developed over centuries of colonial rule. A Sinhalese Buddhist nationalist of particular note was the fiery Buddhist monk and revivalist Anagarika Dharmapala, who, in no uncertain terms, expressed his disdain for Europeans (including Anglophile Sinhalese), non-Buddhists, and non-Sinhalese in racial terms. He belittled these groups and others - including Africans, Jews, Muslims, Native Americans, and Aboriginal Australians - while comparing them to the “Aryan” Sinhalese.

However, among the Anglophile elite, Sinhalese and Tamils worked together and viewed each other as the majority communities of equal rank. Unfortunately, this comity paradoxically created the conditions for majoritarianism. When the British introduced limited suffrage, they did so on a first-past-the-post basis with no guarantees for minorities, thus enabling the Sinhalese to dominate electorally. The British and the elites thought that Sri Lankan society was strong enough to prevent majoritarianism based on how the elites operated. When Britain left and universal adult franchise was given, the desire to remove English as an official language (due to its colonial legacy and its role in denying jobs to native speakers of Sinhalese and Tamil) led to burgeoning linguistic recognition demands even though English was the only effective link language. It is here that Sinhalese resentment over the marginalization of Buddhism gained a linguistic character. 

Ideally, both Sinhalese and Tamil students should have been made to learn each others’ languages. Unfortunately, for the Sinhalese there was no economic benefit to learning Tamil.

Furthermore, while the Sinhalese were the majority in Sri Lanka, they tended to lump Tamils in India and Sri Lanka together to create a minority complex. Finally, politicians (most notably the left-wing candidate Solomon Bandaranaike) found it expedient to use language to win votes, since by campaigning on pro-Sinhala policies, they could unite Sinhalese Buddhists and Christians. Thus, Bandaranaike won the election decisively. Although Bandarnaike actually wanted to accommodate the Tamil language as well, hardline Sinhalese nationalists prevented him from doing so.

In 1956, Sinhalese lawmakers passed the Official Language Act No. 33, commonly referred to as the Sinhala-only Act because it replaced English with Sinhalese as the sole official language without any mention of Tamil. Tamils feared that they would lose their economic status and would be absorbed by the majority Sinhalese community without state support for Tamil. The passage of the law also reduced Tamil confidence in the ability of the government to address their concerns, especially Sinhalese colonization in traditionally Tamil-majority areas. Tamils also felt betrayed because they felt their contributions to Sri Lankan independence and their support for Sinhalese language development had been ignored. The passage of the law also coincided with Sinhalese mobs attacking Tamils and their establishments over the peaceful protests of Tamils against the law. In 1958, anti-Tamil riots would break out again over proposals to accommodate Tamil, leading to retaliations against Sinhalese in Tamil-majority provinces. Bandaranaike was assassinated by a radical Buddhist monk in 1959, letting his wife Srimavo Bandaranaike win the election in a landslide through sympathy votes. Despite having witnessed the deleterious effects of encouraging Sinhalese Buddhist nationalism, Ms. Bandaranaike was even less accommodating of the Tamil language than her husband. 

The Tigers

When Tamils peacefully protested, they were met with repression by the military. The Sinhala-Only policy led to a significant number of Tamil youth being denied access to university admission and jobs, leading to more radical demands for independence and less patience with nonviolence. Meanwhile, a new constitution gave the government far too much power, paving the way for illiberal democracy that affected Sinhalese and Tamils alike. The Sri Lankan President, J. R. Jayawardane, used Sinhalese nationalism to legitimize his rule. In 1977, anti-Tamil riots rocked the country. This was too much for many Tamils, leading to the formation of various separatist groups, the most notorious of which was the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) - “Eelam” is the Tamil name for Sri Lanka. The LTTE and its leader, Vellupillai Prabhakaran, were ruthless in eliminating rival separatist groups. 

An attack on a military convoy by the LTTE led to the infamous 1981 Anti-Tamil pogrom, also known as Black July. The 1981 riot is notable, in particular, because the mob also burned down the Jaffna Library, which contained hundreds of thousands of ancient Tamil manuscripts and artifacts, one of the most destructive acts of biblioclasm in the 20th century. This blatant insult to Tamil identity and history led to more support for the LTTE (the Sinhalese-dominated military’s brutal response did not help), which gained control of the Tamil-majority areas in the north and east.

That said, the LTTE was a horrifically brutal terrorist group. They pioneered (if one can use that term) the use of suicide bombing to massacre and terrify soldiers and innocent civilians. It is estimated that the group had also recruited nearly 6,000 child soldiers during the conflict, including those orphaned by the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami. They also ethnically cleansed Sinhalese and Moors (who did not identify with Sri Lanka Tamils) in areas under their control. Although the conflict was mostly about language, the LTTE’s targets often included Buddhist temples, most notably the Temple of the Sacred Tooth Relic, which (as the name suggests) contains a tooth of the Buddha and is one of the most sacred sites in Sri Lankan Buddhism.

The best description of the Sri Lankan Civil War is two sides with little regard for human rights fought for territorial control, having been riled up by politicians who fanned the flames of ethnic and (to some extent) religious hatred, leaving innocent civilians across the island between a rock and a hard place. That concludes Part I. Stick around for the next article where I will write about how this conflict became India’s Vietnam.

US looks for Opportunities for Cooperation with China amidst Rising Tensions

Suhas Nannapaneni

Last week, President Biden hosted Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga of Japan as the first foreign leader offered an invitation to the White House. Discussions undoubtedly centered around countering China’s hegemonic aspirations and included both leaders’ pledge to work jointly on the rapid development of 5G communications technologies to prevent China from dominating the global market. 

The conversation also included a means for responding to China’s influence and aggressive actions in the Indo-Pacific and beyond. Recently, China has been using large fleets of supposedly civilian boats to press other countries’ vessels out of disputed waters. Chinese officials claimed that the dozens of fishing boats were seeking shelter from storms, but no storms had come. Instead, the reason seems to be China’s intention to assert claims in the South China Sea where it has been building and fortifying artificial islands in waters claimed by Vietnam, the Philippines, and Malaysia. This incursion, similar to Russia’s decision to post thousands of troops along the Ukraine border, comes as China has growing confidence in testing the Biden administration.

Even more aggressively, China has flown nearly 30 warplanes over the Taiwan Strait in a show of force – another test for President Biden. The air detachment included sixteen fighter jets, eight bombers, and three anti-submarine aircraft. Taiwan’s military said that it sent radio warnings to the Chinese planes and put its defense missile systems on alert, but it is clear that Taiwan’s independence falls entirely on the shoulders of the United States’ military. On the same day, American aircraft carrier, the Theodore Roosevelt, entered the South China Sea in a “routine operation” to “ensure freedom of the seas”. 

Prime Minister Suga clearly does not want to entangle Japan with the US’s commitment to Taiwan and has tried to cool down any sense of rivalry. This comes in the wake of Japan’s decision to not pass concurrent sanctions related to the genocide of Uyghur Muslims as China is one of Japan’s largest importers. This is despite the fact that Japan is part of the Quad Alliance, a group of countries often viewed as an anti-China coalition, and its own disputed over the Senkaku Islands. 

So where can the United States find an opportunity to cooperate with China and tamper down the growing rivalry? Climate change seems to be the answer. President Biden’s climate envoy, John Kerry, was sent to Beijing for three days during which both countries made promises to prioritize addressing climate change. China’s leader, Xi Jinping, has stated that carbon emissions in China would peak before 2030 and that the nation would be carbon-neutral by 2060. Although many environmentalists praise his attention, there is a lack of specific details as to how it will be achieved. 

Currently, China is the world’s worst emitter of carbon dioxide, accounting for 28% of the world’s total while the US is second at 15%. However, China’s new five-year economic plan, unveiled in March, offered no details for reaching Xi’s emission goals. In fact, China has approved new coal plants citing social stability and the development of domestic industry. “For a big country with 1.4 billion people, these goals are not easily delivered,” Le Yuchen, the vice minister of foreign affairs said. “Some countries are asking China to do more on climate. I’m afraid that is not very realistic.”

Although China is a far way off from making real progress on climate change, it does leave open a long-term opportunity for collaboration that could prove to help tamper rising geopolitical tensions elsewhere. 

Sino-Russian Interactions in Central Asia

Robert Cole

Central Asia is probably one of the least discussed areas in international relations, yet it could play a central role in the politics of the 21st century. This is primarily because it is so central. Located between the great powers of China, India, and Russia, it is likely to be a point of major development as each seeks to expand its economic and political influence. For now, India is confined by the Himalayas and has limited connections to northern parts of the region such as Kazakhstan. China however has in recent years begun to look west, into Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan, many of which it sees as critical to the larger Belt and Road Initiative, as well as major gas suppliers. Russia, for its part, has presented the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) as its own hegemonic economic and political union, though it has in many ways become more of a political rather than economic sphere, an acquiescence to the dominance of the Chinese in terms of trade. 

The present system of Chinese economic dominance and Russian political dominance is premised on continued cordial relations between Moscow and Beijing, something that should not be taken for granted. Sino-Russian cooperation is premised on shared interests, primarily an opposition to the western-led world order and an increasingly interconnected economic relationship. Given the extremely concentrated control Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping hold over national political and economic power, changes in leadership in either state could disrupt the personal relationship they have cultivated. Additionally, the entire relationship is premised on Chinese disinterest in dominating regional politics, which given its present relationship with the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, is no certain thing. 

For the US and its allies, separating these two key opponents of democracy should factor more heavily into decisions to level broad sanctions against either. Alienation from the west pushes the two closer together, and so alternatives should be found where possible. US decisions to oppose developments like the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany should also be considered more in the context of Sino-Russian relations, since separating Russia and Europe only forces Russia to turn east.

Pariah in Name Only

Rohan Rajesh

One of the more interesting results of the pandemic is that adoptions and purchases of dogs and other pets have soared, at least in the United States. I, myself, am one of those lucky individuals blessed to own a “pandemic puppy.” While searching for the appropriate breed, I became curious about the situation for dogs in India. Whenever I visited India, I would see stray dogs in every street and alleyway. I almost stepped on one in the middle of the night outside my grandparents’ home. In this article, I will explore how dogs have historically been valued in India, and what the future for Indian dogs looks like today.

First, it should be noted that, as with everything in India, the value of dogs varies by community. Although not as prominently featured as other animals, in Hinduism, the dog is the mount for the deity Bhairava, a manifestation of the supreme deity Shiva.  The final scene of the ancient Indian epic - the Mahabharata - narrates the deaths of the five Pandavas (one of two major clans in the epic) in the Himalayas. The eldest Pandava - the almost sinless Yudhishthira - is the last one remaining and followed loyally by a dog. The dog turns out to be the Hindu god of death, Yama, who briefly takes Yudhishthira to the underworld (where his loved ones are temporarily residing) before bringing him to heaven. In Nepal and the neighboring Indian state of Sikkim, the dog is celebrated in the annual Kukur Tihar (“Dog Festival”) as the manifestation of Yama. In Zoroastrianism (a minority religion whose followers came from Iran to western India following the Islamic conquest of Persia), dogs are sacred animals.

Of the many dog breeds indigenous to India, the oldest is the so-called Indian pariah dog. They were likely the first dog breed encountered by humans when they came to the subcontinent 60,000 years ago, and their remains have been found in the ruins of the Indus Valley Civilization. Today, they are found in every clime and thrive in India’s streets. The English word “pariah” actually comes from a Tamil word meaning “drummer” because the drummer caste was traditionally associated with the lower rungs of the caste system. Since Indian pariah dogs usually scavenge on the outskirts of human settlements, the term was applied to them. In Indian languages, these dogs are generally referred to as “native dogs.” However, traditionally, the pariah dog’s trainable nature has made them great guard dogs. They are loyal, protective, sturdy, and low maintenance as well. But during British rule in India, foreign dog breeds were prized over indigenous breeds, which contributed to their association with an outcast status. 

In recent years, the human-dog conflict in India has risen significantly. The collapse of vulture populations has meant more carrion has been available, leading to an explosion in the stray dog population in Indian cities. Currently, there are around 35 million free-roaming dogs in India. Unfortunately, this has also meant more violent encounters between humans and dogs. India currently has 20,000 cases of rabies annually, and children are frequent victims of dog attacks. In the city of Bengaluru (India’s IT hub) alone, there are 25,000 dog bites per year. These attacks have occasionally led to brutal retaliation by humans. Feral dogs have also become a threat to endangered wildlife.

Despite these sobering statistics, there is a burgeoning movement in India to adopt stray dogs, including pariah dogs (since most stray dogs are indigenous, the kinder term is “Indie” dogs), and it has gained the support of prominent Bollywood celebrities. Many in the West have also begun adopting Indie dogs. The Indian government is now interested in sourcing talent from the indigenous population since Western breeds are more expensive and are not as used to India’s environment. Police departments in various Indian states have been inducting pariah dogs into their forces. In 2018, the Indian military adopted indigenous Mudhol hounds from the southern Indian state of Karnataka. In his monthly radio address, Prime Minister Narendra Modi advocated the adoption and use of indigenous dogs as a part of his Atmanirbhar Bharat (“Self-Sufficient India”) Campaign, which has reduced stigmas surrounding these dogs and increased their adoption rate. Appreciation for Indie dogs was best exemplified when some of them became showstoppers at a dog show in Chennai. Indeed, it seems that Indians’ views of their dogs are going back to their 4,000-year-old roots when a wise person wrote:

“श्वभ्यः॒ श्वप॑तिभ्यश्च वो॒ नमः॑”

Homage to you: the dog and the protector of dogs!

-Yajurveda 4.5.4.2

From the Yellow River to Yellow Skies

Jay Ramesh

We complain every year of the waves of yellow pollen that coat our cars, houses, and clothes every spring. But in Beijing, the skies are actually turning yellow, and it’s not because of pollen.

The US Air Quality Index (AQI) is used to measure air quality levels, air pollution, and potential health effects resulting from dangerous air quality. According to the index, Green levels between 0-50 are satisfactory, with little to no risk of health effects. Maroon levels 301 and higher pose a health emergency that is likely to affect everyone.

On April 15, sand, dust, and pollution caused Beijing’s AQI to hit 324, with levels soaring to over 1,300 in the afternoon. China officially blames the Gobi desert it shares with Mongolia for the majority of these dust storms, though dangerous levels of air pollution certainly don’t help the air quality. Though other countries also struggle with dangerous levels of air pollution in their cities, China has become infamous for smog and poor air quality in its major cities.

Global climate talks have been under the radar lately, but the talks, or as we will see the lack of things talked about, represent a significant closing window for international cooperation between China and the US. John Kerry, former US Secretary of State and current US Climate Envoy, wrapped up his trip to China on Saturday, April 17. As of this writing, it is unknown how productive the talks were, which most likely reflects a failure by both parties to reach any consequential agreements. 

In the wake of former president Donald Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accords, the Biden administration is making moves to resume US involvement in global climate initiatives. Biden will be hosting a virtual climate summit for world leaders on Earth day. 

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has announced that, despite disagreements and criticisms, the US is prepared to work together with China to fight climate change. As for China? Well… they’re giving Washington the silent treatment. 

Chinese president, Xi Jinping, left Kerry and the Biden administration on read after Kerry’s visit, with Jinping not revealing if he would attend Biden’s summit. Meanwhile, China texted back close US allies France and Germany, stating that the country would be happy to cooperate with them on climate policy. China had previously used Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris accords to criticize US climate policy, claiming that the US must “catch up” to China and do more for the environment. 

Though the window for cooperation between the US and China is closing, there may be a new opportunity for international competition. 24% of US electricity is coal powered, far less than the estimated 65% of China’s share. 

Bashing heads in flashpoints across the world could manifest into a sort of race to the bottom for a race to the top in world climate leadership. As both parties seek international political leverage, the fight against climate change could become a valuable arena to turn political bickering into useful progress and change.

As technological innovations continue to grow in both countries, a green throne as world climate policy leader is slowly starting to emerge, supported by decades of international cooperation and several climate initiatives. Both countries could turn their international tensions into a productive force for good through innovation and trying to outdo the other in terms of green energy. China might not have texted the US back, but Biden has shown that he isn’t afraid to double text his other allies.

20 Years Later

Joshua O’Brien

On October 7, 2001, the U.S. and its allies launched Operation Enduring Freedom—the invasion of Afghanistan. By the year’s end, the Taliban government had been disposed of. Since then, the war continues as a counterinsurgency operation to prevent a resurgence in terrorism and support the Afghan government against Taliban insurgents. Last week, President Biden announced that 20 years after the attack that launched the war, American forces would be withdrawn from the country.

The end of the war in Afghanistan naturally brings reflection on the last twenty years of American foreign policy. What are the goals of keeping forces in Afghanistan? Is it counter terrorism, to protect the homeland from a future attack? Is it a state-building mission in Kabul? I think that the inability to decisively answer these questions informed the decision to withdraw. But if we take those as the objectives of American military presence in Afghanistan, we need to ask: how will this decision affect them?

On matters of counterterrorism, I cannot come to a firm conclusion. American intelligence capabilities will be diminished, making it harder to predict and address threats. But whether a new or existing terror network is able to strengthen is going to depend on several factors, such as the political climate in Afghanistan post-withdrawal, the organizational capabilities of leaders on the ground, etc. The latter has fairly simple conclusions: al-Qaeda does not exist in the organizational capacity it did under bin-Laden. Any competent network will likely take time to reorganize, to the best of my knowledge.

On matters of state building, I have a better idea. It has always been my belief that state building missions in Afghanistan and Iraq were doomed to failure. First, these wars were not conceived with a mind for democratic rehabilitation or stability. They were reactions to terrorist attacks, poorly calibrated to reach the non-state actors responsible. Simply, the motives, means, and political will to take the time to install a government in Kabul were not there. Moreover, it does not seem entirely reasonable to me to think that a democratic government can be brought about successfully by invasion and imposition. Whether the Afghan Government survives is uncertain, but it seems certain that the Taliban will regain significant power, and quite possibly, the country. Whatever happens on this front affects the issue of terror once more and leaves the issue uncertain.

So, what does America have to show for 20 years of war? An uncertain legacy, an uncertain future, and uncertain objectives. In a graveyard of empires, now rests the 21st century imperial objectives of America.

Cultural Authenticity of Silk and China

Anyi Li

When I came to the U.S., my parents directed me to bring gifts such as silk handkerchiefs, folding fans,  ties, and scarves to my American host family and high school teachers. Upon receiving them, my host sister proudly showed off pictures of her silk wallet on Instagram with the label: "look at my Chinese wallet!" 

In reality, the clothes she wore, the bed she slept on, the chair she sat on, and the phone with which she posted her Instagram were all made in China. Nonetheless, she and the rest of my host family all believed that the chair, the phone, the bed, and clothes do not represent the Chinese culture, but the silk items I brought to them do. This understanding is well-founded in the Chinese history of globalization. The earliest evidence of silk production in the world was dated to as ancient as 3630 B.C.E. in the Chinese Henan province during China's Shang Dynasty. From as early as 400 B.C.E., the Silk Roads were trade routes that connected the East and the West. Today, China still produces about three-quarters of the world's silk and continues to pledge efforts in building modern trade routes that enable economic globalization between China to even as far as the Arctic regions. To the world and us, fancy silk represents China. 

Globalization has made silk production techniques no longer exclusive to China. Americans don't even have to go to Chinatown. They can find silk products in probably any mall. With modern technology, my host family can also just sit in their house, purchase the silk products I brought them on Amazon, and three days later, they will receive the same items. However, they and I still consider what I brought them was the original Chinese silk. It is clear that in my host family's and my mind, there is a sense of authenticity on the cultural emphasis of silk being the practices and commodities of the Chinese.

Work Cited

Jiang, Fercility. “Chinese Silk - Silk History, Production, and Products.” China Highlights, 

4 Mar. 2021, www.chinahighlights.com/travelguide/culture/chinese-silk.htm. 

Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

Stanway, David. “China Pledges to Build 'Polar Silk Road' over 2021-2025.” 

Edited by Shri Navaratnam, Msn.com, Reuters, 5 Mar. 2021, www.msn.com/en-us/news/

world/china-pledges-to-build-polar-silk-road-over-2021-2025/ar-BB1efVsx?ocid=uxbnd

bing. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

ICTs and Location

Anyi Li

Do you know that the development and distribution of ICT share an interconnected relationship with its geographical location?

ICT, which stands for Information and Communication Technologies, can be any hardware or software that makes the transmission of information possible. For example, a smartphone is hardware composed of many hardware and software and often carries an astonishing amount of information private to its owner. Another example is Microsoft--a software system that is developed and engineered by a set of digital instructions that allow it to transmit data. ICTs are often made into commodities and become buyable, sellable, and investable. Often, information and communication technologies grow to become industries and multinational corporations, such as Apple and Microsoft, benefitting the investors and the national economy where these industries and corporations set their headquarters.

With information and communication technologies linked to commodities, money becomes involved. People’s access to information and communication technologies are interdependent with the economy within the society of their absolute locations. According to Laura Silver’s article “Smartphone Ownership is Growing Rapidly Around the World, but Not Always Equally,” while about nine in ten people in advanced economies such as South Korea own a smartphone, only four in ten people in emerging economies such as Kenya are owners of a smartphone (Silver). This is particularly crucial in the times of COVID. While the overwhelming majority of South Koreans can learn about the discovery of a new variant of COVID-19 minutes after the announcement by scrolling through social media, the majority of Kenyans would have to wait to hear from radios and other slower forms of communication technologies. This time-lapse could cost not only billions of dollars but also millions of lives. The uneven interdependence is also true in the access to Microsoft. While Kenya only got its first Microsoft software testing center in 2018 (Mumbere), people in the U.S. could sit at home and run an online system test. Comparatively, people in the U.S. save money, time, and energy. Other factors make communication technologies incorporate locations as well. The location’s government actions can hinder the distribution of ICTs. Based on the article written by Peter Mburu, the Kenyan government imposed a digital device tax on digital transactions from January 2021 (Mburu). This government tax can make digital devices more unaffordable to the people who live in that location, as the prices would inevitably grow. 

Work Cited

Mburu, Peter. “Kenya: State to Tax Digital Transactions From January 2021.” AllAfrica.com, 

26 Jan. 2021, allafrica.com/stories/202011060212.html. 

Mumbere, Daniel. “Kenya's William Ruto Launches First Microsoft Software Testing Centre in

Africa.” Africanews, Africanews, 5 May 2018, www.africanews.com/2018/05/05/

kenya-s-william-ruto-launches-first-microsoft-software-testing-centre-in-africa/. 

Silver, Laura. “Smartphone Ownership Is Growing Rapidly Around the World, but Not Always

Equally.” Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project, Pew Research Center, 

5 Feb. 2019, www.pewresearch.org/global/2019/02/05/smartphone-ownership-is-

growing-rapidly-around-the-world-but-not-always-equally/.