China’s Stance on Israel-Hamas War

The Russia-Ukraine war has dominated the front page of major media platforms for almost two years. But on Oct 7, the page looked something completely different. 

Israel declared its country to be in a state of war, as the armed forces led by Hamas launched an attack on several Israeli communities, killing 1,400 civilians and kidnapping about 240 civilians. Since then, the world has been centering its gaze on the appalling Israel-Hamas war.

China was unusually swift in responding to the war. It generalizes the Israel-Hamas war as a result of the prolonged Israel-Palestine conflict. On Oct 13, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi claimed China’s position as a “friend to both Israel and Palestine” during a press conference with EU diplomat Josep Borrell. 

He also added, “Israel has the right to statehood, so does Palestine. The Israelis have obtained the safeguards for survival, but who will care about the survival of the Palestinians? The Jewish nation is no longer homeless in the world, but when will the Palestinian nation return to its home?”

On Oct. 18, President Xi made his first remark and called for an immediate cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war. The next day, during his meeting with Egyptian Prime Minister Mostafa Madbouly in Beijing, President Xi claimed that the key to stopping the conflict was establishing an independent state of Palestine through a two-state resolution.

Despite China’s persistent concern for terrorism, it refrained from using the term when describing Hama’s attack. 

To retaliate, Israel escalated airstrikes across the Gaza Strip, killing at least 2,670 civilians and cutting off food, water and electricity to the Palestine enclave. 

In response to Israel’s retaliation, China and the US, once again, upheld opposite stances. 

“Israel’s actions have gone beyond self-defense, and it should heed the call of the international community and the Secretary-General of the United Nations to stop its collective punishment of the people in Gaza,” Wang Yi told his Saudi Arabia counterpart Faisal bin Farhan Al Saud in a call several days after. 

On the same day, Secretary of State Anthony Blinkin told reporters in Cairo that “Israel has the right – indeed it has the obligation – to defend itself against these attacks from Hamas, and to try to do what it can to make sure that this never happens again.”

China had sided with the Palestinians and Arab nations since the mid-1960s when Chairman Mao Zedong’s government offered military and diplomatic support to the Palestinian fighters. After the death of Chairman Mao, China softened its position in the Middle East, formally established diplomatic relations with Israel in 1992 and claimed “noninterference” in the Middle East affairs. 

Under President Xi, China’s economic influence in the Middle East grew, and it started to side with the Arab nations and mediate the Israel-Palestine conflict.

In June 2023, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, signed a strategic partnership with President Xi in exchange for Chinese economic aid. In return to China’s favor, Abba said China’s policies towards Uyghurs in Xinjiang have “nothing to do with human rights and are aimed at excising extremism and opposing terrorism and separatism.”

Despite China having criticized Hama’s brutal attack on Israel, its criticism of Israel’s retaliation is far more direct. 

Since the Middle East is deeply divided over the Israel-Palestine conflict, China’s rhetorical support for Palestine also implies its affinity with other Arab countries and a potential counterplay on the US stance in the region. 

China’s Foreign Ministry declined to comment on whether it will do anything in the region to help stop the fighting. One possibility to look out for is whether China will stretch its influence over Iran, Hamas’ long-time ally, or help reestablish Iran-Saudi diplomatic relations to restrain Hamas’ brutality.

UNCLOS Update: Tensions with China in South China Sea Increase

During the 17th century, maritime exploration reached its peak. Countries developed unspoken conventions regarding laws of the sea; the United Nations’ Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea explains how, then, nations owned a narrow strip of ocean around their coastlines while the open sea was free to everyone. However, the 20th century brought about unavoidable issues—pollution, overfishing, and international tensions threatened the previous maritime rules. In 1945, President Truman extended United States control over oil, gas, minerals, and other resources off their continental coast, challenging the freedom-of-the-seas doctrine. These developments led the United Nations to establish the Convention on the Law of the Sea in 1982; the international body recognized the need for expanded rules and regulations on the sea in response to the changing world. Despite these diplomatic efforts, however, tensions between world superpowers still exist and worsen over matters of our open oceans. 

Tensions between countries continue to rise over matters of the sea, whether it is between neighbors in Oceania or China in the South China Sea. According to Boston University’s Frederick S. Pardee School of Global Studies, Japan and Australia constantly disagree regarding fishing policies. Japan has a notorious history for ignoring the convention’s regulations regarding fishing. In 1999, Australia and New Zealand sued Japan over the depletion of the southern bluefin tuna, and again in 2010 over illegal whaling. Not only does UNCLOS divide these countries, but so do their cultural values and interests in the seas. 

Prominent differences also exist between China and other superpowers regarding the division of the South China Sea. The Associated Press shares how China continues to creep farther away from its designated UNCLOS boundaries, impeding coastlines and maritime activity of island nations in the region (e.g. the Philippines). Valuable resources, especially natural gas, are abundant in the South China Sea, making disputes even more hostile. Indeed, China is expected to sign a nonaggression pact with other Southeast Asian nations; however, little goes to support China’s genuinity in this effort. A CNN article explains how a Chinese jet sent a flare that could have dangerously affected Canadian military operations in the region. Western nations grumbled in response, hackles raised in light of China’s continuous pushing for greater control in the South China Sea.

Europe faces winter with full gas stores, global worries

As the coldest months of the year approach in the northern hemisphere, Western European citizens are again reaching for their wallets and dreading high heating bills. Though Europeans do not have to fear gas shortages this winter, heating prices will likely continue straining average earners’ finances. 

Following Russia’s February 2022 invasion of Ukraine, a disturbing reality confronted Western European nations: a major supplier of the natural gas used to power industrial facilities and heat homes was no longer a desirable trade partner. As uncertainty abounded over the impact of the beginning full-scale war on gas supplies, nations like Germany, which had spent years building trade relationships and pipelines with Russia, began making 180-degree turns in energy strategy. 

With the Nord Stream I and II pipelines knocked offline by four explosions in September 2022 and other means of importing gas from Russia voluntarily abandoned, Europe turned to the United States, Qatar, and Australia as liquified natural gas (LNG) suppliers. Six terminals for the importation of LNG have been constructed and one expanded since Russia’s invasion.

While an increase in LNG imports helped alleviate initial supply concerns, it was not the only factor in avoiding feared power cuts and major economic damage in winter 2022. Experts cite milder weather, fuel switching to cheaper energy sources, and behavioral changes on the part of consumers and industrial producers priced out of the market as driving factors behind Europe’s lucky winter. 

Last year’s milder winter, which necessitated a smaller-than-expected drawdown of Europe’s natural gas stores, and a June 2022 EU regulation requiring an annual 90% fill-by target of 1 November saw that target reached in August this year. As of 5 November, EU storage levels hover at 99.5% full. 

While ample stores have been amassed in preparation for winter, a series of recent happenings have accompanied an increase in energy prices in Europe, with market prices rising 28% in October. Though oil prices have not yet been drastically affected by the conflict between Israel and Hamas, Hamas’ 7 October attack led market giant Chevron to freeze its Tamar natural gas field, located off Israel’s coast. The closure of this field, which provides gas to Egypt and Jordan and indirectly supplies Europe with LNG through Egyptian processing, has raised analysts’ fears of a dropoff or cessation of Egyptian LNG exports this winter. 

In a throwback to last year, a Baltic Sea gas pipeline linking Finland to the European gas network was damaged in early October, sending European gas markets surging to their highest price in six months. Though Finnish investigators now believe a Chinese container vessel damaged the pipeline with a dragging anchor, the incident demonstrated how Europe’s gas markets lie on a hair trigger. NATO patrols through the Baltic Sea have increased as inquiries into whether or not the damage was intentional continue.

While prices for European energy remain roughly €100 lower per megawatt hour than they were at this time last year, such events keep high energy bills on Europeans’ list of worries this fall. Some analysts predict residential and industrial consumption to remain “quite muted” due to high prices discouraging energy-intensive production of steel and chemicals and encouraging lower thermostat settings. 

Though high storage levels and persistent lower demand work in Europe’s favor this fall, Europeans should expect to again empty their pockets on energy bills if the conflict in Gaza expands. Israel’s ground invasion has yet to draw other actors into substantive open combat, with Lebanese Hezbollah continuing small-scale attacks to tie up Israeli troops along the northern border. If this group, described by the Wilson Center as the “most formidable non-state military actor in the Middle East,” expands its involvement in hostilities or the war becomes regional through other means, world energy prices will likely spike as exports from the oil-rich region are endangered. 

A Middle East again embroiled in war, further damage to vulnerable undersea pipelines, or a bitterly cold winter all hold the potential to bring returned worry to European gas supply and consumption. And, as Europe watchers have seen this year, energy prices retain the potential to spark culture-war-type conflict within Western European societies; the Gebäudeenergiegesetz (Building Energy Act) divided German society and government for months. The interplay between current red-hot geopolitical tensions and the European gas market will remain a topic of interest as temperatures fall.

Emerging Role of Artificial Intelligence in International Relations

What does this mean for developing nations?

The United Nations plays a crucial role in the developing relationship between AI and government. In July 2023, the AI Business described how the UN Security Council held its first meeting specifically dedicated to discussing global AI governance. A recent CNN article highlighted UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ belief that, in light of potential risks with advancing technology, the UN should seize this opportunity to create a new international entity to manage AI governance. This action would not be the first of its kind–the UN has stepped up multiple times in the past to address rising concerns, including creating bodies governing climate change and nuclear energy. How would this time be any different?

When the UN has stepped up in the past to address global issues, it has recognized its role in bridging the growing gap between developing and developed countries. Furthermore, developed countries that have greater access to AI and advancing technologies will reap these benefits before developing countries. Thus, as the world peacemaker, the UN is naturally held responsible for minimizing this gap; the UN explains how “eliminating fragmentation between countries and genders, but also in terms of resources and knowledge, could enable more people to contribute to the digital transformation underway.” UNESCO announced its intent on prioritizing Africa’s full participation in AI development and utilizing AI as a tool to promote economic growth. Moreover, the UN views AI as not only a potential warfare and humanitarian issue, but also as an ethical factor affecting economic development of developing nations.

AI is predicted to greatly impact global labor markets, such that developed countries will be less likely to source labor from developing countries. According to a 2019 European Parliament briefing by the, cheaper costs relevant to AI incentivize developed countries to replace outsourced labor with AI. Jobs will both be created and destroyed with the expansion of AI; although there is no consensus among experts, it is likely that changes in labor will follow past industrial patterns. Moreover, lower–paid jobs characterized by repetitive tasks and little qualifications to work are thus likely to be eliminated; AI can easily replace these tasks, widening the economic gap between international labor markets.

King Charles’ Contentious Visit to Kenya

When asked about a proliferous colonizer, the first country that comes to mind is the United Kingdom. They have a rather extensive history of inserting themselves into countries where they do not belong and wreaking havoc amongst all of the native citizens. The United Kingdom has even acknowledged from time to time their regretfulness over certain historic events, such as when Queen Elizabeth visited the Amritsar massacre site in India and paid her respects. Unfortunately, this is about as far as the U.K. is willing to go in regards to regretfulness, they often will not offer sincere apologies to those that they colonized, nor will they pay reparations for the citizens that suffered under their abusive hand. This legacy of deliberately evading their responsibility to reckon with their past continues with an upcoming visit from the current King to Kenya. 

King Charles III and Queen Camilla plan to visit Kenya starting on October 31 until November 3. King Charles plans to “...acknowledge the more painful aspects of the U.K. and Kenya’s shared history”. While this may sound promising, acknowledging what took place in Kenya is likely all that he plans to do… Many Kenyans wish for an official apology from the king, and many more would like reparations, and the return of stolen land that descendants of previous English settlers still own today. The United Kingdom’s lack of willingness to provide proper reparations to Kenya, among other previously colonized countries, may leave people wondering what their intentions are when returning to Kenya. The claimed reasoning is to continue relations with Kenya involving the U.K.’s agreement to train troops in Kenya, further economic relations between both countries and lastly encourage counter-terrorism efforts within Kenya. While these all may certainly be true, I believe that there is also hope that the crown holds to build its reputation globally. In recent years, support for the U.K. monarchy has been at an all-time low as many individuals are coming to learn of the atrocities that the crown has committed worldwide. Hopefully, King Charles’ visit to Kenya will prove beneficial more so for Kenya, and their grievances will be not only acknowledged but attended to, however knowing the U.K.'s track record, I do not hold high hopes. 

Polish Election

Hailed as a blow against the forces of far-right populism in Europe, the ruling party—Law and Justice (PiS)—has lost the 2023 Polish election. Despite this, the Civic Coalition headed by centrist Donald Tusk has a long way to go if he hopes to fully root out the illiberal cronyism now embedded in Polish democracy as a result of PiS rule.

Despite their victory in the polls, Tusk and his Civic Coalition will need to form a government with both the center-right Third Way and aptly named left-wing The Left. This coalition will require the three opposition parties to find common ground and, if they hope to enact legislation, find greater commonality aside from opposition to PiS and the party’s preference for democratic backsliding.

A further difficulty for the likely new coalition government lies in the PiS-aligned Polish President, Andrej Duda. Duda has already proven hard for Tusk to work with, with Duda preventing the formation of a new government under Tusk, preferring to allow PiS to finish their term despite their lack of a majority—delaying the appointment of a new government until December. The cooperation of Duda is imperative to the success of a Tusk government as if it wants to reverse the democratic backsliding initiated by PiS, it needs to gain Duda’s support or risk having its legislation regularly vetoed by the President.

But it is not just the PiS-adjacent President that Tusk needs to worry about, but also the remnants of PiS that have been embedded into the Polish state apparatus. The Polish Constitutional Tribunal and media have also been heavily stacked with PiS loyalists. If the Tusk government hopes to reverse Poland’s backsliding into illiberalism, they have the daunting task before them of reversing these appointments while not getting their legislation shot down by the President and ruled unconstitutional by the Tribunal. And this process will take time, something the PiS is apt not to give a Tusk government.

Similarly to the contemporary American political culture of divisive politics and vast chasms of political division, a Civic Coalition victory does not eliminate the large political divide in Poland. Despite seemingly losing the election, PiS still won the plurality vote, taking 35.4% of the vote, more than any other party. While one could argue that this is a result of division amongst the opposition, it is undeniable that there is still a broad base of support for PiS in Poland. Winning overwhelmingly in rural districts, PiS will hold onto its strongholds and continue to do what it can to sew division in Polish society—exploiting its vast networks in media and equally vast funding.

While it is easy to cast Tusk’s victory as a victory for liberal democracy and a blow to far-right populism, the caveats are glaring. If the Tusk coalition hopes to keep power and reverse PiS’s authoritarian reforms, it needs to ensure that the coalition is able to govern; both through working to pass policy as a cohesive government, effectively dealing with Duda, the stacked courts, and attempt to heal the social and political divide in Poland or risk a PiS return.

Deportation and New Border Barriers— Biden’s Responses to the Ongoing Border Crisis

During the first eight months of 2023, over 330,000 migrants have crossed the border, with 60 percent coming from Venezuela and 21 percent being children. In response to the migrant influx, Republican governors of border states such as Florida and Texas have sent these migrants northward to major cities, mainly Democratic-led, without further consideration of the budget strain, housing shortage and humanitarian crisis that these cities will have to endure.  

As a consequence, the shelter system reached a breaking point in those cities, particularly New York City, where migrants take over half of the population. Migrants mainly had been sheltering in hotels, school gyms, vacant offices and parking lots, but now, many sleep on the street as a result of housing shortage and eviction. Meanwhile, due to work authorization delays, most of these migrants cannot work to provide for themselves, straining the city’s budget as it continues providing for free housing and food. 

In response to the migrant crisis, on Oct. 5, the Biden administration announced that it would start deporting Venezuelans who entered the United States unlawfully and expedite the construction of new barriers along the U.S.-Mexico border. The actions were a significant turnabout for Biden who often attacked Trump’s “build the wall” policy as ineffective and unAmerican. Reacting to his new immigration policies, not only did the Republicans mock Biden for finally building a wall he didn’t believe to be effective, immigration advocates also decried Biden for choosing politics over humanity. 

Since the deportation policy was issued, the number of Venezuelans crossing the border has declined from over 2,000 per day to about 850, the data from The Washington Post shows. But the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela remains unresolved, as the State Department recently listed over 34 major human rights issues, including arbitrary killings, forced disappearance, strict censorship and violence by security forces. 

The start of deportation flights to Venezuela this October is part of a broader diplomatic deal to ease economic sanctions on the autocratic government of President Nicolás Maduro. According to ICE officials, they intended to send two to three planeloads of deportees back to Venezuela per week. 

Immigration advocates denounced this as dehumanizing as the deportation happened after Biden promised to issue temporary legal status to 470,000 Venezuelans in the United States. And the decline of Venezuelans crossing the border has not alleviated New York City’s housing crisis. And this is primarily due to the influx of Venezuelans migrating from other cities in the United States rather than from Venezuela. 

This year, Republicans have been suing to block Biden’s program that grants two-year travel authorization to over 30,000 migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela per month through U.S. sponsorships. But what would affect Biden’s immigration policies is also the U.S. diplomatic relations with the Maduro government.

Suppose the deal to ease the economic sanctions falls apart. In that case, Maduro will likely halt the deportation flights, leaving the United States to seek alternative solutions to continue fighting the migration and humanitarian crisis. 

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.

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.