Issuu

HERESY HISTORY&POLITICS

EDITED BY: SUHA Grade 11 ASSISTED BY: AMBER Grade 9

CONTENTS the war on terror 3

the insulin crisis 10

the league of nations 16

democratic socialism 5

the united nations 7

curriculum colonies 12

the cuban missile crisis 14

america and oil 18

emily dickinson 20

EDITOR'S NOTE Welcome to Heresy,

Politics has carried a virtually ubiquitous presence in my life. Perhaps due to the brutalities I have watched politicians in the pursuit of wealth commit, strangely enough, I have been brought to value compassion over economic gain. I was 7 years old when politics became a real, tangible thing, breathing down my neck. It has stalked behind me, grinning behind my inability to understand my mother-tongue, burning furiously as I watched the blue glow of my peoples’ bloodied corpses. At this particular time in the 21st century, it does not do to be apolitical; to choose apathy. To choose a sort of staunch political agnosticism is not only unfortunate, but somewhat contemptible – to be complicit in your own voicelessness. Alighieri writes, ‘The darkest places in Hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality.’ It is for this reason that this edition of Heresy explores the personal voices of a number of individuals discussing a variety of their inner-most thoughts, from the topics of the effectiveness of historical supranational organisations, to 21st century feminism. These articles have been constructed in such a way that, unfortunately, you may not agree with everything you read. All too often, we find ourselves absorbing information without question – the sole purpose of this edition is to encourage thought, to stimulate discussion on situations that have shaped the social climate we find ourselves living within today. Discussions about Middle Eastern conflicts and the impacts of colonisation, though inevitably intertwined with history, bear a great deal of relevance to current affairs. The consensus you reach reading these articles; whatever your moral compass may choose to value is, frankly, not of too much importance to me. Rather, it is the process of reaching that conclusion, which you will find is imperative, not only for your own growth, but the progression of society as a whole. I sincerely wish you reach your political truths with compassion.

– Suha Grade 11 Vol 1, 2020

THE WAR ON TERROR The War on Terror officially begun in 2001, but the war had been made inevitable since the Soviet war in Afghanistan, where the Soviets attempted to construct a communist government within Afghanistan, against a growing insurgency. Although the Soviet war ended in 1989, upon Gorbachev; the former president of the Soviet Union withdrawing his troops, the scars of the conflict remained within Afghanistan. Millions had died from starvation or from the Soviet bombing and raids, and amongst the survivors were a generation that had known only war, hatred, and fear, living in a weak state; rife with a deep resentment for western nations. This created a breeding ground for terrorism.

Enter Osama bin Laden; he utilized the deep-rooted anger within the Afghanis, and begun to use the money and weapons previously provided to Afghanistan by the United States to defeat the Soviet forces, and begun to train soldiers, which eventually became integral members of al-Qaeda, a militant organization, set up by bin Laden in 1988. By 2001, al-Qaeda had over 3000 members, and anger towards western nations had proliferated to the extent that on September 11th 2001, three Al-Qaeda hijacked planes crashed and detonated the World Trade Center towers in New York, reducing the towers to rubble and killing 2997 people.

Following the attack, President George Bush addressed congress and the nation, and initiated the ‘War on Terror’; a militant scheme to combat and eradicate global terrorism. He stated “Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”, and within days of the 9/11 attacks, America and its allies begun launching airstrikes in Afghanistan, at Al-Qaeda training camps and targets. The war begun to extend itself throughout the network of al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups such as the Taliban and ISIS, within regions such as Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Violence continues across these regions as the United States has increased air strikes and raids targeting terrorist organizations, so yes, the war, even after 19 years, is still being fought today. But after 19 years, it is only obvious to question what has the ‘War on Terror’ actually achieved, because, as unfortunate as it is, we still live in a world where terrorist attacks are a normality, and years with a decrease in attacks are seen as unprecedented. The aims of the war were essentially to defeat all terrorist and those associated with terrorist attacks, locate and destroy terrorist organizations and stop those who sponsor, support or provide sanctuary to terrorists. Throughout the war, thousands of terrorist suspects were arrested, the Taliban regime and al-Qaeda deteriorated through the detonation of terrorist training camps in Afghanistan through American airstrikes, and many of al-Qaeda’s integral leaders were eliminated. Yet, for 19 years of endless war, these successes are limited, and in fact, caused more harm than progress. The scheme in Afghanistan had effectively scattered the al-Qaeda network, thereby making it even harder to counteract, the attacks in Afghanistan and Iraq had increased anti-Americanism amongst more people, enlarging threats of terrorism.

Furthermore, the war had failed in Afghanistan, and by 2006 the U.S. was facing insurgency in the region led by a reconstituted Taliban. Fundamentally, all progress made through the War on Terror was eventually dissolved, achieving nothing. Instead the war had cost $4 trillion and the lives of 8000 American military persons, but more-so, it has cost 48,644 Afghani, 1,690,903 Iraqi and 35,000 Pakistani civilians, who were killed by American destruction, and

paid the ultimate price of their lives for crimes they never committed

So, America’s empty promises of combatting world terrorism have failed, and have brought an inconceivable cost. And so, we are forced to ask if there will ever be an end to this amorphous campaign? Will there be a decisive "Mission Accomplished" moment that brings the so-called War on Terror to a close? It is unlikely. Because, like crime, terrorism can only be reduced to what is called "manageable levels". And every day, there are newly emerging threats, something that will likely breathe new life into what appears to be a War without End. But we will wait, and we hope to see a day, where the war which has brought ineffable suffering, can finally end. - NUHA Grade 9

CAPITALISM DOES NOT WORK I want to begin by saying that I am in no way a Marxist fanatic. I believe that man has an inherent right to what he himself has worked to earn. Contrary to popular belief, I do not think that a doctor and a janitor should have equal wages. I am simply trying to look at the flaws within our system, and see what could serve as a remedy. There are no biases or ‘feelings’ that come into this evaluation. It is, in both its best, and worst light, a stone-faced acknowledgement of the wrongs and the rights. You see, any sort of solution aside, the most prevalent fact here, is the fact that it is undeniable that capitalism is not working for a lot of people. 7.6 billion people. The thing is, Capitalism works great for me, because Capitalism thrives on inequity. And I have been the luckier party in this inequity. Perhaps the best reference to draw upon here is ‘Wolf of Wall Street’s,’ ‘I need them to want to live like me.’ - an odd reference, but a perfect expression of the fundamental reason Capitalism has been able to survive for so long – it depends upon the establishment of an ideal that we can look towards, with little hope of achieving. The truth is, pure capitalism fails to provide a great many things that can be argued, are integral for social cohesion, such as free healthcare, safety nets and equality of opportunity.

Capitalism depends upon the inequality of wealth. I’m no romanticist – I’m well aware of the reality that people have to be wealthier than others, after all we are human; we are creatures constantly in the pursuit of Hobbesian felicity. The problem is, Picketty’s argument that wealth grows faster than economic output promises these wealth gaps will grow, to the point where rich man and poor man will no longer be able co-exist in the same society. To the point where, without concessions, we will see a revolution because, contrary to popular thought, the 21st century homo sapien is not yet too civilised to bloodily protest for what they believe to be their right. Capitalism is volatile. It follows boom-bust peaks and troughs. It relies on shares, bonds and money markets, teetering on their tendency to cause booms and busts. In a boom period, lending and confidence rise, but more often than not, markets get carried away by exuberance of irrationality, causing assets to spike in value. But, this boom can quickly turn to a crash when market sentiment changes. These market crashes can cause economic downturns, recession and unemployment. At various times, capitalism has suffered prolonged recessions. What we must understand is, Capitalism does not promise stability. In the inevitable recessions it brings, everyone loses. You do not win in a recession. Nobody wins in a recession.

" voting labour strips you of any economic benefit from your promotion, giving it away as ‘benefits’ that will most likely turn into booze

Even if we were able to ignore inadequacies, at its core, Capitalism devours its own children – these growing levels of wealth inequality and economic turbulence are not ‘normal.’ So here, I present you with a solution. A solution that will not nationalise your land, nor redistribute your wealth in 'Sanders’-cake-style.' I offer you democratic socialism, an economy with the capacity for decentralisation, with a what you could call ‘strong trade unionist’ leaning; a manifestation of Mills’ utilitarian world - where everything is done in the best possible interests of everyone, taking away no more of your wealth than a typical income tax in the United Kingdom today. Surely one can see that the inadequacies of capitalism are virtually eradicated with the introduction of democratic socialism, minimising inequalities and partially planning the economy. This article has briefly observed a few of our inevitable moral failings, and the benefits Democratic Socialism can offer.

However, I want to remind you that I have been built by Capitalism. Had my father not ascended the metaphorical ‘ladder’ from a newsagents in Yorkshire, to an investor in Dubai, I would not be as fortunate as I am today. I want to remind you that I am painfully aware of the economic dichotomy between progressive taxation brackets; how voting for the Tories seems much more appealing when Labour strips you of any economic benefit of your promotion and gives it away as ‘benefits’ that will most likely turn into booze. I want to remind you that I know how it is much easier to aspire to an ideal as a seventeen-year-old who has no real concept of making money. And yet, I want to remind you that you are fortunate. I want to remind you that you that that 20% of your disposable income, is not so disposable to someone else. I want to remind you that compassion isn’t an ideal that should die with 17-year-olds. - SUHA Grade 9

THE UNITED NATIONS' ICJ When the United Nations is ever brought into a conversation, many prepare themselves for a fervid debate involving aggressive hand gestures and cold cups of tea. Established on 24th October 1945 a month later after the end of the Second World War, this supranational organisation was formed to sustain peace and avoid the possibility of another war. The United Nations has been responsible for advancing and aiding our society on this planet, from eradicating smallpox to taking immediate action on climate change. The UN is based on three aims; to maintain international peace and security, to develop friendly relations, and to foster worldwide corporations in solving global problems. I am sure that you, my dear reader, are already aware of the authority and impact that this intergovernmental organisation has bestowed upon our society. And although this seems rather helpful, there are some areas and policies within the UN that are in need of dire reform. The first area that has been screaming for change since 1945, is the ICJ. The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial organ of the UN that includes parties consisting of all 193 member states. stablished in the Charter of the United Nations on 26th June 1945, its primary role is to settle any legal disputes in accordance with the international laws

Based in The Hague, Netherlands the ICJ comprises 15 judges who are elected to nineyear terms by the UN General Assembly and UN Security Council. Now reading this, you may be wondering what needs changing about an international law court. Well, the biggest flaw within this system is that it gives advisory opinions that member states don’t have to comply with. In other terms, if a country commits an offence of sorts the ICJ will tell them what they should do but the country responsible doesn’t necessarily have to do it. An example demonstrating this being when the US members never appeared at their hearing after their release of Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

Agent Orange was a herbicidal defoliant that was used from 1962-71, in order to remove leaves off the trees and other dense tropical foliage that provided enemy cover. Should soldiers have been directly exposed to Agent Orange, they had the potential risk of contracting diabetes (type 2), Parkinson’s disease, and several forms of cancer. So, even though the United States released a harmful gas that put many lives at risk, they never paid for their crimes. Surely, you are now beginning to see the blatant inefficiency within this judiciary system. Furthermore, the lack of discipline suggests that war crimes are seen as some sort of joke. Even though Agent Orange managed to kill and maim over 400,000 innocent civilians, nothing was done to avenge their deaths. No punishments were given, no reparations were paid. What is the point of having a legal system where culprits don’t have to comply with their penalties, and where criminal cases are prohibited from being discussed? In order to improve the role of an imperative area within the United Nations, the ICJ must have permission to bestow punishments onto those responsible for war crimes, or any other offences.

They should be permitted to hold hearings for criminal cases, should they affect society on an international scale. If these reformations were taken into consideration, countries would be forced to operate on a strict moral compass. The other area that requires special levels of attention would be the Veto power. Within the United Nations there is the Security Council, whose main purpose is to maintain international peace and security by voting on proposed resolutions based upon issues. It is comprised of 5 permanent members; the victors from World War 2 (UK, USA, USSR, France, China), as well as 6 non-permanent members that are elected for two-year terms by the General Assembly. As resolutions are proposed, each of the eleven member states can vote for whether they want one to be carried out or not. The P5 have the unique capability to use the Veto power. This rule states that should a resolution be vetoed; it is immediately rejected without any further negotiation as to why. So, lets imagine we’re continuing with this Agent Orange example.

A delegate finally realised that the US should be punished for killing thousands of innocent men, woman and children. They proposed that the United States should pay an inordinate sum to the Vietnamese people; and in response, the US vetoed this idea. That would be it. No negotiation or rebuttals on how it was an act of injustice. All it takes is one veto and the resolution is rejected. That type of power should either be distributed to all on the Security Council or abolished completely. Annoyingly, this policy has proven to be beneficial in the sense that it creates fair resolutions that all members agree on. You may be able to understand this from the fact that nearly all the results for resolutions have been decided due to a compromise. As a result of this, it can be suggested that proposals seldom have extreme results, and that the vast majority of countries will accept and commit to the resolution so that they can contribute accordingly. Despite this benefit, you cannot deny that

such a policy has been concocting a bitter-tasting jus of disparity

amongst the Security Council. From this angle, the controversy practically clings to this Veto power. Firstly, the UN Charter declares that all members are equal, however this rule is a blatant disregard to democracy by allowing countries to overrule any resolution; this inequality gives the P5 the opportunity to manipulate global conflicts to suit their economic and political interests. Take Russia and China, for example. Both have been constantly vetoed proposals that provide Syria with resources. Although many resolutions have been proposed to aid their humanitarian crisis, it can be implied that China and Russia’s reluctance to help is due to their benefit from this ongoing war.

If I were the delegates for either of these countries, I wouldn’t want this steady stream of money to stop. It’s evident that both nations have a lot to lose once this war has subsided. Therefore, this is why they continue to use their veto power for their own personal gain, and not for the sake of humanity. I’m pretty sure that you now realise history is rich in evidence to support the notion that the veto power is constantly abused to aid in the continued development of the P5 and not for the improvement of society. In order to modify the Veto power, the United Nations should allow all eleven members sitting on the Security Council to have the ability to veto resolutions, or to ease the constraints that this power comes with. To elaborate further on this, should a proposition be vetoed, countries should state valid reasons as to why it should be rejected I hope you have stayed with me, my dear reader. I know all this can become a bit of a bore when one delves into the logistics of things. If you have stuck around, I will firstly thank you. Secondly, it is quite clear that we must change a thing two in our beloved United Nations. This supranational organisation has managed to devote itself to advancing the state of world peace since its very first meeting on 10th January 1945. It continues to manufacture solutions that have been able to start tackling the fatal issues that humans, as a species, now face. In order to accelerate the rate at which this is done, we must consider adapting some of the policies and areas; the International Court of Justice and the Veto power must be modified to reduce the disparity within the Security Council. Only then, can we begin to work our way towards improving the state of our society. -AMBER Grade 9

INSULIN POVERTY Type 1 diabetes; a condition which affects over 515 million people, covering the expanse of the globe, is a condition caused due to the human body being unable to regulate glucose levels. Therefore, for type-1 diabetics to manage their glucose levels to avoid dire complications which arise with unregulated glucose, they rely on insulin; a hormone injected into the body to aid in regulating blood sugar levels. However, despite insulin being imperative for the survival of type-1 diabetics, it is solely increasing in price, and has been inflated in price by up to 700% in the last five years. In result, millions of type-1 diabetics cannot afford the insulin they so desperately need, which has caused diabetics within both high-income and low-income countries, to ration their insulin or utilise expired insulin, to ensure their extremely expensive supplies can sustain them for longer. However, these measures have only proliferated the problem. This brings the idea that high cost insulin is costing lives, and due to the prices often reaching up to $300 for one vial, this life saving drug, despite being the most needed, has become the least accessible.

Insulin was first commercially manufactured by Eli Lilly in 1922; an American pharmaceutical company. The creator, Frederick G. Banting, who sold the patent for insulin for $1, wanted insulin to be made available to all type-1 diabetes sufferers, and thus made it highly affordable and often free. Yet ironically, Eli Lilly has now become the most expensive producer of insulin, which sells insulin for $300 - $400 per vial, no longer pricing insulin as a necessity, but as a luxury. Sanofi, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, are now the three monopolies of insulin, and have inflated prices to such extremities, that over 2 million diabetics can no longer afford the life-sustaining medication which they require for survival. This growing epidemic of insulin poverty, often thought to solely affect low income countries, further affects high income countries. In the United States, the average price of insulin reaches $450, and costs continue to rise, so much so that as many as one in four people with type-1 diabetes are now skipping or rationing their lifesaving doses.

There is. no single force propelling insulin prices to dangerous heights within America, but it is mainly attributed to America’s approach to pharmaceuticals, and is exacerbated by the flaws of America’s heavily privatized health-care system. In countries with single-payer health systems, governments exert much more influence over the health care process.In essence, within the United Kingdom, the government has an agency which negotiates directly with pharmaceutical companies. The government sets a maximum price it will pay for a drug, and if companies don’t agree, they lose the entire market. This puts drug makers at a disadvantage, driving down the price of drugs, enabling them to be affordable in countries such as England, France and Australia. However, the US has long taken a free market approach to pharmaceuticals, which allows insulin monopolies to mark up prices to generate more profit, despite the fact that insulin is only produced at $5 - $15, therefore causing insulin to become unaffordable for over 65% of Americans. This has caused such a large problem, that 500,000 people died in the last year due to the lack of insulin as of its inaffordability, whilst causing thousands of others to experience further illness. One of the 500,000 was twenty-one-year-old Jesimya David Scherer-Radcliff, who would have still been alive if he could have afforded his insulin, and. his death is not an isolated event; as with annual insulin costs rising, as does the death toll. This problem of high insulin prices further affects low income-countries such as Rwanda, where 4 million people suffer with type-1 diabetes. Due to Rwandans solely relying on sustenance farming and not possessing any natural resources or industrial methods, Rwanda’s economy is poor, causing millions of Rwandans to be below the poverty line.

This lack of income thus decreases the expenditure of the healthcare system, causing the national healthcare system and the government to be unable to independently buy insulin from pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, Rwanda relies on insulin imports from other countries, such as the United States, which causes the prices to rise exponentially, causing Rwandans to be unable to afford insulin, proliferating insulin poverty. Therefore, this demonstrates the wide-spread nature of the issue, and why it desperately needs solving.To solve this issue bills have been raised in America, and crisis-stricken countries have imposed extensive policies for the affordability of drugs, yet little has changed. Researchers and studies have suggested the only way forward is to follow the steps of single-payer health care systems, where governments negotiate reasonable prices directly with pharmaceutical companies. This would allow governments to set a maximum price to pay for insulin, forcing companies to agree as they will lose money otherwise. This aids to drive down the price of drugs, enabling them to be affordable, and thus reducing the problem. This policy has not been imposed yet, however; insulinpoverty regions have begun making progress towards this. And so, we hope to see the time where insulin is priced as a right, and not as a luxury. - NUHA Grade 9

COLONISED CURRICULUMS

Somehow, we’ve ended up with the stereotype that it is the left-wingers that are inexplicably offended by everything – constantly victimising themselves. I beg to differ; unquestionably, it must be the right wingers who are constantly offended, because upon students begging to diversify their curriculum, or to explore literature that was not praised by Harold Bloom, they have what can only be described as a fit; tweeting that the ‘libtard snowflakes are, yet again, are victimising themselves;’ throwing another pity party for the minorities who absolutely do not suffer from 100,000 hate crimes attributed to historical stigmatism every year, who should absolutely have no desire to seek reflections of themselves and their culture within literature who should be absolutely content with studying Kipling’s descriptions;

likening Indians to animals and referring to slavery as a “moral duty.”

Some may argue that the notion of “decolonising” the curriculum is yet another pointless tantrum from the hordes of the overly-politically correct, and that we should simply select the best writers – throwing regard to the wind if they happen to all white men. However, who is to say that the works of Wilfred Owen are more than that of Maya Angelou? Undoubtedly, it is this idiocy that undermines the whole point of studying literature. Literature is subjective.

Ultimately, it is the love of expression, the desire to explore perspective and societal transgression through the art of words – the true passion of literature cannot be explored without seeking the works of the oppressed, of those who have screamed the loudest behind their words.The true passion of literature cannot be explored without seeking the words of those who have endured lasting adversity, who have soaked their pages in the residue of historical injustice. And admittedly, it is not typically the white man, who has suffered this pain. Separating art from the artist is all too easy for the likes of Eton boys, James Mariott and right-winged youth whose sole influence happens to be Steven Crowder, and to a certain extent, a great deal of what is considered the “best literature,” has been written by some of the most fanaticallycharged racists of the past two centuries. And I refuse to succumb to the left-wing stereotype that declares to lay eyes on a Kipling poem is to stand with David Cameron reading ‘If” Because I will not lie I will not stop watching Tarantino movies. And why? As it is art. And unquestionably, the most realistic notion moving forwards, is not to eradicate the study of D. H. Lawrence, rather it is to accept that, whilst these works are that of outlandish talent, they are not alone; that great works of a paralleled, if not higher standard, are written by members of society other than the white man.

What is crucial in order to understand, is that, since the victor of much in history was, indeed, the white man, it has led to millions of other voices being smothered by the inferiority of their own skin colour. To say that decolonizing our curriculum is not an imperative, is to say, that there never were, and never will be, good Indian writers, or good black poets, or good Asian storytellers. To say that decolonizing our curriculum is pointless, is to say that the only good writer is the white man. So, what can be said? Of course, we should relish the tragedies of Shakespeare, and the fantasies of Dickens, but we should not find ourselves limited to one outlook, to confine ourselves within a period where ignorance was rife, and millions died, and continue to pay the price because of it. Rather we should not only study Dickens, but Walker, and other works of lasting merit – not because the authors are black, but simply because, it is art. And history has denied us this for far too long. Surely, the right-wing cannot be offended? - SUHA Grade 9

WHAT WAS THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS?

Seconds can change everything. Cities could have been underground if it wasn’t for a single lightspeed decision. Hundreds of thousands of deaths and brobdingnagian destruction was prevented by a single Russian man. The Cuban missile crisis was a thirteen day period of escalating political and military tension between archrivals the United States and the Soviet Union in October 1962 when Soviet nuclear missiles directed at the US were spotted in Cuba. Fearful of the expansion of Soviet communist influence in South America, the United States had previously made several attempts to weaken the relationship between Cuba and the Soviet Union. These included a failed assassination of Cuban socialist leader Fidel Castro and an attempted coup by US funded Cuban exiles at the so called, ‘Bay of Pigs.’ John F Kennedy, US president at the time, introduced a ‘quarantine zone,’ that prevented the shipping of missiles to Cuba on the 22nd of October 1962. The US fired warning shots to force Russian submarines to the surface who were on the brink of firing their torpedo.

The world was on the edge of nuclear war.

This event is often overlooked in history books, but it might have single handedly been the most perilous historical event of the past century. Vasili Arkipov was the Russian man who averted catastrophe. Arkipov grew up in a peasant family in the town of Staraya Kupavna, near Moscow, Russia. At the age of 16, he applied to the Pacific Higher Naval School where he worked his way up to become a naval officer. He later took part in the SovietJapanese War in August 1945. However, the moment that labelled him savior of humanity was on the 27th of October 1962.There was a confrontation as a Soviet submarine crossed Kennedy’s quarantine zone. The US started to drop signaling depth charges warning the Soviet’s to go back. The captain, political officer and Soviet Navy officer Arkipov had been inside the submarine for over a month, with no method of communication or knowledge about the outside world. In this state of extreme tension, the captain assumed that war had already broke out. The captain and the political officer decided to push the ‘red button.’ This button released nuclear torpedoes against the United States Navy. The clock was ticking, they were in a state of extreme danger. However the decision required the approval of Vasili Arkipov. He argued that it was not an attack, rather warning signs. Arkipov did not allow the button to be pushed, saving the world from the outbreak of nuclear war.

Had the attack had occurred, it would have caused a chain reaction of conflict and most likely ended with a major global thermonuclear response using hydrogen bombs. The impact of a hydrogen bomb is almost 1000 times more powerful than the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The energy released in a hydrogen bomb is several magnitudes higher than an atomic bomb. If you so much as look towards the direction of an exploding hydrogen bomb without eye protection, you can face temporary or permanent blindness. The area of the center of the explosion essentially will vaporize; a city full of life could turn to nothing in a few milliseconds. The long term effects would have been massive. Decades later, radiation would still be released leading to skin burns, acute radiation sickness, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. This was the day that mankind almost faced its demise. - LAYLA Grade 10

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS The League of Nations was a supranational organisation created after the conclusion to World War 1 on January 10, 1920. The main aims of the organisation were to solve disputes between countries before they erupted into war. After the turmoil, the Versailles Treaty in 1919 established the League of Nations to bring stability to the world which was inspired by President Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Point Programme. To consider whether the League of Nations was effectively symbolic of international incompetence we must look at the events where the League of Nations intervened both successfully and unsuccessfully; those events could also be classified as major and minor problems that the world faced. The League of Nations cannot be though of an incompetent as they took many measures in order to secure social security of workers but also setting up a commission on slavery and adopted the 1926 Slavery convention, putting an end to slavery and also developed conventions on the traffic of women and children. The League developed the International Labour Organisation which is one of the current specialised agencies in the Un suggesting that its impact was widespread thus making it quite successful and influential. The ILO created a standard of maximum working hours per day and per week giving the League an image of an organisation that was looking for the benefit of all people making them look credible and this is evident as in 1928, the ILO adopted a Convention on setting a Minimum Wage which was ratified by 77 countries

the ILO never ceased to continue to improve the lives of many people by providing governments with international standards, while these were not enforced upon nations, it put immense moral weight on pressurising governments and employers to adhere to international standards. This suggests that even if the ILO’s policies failed, they would continue to implement new conventions allowing for one to deduce that the League was not in fact a total failure. Despite the social successes, the League of Nations can be considered widely incompetent as many nations quickly came to the realisation that the League did not hold any power and that their only methods of handling situations were by mostly placing trade and economic sanctions on nations. This led to nations firm anchoring to their interests; an example is the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931. An explosion on the South Manchurian railway, owned by Japan led to the Japanese directing the blame to the Chinese who subsequently opened fire on Japanese guards; forcing Japan to invade Manchuria. Tony Howarth said, ‘The invasion of Manchuria had two important side effects - putting aside for a moment its dreadful revelation that

The League was powerless in the face of a determined aggressor.

’I agree with this thesis as the League’s response was rather sluggish and disorganised, this is illustrated were when the League of Nations were unable to follow its own guidelines of acting quickly to resolve situations before a breakout of war.

Furthermore, the League of Nations can be deemed ‘incompetant ’ as their methods of conflict resolution had many flaws like their structure and dependence on powerful nations. The League always turned to financially aggravating the aggressor into giving into the demands of the LON the only problem with this concept was that the LON did not have a military force that they could use, and no member of the League was required to provide any military help under the terms of joining. Therefore, arguably one of the League’s biggest failure was the Italian invasion Abyssinia in 1935 in order to combat the effect the Great Depression had on the Italian economy. The invasion was a direct violation of the League of Nations covenant; the response was one of failed diplomacy rather than action, the League imposed sanctions to little effect on Italy and nothing more. This can indicate that the League of nations was heavily influenced by the interest of Britain and France not to lose Italy as an ally allowing for it to be to be considered a ‘incompetent’ as the League was unable to impose social-political values onto the member nations. Furthermore, the sanctions imposed by the UN did not include basic war materials like oil and coal, suggesting that their decisions were either rushed or not thoughtfully planned out leading to their ineffectiveness, its dependence on major nations and their failure to complu also highlights that the League was ineffective as in the Italian invasion, Britain left the Suez Canal open for Italy to use, so Mussolini could supply his troops and continue the invasion. One can deduce that the sole way for the League to solve problems was through sanctions that did little to no harm on the directed nation.

AP Adamthwaite said that ‘the Abyssinian crisis delivered a death blow to the League’ I agree with this statement as it allowed for Italy to grow closer to Germany however it also showed how powerless the League really was when faced blatant aggression. This again illustrates the organisation ‘is the greatest humbug in history’ due to their inability to resolve conflicts because of their approaches and dependence on major nations to act on the trade sanctions. Therefore, in conclusion, the League of Nations was a supranational organisation created after the conclusion to World War I. It was created in order to provide a forum to countries for resolving international disputes. The League of Nations had some success and failures, most of the success for social and were implemented around the world while the failures were political and quite rightly overshadow the social successes. Overall, the League of nations can be considered incompetent due to the nations realisation that the League was powerless against major threats without the backing of France and Great Britain. As put by Benito Mussolini, ‘the League is very well when sparrows shout, but no good at all when eagles fall out’. - YASER Grade 11

THE USA AND OIL

It is no secret that the USA has always sought out after oil. It is perhaps the most desired resource that any country could wish for, and worldwide there is a finite abundance of it. The United States is well known for importing most of its crude oil from countries such as Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. This means that the USA's demand for oil is mainly met by importing it. Today the US has a proven oil reserve of 43.8 billion barrels, meaning that they can essentially meet Americas oil demand for the next 11 years, without replacement. Despite these massive oil wells found in the USA, this oil remains relatively untouched. The simple reason as to why the US doesn’t fulfill its own oil demands is because Saudi Arabia can do it at a cheaper price. Whilst the USA has a similar quantity of oil as the Saudis it can't compete with the cost at which Saudi Arabia is willing to supply it. Oil production in the USA doesn’t surpass oil consumption due to the fact that the very cost of extracting oil is greater than the cost that Saudi Arabia is willing to sell for. This means that the USA, nor any other nation for that matter, can sell the same amount of oil as Saudi Arabia. However, this has changed recently, as with new technologies, such as fracking, the USA and other nations can extract a greater supply of oil. This means that the USA can access new oil, and even Russia has a greater supply of oil as they now are able to extract oil from permafrost in Siberia.

However, this new technology costs quite a but in itself meaning that Saudi oil is still cheaper. In 2016 both the USA and Russia attempted to flood the market with their own oil, in order to challenge Saudi Arabia and export their own oil. This lead Saudi Arabia crushing demand by over supplying the oil market massively, massively reducing the price of oil by up to $10 per barrel. The price for oil became ridiculous and Russia and the USA were forced out of the market with their oil fields in danger of shutting down. This was as neither country could fathom extracting oil at the price Saudi Arabia was. While low oil prices looked good for the US government, many oil companies almost collapsed due to the incident. Interestingly during the coronavirus pandemic, the price of oil has similarly plummeted. This overproduction has lowered the cost of oil so fracking and any other current technology for oil extraction is unprofitable. So as long as Saudi Arabia can continue to oversupply the market the USA, and many other countries, will be forced to buy their oil or extract it themselves at a deficit. During the coronavirus pandemic it became unprofitable to even store oil, so some companies were forced to simply abandon and destroy parts of their oil reservoirs.

Though, there is also a theory taken by a few that may be true. Whilst the US has attempted to engage in the export of oil multiple times in the past, through the emergence of shale or by fracking they have never achieved their goal of completely dominating the market. Some believe that the USA has strategically positioned itself by allowing Saudi Arabia to continue to oversupply the oil market, in an

attempt to accelerate the depletion of the Kingdom's oil reserves. This would allow the US to then tap into its abundant reserves, and sell its oil to other nations. However, it must be noted this is still a theory. Ultimately, this argument presented above allows us to make the assumption that the reason that the US doesn’t supply its own oil is that it costs more to extract oil than it does to import. - DANIYAL Grade 10

THE IMPACT OF EMILY DICKINSON Emily Dickinson, an American poet from the times of 1830 to 1886 wrote some of the greatest poems of all time. Examples of her work include ‘hope is the thing with feathers’ and ‘because I could not stop for death’. Throughout the entirety of her life, she lived in a Victorian house with her family, experiencing a somewhat average childhood for a young girl in the 1930’s, however her family were extremely wealthy due to her father’s contributions to the railroad industry. Emily began writing at the age of 16, trying to publish her work many times but her father would not allow it. This was because he viewed it as a ‘disgrace to the family name’. In those days, women were seen as inferior to men in every way, including academia, and weren’t allowed to write novels or poetry. The question is, why did Emily not run away and start her own life as a poet? In my opinion, Emily’s poems were an amazing demonstration of feminist writing from the mid-19th century. However, her poetry wasn’t approved by everyone, her father and mother were strongly against her writing and publishing. They believed in the ‘traditional role’ of women in society; however, Emily never approved of this lifestyle. Once her brother had married Susan Gilbert, Emily had a much better chance at getting her poems published because, fortunately, Susan had special contacts with those in charge of the local newspaper. Unfortunately, they got taken down as soon as Emily’s father found out.

According to many people, Emily Dickinson wrote about topics that interested her. Lots of her poems were about death and immortality but some were about nature, hope and love. Personally, I love how she used her imagination in such a way to maintain audience engagement. As a teen, she unfortunately suffered from bad vision and severe anxiety, causing her to spend the last 15 years of her life at home in her room, doing nothing but writing letters and poems. The only two people she was in contact with were her servant and sister and this all by letter. It was not easy for her, but Dickinson believed that she would eventually achieve her dream of becoming a writer. Emily was very happy doing what she loved, which was to be alone and write. She would constantly write to her brother’s wife, Sue, who she was very close to. She always felt like an out-cast, amongst her family, because she felt unable to conform to the social norms of the time. Emily Dickinson wrote over a thousand poems but she never gained any recognition during her lifetime. Prior to her death, she requested her poetry to never be published. However, following her death, this wish was disregarded. Although Emily Dickinson did not finish school, she was still one of the greatest poets of all time. In fact, all her poems were written with horrific grammar, yet they were loved. She unsuccessfully made several attempts to publish her poems under pseudonyms during her lifetime, writing over 1800 poems, to have only 10 published. Now she is one of the most well-known poets of all time.

Emily Dickinson’s poems have influenced many people over the years inspiring many to write poetry, persevere through life, or improve in other art related forms (like song-writing or painting). It all must have started somewhere. William Blake and Ralph Edwardo Emerson greatly influenced Emily Dickinson into becoming a brilliant female poet. One of the reasons Emily Dickinson was so influential was because she was one of the first female writers who fought to publish her work. During that time, the main societal perception of a woman was one that; nothing more. Emily challenged these perceptions and fought for her career as a poet. Elizabeth Barrett Browning, who was Emily’s biggest influence, wrote the poem, ‘how do I love thee’, which is one of the greatest poems ever written. When she wrote her poems, they lacked any basic grammar, however her work was still loved by the whole world. Emily Dickinson was brave, smart, and one of my greatest influences. This is because she always fought for her goals, and when faced with a challenge, she quickly found a solution for it. She has influenced me in many ways such as to never give up, or to keep striving for my goals so that they will eventually happen. She has influenced me to draw and most importantly write poems of my own. Emily Dickinson, who was peaceful and unique, once said ‘pardon my sanity in a world insane,’ and I think this is very true. In short, Emily Dickinson’s influence on poetry was magnanimous. She never let anyone stop her from writing poetry and did whatever she could to publish her work, and 100 years later she remains immortalised due to her sheer talent. She has taught many people that, to achieve their dreams, they need to persevere and work hard. That is why I believe her to be an amazing, inspiring poet, showing a world which often, even today, disregards female equality, that women can do anything.

- LANA Grade 6

WITH SPECIAL THANKS TO NUHA Grade 9 YASER Grade 11 LAYLA Grade 10 DANIYAL Grade 10 LANA Grade 6 TO WRITE FOR FUTURE EDITIONS OF HERESY PLEASE CONTACT: CHAIR: SUHA, Grade 11 DEPUTY CHAIR: AMBER, Grade 9