The Rising Concerns of Healthcare Waiting Lists in the United Kingdom

“I am sorry, Ma’am; we cannot treat you now,” the hospital receptionist said, giving me a sympathetic look. “Would you like me to call a taxi for you?”

I clutched my bleeding hand tighter, wincing at the pain. Just an hour ago I stood in the doorway of my flat on the University of Stirling campus, struggling to free my hand from the metal door hinges. I quickly wrapped my hand in a dishcloth and called a taxi to take me to the closest open hospital, nearly half an hour away. When I arrived, a kind nurse examined my injury, stating my ring finger was likely broken. Unfortunately, the waiting list at the Emergency Room was too full to include me.

“No, thank you,” I answered. I left the hospital on foot in the direction of the closest pharmacy. I picked up paracetamol (British version of Tylenol), athletic tape, and a Reese’s peanut butter cup. I thought that perhaps this mangled hand could be my first “pre-med project” as an undergraduate student. I made a temporary bandage for my hand before heading home; it was getting late, and I had a lecture the next morning.

One of the first things I learned about being an American exchange student was that long waiting lists for medical attention in the United Kingdom’s healthcare system were not uncommon. In fact, the Health Foundation predicts that by summer of 2024, the National Health Service waiting list for elective care will breach over 8 million individuals. Director of Data Analytics at the Health Foundation, Charles Tallack, shares how the waiting list is likely to grow, leaving numbers of “people anxious for a diagnosis, patients in avoidable pain and lives put on hold.” The UK has made efforts towards reducing the waiting list, but the pandemic only exacerbated issues, increasing difficulties for the NHS to increase their patient numbers. The NHS experiences a regular under shortage of workers, underinvestment from the British government, and legislative negligence regarding social policy. 

The Health Foundation further explains how patients seeking elective care typically wait 14.5 weeks, but only 58% of patients receive help within 18 weeks. For an idea of comparison, STAT  shares that the average American receives elective care within roughly 3 weeks. However, the average American also experiences more healthcare costs than the typical Brit, making the matter of NHS waiting lists a discussion of pros and cons in comparison to the American healthcare system. Yet, Brunsdon Financial explains how the long waiting times and limited scope of treatment options turns British citizens towards expensive private healthcare services— many services the lower income populations cannot afford. Thus, the problem of NHS waiting lists cannot be easily solved without major trade offs—should patients wait absurdly long periods of time for treatment or pay for expensive out of pocket care?

American Edge: Immigration

As it has experienced unprecedented growth over recent decades, China is expected to overtake the United States economy in overall size within the next decade. It is unclear when this will occur or whether it will occur at all, as Chinese economic growth has slowed significantly since the end of the pandemic, and foreign direct investment there declined for the first time last year. Nevertheless, this ongoing economic competition has become of increased prevalence in the sphere of both domestic and geopolitics, as the competition has most certainly evolved into the beginnings of a new cold war. Unlike the previous Cold War, a competition with China seems far more formidable. With a developed private sector, a rapidly growing economy that can sustainably support a massive defense industrial base, and a massive population, Chinese preeminence can almost appear eventually inevitable. Yet, the United States can assume confidence in its outlook on both China and the broader world with its most unique quality: the ability to attract huge influxes of immigrants that can both support its labor force and provide the talent and ideas necessary for innovation. 

As cited by the Wall Street Journal, an International Monetary Fund study found that “for advanced economies, a 1 percentage point rise in immigration relative to total employment tends to boost total output by almost 1% five years later.” Moreover, the study found that immigration actually increases the income of natives due to productivity boosts and the contribution of different skill sets. Unlike economies in East Asia, there has been a large influx of immigrants into the labor force that has allowed the US to recover so strongly from the pandemic and could bolster prospects for public finances and growth expectations as the economy ages. In fact, according to the same article, the Congressional Budget Office projects that GDP will be 2% higher in 2034 than it would have been without the recent immigration surge. 

Hopefully now it becomes apparent how critical immigration will be to the twenty-first century. The countries that can leverage an effective immigration system into maintaining a stable labor force, a growing population, manageable government debt, and increased potential growth will have the upper hand. The United States currently holds the unique position of being the golden destination for immigrants around the world, especially skilled immigrants, which it can use to its advantage so long as it approaches immigration policy from the proper standpoint of economic growth. Until then, China and East Asia will forever be playing catch up. 

Путин Великий: Император России

Putin the Great: Emperor of Russia

Breaking! Headline! Read all about it!

Vladimir Putin has won a landslide victory to serve a term as Russia’s president again. Again. Again. Again. Again. 

Russia’s most recent presidential election results were released on March 18, 2024. For the fifth consecutive term, Putin won with large margins, securing 87% of the vote. By the end of this term, Putin will be the longest-serving Russian leader since Catherine the Great.

In an election far from free or fair, 77% of the country’s eligible voters cast their votes between March 15 and 17. None of Putin’s three opponents in the election secured even five percent of the vote: An unsurprising statistic, considering that their little campaigning consisted of praising the incumbent's work rather than challenging it. 

Antiwar candidates known for opposing Putin’s platform were barred from campaigning despite the work of Russians compiling signature petitions to secure their spots on the ballot. 

Regardless of evidence suggesting otherwise, Putin denied any claims suggesting the vote was undemocratic, instead pointing his victory to the support of his fellow Russians. 

Putin’s victory has received public support from Chinese President Xi Jinping, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un.The U.S. and other Western leaders have simultaneously denounced the election. 

With his victory, Putin has advertised a term dedicated to addressing “threats in the West,” advancing deeper into Ukraine, and hovering around clashes with NATO. Putin’s efficiency in advancing these attacks is expected to be optimal as the Kremlin is now “increasingly confident” after learning the extent to which their constituents will submit to totalitarian abuses. 

Those who notably opposed this agenda were rendered silent during this election cycle as Putin’s loudest critics, Yevgeny Prigozhin and Alexei Navalny, have met unfortunate ends in recent months. However, the legacies of these rebels are still prominent. 

Lines grew outside of polls at noon on the final day of voting. Supporters of Navalny organized gatherings at polling locations where signs were held in support of the late activist. Many even wrote Navalny’s name on the ballot as a part of their “Noon Against Putin” demonstrations.

Additionally, other protestors in Russia poured dye in ballot boxes, started fires, and lobbed Molotov cocktails at polling stations as public acts of refusal to accept the outcome of the election. Even beyond Russia’s borders, protesting occurred as at least 249 people were detained in Ukraine for refusing to take part in the vote. Those detained spoke to their experience as “voting literally at gunpoint.”

Despite these brave acts of defiance, some Russians still support Putin and the little stability he has brought in his czar-like administration. 

It is unclear whether growing tensions in Russia will be enough to prevent another article just like this one from being written again in six years at the end of Putin’s current term.

The Second President to become Engulfed by Vietnam’s Burning Inferno

This Wednesday, Vietnamese President Vo Van Thuong resigned from the presidency, making this the second Vietnamese president to resign in less than a year. Last January, President Nguyen Xuan Phuc also resigned following allegations of corruption. Now, President Thuong has left following similar allegations. Two presidents in less than a year is a rare occurrence in the Southeast Asian country. 

Following the end of the Vietnam War in 1975, Vietnam became a communist country. Yet, in almost 50 years, the country has not only remained relatively stable politically but has also become one of the fastest-growing economies in Southeast Asia. This is a very impressive feat achieved under a strong ruling Communist Party. The one-party system has an interesting power dynamic, with four main official positions: the party chief, the president, the prime minister, and the parliament chairman. Yet the most important figure in the country is the General Secretary. This makes the president a mostly ceremonial role. However, as one of the top four positions in the country, the president’s resignation could have some major impacts. These resignations come during the Vietnamese Communist Party’s massive crackdown against corruption in a campaign known as the “burning furnace.” However, to tackle corruption, does Vietnam risk jeopardizing its political stability and scaring off foreign investment? 

Protegee Burns in the “Blazing Furnace”

Vo Van Thuog is the latest ember burned in the ruling Communist Party’s anti-corruption campaign, dubbed the “blazing furnace” by party leaders. This anti-corruption campaign has been going on for the past decade, with many high-ranked officials and businessmen coming under investigation. This anti-corruption campaign was started by the General Secretary of the ruling Communist Party, Nguyen Phu Trong, the most powerful person in Vietnam. In the past decade, Trong has come down hard on corruption in the country. Yet, in a vicious anti-corruption campaign, not even his own party members are safe from this furnace, fuming to eradicate corruption in the nation.  

Thuog, at 53, was not only the youngest president in Vietnam’s history but also the protégé of the current leader of the Communist Party, General Secretary Trong. Trong, however, is almost 80 years old, and many question whether he will step down at the next Vietnamese National Convention in 2026. As Trong’s protégé, many assumed that Thuog was the natural choice for the succession. Yet even being Trong’s protégé meant nothing to the furnace. The resignation of someone who was considered to be the next leader of the country highlights the ruthlessness with which this campaign has been carried out. While this anti-corruption campaign has been impactful in weaseling out corruption in the country, many are concerned about what this could mean for the future.

Can the furnace burn forever?

There are a few aspects to frame the blazing furnace's potential impacts—political, economic, and longevity. In the political sphere, the resignation of two presidents in less than a year highlights inconsistency in leadership. While the presidential position is largely ceremonial, it is still one of the top four positions within the country. However, what is more jarring about Thuong’s resignation was his reputation as Trong’s protégé. When Thuong was elected in 2023, many viewed this as a sign of stability in the country following the previous president's resignation. With speculation that Trong would step down by 2026, Thuong was poised to take his place as the new General Secretary and ensure that policies were continued. Yet, less than a year later, Thuong has resigned with no obvious successor. This leaves a vacuum in the success, where many are worried that the uncertainty could lead to more political turmoil. 

Additionally, the rapid turnover of officials creates an image of instability, which in turn scares foreign investors. Vietnam relies on foreign investment in the economy to fuel growth. In 2023, Vietnam had received $25.76 billion worth of foreign investments that were utilized in the manufacturing industry. However, now these investments could be jeopardized. Not only does the political unrest cause hesitation among investors, but officials are fearful of even approving economic projects, slowing down economic improvement.

Yet the biggest flaw of the burning furnace is whether it is sustainable. Vietnam has made ambitious plans to continue to grow the economy rapidly. This “breaknecking growth inevitably fuels corruption, however, fiercely the party tries to fight it.” Additionally, the blazing furnace campaign centers around General Secretary Trong’s obsessive commitment to eradicating corruption. Essentially, the campaign is held together by one man with no assurance of its continuity after him. With his protegee gone and no clear successor, there is even more uncertainty that the next General Secretary will manage the campaign as aggressively or even continue to eradicate corruption. There is no guarantee that corruption will not remerge. 

Vietnam’s massive “burning furnace” campaign knows no limits. No government official is safe from it; even being a high-ranking member of the ruling Communist Party offers no safety net. Yet, with two presidents resigning in less than a year, Vietnam’s attempt to rid the country of its corruption problem may be sowing the seeds for many other problems that could hinder its development. Political instability and uncertainty have caused fear among analysts and foreign investors. President Thuong’s resignation, less than a year after the previous president’s resignation, highlights that the problem of corruption remains persistent. The current method of tackling corruption is not sustainable in the long term. There needs to be a long-term solution to this problem. However, the next biggest step for the ruling Communist Party is finding a new president. 

Intervention in Haiti: Past Failures and Present Fears

The Haitian government and global powers have failed to stabilize Haiti. Between rising gang violence, food insecurity, and Prime Minister and de facto President Ariel Henry's resignation announcement, Haiti is in a state of turmoil. Burnt corpses line the street, and the violence has resulted in much of the Haitian state disintegrating, with over 90% of the capital, Port-au-Prince, under the control of gangs.

Initially, many of the men and Haitian youth who joined gangs did so as a way to support themselves as the government continued to fail to provide for its citizens. 

But the gang network in Haiti is not new. One of the most prominent forces on the streets of Haiti in the 20th century was the paramilitary force, created by President François Duvalier in 1959 to suppress his opponents and help him and his son retain power. Despite Duvalier’s populist-to-dictator leadership style that included violence against his own people, the US offered him $900 million in support—just one instance of foreign involvement in Haiti that ultimately backfired. 

In fact, foreign involvement in Haiti dates back to 1804, when Haiti gained independence from French colonial rule. Following independence, French slaveholders demanded formerly enslaved Haitians to pay them reparations, which amounted to billions of dollars and placed the country in debt until 1947. This indemnity created a severe economic strain on the country and was compounded by the meddling of the US and other international actors in Haitian political affairs in the 20th century. Understandably, to this day Haitians remain distrustful of foreign intervention. 

Even more recently, the US sent 20,000 troops in 1994 to “restore democracy,” which included returning the elected president Jean-Bertrand Aristide into power following a military coup. Yet Aristide faced protests, forcing him finally to flee in 2004. UN forces, first led by Brazilians and then Nepalese peacekeepers, compounded the problems. A cholera outbreak in the 2010s was traced back to Nepalese peacemakers, with around 10,000 Haitians dying from the disease. The Brazilian-led UN Mission (MINUSTAH) of peacekeepers faced sexual misconduct allegations, further spreading resentment towards foreign involvement. The compounding crises since, including dictatorial leaders and the destruction caused by earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes, have not been peacefully resolved, with the lawlessness and unachievable political order stemming from the economic and political challenges that foreign intervention supports. 

Since the attacks on February 29, 2024,17,000 Haitians have been left homeless, and 33,000 fled Port-au-Prince after the gangs stormed state institutions, pillaged homes, and released over 4000 inmates. As gang violence continues to spread, 4.97 million people face food insecurity, and vigilante groups, in fear and anger, have taken matters into their own hands, killing suspected gang members. G9 and G-Pep are the two main gangs fighting for control in Port-au-Prince, with Prime Minister Henry and his government unable to respond effectively. Most institutions have disintegrated, except the under-equipped, overstretched Haitian National Police force. 

In an appeal for foreign military assistance, Prime Minister Henry visited Kenya to discuss the deployment of a UN-backed multinational security force. Still, he was stranded abroad and fled to Puerto Rico amidst calls for resignation, all while Haiti “fell further into chaos.” The Kenyan-led mission had more significant support than other missions, with many Haitian police officers still retaining doubts about the effectiveness of the international response. 

Henry has promised to resign but must wait for the creation of a transitional council set up by regional leaders. One of the requirements by the transitional council, which has been a product of the US, the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), Canada, France, Brazil, and Mexico, is for any future Haitian leaders to allow gang-crackdown by international security missions. Calls for Henry’s resignation come from both international pressure and gang leaders, with one of the most notorious gang leaders threatening to start a civil war if Henry didn’t step down. A civil war would devastate the country, giving gangs control of roadways and supply flows and thereby compounding the violence and food insecurity that Haitians already face. 

Beginning in 2022, Henry appealed to the international community for a “specialized armed force” to help grapple with the gang violence. That same year, the executive director of Haiti’s National Human Rights Defense Network, Pierre Esperance, stated that “most Haitians were against an international force.” Still, this opinion is changing as the situation worsens and as Haitians “feel there are no other options.” Despite the call for support, the US and other foreign powers are wary of a new international mission in Haiti and the potentially disastrous consequences of foreign involvement and instead now recognize the necessity of Haitian-led solutions. 

Former US Ambassador to Haiti, James B. Foley, commented on the Haitian response to intervention, stating that “Haitians revile the prospect of yet another foreign occupation following a string of failures by the international community in their country.” Despite this, the UN Security Council has condemned the violence and stressed international humanitarian assistance and support to the police. However, without coordinated action, the lack of leadership may cause Haiti to fall under the complete control of criminal gangs. 

Foreign interference in Haiti, resulting in economic setbacks, government corruption, and continued external involvement in the country, has made Haiti a country wherein a weak government is unable to prevent gangs from gaining power. Haitians are simultaneously requesting and distrusting international involvement to help resolve these issues. 

The situation in Haiti remains ongoing, with the future of Haiti full of strife and uncertainty and many Haitians living in fear for themselves and their families.

Moscow Terror Attack: Are Extremist Groups on the Rise?

On March 22nd, only days after the conclusion of the Russian presidential elections, a terrorist attack on a Moscow concert hall drew attention to Russian domestic security and intelligence operations. After such a large-scale and deadly attack, Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Western counterparts will be both dealing with some difficult questions in the weeks to come.

A concert hall in the north of Moscow, Crocus City Hall, was the site of a brutal terrorist attack that has, at the time of writing, killed 133 Russian civilians, including multiple children, and injured many more. Moments before the beginning of a music concert, four men began shooting and throwing projectiles into the concert hall. As civilians fled and emergency services arrived, the building caught on fire, later collapsing.

Responsibility for the attack has been claimed by the Islamic terrorist group ‘Islamic State Khorasan Province’ (ISKP), a branch of the Islamic State in Afghanistan. The four men, rumored to be Tajik nationals, were the subject of a national manhunt after fleeing the scene and were apprehended by police in Russia’s Bryansk region, which borders both Belarus and Ukraine. Russian state media and authorities allege that the attackers were attempting to cross the international border into Ukraine, potentially with the help of the Ukrainian government, despite no evidence of any Ukrainian connection. Ukraine has denied any involvement in the recent attack.

In statements since the attack, the US has said that they had advance warning of ISKP’s intentions—which the US intelligence community attempted to share with Russia under the ‘duty to warn’ policy. This policy, adopted in 2015, requires agencies composing the US Intelligence Community to warn others about potential lethal threats. Additionally, the US and UK released notices to their respective citizens in Russia warning them to avoid large gatherings, such as concerts. Each of these warnings was reportedly treated with suspicion by Moscow, with Putin calling the warnings “provocative” and “blackmail” just last week.

This large-scale terrorist attack should concern American policymakers. In March, Russian officials announced that they had disrupted multiple plots by similarly-affiliated groups, suggesting an increase in regional terrorist activity. If this is true, and the recent terrorist attack in Moscow was undertaken by ISKP, it is important for the US to consider the role it may have accidentally played. It is likely that, since pulling out of Afghanistan in 2021, a decreased US presence in the region has allowed terrorist groups to regain power and influence, potentially including capabilities to plan and carry out long-range terror attacks. In the future, this may be seen not only through examples such as the governance of the Taliban in Afghanistan but also an increase in large-scale terrorist attacks across the globe.

NATO’s Next Secretary-General: A Fox or a Hedgehog?

After nine years at the helm, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg is stepping down. Stoltenberg is the second longest-serving Secretary-General in NATO’s history and has led NATO into one of the organization’s most turbulent times. He will not be leading NATO out of it.

Who will replace him: a fox or a hedgehog?

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the reignited purpose of NATO is as fiery and resolute as before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Generally speaking, that is.

In a time where much of NATO is galvanized into action unheard of since the Cold War, cracks are appearing. Turkey blocked the accession of Finland and Sweden, claiming they supported Kurdish insurgents (in reality, deflecting public attention away from rising authoritarianism and economic dysfunction). Hungary also blocked the accession of Sweden in reaction to Swedish criticism of Hungarian democratic backsliding (a criticism not uniquely from Sweden). And a frontrunner in the US presidential race has implied distancing the country from the alliance. Meanwhile, much of Eastern Europe shows unprecedented enthusiasm for strengthening the bloc.

In this tumultuous moment, who will don the long-trodden shoes of Jens Stoltenberg, a Fox: Mark Rutte; or a Hedgehog: Kaja Kallas?

Isiah Berlin’s 1953 Fox and Hedgehog metaphor categorizes leaders, writers, artists, and philosophers as hedgehogs or foxes. Hedgehogs are highly principled and non-compromising, and base their worldview around one central idea or grand strategy; everything is centripetal. Foxes, on the other hand, are those who are drawn in many directions, doing one thing and another sometimes to the point of self-contradiction, willing to be flexible and chase many individual goals that don’t always orbit around the same grand plan or idea. This dichotomy is clear between the candidates for Secretary-General.

Our fox is Mark Rutte.

Rutte is the former Dutch Prime Minister. During his premiership, he received the moniker “Teflon Mark” for holding together numerous different coalitions across four terms as PM. This can be attributed not only to his negotiation and reliability but also to his blandness. Rutte sees himself as a chairman, not a visionary. His political beliefs are minimal, and he worked with the Dutch far left and far right equally. He even welcomed Vladimir Putin’s NordStream projects until his opinions soured following the invasion of Crimea. Rutte would “Have coffee with the Devil, and probably hug him too” in reference to his ability to negotiate with anyone equally, which he demonstrated by holding together disparate coalitions in parliament. Rutte’s bid is supported by larger states, the US, UK, and Germany have all voiced their preference for is leadership.

Rutte’s nature, the fox, is epitomized in one quote: “Anyone having visions should see a doctor.” He’s not a visionary, he’s not a frontrunner for his ideals and his grand strategy. He is bland, but he could be the means necessary to hold together the ever-more disparate NATO coalition; the “Teflon Mark” to bind skeptical Americans, authoritarian Hungarians, hawkish Baltics, and cautious Germans.

Our hedgehog is Kaja Kallas.

Kallas is the current prime minister of Estonia. She has been highly skeptical of Russia throughout her career, and she has experienced Russian aggression firsthand during the 2007 Cyberattacks on Estonia. She was vocally against the NordStream project, calling it “geopolitical, not economic.” Her premiership has been dominated by the invasion of Ukraine, and she has arisen as a leader in supporting Ukraine, particularly among the former Warsaw Pact states. Estonia has given the largest share of its GDP in aid to Ukraine, and Kaja Kallas has advocated along borderline hawkish lines for NATO expansion and opposition to Russian aggression. She has voiced strong support for Ukraine’s EU bid and rejected calls for “peace at any cost” as well as Ukrainian cession of territory.  She has echoed fears that the Baltics will be the Kremlin’s next targets and that inaction toward Ukraine is complacency. For her efforts, she has been dubbed Europe’s new “Iron Lady.” 

Kallas’s hedgehog nature manifests in the need to defend Ukraine being superlatively central to her goals. Kallas grew up in the Soviet Union, watched it fall, and believes she is witnessing the West’s complacency as it is rebuilt. She foresees her country as the next target. She is rumored to be supported by several Eastern European states, especially the Baltics. Kallas represents the need to bring NATO out of its 30-year hibernation. As Russia tests NATO’s resolve, the organization must revive and respond.

These two natures represent two distinct challenges that NATO faces. One is internal: NATO is not a united front. Fractures are appearing in the bloc, and diplomatic debates threaten the cohesion and capability of the alliance. The second is external, NATO is facing a threat unseen in three decades in the face of renewed Russian aggression. 

A fox, Mark Rutte, is an ideal candidate for the internal challenge: holding together the NATO alliance and negotiating the organization through its internal struggles. 

A hedgehog, Kaja Kallas, is an ideal candidate for the external challenge: spearheading a revival of NATO power and opposition to Russian aggression.

The candidate chosen will be a resounding statement of which challenge NATO fears more.

France Protects Abortion in its Constitution

On March 4, France made history as the first country in the world to make abortion a constitutional right. This landmark decision sets France apart from other countries, because while many of them protect reproductive rights in their constitutions—such as Ireland and Canada— France is the first one to explicitly state that abortion is a guaranteed right. According to the BBC, at an overwhelming 780-72 vote, the French parliament revised the country’s constitution to include abortion as a protected right. 

While abortion has been legal in France since 1975, there has been strong encouragement from the public to enforce its protection as a right, and this decision has formally affirmed that women will be able to exercise this right as needed. In addition to public support, this decision was evoked by recent overturnings of abortion laws, in perhaps most significantly, the United States. In June of 2022, the landmark case that protected abortion rights, Roe v. Wade, was overturned by the Supreme Court, and thus, the right to abortion was effectively removed from the United States. While this provoked fear and outrage among United States citizens, the overturning of Roe v. Wade had a global impact, made clear by this development in France’s constitution. Laura Slimani, a member of the Fondation de Femmes rights group, a feminist organization that advocates for gender equality in France and around the world, spoke on the issue: “This right (to abortion) has retreated in the United States. And so nothing authorised us to think that France was exempt from this risk.” 

The president of France, Emmanuel Macron, also spoke highly of his country’s incredible progress. At a ceremony held in Paris celebrating the new constitutional amendment, quite notably held on International Women’s Day, the President delivered a passionate speech: “Today is not the end of the story but the start of a fight. We’re going to lead this fight in our continent, in our Europe, where reactionary forces are attacking women’s rights…This is why I want to enshrine that guaranteed freedom of abortion in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.” 

Macron refers to the other European nations that, like the United States, have greatly restricted abortion access. Among them are Poland, where abortion was outlawed in most cases a few years ago, and Hungary, where women are forced to listen to the fetal heartbeat before they may access the procedure. Malta is another European nation that restricts abortion in most cases unless the mother’s life is in danger. In his speech, Macron illustrated how harmful these countries’ abortion policies are to women’s health and how restrictive they are to their personal freedoms. He also made clear his hope to spread France’s revised abortion policy throughout Europe so that women in the more conservative nations may access the same choices and thus, the same freedoms. 

India Isn't A Superpower, And China Wants It to Stay That Way

2023 was, quite literally, a big year for India. In April, India overtook China as the world’s most populated country, marking modern history’s most drastic demographic shift. Mirroring this population growth are increases in India’s global influence, military power, and economic expansion. In recent years, India’s digital services sector has emerged as one of the most exciting areas of economic activity globally, and it has not shown signs of slowing down. India is ranked 5th in global GDP, and propelled by its increasing efforts to become an international player, the question of whether India is currently a global superpower emerges. 

Comparisons to China have existed since India’s birth, with foreign policy experts predicting India would eventually become Asia’s most prominent superpower in the 80s, overtaking China. However, China still outcompetes India in almost every way, economically and militarily. What distinguishes China from India is also the obstacle to India’s pathway to becoming a global superpower. India will not overtake China or become a superpower until they address the lack of investment in human capital. 

Historically, the primary drivers of a country’s transition from developing to developed nations have been higher investment in human capital and higher participation of women in the workforce, two places where India lags behind the international community. Inequality runs rampant in India. Dubai is home to some of the wealthiest sectors in the world, but much of the country is marked by subhuman slum conditions. Its spending on public healthcare is among the lowest in the world, its poverty rates are still substantially high despite decreases, and cultural practices like child marriage still disproportionately hurt women in India. 60% of India’s 1.3 billion people still live at or below the poverty line. Unlike China, home to several highly-ranked universities whose mathematics programs are in the top 50 in the world, India has no universities ranked in the top 100 for any subject.

Despite India’s conceived image as “the mother of democracy,” it has seen many encroachments on civil liberties in recent years. The lynching of Muslims has emerged as a rising threat. This persecution extends beyond just domestic disputes, with national legislation such as the Citizenship Act of 2019 being passed that discriminates against Muslim asylum seekers. Crackdowns on free speech, limitations on political dissent, poor governance, and systematic misinformation contribute to India’s lowered ranking on the Democratic Index. India promotes democratic values internationally but does not uphold them at home. 

That said, India is becoming a very important piece in global affairs, especially concerning the Sino-Indian border disputes and vies for power in the Asian hemisphere. India may not be a superpower, but it still holds significant influence over the countries near it, and China most definitely feels threatened by India’s development.

India’s foreign eye has shifted from Pakistan towards China, with Pakistani-Indian relations taking a more conciliatory, albeit tense, tone in recent years. This does not apply to Chinese-Indian relations. In 2020, violence broke out on the Galwan border between Indian and Chinese workers. The Line of Actuality between China and India has long been contested, with both countries wanting to develop infrastructure and build military might along the border to assert their dominance over the area. 

Since the Galwan disputes, the Sino-Indian competition has been taken to the diplomatic stage, as reflected by the recent chess battle for control over the tiny country of Maldives. China wants to control the Maldives to protect its oil market, and India feels threatened by China’s growing influence in their next-door neighbor. While India is not a global superpower, it could become one, and China is taking preventative measures. Recently, China signed several military deals with the current president of Maldives, who organized his campaign around an anti-Indian sentiment, which led to Indian soldiers leaving the country.

 While India still has funding and a base in Maldives, China is tightening its grip, which could fuel future conflict. Sure, India is not a superpower yet, but China will ensure it stays that way.

Turkish indigenous-design fighter takes to the skies

On February 21, Turkish defense officials celebrated the first flight of the nation’s KAAN fighter jet, an indigenous fifth-generation fighter still under development. Though NATO watchers and defense industry observers have likely heard more about joint French, German, and Spanish efforts to develop a sixth-generation European fighter, which have been hampered by disagreements, the Turkish progress seems to have largely flown under the radar. Given Turkey’s strained ties with the US and tendency to pursue goals that do not fit neatly into shared NATO priorities, the nation’s progress on the KAAN fighter should receive greater attention.

Turkey’s 2019 purchase of Russian-made S-400 air defense systems and subsequent ejection from the US’s F-35 program produced an even greater incentive to pursue an indigenous fighter jet system capable of meeting the Turkish military’s unique needs. US approval of Greek plans to purchase F-35 jets likely contributed to a Turkish desire to get the KAAN off the ground in the near future, as the pair continue to clash over Aegean Sea-centered disputes. Though long-running Turkish efforts to acquire more F-16 jets and F-16 modernization kits from the US (made conditional by the latter on Turkey’s support for Swedish NATO accession) recently met success, Turkey clearly has reason to continue pursuing the KAAN route.

Though the KAAN’s first flight in late February is notable as it marks the first flight of a locally-made combat aircraft, the prototype only reached a height of around 8,000 feet, kept its landing gear lowered, and lacked several critical “mission systems.” In short, the February flight was made by an early prototype that likely requires several more years of testing and development before delivery to the Turkish military, which is expected to be possible in the early 2030s. Once operational, though, the jet should fulfill the requirements of a modern multi-role fighter, and its design, including internal weapons bays, is reminiscent of the leading US F-22 stealth fighter.

Despite per-unit costs that likely exceed that of F-35 purchases, the KAAN is expected to carry a mix of NATO-standard and indigenous armaments and, as Popular Mechanicsnotes, may be more capable of integration into Turkey’s “growing ecosystem of indigenous weapons, sensors, drones, and battle management networks.” Of particular interest is the jet’s promised ability to interface with and direct Turkish-made Anka-3 armed drones. Though the jet promises to be a domestically-produced alternative to the US F-35 that remains frustrating out of reach for Turkish President Erdogan, Popular Mechanics highlights another potential US-linked roadblock: the jet’s F-110 engines. Though Turkey already possesses a handful of these powerful engines, US approval is needed to assemble by license enough to enable KAAN production. However, Turkey, likely as “insurance” in case General Electric refuses to supply more F-110 engines, is pursuing an indigenous counterpart for the KAAN’s propulsion system. With the engine question remaining for the time being, the future of the KAAN project will be worth watching for those interested in intra-NATO relations and aerospace developments. The outcome of Turkey’s attempt to produce an indigenous counterpart to the F-35 will be an indicator of the nation’s capability to domestically design, produce, and bring to bear advanced weapons systems.

Leave Behind the Carrier Fleet and the Jones Act

American shipbuilding was once the pinnacle of the world. Now, the US holds only 1 percent of global ship production. 

To face a growing China threat, America needs ships. Not only does America need ships, but the current fleet poses a dire risk in great power competition. Due to improved missile capabilities, the US.. must leave behind the carrier-centric fleet and adopt a more varied model. Such a task requires robust shipbuilding. 

However, a dated law holds the US unable to acquire the capacity needed. American interests benefit from the rules-based order. To deter unruly Chinese action, the US must have sufficient power projection. Therefore, hindrances in our Navy present a large threat to the American people. 

Section 27 of The Merchant Marine Act of 1920, also known as the Jones Act, came about to prepare the merchant marine for a wartime economy. The Jones Act requires that all shipping between US ports be US-crewed and US owned. 

The Act intends to bolster US shipyards and merchant marine, but in fact, merely drives up shipping costs. There is a landslide of issues created, but mostly important, The Jones Act makes it nearly impossible for the United States to acquire foreign ships. 

The United States can no longer produce the ships needed to deter a Chinese threat. 

Since The Jones Act reduces the capacity of our fleet, it is a grave threat to national security. If the US must partner with its allies in shipbuilding, the increased volume of our fleet would affect the Indo-Pacific  Repealing the Jones Act will foster American industry and preparation for a China threat.

While some forms of protectionism can foster American industry, the harsh nature of the Jones Act limits American maritime capacity with little merit. Though some might argue that the Jones Act eased the transition to a wartime economy, this overlooks American shipbuilding’s reliance on foreign components. Opening shipbuilding to our allies will not only help America procure ships, but it will also foster our own shipbuilding. The free market fosters competition, which will produce a more efficient market in America. Rejecting the globally intertwined nature of the economy does nothing but harm to American security. 

Additionally, carrier-centric doctrine is outdated and must contain more volume. If a carrier were to sink, the blowback in political will would be far too high. Carriers are by no means obsolete but should not be the sole focus of doctrine.

To address this, the US needs to project power in volume in the Indo-Pacific. The PLA Navy currently outnumbers the US Navy in volume of ships. Though the US Navy maintains superior firepower, addressing a Chinese threat in the Indo-Pacific will be difficult due to China's A2/AD capabilities. Therefore, the United States should move to a model, such as the Flex Fleet, that embraces the Missile Age and uses a mix of small and large platforms. If we move away from carrier-centrism and employ South Korean shipbuilding, our fleet can better distribute lethality and deplete enemy ISR. By repealing the Jones Act, we can better deter China and improve our fleet. 

As France protects abortion, US shortcomings are on the global stage

On Monday night, March 4th, French lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to enshrine abortion access and rights in the French constitution. The vote, which succeeded with 780 in favor and 72 against, makes France the first country to protect women’s rights to abortion in its constitution explicitly. This move is a positive step but largely unnecessary from a political point of view - abortion rights are not under threat in France. Instead, the legislation was initiated in 2022 as a response to the rollback of abortion protections in the US.

This makes abortion another issue that Europe has led progress on while the US has lagged behind. This winter, the European Union approved increased funding for Ukraine, and has continued to roll out funding as recently as March 5th. This starkly contrasts with the US, where a bill providing funding for Ukraine has been struggling for months to pass the US Congress. Recently, European Union officials, including the newest Ambassador from the EU to the US, have voiced frustration with America’s reluctance to provide a new aid package.

In this context, abortion is simply another issue that Europe takes leadership on, while the US lags behind or enacts decisions that are internationally and domestically unpopular. In the current political climate, it can be easy to focus on domestic and partisan politics without consideration for how the US looks on the world stage. However, recent actions (and inaction) in both domestic and foreign policy have eroded the reputation and opinion of the US abroad. This shifting viewpoint is demonstrated in the French decision to enshrine abortion rights in their constitution—French support for this change was explicitly motivated by the attacks on abortion rights in the US. In an NPR interview, French student Margot Eude said, “I hope France can be a model for the world, especially the U.S.”

Given that foreign countries and global citizens are following US actions and failures on issues such as abortion and aid to Ukraine, American policymakers should take care to ensure that their actions domestically reflect well on the US. Cultivating a positive image and perception of the US abroad has long been crucial to US foreign policy goals, which is why it is important that US policymakers and politicians keep foreign policy and America’s international standing in mind when settling partisan disputes. Domestic politics are not everything—to achieve long-term foreign policy goals, America must have a strong reputation on the global stage.

The Houthis: Maritime Security and Economic Stability

Since October, the news of Houthi rebels attacking commercial ships has made headlines, raising economic, geopolitical, and security concerns for nations’ crews passing through the Bab el-Mandeb Strait and into the Red Sea. Although recently, the press coverage of the attacks has decreased, the issue is still an active one, with the Houthis sinking a British-owned cargo ship carrying 21,000 metric tons of fertilizer and thereby sparking wider environmental concerns about this ongoing maritime security issue. However, at the forefront is the impact these attacks will have on trade in the critical maritime passage, as well as broader maritime security impacts in the region.

The Houthis, an Iranian-backed political and religious rebel group, shifted their attacks in November from US and US-allied warships to commercial ships supposedly affiliated with Israel. Those who have followed the Houthis’ actions will know that this shift in focus is not random. Since 2014, the Houthis have been fighting a civil war in Yemen against a Saudi-backed government that is also backed, though less directly, by the US and Britain, sparking anger and wider anti-western sentiment in the country. This sentiment is echoed in their anti-Israeli stance and anger over the war in Gaza. 

The attacks on ships, while less common but still present before, increased last October with the Israel-Hamas War. The Houthis claim their targets on shipping are Israeli-owned, flagged, or operated vessels. However, Houthi attacks targeting commercial ships carrying civilian crews violate maritime norms and international law, with non-military targets attacked, detained, and endangered in the process. Many of the crew are also international, coming from Romania, Mexico, and the Philippines, and thus not directly connected to the Middle East conflict. The British-owned Galaxy Leader was one ship attacked by Houthis on November 19, and their crew is still held captive by the Houthis. Arsenio Dominguez, secretary-general of the International Maritime Organization, has since called for their release and for “collective action to fortify the safety of those at sea.” 

Beyond civilian concerns, often overshadowing the media, are concerns over the rerouting of trade that typically goes through the Red Sea, heading towards either the Suez Canal in the North or the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in the South. The location targeted by the Houthis is prime - 12-15% of world trade passes through the Strait, and 30% of that is global container traffic. Further, the Suez is a major artery for energy transport, with more than one million barrels of crude oil and 8% of liquified natural gas passing through the Suez Canal each day. These trends raise concerns over the possibility of another European energy crisis like in 2022 or the shipping delay seen in 2020 with COVID-19 slowing maritime shipping services. For now, there hasn’t been a noticeable harm in the global economy from the attacks, with Chinese shipping still going through the Suez. However, the long-term consequences could be much more dire. 

In response to attacks on commercial ships, countries and shipping companies have begun rerouting their vessels around the Cape of Good Hope, which adds up to two weeks on the journey, and around 3000 extra miles. Based on research from the London Stock Exchange Group, for a container vessel to travel from Shanghai to Rotterdam using this new route, it would cost 35% more and add an extra eight days to the voyage. To try and deter an attack on their ships, some crew and captains have been using a system sending messages such as “allchinesecrew” for protection. 

Essentially, the Houthis are utilizing two military strategies increasingly common by non-state actors with limited naval powers. First, the Houthis have employed a tactic of Anti-Access/Area Denial (A2/D2) in their control of the Red Sea, at least in the area near Yemen and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, by preventing perceived adversary ships from entering this key sea lane of communication for both commerce and naval maneuvers that is the Red Sea. Further, the Houthis are utilizing a form of commerce raiding in their disruption of commerce and logistics with attacks on merchant ships. 

The US and the West have issued a response to these attacks, but they have been criticized for failing to halt the assaults. In mid-January, the US and UK, as well as 14 other nations, led a campaign to deter attacks by striking drone, missile, and storage sites, along with other critical Houthi infrastructure in Yemen. Issues regarding reliable intelligence on the Houthi arsenal, as well as the lack of success by the coalition, have led some to question the strength of the US campaign. Others, however, believe that a US-led coalition should focus on Yemen solving the problem with a political statement and that US involvement will risk a wider regional conflict. However, it is unlikely that Houthis will halt their attacks until the war in Gaza is over or has reached a cease-fire, a stance confirmed by the Houthis themselves in February. 

As for now, maritime security in the Middle East is tumultuous at best. Disruptions in shipping, crews fearing for their safety, and criticisms for and against Western military response have made the situation a complex one. The Houthis’ attacks also further illustrate the rising tensions in the Middle East and the larger criticisms against the war in Gaza. 

The Potential for Public Transportation in Germany

A week of recent strikes among German transport workers has culminated in an unlikely collaboration with the environmentalist ‘Fridays for Future’ (FFF) movement this Friday, March 1st. The joint protests are a collaboration between FFF and Verdi, the country’s transport workers union and one of the largest of its kind in Europe. The recent strike comes on the heels of protest actions which have continued throughout the beginning of 2024.

In Germany, the Verdi union represents over 90,000 transport workers across the air, rail, and ground transport industries, with strikes set to occur throughout the country in 130 municipalities. Striking workers hope to secure better pay, time off, and an expansion of public transportation services to deal with increases in demand in future years. Their collaboration with the Fridays for Future movement is intended to promote the expansion of public transport and the environmental benefits it will bring to Germany.

If these protests are successful, not only would the transportation workers’ union benefit from improved working conditions, but Germany as a whole will benefit from increased public transportation and a lower environmental impact. Transportation reforms undertaken earlier, in 2022, suggest some of the benefits which may come from an increase in support for public transport. In the spring of 2022, Germany instituted the ‘9-Euro Ticket’ for public transportation across the country, on both local and regional transportation networks. The initiative was estimated to save the same amount of CO2 emissions in 3 months as larger transportation reforms would over the course of 12 months. After a short period of the ‘9-Euro Ticket’, Germany instituted a long-term ticket priced at 49€. The government hopes that this initiative will continue to promote the use of public transport.

So, support for public transport has historically provided environmental benefits to Germany. If the combined efforts of the Verdi union and the Fridays for Future environmental movement succeed, Germany could reform transportation not only in support of their transportation workers, but also in support of their environmental goals. By expanding public transport networks, supporting transportation workers and infrastructure, and promoting public transportation to citizens, increased travel on public transportation could be widely beneficial.

A Phoenix Rising: Indonesia’s Potential New President

February 14th is a day when people across the world express their love for one another. However, in Indonesia, people also expressed something else–their choice of who is the next leader of their country. 

On February 14th, the world’s third-largest democracy elected its new president, Prabowo Subianto, the former defense minister with a history of human rights abuses. Subainato had been the popular favorite throughout the election. While the official results have not yet been announced, unofficial polling numbers show that Subianto has obtained about 55% of the votes. 

These unofficial polling numbers and the Subainator’s overwhelming popularity indicate that he will likely be Indonesia’s next president. How did this happen? And the real question– what are the implications of this presidential election for Indonesia and the rest of the world?

How Did Subianto Do It?

Before diving into that, we must look at who will lead the world’s fourth-largest country by population. Subianto’s past is far from pristine. As the past commander of the Indonesian special forces during Indonesia’s authoritarian rule, he has been linked to numerous human rights violations. The most notable violation included the arrest of several student activists, many of whom are still missing to this day. His actions were condemned globally, and he was even banned from entering the United States until 2020 when he finally visited as Indonesia’s Defense Minister. Yet even then, many people were upset by his visit, explicitly citing his past human rights violations. 

Now, he has managed to garner widespread popularity. There are two main sources of this. The first is choosing former President Joko Widodo’s son as his running mate. This rather controversial choice tied Subianto close to Widodo, who was very popular among the public. In a mutually beneficial move, Subianto utilized Widodo’s popularity to propel him through the polls, while Widodo established his political dynasty through his son, further cementing his political influence.

 The second is the effective use of social media. Subianto has managed to drown out his dark past by focusing campaigning efforts on young voters. TikTok videos and Subianto’s beloved cat, Bobby, helped paint the former army leader as a “cuddly grandpa.” This use of social media paid off. Much of the younger generation, with no recollection of Subianto’s bloody past, supported him in the election. This case highlights the pivotal role that social media can play in rejuvenating a public image. Overall, some main aspects of Subianto’s campaign efforts seemed to have paid off, and his public popularity points towards him cinching the presidency. Yet, how does this bode for Indonesia and the rest of the world?

But What Will the Impacts Be?

Indonesia is a country of vast geopolitical importance, both economically and politically. As the third largest democracy in the world, it is also home to an abundance of natural resources, including nickel and palm oil, two globally sought-after commodities. Additionally, its growing importance in the Southeast makes it a crucial ally to both Chinese and US interests in the region. President Widodo managed to effectively walk the line of neutrality, and neither favored nor opposed either nation. Subianto, whose platform mostly consisted of continuing Widodo’s policies, will likely do the same. This policy of non-alignment has been very beneficial for Indonesia, with an increase in Chinese investments and US-Indonesia defense drills. However, the stance of non-alignment and Indonesia’s rise in global power is more of a concern for both the US and China, who seek to gain influence over the region. 

So far, Subianto has promised to continue many of the policies put forth by Widodo, which would mean not much will change. He also pledged to focus on the country’s economic growth and implement programs aimed at helping the youth. However, in politics, nothing is ever guaranteed. Subianto’s dark past and known temper have caused concern over the nature of his policies. Analysts have expressed concern over his unpredictability as well as the potential for democratic backsliding. While there is evidence to support a bleak future, there is also a strong chance that he will continue to carry out the current policies that have been popular among the people. This outcome may not be as dire as people fear. 

In the year of elections, Indonesia’s was certainly a big one. A former defense minister with a suspicious background could utilize strategic political alliances and the power of social media to lead him straight to the presidency. Like a phoenix rising from the ashes, Subianto turned around his political career and is close to securing the presidency. With the promise of continuing popular policies, Subianto could continue Indonesia on its path of economic growth, or his past connections to authoritarian rule could contribute to a democratic backslide. Yet one thing is certain: as Indonesia continues to grow and cement its place on the global stage, the world should pay attention to how its policies will impact the rest of the world. 

Peak China?

As economists, politicians, and analysts across the globe have observed the meteoric rise of the Chinese economy, a great many questions have arisen: What did the Chinese Communist Party do that the rest of the world was unable to do? What was the most significant factor that contributed to its unprecedented rate of economic growth? Was it China’s large population? China is the fifth largest country in the world, did Chinese producers simply have more access to land and natural resources than its competitors? Maybe they had a secret business or economic strategy that had gone undiscovered or untapped by other global academics. 

Whatever the answers to these questions, China’s modern economic and trade dominance is undeniable and nigh unquestionable. But amid the rapid industrialization that catapulted China to the silver-medal spot among the world’s largest economies and delivered 800 million of its people from poverty, one simple question has evaded the minds of those same economists, politicians, and analysts that is slowly earning the spotlight in the foreign policy world: Where and when does it all end? 

Experts are increasingly agreeing that the arrival of “Peak China” may come sooner than was originally predicted. China’s expected takeover as the world’s largest economy, what I argue is not only the final stroke in China’s economic Cinderella story but a marker of a vast shift in the global balance of power, was expected to take place in 2026, according to a 2011 report by Goldman Sachs. According to The Economist, that same investment firm now predicts that China will not surpass the United States until 2035. Furthermore, Goldman once predicted that the Chinese economy, once dominant, would grow to become 50% larger; it is now projected to peak at a level 36% smaller than originally forecast, at 14%. But firms like Goldman Sachs tend to take for granted that the Chinese economy will overtake the United States at some point in the future, no matter how long it takes or how large the peak will be—other firms are less optimistic. The same 2023 Economist briefing describes the position of the research firm Capital Economics, which believes that China will never earn the GDP gold medal. Instead, it will reach critical mass at 90% the size of the American economy, and then even lose ground. 

These trends open up a wide variety of new questions for economic analysts to explore, chief among which is—what happened? A few factors are crucial in understanding this current trend. First among them is China’s population. China, like other Asian countries, including Japan and South Korea, is facing a concerning decline in its birth rate. The infamous “one-child policy” in law from 1980 to 2015 ensured that China experienced a birth rate of around 1 for over 30 years, which is less than half the rate demography experts state is necessary to keep a population growing. More and more individuals in China’s population of over 1 billion are aging, and not enough children are being born to replace them. When these people retire, they are no longer contributing to the economy, and the spending on healthcare and pension further slows the economy down. 

Beijing’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic hasn’t helped things, either. In response to the pandemic, China enacted a range of policies under the umbrella of “Zero COVID” that, as Adam S. Posen writes for Foreign Affairs, “suppressed demand, hampered manufacturing, roiled supply lines, and produced the most significant slowdown that the country’s economy had seen since pro-market reforms began in the late 1970s.” This slowdown was expected to end with the pandemic that spurred the policies, with GDP growth expected to return to normal levels or even speed up, but such was not the case. Shockingly, GDP was in decline. 

The economic problems don’t stop there. Xi Jinping, President of China and Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party, has been on an increasingly autocratic streak in the last few years. He has faced scrutiny in the international community for his suppression of dissent, seen most notably in his crackdown on lockdown protests in cities like Shanghai. He has relocated significant numbers of Uyghur Muslims into re-education camps. Community activities and local groups are under more surveillance than ever and are monitored closely by authorities, to paraphrase Ian Johnson. This culture of stringent surveillance, along with Byzantine regulations on industry and innovation, has led to a “brain dump” away from China and into other less strict countries like the United States. Less innovation, and then a decrease in economic productivity that is further slowing Chinese economic growth, is posing a significant challenge to the Chinese government. 

What is the United States to do? It is very possible that, if these trends grow to concerning levels that put the future of China as an economic and military superpower into question, Beijing may lash out before it’s too late. Particularly with concern to its long-term goals like the reunification of Taiwan with the mainland, China may seek to use its military advantage over the other Asian nations (and even the United States, in terms of the number of available naval ships) to retake the island before it no longer has the economic capacity to do so.

However, I think this possibility is unlikely. The statistics I have cited throughout this article are gloomy, yes, but they don’t predict the collapse of the Chinese state—simply a slowdown of the economy, not a decline and fall. Instead, economists are looking to China, particularly the CCP, and hoping that President Xi will do something to spur economic growth, decrease the national debt, and encourage the birth of more children to contribute to the economy. Instead, the United States should continue its targeted economic sanction on the Chinese economy, particularly those outlined in the CHIPS and Science Act, which aims to rejuvenate the American semiconductor industry. This legislation was assisted by the National Defense Authorization Act, which prohibits U.S. government agencies from procuring products or services containing semiconductors manufactured by China’s leading chip companies.

If the United States continues to be strict with the Chinese, while continuing to trade with them to boost its own economy (in the words of the Biden Administration, “Building a high fence around a small yard”), it can use the negative trends seen in the Chinese economy and maintain its gold-medal spot on the world stage.

Using Cetaceans as International Underwater Spies

In 2016, the Russian Federation declared its intention to purchase five combat bottlenose dolphins. According to SLATE News and Politics, other than being physically fit and ‘unblemished,’ Russia’s only criteria for these cetaceans was “perfect teeth.” The world reacted in a stupendous uproar; the internet fostered lively debates over what the dolphins would be used for—everything from uprooting sunken torpedoes to carrying bombs. Yet, historians acknowledged that this was not Russia’s first interest in using dolphins for military means. For more than the past 50 years, Russia has utilized dolphins as underwater agents to protect harbors and detect enemy vessels. 

Russia was not the first country to train dolphins; rather, this idea was inspired by the United States. The MIT Technology Review explains how the United States created the US Navy Marine Mammal Program in 1959; the program taught dolphins to deliver messages and identify underwater threats. These dolphins, given personal names like Tinker and John, served in the Vietnam War for these aforementioned purposes. Further research demonstrates echolocation— the dolphin’s method of locating underwater objects using sound waves—to be more effective than sonar at locating underwater mines. In 2003, the US sent nine dolphins to Umm Qasr, an Iraqi port in the Persian Gulf, to identify mines. The dolphins, part of Special Clearance Team One, successfully aided the Navy in disabling 100 anti–ship mines. 

Both international powers, Russia and the US, still use dolphins today. In the summer of 2023, international news informed the world of suspicious Russian activity in Swedish waters. However, MailOnline shares how this suspicious activity is quite unusual–it was conducted by an underwater spy, a young beluga whale named Hvaldimir. Hvaldimir carried a harness with writing claiming he ‘belongs to St. Petersburg.’ The harness had designated space for two GoPro cameras—neither of which were still on. This sighting sparked an international debate on the ethics of using cetaceans in military operations.

Dolphin–training ethics has been a ‘hot topic’ since the rise of a social movement in the early 2000s to remove dolphins from captivity. Shocking and expository documentaries, like Blackfish, targeted the inhumane practices of entertainment companies like SeaWorld and their international counterparts. No major legislation nor discussion in major international entities, like the UN or NATO, has taken place on the topic. As countries look to expand to the Arctic waters in search of oil and natural gas, the relevance of dolphin training will likely rise. However, the question still remains– did Russia ever get the five dolphins it wanted to buy?

Foreign Policy on the Ballot in 2024

The idea that the 2024 presidential election will be an unprecedented spectacle is not novel.

One aspect that makes this election cycle unique is the focus on foreign policy. 

Traditionally, American voters do not prioritize foreign policy issues and instead base their vote on domestic economic or social topics. Recent polling contradicts this precedent, suggesting that American voters increasingly prioritize foreign policy when considering how to vote this November. 

Contributing to the stakes of this election and its residual global impacts are the stark differences between the platforms of the prospective candidates, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Trump has not been shy in threatening existing relationships, proclaiming an “America First” platform. Biden has supported the opposite ideology, basing his campaign on a global pro-democracy crusade. 

Thus far, Biden’s stance on foreign policy during his presidency has been characterized by his commitment to sending aid to Ukraine and signifying the administration’s continued support of Israel’s war in Gaza. Biden justifies U.S. involvement overseas to preserve democracy both at home and across the globe. 

However, with Russia's continued occupation of Ukraine, voters, especially among younger demographics, question the necessity of America's presence in international conflicts. They are also displeased with how the Biden administration has handled issues of human rights violations in Gaza.

The hesitation surrounding Biden’s views on foreign policy is not to say that voters are clearly siding with Trump’s campaign. Many are wary of Trump’s affairs with North Korea and his controversial views on bringing the U.S. closer to Russia and China, whom Biden contrastingly poses as the greatest threats to America. 

America's commitment to NATO also hangs in the balance of the election. Trump, consistently NATO’s loudest critic, has stated that, if elected, his administration will continue to “fundamentally reevaluate” NATO’s purpose and mission.

“Fundamentally,” meaning that the U.S. will abandon NATO entirely should Trump be elected. 

On the other side of the ballot, Biden has publicly slammed the Trump administration’s “dangerous,” “shameful,” and “un-American” views on NATO, emphasizing his value of America’s continuation in the partnership. 

Finding one issue of common ground, both Biden and Trump have signaled their support of Israel with the conflict occurring in Gaza. However, seemingly avoiding extreme controversy this early in the election cycle, neither candidate has fully elaborated on what “support” would entail, erring on the side of caution by keeping details relatively vague. 

The 2024 election and the two candidates have served to divide America further.

One aspect of this election cycle that many Americans agree on is the gut-wrenching feeling that casting a vote merely chooses the lesser of two evils. 

While the two opposing foreign policy stances will likely not cause any positive change to this dismal sentiment, one positive that may come from this presidential election is an increase in American interest in international relations. 

Belgrade’s Trojan Horse? China on Brussels' Border

When a global authoritarian superpower 8,000 miles away starts pouring investment into one of the most corrupt countries in Europe, a small landlocked state attempting to join your economic union, it should set off a few alarm bells. 

I imagine many of these same bells rang in the heads of the Trojans as they watched a great wooden horse arrive on their doorstep.

In January 2024, a Chinese firm finalized a deal investing €2.2 billion for renewable energy and a hydrogen production facility outside of Belgrade. This brings the total Chinese investment in Serbia to €20.9 billion since 2009, an especially large sum considering Serbia’s GDP of €58 billion. Though divided between public and private origins, even private investment begs scrutiny: the state-controlled nature of large Chinese firms means that even private investment takes on a distinctly government-associated flavor.

Serbia has an uncertain future. They have joined Poland and Hungary in concerns of democratic backsliding, and within Europe they maintain one of the worst cases of corruption. As far as Serbia’s EU relationship, to call it slow-moving would be an understatement (the EU changed the name of their candidate states’ yearly “Progress reports” to just “Reports” for a reason). Serbia has been in the accession process since it joined the “Stabilization and Association Agreement” in 2003, officially becoming a candidate in 2012. Since then, progress has been minimal, and in some areas, it is regressing. It doesn’t help that the continual conflict over the statehood of Kosovo (which five EU member states do not even recognize) has been a serious barricade towards accession progress.

Chinese goals in Serbia are believed to be twofold, but both facets revolve around China’s aspirations to become a regional competitor to the EU.

Most clearly, China sees Serbia as its economic route into the EU. In 2016, Chinese state-owned COSCO firm acquired a majority stake in Greece’s largest port, Piraeus, on the outskirts of Athens. This is one of the crucial pieces in the European branch of Beijing’s famous Belt and Road Initiative. Having secured a major port in Greece, the only state between China and mainland EU access is Serbia.

Taking this into consideration helps contextualize China’s investments in Serbia, which center around industrial development and, crucially: transportation. The cornerstone of these are high-speed rail and highway projects, most notably the high-speed Belgrade-Budapest rail line.

By building a route directly from the Mediterranean into the heart of the EU, China can support greater trade with the EU, and become a much more substantive regional competitor in both breadth and depth, accessing new markets as well as deepening ties with preexisting ones. 

This goal, in and of itself, is not particularly troublesome. However, the second set of goals could be more concerning.

Serbia is one of the most corrupt countries in Europe and still holds significant gravity over the Western Balkans. On top of this, Serbia’s longtime President Aleksander Vućić, who has led the nation’s ruling nationalist party for 12 years, first as Prime Minister and now as President, has been widely accused of democratic backsliding and authoritarianism. It is no secret that between weak rule of law and widespread corruption, of the billions of euros China is investing in Serbia, millions never make it to their destination, instead lining the pockets of politicians and greasing the palms of high-level businessmen along the way.

For Beijing, this could very well be part of the plan. 

Despite its issues with corruption, Serbia is one of the frontrunners for EU accession. The EU has shown a willingness to cut corners before, notably in its acceptance of neighboring Croatia, Romania, and Bulgaria, all of which were accepted while still having glaring deficiencies in the EU’s “Copenhagen Criteria” or accession standards. Romania and Bulgaria in particular struggle with corruption and rule of law as Serbia does. Even Bosnia and Herzegovina, a former Yugoslav Republic, was awarded candidate status after eight years, despite virtually zero progress toward the EU’s accession criteria.

Should Serbia be accepted to the EU, this could become a major concern. Unless the trends of corruption and democratic backsliding are reversed, the millions of euros skimmed from infrastructure projects into the pockets of Serbian elites could soon be put to work by Beijing, buying political and economic influence. Influence that could be used to steer EU policy from within.

We have already seen how powerful the spoiler effect can be with the case of Hungary and their ever-apparent sympathies toward Moscow. A second spoiler within the EU, one which Beijing could use to influence (or block) EU policy, would be an Achilles’ heel that Brussels cannot afford.

Maybe the influx of Chinese investment continues to corrode and corrupt Serbian politics and business. Maybe the EU, overeager to continue building the Union, compromises and prematurely welcomes Belgrade into the fold. Maybe the EU becomes one state less functional, Hungary becoming only the beginning of a larger EU crisis of cohesion.

Or maybe not.

Maybe Belgrade uses its Chinese investment to build infrastructure, industry, and modernize the country. With this could come democratization, Serbians demanding reform and democratic values (it wouldn’t be the first time they’ve done so). Maybe Serbia can weather the gambit of Chinese investment and become a regional leader, reinvigorating the Western Balkans on their similarly lengthy path to accession.

The EU needs to learn from the Trojans and take a hard look at the great Serbian horse on their doorstep: does it hold opportunity and promise for Belgrade and Brussels, or is it a vessel for Chinese influence and Serbian corruption?

Congo's Conflict, Cobalt and ... China?

On February 20th, the United States warned two countries that they “must walk back from the brink of war” or face the continuation of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises. This statement was not in reference to a conflict occurring in the Middle East, or in Eurasia, two of the most currently highly publicized world regions. Instead, the US was referring to the tensions between the Democratic Republic of Congo, and its neighbor Rwanda. Since the First Congo War in 1996, over six million people have been killed, and millions more have suffered displacement due to this conflict between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups. One of the most prominent Tutsi groups, M23, had been dormant for over a decade but re-emerged in 2022. Rwanda has been accused of backing M23, with Ugandan president Felix Tshisekedi saying Rwandan leader Paul Kagame “will end up like Adolf Hitler.” The Congolese government and the Tutsi Rebellion have been locked in an escalating battle for DRC territory, with citizens as collateral. However, beyond the harm to civilians, looting, and displacement, control over the DRC will have worldwide implications. 

The victors of conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo have the ability to cause the disruption of technology production on a global scale. The DRC is responsible for producing around 70% of the world’s cobalt, a mineral used in virtually every device, from cell phones to the batteries of electric vehicles. The chase for this precious mineral has led to evictions and the displacement of Congolese citizens to ensure access to mines. Rebel groups and foreign actors, like the neighboring countries, have much to gain from territorial conflict and the money and power that comes from the acquisition of cobalt. 

While the M23 rebels and other local groups battle for the minerals, international countries fight to keep their ownership. Companies in the United States once owned an ample portion of the mines but sold their share to Chinese ownership during the Obama and Trump Administrations. Due to China’s practice of funding its companies through state-owned banks, they were able to gain rights to 15 out of the 19 Congolese cobalt mines. In fact, the Diplomat reports that the five largest of the Chinese mining corporations have been granted access to state-bank credit lines that total $124 billion dollars. The conflict with M23 has caused China to offer to train the Congolese military or provide security in order to protect their mines. Furthermore, China has negotiated arms deals and equipped the Congolese military with drones and other weapons to fight M23. 

China’s fervid enthusiasm to control the Congo’s cobalt supply and its monopoly on the mines should rouse concern in other industrialized nations. The United States should have retained its ownership and listened to the top diplomats during the time of the key trading of the mines. For example, diplomats such as Tom Perriello and André Kapanga implored the State Department through emails, phone calls, and pleas to beg the American ambassador to realize their grave ‘mistake,’ Now, China has a huge advantage in the technology race toward clean energy and global electrification. Over 50% of the cobalt extracted in the Congo is used for rechargeable batteries but also military ammunition, jet engines, and, most worrisome, stealth technologies. China’s policymakers have claimed that reaching sustainability goals will help transform China into a “modern socialist country” as soon as 2049. So, China’s unlimited access to cobalt will also allow for the mass production of military and “clean” technologies, boosting their economy. The United States must also recognize its stake in having a stable Congo and pay attention to Chinese movements for cobalt domination, or risk falling behind on the international stage.