Justice on Trial: The Democratic Cost of Mexico’s Judicial Overhaul

In September 2024, Mexico’s legislature passed a controversial law to reform the nation’s judiciary. The vote came with overwhelming support from President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) ruling party, Morena, despite harsh pushback from the judiciary, which attempted to block this move with three separate court injunctions. This law changes the judiciary from being appointed to being directly elected by the people, and the changes take place in 2025 despite no explicit guidance on judicial campaign regulations or finance regulations. Additionally, this reduces the judge’s terms to 12 years and limits their salary. 

This law emerged at the end of AMLO’s one-time, six-year term, which was defined by his concentration of power and subversion of checks and balances. President-elect Dr. Claudia Sheinbaum, the winner of this summer’s presidential election from the Morena party, takes office in October 2024.

Proponents argue this reform shifts the power to the people, as the judiciary would be selected by popular vote, thus, the judiciary is more representative of the people’s needs. Advocates also argue that changing to this model combats a corrupt, technocratic bureaucracy.

However, this approach undermines the separation of powers and politicizes an institution that was created to be apolitical; Additionally, the opportunity for corruption, bribery, and drug cartel interference becomes a possibility in the politicization of the judiciary. Further, concern that unfair or unfounded legal principles will be put forth is raised, as the new judiciary would be composed of politicians, rather than technically trained and experienced legal experts.

Aside from suppositions and hypotheticals, Bolivia’s judicial system offers a glimpse into the reality of changing a judiciary to be directly elected: In 2009, Bolivia instituted a reform where federal judges became elected by popular vote, and aside from more diversity in the courts, there were no profound effects on countering corruption. Following the reform, Bolivians were proved to be more skeptical and less confident in the courts, because they became politicized. 

The passage of the reform has already had effects: The value of the Mexican Peso dipped following the announcement, and the credit rating agency, Moody’s, warns that some investments and funds could be at risk, as a political judiciary may not offer legal certainty that collateral could be collected legally in the event of a default. The potential adverse economic effects that this reform brings discourages investment in Mexico, something the country must be wary of given the 100+ billion U.S. dollars invested in Mexican stock in 2022, along with an additional $855 billion in trade that same year. 

The judicial reform is a concerning step towards power consolidation, which is a tactic used by authoritarian leaders. Power consolidation facilitates single party domination, which is not new for Mexico. 

For 71 years, the Partido Revolucionario Institucional, or PRI party, held unmatched political and economic power. Under that rule, the quality of life improved for many Mexicans, yet corruption, inequality, and lack of political freedoms created difficult circumstances for many. A reversion to this style of leadership and tactics jeopardizes the democratic progress that the country has achieved in the past few decades. 

Mexico is not alone in the erosion of democracy: populist leaders like Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Donald Trump from the U.S., Narendra Modi of India, and Nayib Bukele from El Salvador all represent a global shift toward right-wing populism, which poses a threat to democracy. 2024 is a critical year, because by the end, almost half of the world’s population will have undergone national elections; just over two months remain before we will have a complete picture of what the next generation of political rule will look like.  

The Global Mental Health Epidemic

As the month of September flies by, we reach a sort of midpoint on the annual global campaign for mental health. The World Health Organization (WHO) coordinates two days a year in recognition of the impact that mental illness has had on the modern world: World Suicide Prevention Day, which was on September 10th, and World Mental Health Day, which will be on October 10th. While it is essential that an entity as big as the UN works to recognize and address the current mental health crisis plaguing the world, it seems that every year, these dates come by. I think not of a bright future but of our present, where unawareness and stigma continue to draw innocent blood. In light of this, I find it necessary to distinguish fact from reality in this crisis: there is an ongoing mental health epidemic, there are groups at risk from it, and it will only get worse if it is left to decay.

A lot of people in the world do not truly grasp the global impacts that mental illness has produced. The WHO reported that in 2019, approximately 1 in 8 people, or 970 million people, suffered from some mental disorder or disease. In addition to this, the organization reports that up to 2022, there was a reported 26% increase in anxiety disorders and 28% increase in major depression disorders, results of the COVID-19 pandemic whose impacts not only stretch out to other kinds of mental health disorders but continue to contribute to the crisis today. At the same time, however, it’s fair that many of us don’t understand this situation thoroughly because of how global stigma has conditioned many into believing that mental health is an “imaginary” issue, not needing actual treatment. And it's this lack of awareness that keeps positive progress for mental health restrained.

Similar to physical health, mental illnesses have unique symptoms, factors that can either alleviate or exacerbate the condition and treatments that can either suppress or mitigate these symptoms. However, unlike physical health, many of the conditions that worsen mental health, such as social, anxiety, or depressive disorders, are intricately linked to changing socio-cultural and economic climates. An article from The Lancet reveals that about 22.1% of all assessed populations in a conflict zone were susceptible to mental disorders like depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Furthermore, a study from the Journal of Social Science and Medicine reviewed 115 studies on poverty rates and the prevalence of mental health illness, finding that 80% of those studies demonstrated a relationship between mental illness and poverty. These significant factors contribute to a global decline in mental wellness, and even seemingly unrelated factors like the climate, political situations, and social atmospheres can be breeding grounds for mental illness. 

What’s more, poverty, among other negative environmental qualities, can contribute to poor mental wellness in youth and adolescents. In 2021, the WHO reported that 1 in 7 people aged 10-19 experienced a mental health disorder, accounting for 13% of all mental illnesses in the world. This complexity of factors underscores the gravity of the global mental health crisis.

Yet the biggest ally of mental illness, and in turn the biggest enemy of positive mental wellbeing, are ourselves. It’s hard for people to comprehend why mental health creates the impact it does. When people don’t know things, they fear them, and it encourages them to make assumptions and lead themselves into deceit to make it easier and less painful. But when that blissful ignorance is placed and forced on others, it creates an environment where these issues remain untreated and can plague, hurting more people, without many of them knowing what is happening even while the problem is hurting themselves. A research article from Cureus in 2023 highlighted how different cultures around the world can perpetuate different types of stigma towards mental health. The journal points out that Latin American and Asian Communities may see mental health as being derived from personal failure and lack of self-control. At the same time, African and Arab Communities may view mental health as divine punishment. Yet it is the Western World where these beliefs merge, culminating in more apparent forms of social exclusion and outright discrimination in society. When these community beliefs dictate not only the family and community spaces of individuals with mental illnesses but also shape government policy and stances towards it, people with mental illnesses feel trapped and void of hope for the future in a world that is uninterested and unwilling to assist them.

And the issue is only prone to worsen. Social media continues to worsen mental well-being by providing unchecked, warped perceptions of reality conducive to creating isolation, self-doubt, and even self-hate. As restrictions on privacy, personal freedoms, and prosperity increase in times of worsened poverty and increased autocratic rule, people are brought to environments by which mental illnesses can thrive and wreck the lives of families and their communities. And what’s worse is that regardless of if the person has mental disorders at birth or if it is received at a later age, they don’t get better. Because they lack the resources to better themselves or the initiative to get help, they feel like it’s not worth it, that they aren’t worth it.

From this, our path to improving global mental well-being is evident. If you or someone you know needs help and can get help, get it. It will only help you in the long run and may encourage others to do the same. Furthermore, we must educate, educate, educate. Learn more about mental health and mental illnesses, and do your best to educate those around you. Stigma feeds on misinformation and assumptions, so if everyone works to become more educated, then people, communities, and governments will finally be able to escape the stigma that blocks them from being able to assist those with mental illnesses. However, this fight cannot only be in the United States or the Western World. Regardless of where you are, the battle to break the stigma and bring awareness to mental health must be everywhere because anyone, regardless of who you are or where you come from, deserves the ability to gain treatment. You deserve to have someone to help you. You deserve to have hope.

Anime and Japan’s Cultural Diplomacy

It is no secret that Japan is a powerhouse in global influence, especially in popular culture. From the devastating aftereffects of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II, Japan has been able to build itself back up to be "the second-largest industrialized democracy". While most of Japan’s power can be attributed to its advanced technological innovations, its influence on culture and media is largely due to the rise and global spread of anime. 

It is obvious, especially in America, that anime make a large impact on popular culture. More recently, this is exemplified through Megan Thee Stallion’s new song, "Mamushi". In it, she collaborates with Japanese rapper Yuki Chiba, and the music video pays tribute to Japanese culture and films. 

So how does this connect to cultural diplomacy? To understand that, we must first know what cultural diplomacy is. Cultural diplomacy is more commonly known as soft power in which it refers to the ability to spread influence based on the "exchange of ideas, values, traditions and other aspects of culture or identity". For Japan, it is clear that anime contributes greatly to their soft power. Modern anime can be traced back to 1956 and evolved into international success at the start of the 21st century. Animes such as Pokemon, Sailor Moon, and Dragon Ball Z launched Japan's cultural diplomacy and influence on the world. This idea is further supported by the Japanese government as they started the "Cool Japan" initiative in 2010. “Cool Japan” aims to strengthen ties between Japan and other countries by promoting Japanese culture through channels such as media and food. 

Furthermore, the popularity of anime has helped shape global perceptions of Japan. Japan has solidified itself, not only as a leading technological innovator, but as a rich cultural center. The vast variety of anime has allowed Japan to illustrate it’s deep history and culture (through animes such as Demon Slayer) while staying relevant on a global field by incorporating universal themes such as friendship, love, and resilience. Moreover, the expansive choice of genres (action, romance, slice-of-life etc.) ensures the appeal anime has to a diverse global audience which only furthers Japan’s global impact. 

All in all, Japan’s rise as a global powerhouse is linked to its ability to utilize soft power through cultural diplomacy, where anime plays a pivotal role. The widespread appeal of anime has gone beyond simple entertainment, as it has shaped global perceptions of Japan, not only as a leader in technology, but as a cultural hub. The reach of Japan’s cultural diplomacy is evident through its impact in popular culture, even just within America, as evidenced through many aspects with the aforementioned Megan Thee Stallion song only being the beginning. Through its diversity in genre, theme, and overall storytelling, anime has allowed Japan to connect with global audiences, making it clear that it is a cornerstone in Japan’s diplomatic outreach.

Why the US Shouldn’t Leave Iraq and Syria

The United States has invested blood, treasure, and time into Iraq and subsequently, Syria for the past 20 years. As the US “pivots” from CENTCOM to the Indo-Pacific, it should maintain a sustainable military presence in both nations to counter Iran, Russia, and China, support indigenous allies, and safeguard human rights in the region.

With the Syrian civil war at a de facto end, the ongoing conflict between Israel, Hamas, and Iranian proxies, and the rising Chinese threat in the East, the US is uncertain of how to adapt its Middle East policy to a rapidly changing environment. With the region in turmoil, the US must double down on its deterrence vis-à-vis Iran by maintaining its military forces in Iraq and Syria. The 2,500 American troops in Iraq and 900 in Syria serve a dual purpose. The first is an explicit mission to prevent another rise of the Islamic State (IS) and to eliminate any forces that still remain under its command. The second is containing Iranian influence and deterring Iranian military action in the region, while acting as a backstop to Chinese and Russian interests. 

The fight against IS began in earnest with Operation Inherent Resolve in 2014. US forces, largely relying on Kurdish groups like the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) and well-trained partner forces such as the Iraqi Counter Terrorism Force (CTF) did a remarkably effective job of dismantling IS’s then-powerful “caliphate,” with their final stronghold falling in 2019. After the general defeat of IS, US and partner forces switched to a containment policy, supported by raids and intelligence sharing–that effort is still ongoing and has taken on new importance given the possibility of an IS resurgence. Contrary to Iraqi Prime Minister Shia al-Sudani’s view on IS, the group surpassed its total number of attacks inside Iraq from 2023 during January to June 2024 alone. Rather than seeing the IS threat whittled down to something akin to “drug trade” or “criminal offenses,” there has been an uptick in large-scale IS attacks outside of Iraq, including in Iran and Russia. With an almost complete US withdrawal from Iraq agreed upon, it is plausible that IS will take the opportunity to begin rekindling its operations in Iraq and Syria, and increase its ongoing efforts to radicalize and recruit the tens of thousands of IS families stuck in disparate refugee camps like Al-Hol, Syria. Additionally, the small number of US forces in Iraq have consistently illustrated their value to the Iraqi government, including through a recent raid on IS in Iraq’s Anbar desert which killed 14 militants, 4 of whom were key IS leaders. Such operations allow the Iraqi government to focus on preventing democratic backsliding and provide assistance to its citizens to rebuild after decades of war. Without US forces, the Iraqi military would be left without vital reconnaissance, air support, training and funding, a risk that US military leaders have consistently warned could lead to an IS resurgence. 

Not only do US forces act as a counter-terror strike force, but they also act as a counterweight to Iranian influence. Iraq has long had to balance its Iranian neighbor with the US as its strategic partner. The clerical regime in Iran has sought to influence Iraqi politics since the 2003 US invasion and is now bringing pressure on the Iraqi government to force a complete US withdrawal. This pressure has proved far more potent in the backdrop of US support for Israel amidst the Hamas-Israel conflict, causing more extreme Iraqi factions to pressure the Iraqi government. Just last year Prime Minister Sudani claimed to support an indefinite US presence in Iraq, changing tack this year after greater political pressure from anti-US militias in the Iran-backed Coordination Framework and the Iraqi Government's Popular Mobilization Forces. The Iraqi government has also quietly expanded relations with both Hamas and Hezbollah, bending to Iranian pressure as Tehran attempts to expand its “Axis of Resistance.” 

US forces in the region provide greater leverage to the US in dealing with Iran and reassure important allies in the region, namely Saudi Arabia. Such political and strategic capital lends the US greater heft during negotiations regarding Arab-Israeli normalization, the ongoing conflict between Hamas and Israel, and the overall direction of the region. They project US power to stabilize regional relations and provide tangible backing to US deterrence, as proven by Iran’s carefully measured response to Israeli actions. Without US forces present in Iraq and Syria to counter Iranian influence and reassure US allies, American influence and power will wane in the Middle East. This is particularly important amidst allied concern about the US pivot to the Indo-Pacific. As Russia and China continue to gain a larger foothold in the region, the US must maintain its presence in the Middle East, while simultaneously learning to deal with its pacing and acute threats. As illustrated by China’s continued attempts at diplomacy between Iran, Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian factions, and its economic ties with Iraq, US engagement in the region is not only vital for global stability but also for US-Sino competition. 

With Bashar Al-Assad’s brutal government in Syria largely readmitted into the Arab world, Russia has also emerged as a significant strategic threat in the Middle East. The burgeoning Iranian-Russian relationship contributes to instability and war around the world, including in Ukraine and the African Sahel region, again illustrating the importance of the Middle East to both strategic competition and global stability. Withdrawing troops from Syria in particular would leave an important US ally–the Kurdish people–vulnerable to attack from the Syrian regime, which has proven its willingness to use chemical weapons, torture, and other inhumane tactics to achieve its goals. It would also encourage a US ally, Turkey, to pursue its unilateral goals against the Kurds along the Syrian-Turkish border. 

Abandoning the Kurdish people would deal a blow to the US’s reputation and be an act entirely out of line with US values. It would serve only to hurt US interests in the region and create yet another opportunity for an IS resurgence. While the withdrawal agreement between Iraq and the US accounts for US support to its Syrian forces, it indicates a desire to fully withdraw from the region and encourages action contrary to US interests. 

The United States has always had a complicated relationship with the Middle East, characterized by a lack of understanding of the region’s politics, history, and culture, and inconsistent strategic decision making influenced by the American democratic process. With the Middle East now at an inflection point, the US must ensure its actions are in line with its strategic goals and take efforts to ensure partisan politics don’t affect sound decision making. With growing instability in the Middle East, rising competition in China, a resurgent extremist threat, and domestic and foreign pressure to decrease regional engagement, the US must prevent reactionary decisions from becoming its Middle East strategy. 

Escalating Humanitarian Crisis in Gaza: Urgency for a Global Response

Despite headlines, vicious military strikes are not the only attacks plaguing Gaza’s people. While drones and missiles steal the attention of political leaders, Gaza’s population continues to fight its widespread, long-lasting humanitarian crisis. Between mass food shortages, rising disease rates, and depleting access to health care, Gaza and its citizens are seemingly on their way to ultimate catastrophe, if they have not reached it yet. That is unless humanitarian aid can intervene to restore humanity and health within the Strip. 

While the recent war between Israel and Hamas has certainly exacerbated Gaza’s humanitarian disaster, it is not the primary cause of the crisis. In 2007, the Gaza Strip fell victim to the power of Hamas - an Islamist militant group that has now been designated a terrorist group by the United States and the EU. Following this, the Gaza Strip was essentially isolated from the rest of Palestine by Hamas, creating a blockade that has led to Gaza’s social deterioration. Hamas currently controls regions in Palestine while rejecting the existence of Israel, leading to Hamas’ first attack that notoriously began the war almost a year ago, in October 2023. 

Despite humanitarian aid efforts attempting to prevail in the wake of the war, “Attacks on humanitarian aid workers and shelters, as well as strikes on or near health and humanitarian facilities, continue,” a UN article states. Evidently, the violence inflicted on aid workers has made progress in the crisis difficult. Additionally, coordination and notification methods seemingly lack effectiveness, and security in Gaza limits what aid workers can do without being put at extreme, mortal risk. 

So what is the solution for Gaza? Experts have noted that even if/when the war with Israel comes to an end, the amount of humanitarian crisis relief work that needs to be done on the ground is immense. It seems evident, from both sides, that a ceasefire agreement needs to be implemented to ensure the lives of both innocent Palestinians and Israelis do not continue to be lost in war. International mediators cannot fear getting involved in such conversations, as they are the key to resolving violent tensions. For example, in 2014, a ceasefire agreement between the two actors, brokered by Egypt, resulted in halting violence that provided a platform to rebuild and fund on-the-ground aid to innocent civilians. Additionally, Rafah’s border crossing, an essential path in and out of Gaza, continues to remain blocked off; it is a key entry point for humanitarian relief resources to offer aid and needs to be reopened for organizations to provide necessary support. Additionally, in times of crisis, humanitarian corridors have been used to provide civilians with essentials such as food, water, and medicine - the border crossing is a prime location for such transports. 

While these offer quick solutions, the true, sustainable solution is seemingly political. The amount of aid required at this point for Gaza necessitates more than just a humanitarian corridor or a two-week ceasefire. Instead, leaders' political will is essential in the coming weeks to ensure Gaza’s survival. 

Drones and the Gamification of War

Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) or drones have an extensive history of global conflicts in the modern era. From the Austrians deploying unmanned incendiary balloons in 1849 to radio airplane deployments in World War 1, it took a little less than 200 years to go from the drone’s humble beginnings to the modern concept conceived in the late 20th century.  However, with Ukraine losing approximately 10,000 drones a month since the war started, the Russo-Ukrainian War has seen the largest-scale application of drones in history. While these drones have been crucial to the Ukrainian defense, their successes shouldn’t be seen with complete optimism. When it comes to further gamification of war, caution should not be thrown to the wind.

The gamification of war has enabled complex concepts in military strategy and technology to be understood more easily. However, simultaneously, it can create a sense of isolation that desensitizes the layer from the reality of the situation that they’re in. In the book and movie “Ender’s Game,” Ender and millions of other children participate in what they think is a computer simulation game but is actually an assault and genocide of another race. They don’t know this and are traumatized upon realizing that the game they eventually led is the extermination of an entire species. With the accuracy and precision of drones, fewer humans are necessary on the battlefield, more on the sidelines, away from the horrors of the conflict at hand.

An article from the Guardian reports that a US drone operator was encouraged to think eliminating targets in Afghanistan was like stepping on ants without thinking another thought, viewing their targets as “just black blobs on a screen.” While the goal of these soldiers was to take out insurgents, it was explained as “pulling the weeds before they overrun the lawn.” This would not only put direct targets in sight but any expected “insurgents,” including innocent men, women, and children. This is especially the case if human observers cannot sustain a clear vision of targets.  

The US has seen its “counterterrorist campaign” become highly dependent on UAVs or remote-planed aircraft. However, a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies has emphasized that lack of human observation has often led to unnecessary collateral damage when trying to damage terrorist organizations and their affiliates. Not only were innocents targeted, but the victims were also a lot more likely to get involved in extreme terrorist groups. While it may seem nice to remove humans from the battlefield, removing humans from the battlefield eliminates humanity from the battlefield. The rare moments of warm humanity are at risk of being wiped out by the complete terror of war.

What is even worse is that, like in “Ender’s Game,” governments around the world, like the United States, are looking to recruit young people with gaming experience to join their fights. The Guardian reveals how US military recruiters often look to pull in gamers of young ages who are interested in games with guns or military content.  While it may seem beneficial to stock up their reserves with committed personnel, these individuals often lack the mental strength and maturity for combat. With many of these individuals being prepped to man UAVs, it seems we are condemning a generation to be unaware of their bloodshed until it is far too late to save them from the trauma it will bring.  When that time comes, we will have the government and society to blame for making kids grow into adults far too quickly.

While military innovation has often proven to be connected to relative technological progress in society, we must consider morality above all else when making future decisions. We cannot allow the fields of war to dominate with robots because the only humans that will be present are the innocent casualties who will die without being able to say anything about it. In addition, with all our advancements, we have now reached the time to consider if war is genuinely worth it in this world of ours. If war was a means of conflict among people, how could such a thing be dominated by something that is not our own? Something that cannot negotiate or show kindness but can only follow and kill?

U.S. Involvement in Ukraine and Israel According to the September 10th Presidential Debate

“And I want to ask you a very simple question tonight. Do you want Ukraine to win this war?”

— David Muir

“I want the war to stop. [...]”

— Donald Trump

“Just to clarify the question, do you believe it’s in the U.S. best interests for Ukraine to win this war? Yes or no?”

— David Muir

“I think it’s in the U.S. best interest to get this war finished and just get it done. All right. [...]”

— Donald Trump

56 days out from what may be the most consequential election in American history, citizens tuned in to watch presidential nominees Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in their first debate on September 10. 

With conflicts unfolding in Palestine and Ukraine, the candidates were drilled on their platforms regarding foreign involvement, a subject typically nonessential to voters more focused on domestic issues. However, polls from this election suggest voters are increasingly concerned with American affairs overseas. 

As the spotlight shined on the candidates' differing foreign policy platforms, inequality between the candidates' diplomatic comprehension was highlighted.

Vice President Harris began the conversation regarding efforts in Palestine with a reiteration of her support for a two-state solution, prioritizing Israel’s “ability to defend itself.” 

Donald Trump’s position on the Israel-Hamas conflict was murky. 

Rather than explain his administration’s policies regarding Israel and Palestine, former President Trump rambled about how Vice President Harris “hates Israel,” and that when he was president, Hamas had “no money for terror.” 

How Trump would reassess U.S. involvement in Gaza was not explained further. 

The discourse of the debate traveled from conversations of hostages in Gaza to discussions regarding aid packages sent to Ukraine. 

Harris utilized her allotted response time to reiterate her involvement in collaborating with other states to send aid to Ukraine supporting defense against Russia. However, she did not miss the opportunity to goad Trump into discussing his friendly relations with Vladimir Putin. 

The allusion to Trump’s bond with Russian leadership spiraled into one key takeaway: Trump refused to agree that it was in his best interest or the best interest of the United States for Ukraine to win the war. 

Trump’s concepts of a foreign policy plan paled into Kamala Harris’ eloquent responses, sharing her administration’s platforms with concerned citizens. The former president’s evasiveness has hurt him in the polls, allowing Harris to regain a slight lead. 

Following Trump’s disastrous performance on September 10, it is clearly in American’s best interest to consider the global implications of their vote before casting a ballot this November. 

Could Jordan Fall Into Iran’s Grasp?

How The Most Recent Election Provides Insight

Preliminary results in Jordan’s most recent parliamentary elections came as a surprise to many, as the largest opposition party, the Islamic Action Front, took 32 out of 138 seats after boycotting previous elections in 2013 and 2010. What makes this interesting? Previous analysis suggested that domestic issues would play a far more important role, and with the IAF running on a platform of support for Hamas and discontent with Jordan’s cooperation with Israel, they would be unlikely to sway voters more concerned with unemployment, poverty, and corruption. 

To provide a little context on Jordan’s system of government: the parliament is composed mostly of tribal and pro-government factions, with 41 seats allocated for other political parties. Jordan’s king, however, controls foreign policy, with parliament mostly dealing with domestic issues. Surely a party running for parliament seats trying to sway voters with aggressive foreign policy stances wouldn’t have much success? 

Especially when you consider the IAF’s previous electoral performances, it makes sense why many analysts initially wrote them off. Despite this, the IAF seemed to capitalize on public sentiment – mostly on discontent with the current government. Jordanians are fed up with the war in Gaza, and despite Jordan’s denouncement of the Israeli military’s conduct, the country remains not only an important ally to the U.S. but also to Israel directly – even helping the U.S. and allied countries to intercept an Iranian missile attack. 

Continuing on this path of cooperation and partnership would keep Jordan away from Iran’s influence for the time being, as Israel (and the U.S.) would surely want to provide for Jordan’s protection in return for their helpful defensive efforts. But the resurgence of the IAF might complicate the partnership. Perhaps not yet, without a true majority in parliament. But results like this, especially when they follow the trends of public sentiment, often indicate the direction a country takes. Even if Jordan’s approach to Israel doesn’t yet change, Amman will still have to contend with increased expressions of opposition towards the conflict in Gaza – enabled by the IAF’s rhetoric. 

Short-term, Iran doesn’t have much chance of putting together the kind of resistance they’ve funded in Lebanon and Yemen. But if the goal is regional hegemony, Iran certainly won’t be disappointed with these election results. Jordan must strike a delicate balance if it hopes to maintain partnership with the U.S., bargain with Israel for a change in their conduct of the war in Gaza, and fix its worsening domestic issues; all while IAF-enabled tensions will only continue to rise.

Alberto Fujimori’s Death and its Legacy in Peru

The recent death of Alberto Fujimori, president of Peru from 1990 to 2000, marks the end of a deeply polarizing era in Peru’s history, yet his legacy remains divisive. Widely known for his hardline response to the Maoist guerrilla group, the Shining Path, and his ability to stabilize Peru’s economy amid a severe financial crisis in the 1990s, Fujimori is both celebrated and condemned. His administration's success in cracking down on insurgencies and revitalizing the economy starkly contrasts his authoritarian methods and involvement in widespread corruption.

One of the darkest aspects of Fujimori’s legacy is his role as the intellectual author of the Colina Group, a military death squad responsible for human rights violations during the fight against the Shining Path. His government not only suppressed the guerrilla threat but also dissolved Congress, reshaped the military, and intimidated the judiciary, journalists, and political dissidents—signaling the collapse of democratic norms. Fujimori’s tenure is often referred to as “electoral authoritarianism,” where elections existed but were manipulated, and democratic institutions were systematically undermined.

Despite these authoritarian practices, many Peruvians still support and praise Fujimori. In fact, following his death, the country declared 3 days of mourning to honor his memory. In my opinion, this reflects a broader global trend of declining satisfaction with democracy. Across various countries, including Peru, the erosion of trust in democratic institutions has led to the rise of strongman leaders. Fujimori’s popularity is rooted in his ability to deliver results in areas crucial to people’s lives, particularly security and economic stability. For many, these achievements justified his dictatorial behavior and human rights abuses.

This phenomenon is not unique to Peru. Around the world, citizens facing crises are increasingly willing to trade democratic freedoms for strong, decisive leadership that addresses their immediate needs. This can also be exemplified by the case of Nayib Bukele, also known as the “World’s Coolest Dictator” in El Salvador, where his results from building a mega prison and lowering crime rates by 70% overshadow his successful rewriting of the constitution to be able to serve a third term. 

These examples of strongmen leadership highlight the vulnerability of countries where dissatisfaction with democratic processes can lead to the rise of authoritarian figures who promise to solve pressing issues like insecurity and economic hardship, even at the cost of civil liberties and institutional integrity. It is crucial that while citizens prioritize issues that affect them greatly, we as a global community also uphold the values of democracy and its institutions. Promoting democratic principles is essential for ensuring long-term stability and fostering comprehensive civilian participation in governance, thus safeguarding against the erosion of democratic norms.

The Four No’s

South Korea currently holds the lowest birth rate in the world. 

At 0.78, the amount of children per woman is vastly below the replacement threshold of 2.1 and the global average of 2.3. As a result, the South Korean population is declining. If the trend continues, the Korean population will halve by 2100. 

The Korean government has taken drastic steps towards combating this issue. Hospital bills and IVF treatments are covered by the government for married couples and after having a child, families are provided financial benefits such as subsidized housing and free taxi rides. Men may now even be exempt from the compulsory military service if they father three children before the age of 30. 

Try as they might, though, none of these solutions will work. What the government is failing to address is that at the core of Korea’s population problem is not a financial issue, but a gender one.

In 2019, YouTubers Jung Se-young and Baeck Ha-na popularized what is known as the ‘4B movement.’ The 4 ‘B’s’ are as follows: bihon (no marriage), bisekseu (no sex with men), bichulsan (no child-rearing), and beonae (no dating men). This new feminist movement seeks not to fight the patriarchy, but to remove themselves from it completely. Korean women are reacting to pervasive sexism among young Korean men by withholding the actions they have been reduced to. Thousands of women have become adherents to the movement and actively practice its tennents. But 4B did not happen in a vacuum. 

The movement has been a response to rampant and sometimes violent misogyny. The amount of women who have experienced violent or sex based crimes has increased dramatically in recent years. Women have taken to online spaces to find safety and affirmation by sharing experiences, methods for protecting oneself, and a fear or even hatred of men. 

This movement, however, has sparked a vocal countermovement of men’s rights activists. Men are shifting the blame back to women by arguing that feminism is causing higher male death rates. Seoul city councilor Kim Ki-duk claimed that Korea’s “change into a female-dominant society” is responsible for many male suicides. According to one survey in 2021, 79% of Korean men in their 20s believe that they are victims of ‘reverse discrimination.’ These sentiments have given rise to and been spurred on by internet activism.

Bae In-gyu, the leader of a men’s rights group known as “New Men on Solidarity” has described feminism as a ‘mental illness.’ Men in these movements have a vitriol for women, going so far as to call them ‘kimchi-bitches.’ Men’s rights sympathies have even reached the highest level of government—the current president Yoon Suk Yeol has pledged to abolish the ministry of gender-equality, citing feminism as “hurting healthy relationships between men and women.”

Korea’s sexism problem is evidence of a larger, global, gender divide. In the US, Korea and other parts of the world, the gap between the beliefs of young men and women is growing rapidly. As young women become more liberal/progressive, many young men become increasingly conservative, according to recent polling. Many men and women are feeling growing resentment or even hatred for each other as this polarization continues. While they are certainly not equivalent, both of these groups lack empathy for the other side of the conversation. Both men and women are victims of the patriarchy (to varying degrees) and a successful movement for feminism must address that. 

When we generalize about another group, especially one based on biology, we come dangerously close to essentialism (the belief that a group is inherently and unchangeably a certain way). When men reduce women to sexual objects, they view them with an entitlement that leads to violently taking what they believe is theirs. When women characterize all men as uncontrollably, inherently dangerous, we come frighteningly close to perpetuating the core beliefs of the patriarchy itself. 

The pressure on men by male dominated society to suppress their emotions is what truly leads to male suicide, not women. And it is not that men are biologically programmed to be violent, but that they have been raised and conditioned in a way that leads them to believe they are entitled to be. This is not to skirt responsibility or to make excuses for men who commit crimes against women, but, rather, to explain how we have arrived at our current problem. The safety and lives of women must take priority over men’s feelings, but we should not ignore them either. The only way to make meaningful lasting change in our society and save our population is to build a world based on empathy, compassion and equality, not hatred, violence, or revenge. To love is radical, to hate is not. 

The Slavic Philippic

Over the summer, a prominent politician stood in front of a democratic assembly, desperately lamenting the danger which his country faced. An imperialist power was descending upon it, led by a dictator who had spent his career invading his neighbors and campaigned along the borders of the politician’s nation for years. The politician warned that his state alone could not stand against the rising hegemon, and that the democratic world had to put aside its differences in order to defend against the imperialistic ambitions of their neighbor. He stressed that their war was not against the people of the nation, but its leader, for it was he who drove the war and only his power held the empire together.

In the summer of 341 BCE, the politician, Demosthenes, stood on the stairs of the Athenian Acropolis and delivered this warning about Philip of Macedon. In the summer of 2024 CE, the politician, Volodymyr Zelenskyy stood at the podium of Congress and delivered this warning about Vladmir Putin. 

You’ve heard plenty about Ukraine by now, so let’s start with a history lesson: the Greeks. 

Before Alexander the Great, there was his father, Philip of Macedon. Philip built Macedonia, a state in what is now Northern Greece, from a backwards borderland whose government was closer to a mafia than a monarchy, into a regional superpower. When Philip came to power, he killed or bought off his rivals, consolidated his rule, and began conquering Albania, Bulgaria, and most importantly, Greece.

As Philip campaigned, he built a professional military, funded his army with Macedonian silver mines, and built excellent leadership in his army (including his son, Alexander!). By the time he reached northern Greece, Philip was able to sweep through the region with ease. While the major Greek city-states suspiciously glared at each other, still reeling from their Peloponnesian War self-destruction, no one was willing to confront Philip, the Darth Vader-like figure (analogy thanks to Dan Carlin!) who was swallowing up Greece piece by piece.

As the Imperial March sounded and Philip descended upon Greece, Demosthenes sounded the alarm.

Demosthenes refused to ignore Philip as he razed Athenian colonies along the Aegean. He gave a series of speeches, the Philippics, to the assembly of Athens, pleading to the Greeks that Philip cannot be ignored, and that the survival of Greek democracy and freedom was at stake. He urged Athens to form alliances with the other Greek cities, as they could not stand alone against Philip. Demosthenes called back to the legendary Persian invasion when the Greeks had allied to defeat the Persian “King of Kings,” claiming Philip was of equal danger. His pan-Hellenistic invocations were meant to strike a chord across Greece, but only Thebes answered the call.

The similarities between Zelenskyy and Demosthenes extend beyond context and into content. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has delivered a strikingly similar message. He has reinforced the idea that Russia’s imperial ambitions will swallow Europe piece by piece, that the democracies of his world must put aside their differences, not after a generation of war as the Greeks had, but after a generation of crises: COVID, immigration, financial, climate, and now illiberalism. 

Zelenskyy, like Demosthenes, called back to the triumphs of democracy: WWII and the American Revolution. Like Demosthenes, Zelenskyy claimed that any promise of peace would not last, compatriots of the democratic world must defend each other against empires or face annihilation by their tyrant aggressor. They even close similarly, stating that the borderlands (Ukraine/Northern Greek Cities) alone cannot hold back the invader, and that democracies must stop trying to convince themselves that the borderlands can handle such a threat alone.

Personally, I am no enthusiast of “History repeats itself.” History is too big and too complex to compare so directly. However, I am a bit partial to Mark Twain’s revision: “History never repeats itself, but it does often rhyme.” 

Demosthenes’ speech rallied Thebes and Athens under one banner, but Philip would conquer them both. When the Macedonian king died, the Greeks rejoiced at the death of the tyrant who held together the unstable politics of Macedon. However, the Greeks were wrong to assume it was Philip’s persona alone which built Macedon, and within a year, Alexander had succeeded him and silenced any resistance from the Greeks.

For many watching the Russian invasion of Ukraine, we hope that the tumult of a (so far) failing invasion might lead to the end of Vladimir Putin. It’s worth considering that when Philip died, he handed the keys of a military Maserati (thanks again, Dan Carlin) to a man who used them to conquer the world. While NATO will someday rejoice in Putin’s departure from power, he has had 20 years to build his own military machine (though maybe not Maserati), and his successor may not be any less dangerous.

Reckoning with Climate Devastation in Myanmar

In Myanmar, over 113 people are dead with many more missing due to the flooding and mudslides of Typhoon Yagi. The typhoon has proven itself to be the most powerful storm in Asia this year and has already claimed the lives of 287 people in Vietnam, Laos, the Philippines, and the island of Hainan. Myanmar has been hit hard as 66,000 homes, 375 schools, and monasteries have been obliterated by the storm. The death toll remains in question as social media accounts in Myanmar have suggested that 230 people have died in just the Mandalay region.  Currently, the information ministry of Myanmar has reported that emergency and health workers have been positioned in flood-affected areas, funds have been allocated for food and water for evacuees, and responders have started repairing the roads and bridges.

In addition to the devastation of this flood, the country has been wrecked by a three-year civil war which has crippled its economy, necessitating more foreign aid. For context, the Myanmar military staged a coup d’etat against the democratically elected government in February 2021. Since then tens of thousands of people have been killed and 2.7 million people have been displaced. The country’s military has previously thwarted attempts to provide humanitarian aid, like suspending travel authorizations for aid groups after Cyclone Mocha. Agencies like the International Committee of the Red Cross are impeded by the immense security risks and cannot reach the 55 million people (one-third of the population) who require aid.

The US government under the Biden Administration has imposed sanctions on the military regime and funded NGO projects to provide humanitarian assistance and promote democracy. Additionally, the US attempted to coordinate actions against the junta using the UN Security Council, the G-7, and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.

Yet, perhaps the United States also has a responsibility to address the current crisis caused by Typhoon Yagi and similar climate catastrophes. Since 1750, the US has been the leader in cumulative carbon dioxide emissions produced by fossil fuels and industry. The US has released over 400 billion cumulative tons, while the entire European Union and China trail at around 300 billion tons and 250 billion tons, respectively. These carbon emissions trap the sun’s heat leading to global warming and more intense, destructive, and deadly storms, like Typhoon Yagi. 

A report released by Georgetown University has identified climate change as an exacerbator of Myanmar’s armed conflict. The article writes, “ Violent conflict… increases vulnerability to climate change by aggravating societal vulnerability and making populations more vulnerable to weather shocks. This suggests a plausible feedback loop of violence and vulnerability, worsened by climate change.” 

The United States must reconcile its impact on Myanmar’s conflict and ‘developed’ nations must rectify their impact on the climate crisis as struggling, developing nations bear the brunt of the damage.

Overtourism off the Mediterranean

Overtourism, or too many people in one place at a given time, usually occurs in the most popular destinations and will only continue to increase as the world’s population grows. Unfortunately, with overtourism comes a host of negative consequences, including financial, social, and environmental problems which seem inevitable with a large influx to a place not intended to hold so many people.

European countries, specifically Spain, Italy, France, and Greece on the Mediterranean coast, are seen as ideal travel destinations from other European countries, such as the United Kingdom and Germany, and by countries outside Europe. Particularly, tourists have begun flocking to the Spanish Canary Islands rather than the more popular Mallorca, with 13.9 million tourists visiting the Canary Islands in 2023, up 13% from 2022.

The Canary Islands, off the coast of Morocco, are composed of seven sunny volcanic islands. The resident population of the Canaries is only 2.2 million, with tourism making up 35% of the GDP of the archipelago and four out of ten residents working in the tourism industry. Tourism is massive in Spain, composing 12.8% of the economy, with many other cities, including Barcelona and Madrid, serving as hubs for travelers. 

Tensions in the Canary Islands erupted this past week as residents protested the influx of tourists. Tens of thousands rallied against mass tourism, wanting limits on the number of tourists entering the island and the subsequent commercial development they encourage. The recent protests had a turnout of between 20,000 and 50,000 demonstrators. With 34% of Canary Islanders at risk of poverty or “social exclusion” in 2023, it is no wonder the rising costs of living and housing shortages that come from a tourist-dominated workforce have created unrest.

The protest movement Canaries Se Agota, “The Canaries Have Had Enough,” has inspired some protestors to go on a hunger strike. Other acts of protest included graffiti and demonstrations outside of the parliament building against the construction of new developments. Activists link tourism to degradation in many aspects of life, including housing crises, water shortages, and environmental disasters. 

Tenerife, the largest and most populous island in the Canaries, has been a hot spot for protest, with activists holding anti-tourist banners and storming hotel construction sites. What the protestors want is not an end to tourism, which would devastate their economy, but a limit on the number of visitors, an eco-tax, and fewer properties sold to non-residents. The activists believe that the Canaries have reached a point where tourism is unsustainable, and social welfare has broken down. 

To curb growing resentment toward tourists in places like the Canary Islands, tourists should consider looking elsewhere to prevent overcrowding and further degradation. They should also respectably conduct themselves, remain aware of their actions and their surroundings, and leave no trace of their visit upon the environment. Beyond that, governments of countries with high levels of tourism need to focus more on accommodating the tourists without it being at the expense of the local population and their daily lives. 

Locals supporting better infrastructure to accommodate the expansion of tourism should focus mainly on sustainability and local well-being. What should not decide the fate of tourism in these areas are big development companies and foreign stakeholders. Instead, local businesspeople, shop owners, and citizens who have to deal with the consequences of tourism are the ones who have a stake in the game and who must ultimately decide where to draw the line in the tourism industry.

Somaliland: If it Looks like a Duck?

What makes a state? Political scholars would typically give a list of qualifications around exercising authority, having control over territory and borders, ability to form interstate relations, monopoly of force, political autonomy, differentiation of rulers from the ruled, and so on.

I’d argue that what makes a state is that if it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, and someone calls it a duck, it must be a duck (or a state).

The political science definition fits well for most cases, but certainly not all of them. Consider the Holy See (which is distinct from the Vatican City). it certainly doesn’t look like a duck: It controls no territory. Despite this, the Holy See is a member of several intergovernmental organizations, has diplomatic relations with 180 countries, is subject to international law, and has United Nations observer status.

Alternatively, consider Haiti, which doesn’t act like a duck. Haiti has a defined area of sovereignty which is internationally accepted, but by any metric has little to no government managing the people and territory of Haiti. The island country is, at the time of writing, the closest thing the western hemisphere has to a failed state. Despite the near-utter lack of administration and governance, Haiti is still unanimously recognized as a state by the UN, though the government that is recognized is near-nonexistent.

Despite not looking like a duck or acting like a duck, the international community still calls it a duck.

The opposite is true for the unrecognized Republic of Somaliland, which looks like a duck, acts like a duck, but has never been called a duck.

That tide may be changing.

Somaliland is a sparsely inhabited breakaway region from Somalia, on the coast of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden. Since it declared independence in 1991, Somaliland has been reasonably democratic and had a central authority. Somalia, on the other hand, has fallen victim to civil war, terrorism, and borderline anarchy. While Somalia has not been a functioning state in decades, Somaliland has slowly developed, managing to build institutions, authority, and quell violence within its borders. Despite this, no state is willing to recognize Somaliland’s independence.

Now, it looks as though Somaliland may be set on the path to recognition from Ethiopia, one of the largest and most invested-in countries in Africa. On January 1, Ethiopia and Somaliland announced a Memorandum of Understanding in which Ethiopia would be granted a 50-year lease for the port of Berbera. In the announcement, Ethiopia agreed to undergo an “in-depth assessment” of Somaliland’s recognition, in addition to yearly payments and a stake in Ethiopian Airlines. The deal implies recognition, but exact terms are not disclosed, and Ethiopia has remained noncommittal on its stance.

Ethiopia has several reasons to recognize Somaliland: Somalia has been a problematic neighbor to say the least, Somaliland represents a more stable Horn of Africa. Ethiopia needs a friendly seaport in order to support growth and investment and has signaled intent to build a green-water navy; Somaliland’s port of Berbera could provide the means for both. Additionally, other regional states such as Kenya would support the dismemberment of Somalia due to their own struggles with militias located across the border, and even Dubai has interests in expanding business into the Gulf of Aden via Somaliland.

However, there is pushback from the international community. For many countries, recognizing a breakaway state opens a Pandora’s box that is hard to put away. If Morocco recognizes Somaliland, it signals independence is possible for Western Sahara. This same conundrum is found around the world, from cases as high profile as China-Taiwan to as minor as tiny separatist movements in Cameroon.

If Ethiopia calls Somaliland a duck, it could lead to other countries doing the same, but this might not create the consensus Somaliland needs. For many states, Somaliland is too minor a territory to risk igniting civil war and secession over, but for some, the need for regional security and economic prosperity could be too alluring to turn down.

Somaliland’s future in the gray area of a de facto state hangs in the balance of their port deal with Ethiopia. Somaliland continues to look like a duck, act like a duck, and now, they might just earn the right to be called a duck.

Canada Limits Temporary Residents

For the first time in history, Canada is planning to limit the number of temporary residents allowed to enter the country. According to the BBC, Canada’s immigration minister Marc Miller announced that the number will be reduced over the next three years, beginning in September of 2024. Though temporary residents primarily consist of people seeking refuge or employment, the implementation of this new limit will affect international students as well. 

This is an incredibly surprising announcement, as Canada is widely considered one of the most welcoming countries for immigrants throughout the world. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has enforced several pro-immigration policies, and his time in office has seen a high influx of immigrants coming into the country, with the number of new residents rising from 300,000 to 400,000 per year. During a speech given by Trudeau in 2019, he was quoted saying “Canada is a country that was built by immigration.” This quote has largely summarized his stance on immigration, until recently that is. On April 2, Trudeau spoke at an event promoting an infrastructure project: “Over the past few years, we’ve seen a massive spike in temporary immigration,” he said. “Whether it’s temporary foreign workers, or whether it’s international students in particular that have grown at a rate that’s far beyond what Canada has been able to absorb.”

The event where Trudeau delivered his speech was a project promoting building better, more affordable housing in Canada. This is perhaps in response to the skyrocketing housing shortages in the country, according to Voices of America. The upcoming ban on temporary residents is of course, also in response to the housing shortages in Canada. In addition to this, people have experienced being placed on medical wait times recently, which has also been linked to the heightened population in Canada during the past few years. The article published by Voices of America draws attention to the Government of Canada’s website, which shows that 437,000 new permanent residents and 604,000 temporary workers entered Canada in the year 2022 alone. 

Marc Miller cited this intense surge in immigration when delivering his speech regarding the implementation of the immigration ban. He justified the decision to limit immigration stating that it is being made to ensure “sustainable” growth in the number of temporary residents, as the current number of people coming into Canada simply cannot continue to be supported at the rate in which they are entering the country. 

However, this decision has still faced a considerable amount of backlash since the announcement came in March. It was largely criticized by advocates and employers of foreign workers. Syed Hussan, an executive director of the organization Migrant Workers Alliance for Change (MWAC), told Global News that “Migrants have been scapegoated for the affordability and housing crisis to distract from corporate and government failure at ensuring a decent quality of life for all of us.” He continued, adding that “Migrants are not responsible for low wages or high prices; they are some of the worst affected.” 

Though Hussan’s opinion represents those of many, the ban will still be put into effect in the fall of this year. Whether or not it significantly reduces the issues caused by the housing and affordability crises in Canada is yet to be determined. 

Global Water Shortages and Climate Crises Highlight the Need for Increased Action

Bogota, the capital of Columbia, is facing a dangerous water shortage. So is Mexico City. And, until recently, so was Montevideo, the capital of Uruguay. But low water levels aren’t only a concern in South and Central America—throughout 2023, Germany’s Rhine River suffered from water levels so low, shipping operations in the river had to be suspended. Spain is currently suffering from two droughts concurrently, which are both breaking records in their region. Amid global crises such as these, the need for climate action is starkly emphasized.

Across the globe, cities and governments are struggling with water shortages, with nations such as Uruguay forced to dilute reservoirs to the point of creating non-potable water in attempts to stretch water supplies. But these aren’t the only environmental issues countries are facing—the list includes deadly heat waves, increased natural disasters, and sea level rise which threatens to consume island nations. And at home, the US faces worsening droughts, intensifying fire seasons, and increased public spending on disaster relief.

Recent global studies by leading research institutions, including the United Nations, have predicted that parts of the globe, such as regions in Africa and Asia, could become unfit for human inhabitation toward the end of the 21st century. Under this scenario, crises such as heat waves would be 10 times as likely, increasing the dangerous trend of rising temperatures that has already begun across the globe. Year after year, rising temperatures are only one of the indicators of the global climate crisis.

If the international community continues to take little action, moving at a snail’s pace to address the green energy transition and sustainability reform, these issues will only continue to grow. While system change is a major undertaking, and requires a long-term strategy, a current lack of political will or action in tackling these issues inspires little confidence in leaders’ abilities to avert the looming climate crisis. It is worth noting that inaction by groups such as the G7 or the EU has the greatest effect on the world’s least developed countries—who are contributing the least to causing climate change. While some action has been taken to rectify this issue at the recent COP28 conference with the creation of a ‘Loss and Damage’ fund, the effort still comes up woefully short when considering the scale of the problem. It is critical that world leaders, especially leaders in the highly-developed West, take timely and effective action on the climate crisis to avoid catastrophic consequences.

Dune, Taiwan, and Becoming Invaluable

I’ll start this off by admitting that I haven’t watched Dune: Part 2 yet. However, I did just finish rereading the novel, so if something sounds unfamiliar, I’m getting to the movie soon. (Also, spoiler warning if you haven’t read/watched, stop reading here!) That said, near the end of the novel, one line struck me:

“He who can destroy a thing has control of it.”

Herbert is referencing the spice melange, which is the sci-fi drug that makes the world go-round in Dune. It is the rarest and most valuable substance in the Dune universe, and only found on the brutal desert planet of Arrakis. Melange, when ingested, is highly addictive but can heighten awareness, mental ability, double or triple lifespans, and be used for space travel.

Towards the end of the novel, the protagonist, Paul, has come to be the de facto feudal lord of Arrakis by overthrowing the prior Duke of Arrakis. Fearing the upstart Paul, the Universe’s Emperor and the rest of the feudal lords arrive in orbit of Arrakis threatening war. Paul counters, threatening to destroy the deserts where the precious drug is mined. Using melange as leverage, Paul forces the Emperor to withdraw his fleet and that of his loyal feudal lords, guaranteeing the safety of Arrakis. 

Paul made Arrakis invaluable: any war over the planet would result in the destruction of the rarest and most valuable substance in the universe, a product which had become synonymous with the success of humanity. A drug so powerful that it had allowed a single planet to stand up to the hegemony of an Emperor who controls “the known Universe”. 

Now compare that to Taiwan.

Taiwan sits in the shadow of China, a mostly unrecognized country due to fear of Chinese sanctioning. Despite being self-governing since 1949, Taiwan continually lives in danger of Chinese aggression: Beijing’s “One China Principal” claims that Taiwan is an “inalienable part of China” and reunification is a longstanding key geopolitical goal of the CCP. China routinely fires missiles over Taiwan in a show of force, violates their territorial waters, and has launched artillery campaigns against outlying islands. In the search for security, Taiwan has adopted an unconventional “semiconductor shield” from Beijing’s aggression.

The Taiwanese semiconductor industry has made the island a key figure to global commerce, medicine, weaponry, transportation, communication, energy, and computing. Taiwanese companies controlled 63% of semiconductor market shares in 2020. Taiwan’s semiconductor industry logged over 115 billion USD in 2020, 17% of the island’s GDP. TSMC, Taiwan’s leading semiconductor company, produces 90% of the world’s most advanced semiconductors, 22% of all semiconductors, and are behind the custom computer chips used in Apple, Nvidia, Amazon, Google, Tesla, AMD, and dozens of others.

Semiconductors are the melange of the 21st century, and right now, Taiwan is Arrakis.

Taiwan has used semiconductors to become invaluable. They have become crucial to all aspects of the global market. No other company or country can match the advanced semiconductor chips which Taiwan produces, and no other country can function without them. A Chinese attack on Taiwan would doubtless see the destruction of these semiconductor facilities, facilities China’s manufacturing powerhouse relies on (China buys 28% of Taiwanese semiconductors, the most of any country). Attacking Taiwan would destroy their semiconductor production; akin to attacking Arrakis and destroying it’s melange: commercial suicide. 

Semiconductors production has also made Taiwan crucial allies. The value of semiconductors means that keeping Taiwan afloat is in the interest of everyone who uses them, including major backers like the US. As long as Taiwanese semiconductors reign supreme, the US will back Taiwan and strongly oppose Chinese aggression towards the island.

The major difference is that unlike melange, semiconductors could be produced anywhere.

In 2020, the CHIPS+ act earmarked $52 billion for US semiconductor research and development and fabrication, aiming to lessen US reliance on foreign semiconductor manufacturing. Around the world, there are 73 fabrication centers being built. 40% of them are in the US, and 76% of the facilities around the world are expected to open in the next 4 years. Worldwide, the European version of the CHIPS+ act earmarked $47 billion for the European semiconductor industry, aiming to double their global market share from 10% to 20% by 2030. China is also ramping up efforts and are investing tens of billions in building up their own semiconductor capacity and combating US initiatives to limit China’s semiconductor capacity. 

Taiwan has an unquestionable head start and a near-monopoly on the most sophisticated semiconductor fabrication tech, but this may not be the case for long. Taiwan is a small country, and just doesn’t have the resources and manpower of China, the US, or the EU.

 Taiwan’s melange, semiconductors, have made the island invaluable and nearly untouchable, but what happens when the industry moves away? If the “Semiconductor Shield” goes down, will the West still stand beside Taiwan? How long can the semiconductor industry defend the island?

This is where Dune and Taiwan diverge completely—I won’t spoil too much of Children of Dune for you—but when another place suitable for melange is discovered, Arrakis’s value vanishes, and the planet is annihilated. Taiwan’s melange, semiconductors, have made the island invaluable and have become its strongest defense, but what happens when the industry moves away? If the “Semiconductor Shield” goes down, will the West still stand beside Taiwan? How can Taiwan adapt to global competition when their own security hangs in the balance?

Decolonizing Filipino Healthcare

Across the world, byproducts of structural oppression perpetuate inequity across political, social, and economic sectors. The effects of institutions from the past designed to marginalize and advantage different groups are cumulative and intergenerational. While powerful nations no longer implement forceful occupations on a large scale, they still exploit developing countries in hidden ways. The deep wounds left by colonial structures have only begun to heal; the inequalities that they produced remain and are continued by both implicit and explicit policies that work to maintain a status quo where ethnic, religious, and poor people groups are disadvantaged at the benefit of a privileged few. The prolonged effects of these colonial influences have enormous implications for health outcomes in developing countries. 

Socioeconomic inequality directly correlates to healthcare access inequity, and the same institutions that reinforce the disenfranchisement and repression of minority groups also reinforce structural health disparities. These disparities can take the form of bias towards lower socioeconomic groups in healthcare, gender-based discrimination, and unequal access to medical care.

The Philippines is one of the most relevant examples of a country whose existing social inequalities are deeply driven by a long, bloody colonial history. Before independence in 1946, the Philippines' history was characterized by a never ending cycle of occupation by distant countries. The Spanish were the first to consolidate a singular rule over the country, which necessitated decades of disproportionately indigenous blood spilled to establish. Once colonial rule was ensured, a Western cultural hegemony was instilled that would be continued by US occupation following the Spanish-American war and the Philippine-American War.

Under the US occupation, systemic cultural domination spread like a destructive disease into all corners of Filipino life. In the mid-1900s, American urban planners, educators, and religious groups designed and implemented a society built on Western values that acted in the interest of those who would assimilate and obstructed those loyal to their native way of life. Filipinos who were lighter-skinned or could speak English were given the best jobs and education opportunities, while those who could not ended up working on plantations. The families that assimilated and collaborated with US rule were rewarded richly with political power and land, and this cumulative socioeconomic wealth continues to give those families oligarchic control over Filipino policies today.

Unlike nearby countries whose growing economies can be attributed to their transition towards manufacturing, the Philippines remains an agricultural-based country. One reason for this is the aftereffects of colonial engineering and the fact that the owners of the plantations are the same wealthy families with oligarchic control. Plus, after World War 2, the US brokered a treaty to reconstruct the Philippines under conditions that lowered the value of the Philippine peso, hindering the development of more advanced industry until today.

The implications of these colonial inequalities are dire for health outcomes in the Philippines, especially for ethnic minorities, farmworkers, and the LGBTQ community. Despite having some of the most fertile soil in the world, one-fifth of the population is impoverished, and malnutrition runs rampant. These trends can partly be attributed to wealthy families' totalitarian control over land distribution and resistance to manufacturing. Farmworkers are paid meagerly by the plantations and often lack enough income to feed their families adequately. Indigenous groups are also denied their land rights as plantations are built on top of them by wealthy colonial families. As a result, many ethnic minorities are displaced and live in unsanitary conditions that foster high rates of infectious disease and amoebic dysentery. High poverty rates also lead to higher teen pregnancy rates, infant and maternal mortality rates, and higher susceptibility to natural disasters due to lack of proper infrastructure. HIV, Tuberculosis, and dengue crises remain widespread, disproportionately affecting poorer communities as well.

An issue that often flies under the radar is mental health issues in the Philippines. Filipino youth face high rates of suicide attempts and mental health problems, and 40% of the Filipino population is under 18. In an evaluation of the Philippine mental health system, a prevalence of 16% of mental illnesses among children was found. Despite these alarming trends, there are only five government hospitals with psychiatric facilities for kids, 84 hospitals with psychiatric services, and only 60 child psychiatrists practicing in the country, mainly concentrated in wealthier regions. The United Nations criticized the Philippines for its aggressive approach to the pandemic, which potentially had an impact on children's mental health. However, more research needs to be carried out on this. Colonial mentalities also impact mental health in the Philippines, resulting in a loss of culture, language, and identity. Research shows that ethnic minorities with higher levels of colonial mentality exhibited lower confidence and self-esteem, which leads to a higher risk of substance abuse, another major issue in the Philippines.

LGBTQ communities and women are underserved in the Philippines, facing inequities in reproductive and mental healthcare. Colonialist structures built on heteronormative values stimulate biases and stigmas that impede the quality of health services. Conversion therapy is still used in the Philippines, a practice that violates human rights and contributes to poor mental health. Many issues affecting transgender Filipinos and LGBTQ take the form of inaccessibility to gender-affirming care and HIV/AIDS services.

While the Philippines has many enduring problems, its government is taking positive steps towards a more equitable healthcare system. The Universal Healthcare Act was passed in 2019, which enrolls all Filipino citizens in a National Health Insurance Program and suggests a pathway for future reforms in the health system. Also, The Philippine Psychological Association (PAP) recently committed to gender-affirming mental healthcare through a statement that called psychologists "to ensure the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights and welfare." NGOs, such as LoveYourself Inc., have implemented policies that improve access to free HIV testing and gender-affirming therapies. While the Philippines' healthcare system urgently needs reform, with the passing of the UHA, there have been some improvements in health financing and access.

A significant component of the path forward to improve health in the Philippines and other countries ravaged by oppressive occupations should be to focus on a restoration of the cultural identity that was lost to ethnic minorities and other marginalized groups. These restorative measures can include increased cultural history in schools and communities to raise a generation of students who recognize institutional bias and improve mental health services and access to food and medical care. A major problem with healthcare in the Philippines is how deeply Western values are integrated into its functioning. This results in communities not fitting into Western culture feeling out of place and uncomfortable.

Healthcare needs to take a more interpersonal approach. Much can be learned from NGOs that utilize community leaders with whom people can connect and relate for healthcare outreach. The health system needs to be a more welcoming, inclusive space instead of an environment dominated by the lingering shadow of colonialist structures. We can begin shifting to a more inclusive space by training community members to be healthcare workers and nurturing a space where diverse cultures are celebrated instead of shunned. To directly address health disparities, access to poor communities in plantations must also be increased, and the focus on wealthy plantation owners within health outreach needs to be decentralized as well.

How Big is the Bite?: Evaluating the Efficacy of International Institutions

Multilateral institutions like the United Nations (UN) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) play a crucial role in promoting international cooperation, peace, and justice. However, recent events, from the battle to finally pass a resolution demanding an “immediate ceasefire” in the ongoing conflict in Gaza, to the condemnation of individuals like Vladimir Putin as war criminals without concrete action, have raised questions about the efficacy and power of these institutions.

The UN, through its General Assembly and Security Council, often passes resolutions condemning actions deemed as violations of international law or human rights abuses. In the case of the recent ceasefire resolution, the UN Security Council aims to halt the ongoing violence for at least the month of Ramadan, suggesting that such resolutions may only provide temporary relief without addressing the underlying grievances and structural issues fueling the conflict. Similarly, the ICC has the authority to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. Yet, despite such condemnations and charges, individuals like Putin continue to operate with impunity.

One of the primary reasons for the apparent lack of efficacy in these resolutions and charges is the limited enforcement mechanisms available to these institutions. While condemnation and charges may carry moral weight and serve as symbolic gestures, they often fall short in holding individuals accountable or deterring future violations. The UN relies heavily on member states' voluntary compliance with resolutions, which are oftentimes undermined by political alliances, national interests, or geopolitical considerations.

It doesn’t help that the ICC's jurisdiction is not universally recognized, and its ability to enforce arrest warrants depends on the cooperation of member states. In the case of Putin, as a head of state, he enjoys diplomatic immunity and protection from arrest by foreign governments, making it challenging for the ICC to pursue legal action against him. As a concerned citizen I wonder what other war criminals have avoided accountability for their crimes–and how many might there be in the future?

Despite these limitations, it is important to recognize the functions of these institutions. They provide platforms for dialogue and negotiation, facilitate diplomatic efforts to resolve conflicts peacefully, and contribute to the development of international law and norms. Resolutions and charges issued by these institutions can raise awareness, mobilize public opinion, and exert diplomatic pressure on offending parties.

Furthermore, while immediate tangible results may be lacking, the cumulative impact of international condemnation and legal scrutiny can potentially have long-term implications. They can isolate individuals or regimes politically, economically, and diplomatically, eventually lead to changes in behavior, or even regime collapse.

Resolutions and charges by multilateral institutions may appear to lack immediate efficacy and power, but they do serve essential functions in upholding global norms, promoting accountability, and fostering international cooperation. However, to enhance their effectiveness, there is a need for greater political will, enforcement mechanisms, and support from member states. Only through collective action and commitment can these institutions fulfill their mandate of promoting peace, justice, and human rights on a global scale.

Democracy in West Africa: The Case of Senegal

Bassirou Diomaye Faye’s two-week transition from jail cell to president by democratic means demonstrates the strength of democracy in some West African countries, but places a spotlight on the states where power transfers were less peaceful. 

The election of Faye, who defeated Amadou Ba in the first round of the Senegalese presidential election by winning 54% of the votes, was originally scheduled for February. However, then-President Macky Sall, in an attempt to hold onto power, delayed the election by persecuting opposition leaders and undermining the popular opposition party, the African Patriots of Senegal for Work, Ethics, and Fraternity (PASTEF). Among those detained were PASTEF’s leader, Ousmane Sonko, and Faye, who served as his secretary-general. Before the detainment, Sonko and PASTEF had focused particularly on denouncing corruption. While the government officially had dissolved PASTEF last summer, Sonko and Faye continued operating and pursuing many of the same goals of anti-corruption and economic sovereignty, in the process targeting and thus drawing the attention of Macky Sall. 

The March 24th election ended Sall’s 12-year presidency, with citizens lined up hours before voting started, eager to cast a vote. Senegalese political turmoil turned into unrest under Sall, inspiring a leadership change. COVID restrictions during Sall’s presidency and the arrest of Sonko issued anger towards the government and sparked riots. At the time, Faye was one of those arrested following speaking out against the injustice and economic disparities within Senegal. 

Civil society groups joined in an alliance, and journalists continued to report on the government abuses. Sall, finally pushed into stepping down from running again, left Sonko as the natural choice for president. However, Sonko had been barred from running as president due to convictions and past controversy. In comparison, 44-year-old Faye was little-known but a safe option. 

After an amnesty law permitted Faye’s release, he became a presidential candidate, running as an independent on an anti-corruption and economic sovereignty platform particularly attractive to younger voters. 

Faye proposed a change in Senegal’s relationship with the West, particularly with its former colonial holder, France. Faye promised a “Senegal First” approach, promising an audit of the oil, gas, and mining sectors to promote economic sovereignty. This is particularly critical, with BP’s 2017 discovery of large oil and gas reserves off the coast of Senegal resulting in concerns regarding corruption, western grabs for resources, and environmental degradation. Faye also seeks to reduce the unemployment rate and the number of Senegalese living in poverty, as well as reform the regional-level currency - the CFA franc. 

Faye has stated that “there’s no sovereignty if there is no monetary sovereignty,” further illustrating his desire to separate from the current monetary system. Even with some of his language suggesting a separation from the West, both Emmanuel Macron of France and the State Department have congratulated the democratic victory in West Africa, focusing on the common interests and values the countries now share. 

In West Africa, where a majority of the population is under 30, the success of Faye is a reminder of the power of democracy and reinforced popular confidence in the system, as well as an inspiration to other African states. Faye’s win by means of a democratic transfer of power proved to the West and other African states the possibility of successful non-violent elections, with Ugandan pro-democracy opposition leader Kizza Besigye commending the electoral process, stating that “it’s possible to non-violently achieve the desired democratic transition in Africa.” Other opposition leaders, including people from Zimbabwe and Angola in a meeting in Cape Town focused on combating the “rising tide of authoritarianism, military dictatorships, and hollowed democracies,” and, in a way, Faye seemed to focus on doing exactly that.

However, the success of democracy in Senegal is not something that can be imitated as easily by some other African states. Neighboring west African states, including Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger have faced military coups in an almost domino-like effect. Since its independence from France in 1960, Senegal has not experienced a coup, which in itself is a forecaster for future nonviolent transfers of power. Similarly, Senegal’s military is not as politicized as other Sahel militaries and doesn’t have the same ties to jihadism as the other states that has resulted in “corroded” democracy. A strong democratic culture has allowed for continued success of peaceful power transfers in Senegal. 

Faye must make good on his promises, however, with the challenges to democracy of unemployment, corruption, and other economic issues that could contribute to a future coup prevalent in Senegal. A transparent judiciary system and defined checks and balances of governmental powers will help to reduce corruption and political unrest. With the rising youth population holding the key to the future, Faye has to stand up for the younger people of Senegal, balance the relationship of Senegal with the west, control investment of the critical natural resources off the coast of West Africa, and keep the country strong despite being surrounded by states wherein leadership has been built upon violence. 

Faye has a difficult path ahead of him, but receiving popular support from the people of Senegal, other democratic African leaders, and the west will strengthen his presidency. 

As for now, Faye has people rooting for him. He just has to keep the momentum going.