LETTER from the
Dear Readers,
A sincere welcome to Volume XVI.I of the Observer and to the annual installment of our Summer-in-Review issue! This year, we have a strong diversity of issues being covered. The field of international relations is multifaceted and growing faster than ever, and therefore the work of our writers encompass many of the different conflicts, issues and ideas that we face in today’s fast-paced and increasingly globalized world. As you flip through the pages of this issue, you will read about topics ranging from identity, intrastate and interstate conflict, to topics exploring social issues and human rights, public health, technology, art and fashion.
We are very excited to welcome many new staff writers and editors. We are also very excited to showcase many external contributions from talented writers within the Queen’s community and at other universities around Canada, namely the University of Ottawa, the Royal Military College of Canada and McGill University. A big thank you also goes out to Daer Ding for his hard work on the cover art and layout design.
We begin with our identity and intrastate politics section. Issues pertaining to identity and interstate conflict are not new; however, our understanding of these issues and the approaches we take in addressing them has gradually evolved over time. Tanisha Amarakoon starts us off by discussing the enduring ethnic and religious conflict that is present in Sri Lanka. Elizabeth Franceshini then takes an in depth look at the use of the Russian language as a tool to exert influence over neighbouring states, and Xiyuan Chen considers the role of identity in Brexit. Next, Ethan Mitchell offers a critical analysis of the Putin regime and offers a way that the opposition can overcome his long standing rule by exploiting his shortfalls. This is followed by Damian McCracken’s analysis of the ongoing political struggle within Venezuela, a consideration of the debate rules in the Democratic presidential primary by Albert Gunnison, and an analysis of how US leaders use the Constitution as a tool through which to justify political ignorance and negligence by Claire Parsons.
Next up, we have our human rights and social issues section. Many issues that have historically been cast aside are now being given acknowledged. However, as we will see, barriers to change remain present. Emma Patton begins by discussing the adverse effects of climate change on Indigenous lands and how Trump has been unsympathetic to these plights. Jeff Allen analyses the US insistence on removing sections of a resolution aimed at helping survivors of sexual violence in conflict, due to their fear of its close association with abortion, and the adverse impact this will have on women worldwide. This is followed by Sinead O’Hara discussing the victory for the LGBTQI+ movement after same-sex marriage was legalized in Taiwan; however, there is more to this victory that meets the eye if one digs below surface level.
Our human rights and social issues section is followed by our interstate politics section, which focuses on the US and China trade war and Brexit. Mohit Mann and Angela Feng begin by offering
two unique takes on the US and China conflict, which has shocked global markets and left the world embracing itself for further economic storm clouds. Annie Seeley then analyzes the impact of Brexit on Northern France, both in the realm of economics and politics.
Public health has taken immense strides in the past one hundred years, with numerous diseases being controlled or almost entirely eradicated due to advances in science and medicine. However, in this next section, we cross over to the dark side of public health. Isha Gill begins by discussing how leaders spread propaganda against foreign doctors, who are attempting to control the Ebola outbreak, in order to gain votes. Gwynn Magnan discusses the danger that anti-vaccination propaganda poses to society, and Vruksha Vakeeswaran brings scrutiny to government loopholes in drug regulation, processing and sales, which have enabled and enhanced the opioid epidemic.
We conclude with our final section, which includes topics in technology, art and fashion. Technology has advanced at alarming levels and has been pervasive in our increasingly globalized world. However, the impact that technology has had on human lives is sometimes disregarded, as humans struggle to understand, control and come to grips with technology and the impact it can have. Bibi Imre-Millei begins by discussing how the lived experiences of US weapons technology in Pakistan has been misunderstood and neglected. Sarah James then analyzes the negative impact that Facebook’s Free Basics Initiative had on the propagation of biased and false information during the 2017 Myanmar Crisis, and Owen Wong considers how the internet fosters radicalization, due to its anonymity and facilitation of groupthink, and the consequent difficulty for policy to address such an issue. In our final two articles, Rebecca Frost, in a follow up of her article in The Observer’s 2017 Summer-In-Review issue, discusses the manifestations of political messages and consequences through art in the Venice Biennale, and Scarlett Robinson considers the negative consequences of the fast fashion industry on a global scale.
A special thank you goes out to our team. This issue would not have been possible without the hard work of everybody involved. If you have any remarks or concerns, do not hesitate to contact us at contact@theobserver-qiaa.org. If you have any interest in submitting to one of our issues, you can follow us on Facebook(The Observer - Queen’s University) or Instagram (theobserver. qiaa) in order to receive updates!
Happy reading!
Sincerely,
Jacob Ahearn Editor-in-Chief Politics, Philosophy and Economics 2020
MEET THE TEAM
Jacob Ahearn - Editor-In-Chief
Jacob is a 4th year Politics, Philosophy and Economics student. Most of his research interests lie broadly in macroeconomic policy, international relations and Canadian politics. He is the Drum Sergeant in the Queen’s Bands, is a peer learning assistant with Student Academic Success Services and volunteers as a big buddy with Kaleidoscope.
Daer Ding - Layout
Editor
Daer is a 3rd year Film & Media Student. He is interested in all types of visual art form that will apply with his skills. In his free time, he likes to make short films and take photographs. He is very excited to work as a Layout Editor for The Observer
Bibi Imre Millei - Assistant Editor
Bibi is a Political Studies Masters student interested in how weapons systems shape social realities. In her spare time she enjoys baking and reading Isaac Asimov. On campus Bibi volunteers at the Sexual Health Resource Centre and with Women in International Security Queen’s. She’s an Assistant Editor for the Observer and a research assistant at the Centre for International and Defence Policy.
Ethan Mitchell - Assistant Editor
Ethan is a Political Studies student entering his fourth year at Queen’s. When he isn’t ambushing friends and family with sudden political arguments, he enjoys ambushing them with sudden arguments about music and movies instead. He also likes to spend his time reading, writing, and wandering the streets of Kingston.
Angela Feng - Assistant Editor
Angela is a fourth year Global Development and Environmental Studies student. Her areas of interest include political ecology, environmental justice and sustainability. In her spare time, she likes to collect house plants, lay in the sun and listen to jazz.
Isha Gill - Writer
Isha is a second year Life Science student specializing in neurology. She is interested in global politics and international affairs, especially those that pertain to global medical epidemics and global relief efforts.
Emma Patton - Writer
Emma is a second year Political Studies student at Queen’s University. Emma’s interest in international affairs developed through studying Global Development and Political Studies during her first year at Queen’s. Her research interests include election politics, human rights movements and environmental issues.
Scarlett Robinson - Writer
Scarlett is a fourth year History and Economics student. Scarlett is specializing in Latin American politics. in part due to the fact that she began her studies online while living in Honduras. Since then, Scarlett has become increasingly involved in politics and international relations, as an International Development Week Director for QIAA, and a Policy and Programs Assistant at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. After graduating, Scarlett’s main goal in life is to become Amal Clooney.
Annie Seeley - Writer
Annie Seeley is a third year undergraduate at Queen’s University. She is keen to explore further, the multifaceted discipline of foreign affairs; and develop a more robust understanding of the origins—and implications—of the present ‘global reality’. In her leisure time, she enjoys playing squash, weightlifting, and reading Foreign Affairs.
Xiyuan Chen - Writer
Chen is about to go into her third year at Queen’s. She majors in politics and minors history. Chen is interested in all sorts of topics in politics. In particular, she develops her interest in ethnic conflict and international relations. As an active member of the Queen’s community, Chen enjoys volunteering for different initiatives on campus, such as Homecoming, Career Fairs, Tax Clinic, etc. She’s also a big fan of American sitcoms. Her favourites include Friends, The Big Bang Theory.
Vruksha Vakeeswaran - Writer
Vruksha is a fourth year Biology student at Queen’s University. Her interests range from digital health to reading up on the latest trends in genetic therapies. She looks forward to writing for The Observer this year and sharing her thoughts on issues she’s passionate about with her peers.
Owen Wong - Writer
Owen is a second year student at Queens currently studying political science and economics. Some of Owen’s academic interests include game theory as well as political philosophy. Beyond his work with The Observer Owen is a member of the political science student council and enjoys learning about social issues during his free time.
Tanisha Amarakoon - Writer
Tanisha Amarakoon is a fourth year Political Studies and Sociology student at Queen’s University. On campus she can be found working for The Observer as the Chief of External Affairs, chatting to incoming Queen’s students as a campus tour guide, or working on the QMUNi secretariat. Her interests within the field of politics include North Korean relations, women’s rights, and international law.
Rebecca Frost - Writer
Rebecca is a fourth-year student in the Politics, Philosophy, and Economics program. She is also the Chief of Investigative Journalism at The Observer. Rebecca has been with the Observer since she joined as the first-year in 2016. She is interested in the local and cultural sides of international affairs.
Gwynn Magnan - Writer
Gwynn Magnan is a fourth year Global Development and Sociology Medial s tudent here at Queen’s. Gwynn has being the Editor-In-Chief for the Online publication of the Observer. Gwynn as well works at the Peer Support Centre as a Supervisor, and volunteers for Students for Students, a student run charity which emphasizes the importance of access to education and encourages donations to the Queen’s Bursary in light of the OSAP changes. Over the summer, Gwynn worked within the Climate Change Impacts and Assessment Division in Natural Resources Canada’s Earth Sciences Sector.
Sinead O’Hara - Writer
Sinead O’Hara is a fourth year Global Development Studies and Classics student. She is interested in decolonization, human rights, and conflict resolution. She is drawn towards international affairs from her historical study of colonization as it helped her develop her understanding of the power dynamics within the global political economy. This will be her third year writing for the Observer and she is very excited for all that is to come!
Jeffrey Allen - Writer
Jeffrey Allen is a 5th year history student currently studying at Queen’s University. Jeffrey has primarily studied American history and politics, while also researching and studying topics in the field of international relations.
observer
Claire Parsons - Writer
Claire Parsons has lived in Winnipeg, Oakville, White Rock BC, and Toronto and has a very difficult time picking a hometown.
Claire Parsons is studying Political Studies in her second year at Queen’s, Claire is passionate about global issues and a proud member of QIAA. Her love of politics is derived from a family unafraid of debate and discussion. You can often find her with her friends, painting, or taking care of her plants, George and Betty.
Albert
Gunnison
- Writer - McGill University
Albert Gunnison is a rising U3 student (final year) at McGill University, where he double majors in Economics and Political Science. His primary areas of interest are Middle Eastern studies and American politics. Albert began writing for the McGill International Review in January 2019 and he hopes to continue this coming year. Above all else, he is a huge Boston sports fan (go Celtics!!)
Damian
McCracken
- Writer - Royal Military College
Damian McCracken is a third-year Naval Cadet from Vancouver studying Political Science and History at the Royal Military College of Canada. When he is not busy with his studies, He debates topical issues with RMC’s Debate Team, peer-reviews papers, and participates in Model UN conferences. After graduation, Damian will return to the West Coast to undergo training as a Naval Warfare Officer.
Mohit Mann - Writer - McGill University
Mohit is a fourth year political science and history student at McGill University who specializes in American foreign policy and developing areas. Mohit currently writes for the McGill International Review and is an avid spectator of international politics. He endeavours to inform his readers with insightful content and is always keen on broadening his horizons through various journalistic platforms.
Elizabeth Franceschini - Writer - McGill University
Elizabeth is entering her second year at McGill University, pursuing a double-major in Political Science and Russian Studies. On campus, she has implicated herself with the International Relations Students’ Association of McGill. She is also a writer for the McGill International Review and the McGill Journal of Political Studies. Her main fields of interest include Eastern European and Russian politics, as well as nationalist philosophy. She is excited to write for The Observer as an external contributor.
Sarah James - Writer - University of Ottawa
Sarah James is a masters student at the University of Ottawa’s School of Public and International affairs, where she is working on a project exploring the political economy of online algorithms, and their potential implications for public policy. She also has a M.A. in Cultural Studies and Critical Theory from McMaster University. where she wrote about the relationship between online communities and internet memes, and the potential implications for our understanding of digital copyright.
Identity and Intrastate Politics
A Resurgence of the Blame Game: Untangling Sri Lanka’s Intrastate Conflict
By: Tanisha Amarakoon
Mark Twain’s aphorism, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme,” has been used as a tool to understand why mishaps from the past reoccur. While the phrase seeks to answer the burning why, it also questions: who is to be blamed.
Although already proven to be a true and powerful aphorism, the international community experienced its validity once again during Easter Sunday of 2019; history did not repeat itself, but it did rhyme through a series of coordinated bomb blasts in Sri Lanka. While the details of the attack continue to surface, a few elements have been confirmed: the blasts involved six suicide bombers, three churches, three luxury hotels, and took over 258 lives.
The six attacks took place within 15 minutes of each other, with the first dawning at 8:45 am. Three of the bombs ruptured during church services in Kochchikade, Negombo, and Batticaloa, and the others in some of Sri Lanka’s top hotels: the Shangri-La, Kingsbury, and Cinnamon Grand. Although the majority of the victims were Sri Lankan citizens, 38 foreigners were among the dead, including travellers from India, the United Kingdom, and the United States. According to government officials, the six suicide bombers were Sri Lankan citizens associated with a local Islamist militant group, the National Thowheeth Jama’ath, who planned the attack in retaliation for the recent mosque attack in New Zealand.
The Easter Sunday attacks not only shocked Sri Lankans, but also marked an end to the island’s decade of peace following the 26 year-long civil war. However, although the Easter bombings introduced a newfound level of coordination due to its extreme magnitude and use of international aid to execute, the tensions between groups in the multiethnic and multifaith country were far from new. Sri Lanka’s history of ethnic conflict began in 1983 when the Sinhalese Buddhist majority disenfranchised Sri Lankan Tamils, resulting in the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) fighting to partition the state. Sri Lanka’s sectarian tensions ultimately resulted in a civil war, lasting nearly three decades and taking over 150,000 lives.
The causes and longevity of the war made two things clear—Sri Lanka could not be divided neatly by race or religion, and sacred spaces were at the center of disputes. The country’s ethnic and religious makeup is currently split between the 70 percent Sinhalese majority (whose ethnicity is usually synonymous with being Buddhist), the Tamil and Muslim ethnic minorities, and the Christians, who compose parts of the Sinhalese and Tamil groups.
These divisions were evident during the war, when Tamil separatists attacked Sri Dalada Maligawa, one of Sri Lanka’s holiest sites where the tooth of Buddha is believed to be kept.
This later drove the Sri Lankan military,
The remaining statue of Jesus carries traces of explosions and blood from the easter attack.
led by the Sinhalese majority, to descend upon Christian churches and Hindu temples where Tamils sought shelter. The LTTE ultimately responded through a series of attacks at Mosques, killing over 100 Muslims who were believed to be working with the government.
Once the war had ended, the LTTE was defeated, and a Buddhist nationalist movement was in government, Sinhalese Buddhist extremist monks diverted their attention towards Muslim and Christian groups. Since 2009, dozens of churches and mosques have been attacked by Sinhalese mob groups, ultimately prompting the government to declare a state of emergency in 2018 following attacks on businesses and houses. The extremist Sinhalese Buddhist com-
munities believed that their religious numerical superiority in Sri Lanka would be diminished by Christian and Muslim movements, and further, that their ethnic numerical superiority would also suffer due to the growth of Muslim and Hindu groups. Dilanthe Withanage, a former spokesman for Bodu Bala, one of the most influential Buddhist nationalist groups, noted how changes in ethnic makeup can shift governmental structure resulting in “Sinhalese politicians [having to make] the country run by Sharia law.”
Post-war, the potential feud over governmental structure has resulted in the Sinhalese majority further subjugating minority groups, adding more fuel to what everyone hoped was a dead fire. This new surge of violence has brought Sri Lanka back to normal, “with a new enemy, but the same hate” as noted by M.A. Sumanthiran, Sri Lankan legislator and human rights lawyer.
However, it is important to recognize two factors. First, that the antagonism experienced by local Muslims does not come from Christians, but rather the local Buddhist majority. The recent attack during Easter Sunday against Christian communities, who have had nothing to do with the local tensions, has therefore suggested the involvement of a global jihadist movement with a larger anti-Christian agenda, according to Ajai Sahni, executive director for Conflict Management in New Delhi.
Second, although the Easter attacks may have been tied to an international agenda, Sri Lanka still needs to improve its addressing of religious and ethnic conflict. As for Twain’s aphorism, if the Sri Lankan government cannot create an island that is able to coexist with multiple ethnic and religious groups, the country may be heading towards similar tensions that led to the war 36 years ago. In order to do that however, perhaps Sri Lankans should direct their attention away from the why, and who to blame, towards a how—how to establish a country that peacefully negotiates, how to coincide with one another, and how to maintain a Sri Lanka that is free of violence.
If You Speak Russian, You are Russian: Exploring Russian Ethnolinguistic Nationalism
By: Elizabeth Franceschini
In 2014, the Russian Federation drew the attention of the world when it annexed the territory of Crimea in eastern Ukraine. In addition to the capture of Crimea, covert Russian military forces also self-declared the territories of Donetsk and Luhansk, two cities located in the Donbas region of Ukraine. The capture of Crimea and the Donbas by Russian forces was a clear challenge against the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance and the pro-European Western order as a whole. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s actions have been broadly categorized as the product of Russia’s desire to protect its homeland and its nearby territories from the increasing threat of NATO expansion, cou-
pled with Russia’s neo-imperialist foreign policy. The Russian invasion, and subsequent annexation of the Crimean peninsula, has been a battle territory filled with many complexities and nuances, stemming from Russian history and foreign affairs policy. The following seeks to analyze Russian neo-imperialism, focusing on the country’s language politics as means through which the Russian Federation is attempting to establish themselves as a serious contender in the international political sphere. As such, the article will begin with a tracing of Russia’s neo-imperialist history from a language perspective. The history of the Russian Federation will be bridged with a supporting example from post-Soviet Latvia, and will comment on the relationship between the Baltic states and the Russian Federation overall. The influence of Russian ethnolinguistic nationalism in the post-Soviet era will therefore try to make sense of the Russian Federation’s impact in the current international context, through exploring Russian intervention in Crimea and the Donbas.
The Russian Federation’s politicization of their national language as a basis for Russian neo-imperialism takes into consideration Russia’s unique history, and can legitimize the country’s global expansion on the basis of language. The spread of Russian influence on the basis of language significantly occurs in the country’s Tsarist era, where the Russian Empire began to Russianize their European colonies in an effort to develop unity throughout the colonies with a shared language. For example, the Russian language was the sole language to be taught in schools and was to be used among all governing bodies. The Russification which occurred throughout the Russian Empire can be seen as a way through which Russia attempted to gain influence over ethnic non-Russians through a linguistic and cultural basis.
Following the fall of the Russian Empire in 1905, territories previously under Russian control gained a newfound sovereignty and distanced themselves from their colonizers, igniting
unique movements on the basis of language. However, following 1938, where the Russian Empire was now transformed into the Soviet Union, the Russian language was slowly encouraged, and eventually was enforced in children’s school curriculums. The spread of Russian throughout the Soviet Union ultimately led Russian to be perceived as the country’s universal language, superseding ethnic boundaries. The Soviet policy and philosophy of Russian hegemony helped to further advance Russian interests on the basis of language. Russian hegemony is based on the belief that if all Soviet states were similar to each other — culturally or linguistically, for example — then dominance of the Soviet Union would persist in the world order. The spread and unification of the Russian language among all Soviet states was, therefore, one way to preserve this hegemony. The promotion of Russian in the Soviet Union is therefore a primary reason in explaining post-Soviet and non-ethnic Russian countries’ tendency to communicate in the Russian language today.
Following the annexation of Crimea and the Donbas in 2014, the Kremlin passed a new citizenship law making the obtainment of a Russian citizenship much easier and simpler for those who speak Russian. The passing of this law represents a landmark in Russian foreign policy and the establishment of a new type of Russian identity, while also serving as a means of facilitating the Russian Federation’s land grab in the region. In defining a shared language as a means for legitimate citizenship rights, the Russian Federation could theoretically expand its power and sovereignty to all of the Russian-speaking world.
As such, the law truly conceptualizes the Russian notion of an exclusive body politics derived from a single spoken language. Modern Russian has remained largely unchanged in the post-Soviet countries currently engaging with the language, with no country specific varieties. This notion of a unique form of Russian per Russian-speaking country, or community, is in fact discouraged by Russian-based linguists, leaving the language to be uniquely linked to its mother country. In wishing to preserve the relationship between language and nation, the Russian Federation has subsequently used language politics as a means to expand Russian influence over its neighbouring states and in global politics.
A primary example demonstrating the phenomenon of Russian ethnolinguistic nationalism are in the Baltic states, where in which approximately 1/3 of Estonians and Latvians alone are Russophones. Economically, the Baltic region shares several positive economic ties with the Russian Federation. However, following the 2014 Crimean annexation, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania increased the presence of NATO forces within their respective states for fear of Russian expansionism. Despite the positive bilateral economic ties between Russia and the Baltic states, there is an apparent skepticism towards encouraging relations with the Russian Federation. This lack of trust is based off of Russia’s tendency to protect Russian-speaking minorities outside its borders, which was indeed legitimized and observed by the Baltic states following the 2014 Russian citizenship law. As such, the Baltic states have remained critical of pursuing strong relations with Russia, especially when considering the Russian linguistic landscape of most Baltic countries. In an effort to curb Russian expansionism and promote Baltic national identity, Latvia, for example, conducted a referendum in 2012 in an effort to promote Latvian language preservation. Approximately 3/4 of the population in Latvia voted against making Russian the country’s official language, paving a big win for the preservation of a unique Latvian identity.
In the current international political climate, elements of the Russo-Ukrainian War echo the Russian Federation’s use of language politics in Latvia. April 2019 saw the election of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who upon his arrival is tasked with handling, and potentially pacifying, Russo-Ukrainian aggression. Prior to Zelensky’s election, incumbent President Petro Poroshenko passed a pro-Ukrainian language law. The language law favours Ukrainian print and film media above those in the Russian language, and ensures that all public sector employees communicate in the country’s national language — Ukrainian. The topic of language is so delicate in Ukraine’s current public discourse, namely as a result of the 2014 Crimean annexation. The Russo-Ukrainian conflict has sparked the rise of pro-Ukrainian language nationalists, who are in direct conflict with pro-separatist Ukrainians and Russian-backed forces. In a country where a large portion of citizens speak Ukrainian, Russian, or both, Ukraine’s national identity has been questioned. Should Ukraine strive for a unique identity based on the Ukrainian language in the post-Soviet era? Or, should the country allow for Russian influence? Perhaps, a unique Ukrainian identity can be preserved without fearing the impacts of the country’s Soviet history? It is these
questions which Ukraine must continue to debate in its national discourse.
Indeed, the Russian Federation has used a linguistic basis for its engagement in a new type of hybrid warfare and promotion of its geopolitical interests. In the current international political climate, Russo-Ukrainian relations will be a definitive factor in determining if Russia’s weaponization over the Russian language can prove effective in the Ukrainian conflict, and advance Russian interests throughout eastern Europe. Ukraine’s new president-elect will be crucial in determining if a ceasefire between both nations can be achieved, and will demonstrate to the world if Russian expansionism will continue to be successful or not. The Russian Federation’s actions in the Baltic states prove to the world that Russian expansionism has been a risk to countries’ national identity before, and can continue to be one. The statehood and sovereignty of the Crimean Republic, along with the Donbas region, now lies in the hands of the new Ukrainian President, who will be responsible for cultivating a new relationship with the Russian Federation.
Before he realized it, a milkshake had spilt all over the tuxedo of Brexit Party leader, Nigel Farage. The authority of Farage’s blue Brexit Party badge was undermined by white smudges in front of his supporters. To make things even worse, Newcastle CCTV caught this embarrassing moment and published it for the world to see. Later, police investigation revealed that this was a politically motivated incident where the perpetrator intended to protest against people like Farage, who advocated against the European Union (EU). In Britain, the perpetrator’s action was a paradigm of the social radicalism that Brexit has instigated over the last few years.
David Cameron, the Prime Minister who orchestrated the Brexit Referendum, gambled his career on a promise that would “alter UK’s place in the world.” He was committed to a referendum that gave people a choice between the EU and the independence of the United Kingdom (UK). This referendum was meant to consolidate Cameron’s leadership and the credibility of the Conservative government.
To his surprise, the UK voted to leave the
Brexit Behind the Scenes: Race, Elitism, and Gender
By: Xiyuan Chen
EU with a result of 52 to 48 percent. Cameron miscalculated the political situation, which ironically led to his downfall. The victory of the “Leave Campaign” gave rise to populist, right-wing politicians, such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage. These populist leaders used the controversial Brexit Referendum as a way of gaining popular support, diverting people’s attention away from traditional politics. While this occurred, Cameron’s successor, Theresa May, struggled between opposing opinions of the Labor Party, the Conservatives, as well as supporters of the populist movement.
On May 24th, Theresa May announced the date of her departure, as she planned on stepping down as the Prime Minister. In an emotional statement, May expressed her “deep regrets” after failed attempts to deliver Brexit. She had “done her best” to “implement” what the British people decided, which was to exit the European Union, back in 2016. Today, almost three years have passed, and the British government still has yet to reach an agreement with the European Parliament. While popular debates over Brexit focus on the rise of the global nationalist move-
ment, Brexit also brings attention to serious social issues that are embedded in the core of the UK’s politics.The most prominent actor that drove the Leave campaign was nationalism. For the UK, however, Brexit reflects the politics of “Englishness,” with emphasis on racial structures and the deep nostalgic feeling for empire.
Both the official and the unofficial referendum campaign in favour of exiting the EU took advantage of the marginalized working class, asserting the sovereign will of the British people, while chanting the slogan “let’s take back control.” Following the victory of the Leave campaign, Theresa May made reference to a “Global Britain” when giving her first speech as Prime Minister. This “global” suggests that the majority of the British population longs for the days when Britain was the global hegemon. The sense of “Englishness” incorporated the factor of race into the narrative of Brexit. The dominant “losers” were portrayed as the “white working class,” without considering parts of the working class who were “black and brown Britons.”
Apart from the insinuation of racial issues, the outcome of Brexit also presents itself as a protest against elitism that reveals class divisions in Britain. Studies show that people who possess greater “human capital” tend to benefit more from European integration. These people are regarded as “winners” by the mass majority, of whom cannot take advantage of lower trade barriers and face serious competition from the free movement of EU workers. Since most people do not have access to better education, they are unable to move around freely in order to acquire a well-paid job. What is worse is that people in low-status, poorly paid jobs need to compete with workers from other European countries. Thus, elitism translated people’s support of the EU into anger. Using the Brexit Referendum to express their discontent, the working class sided with Leave campaigners.
Finally, Brexit demonstrates how gender
issues were neglected. European legislation provides protection for the development of women’s employment rights across Europe. Although member states advocate against an enhanced regulatory scheme, which limits employers’ freedom, the EU promotes equality policies and highlights the significance of judicial recourse. In other words, EU legislation serves to provide a “safety net” for “traditionally marginal groups,” that is, women and minorities. By voting itself out of the EU, the UK government undermined the significance of gender equality. Even before it voted to exit the EU, the UK was “particularly vocal” in its opposition to proposals by the European Commissions which sought to impose strict regulations on employers to achieve substantive equality. The UK puts “national interests” before gender objectives when these two subjects conflict with each other, without acknowledging that the pursuit of “national interests” can only be complete when the well-being of women is guaranteed.
There are still many undersides to the topics of race, elitism and gender in Britain. Looking back in hindsight, the “unanticipated” outcome of Brexit was somehow foreseeable. The sense of “Englishness” was developed throughout centuries, tracing back to the imperialist era. Henceforth, concerns for racial structures are deeply ingrained in British society. The popular opposition against elitism illustrates the long-standing class divisions amongst the British populations. Racial actors and elitism interact to produce the outcome of nationalism, which turns migrants into an economic and security threat. Feminist issues are regarded as a “second issue of importance” and were powerless in affecting people’s decision to leave the EU. In July 2019, May had completed her resignation. While the responsibility of negotiating Brexit lay on the next Prime Minister’s shoulders, he needs to address these social issues since they are fundamental elements of the British society.
Bread and the Ballot Box: Putin’s Economic Achilles Heel
By: Ethan Mitchelll
Since emerging from his most recent stint in prison, Russian opposition politician Alexei Navalny has pushed forward with a new strategy. He has shifted his focus from protesting issues of democracy and civil rights to driving home the tangible economic grievances faced by most Russians. By seeking greater independent unionization, as well as criticizing the government’s failure to deliver on improvements to living standards, Mr. Navalny is seeking to politicize the everyday troubles of working Russians.
If the Kremlin is paying attention, it ought to be very concerned. The new direction being taken by Mr. Navalny plays upon a political reality of contemporary Russia. It is a reality that becomes more and more glaring with each passing month, and that grows with each depression of real household income. The truth is, beneath all the flag-waving, Vladimir Putin is not as strong as he likes to pretend.
Although often cited as a quintessential example of international right-wing authoritarianism, Putin’s government rests on a fragile foundation. Even with all the strongman posturing in the world, it is difficult to make citizens forget the sight of their own empty wallet.
Putin has long relied on ostentatious appeals to patriotic sentiment in order to rally Russians to his government. By asserting Russian power on the world stage, he has been able to present himself as a defender of national glory, and as a leader standing up for the collective interests of all Russians. In public relations victories such as the annexation of Crimea or the intervention in Syria, Putin deployed his foreign policy successes as flagship achievements, using them to shape the political conversation around issues of power and patriotism. Areas in which Putin excels.
Such parade-ground politicking has been positive for Vladimir Putin. Indeed, it is one of the major reasons for his apparent domestic popularity. At the end of the day, however, no amount of militaristic gloss can hide the fact that his country, which he spends so much time glorifying, is rotten to the core.
italize on the growing fault lines in Russian society, they will drive a wedge into the regime’s base of support. If working Russians are detached from Putin’s coalition, he will be unable to rely on popular support for his legitimacy. If the frustrations of everyday life are politicized, appeals to patriotism will begin to sound remote and unsatisfactory. If new media platforms are used to push a message that resonates with everyday people, state-controlled media will be drowned out.
For one, standards of living for everyday Russians are falling far short of the Kremlin’s rhetoric. Even as Putin trumpets another victory abroad, living standards have been falling for five years, and the government has increased the pension age, making it harder for Russians to retire. The Russian economy is simply not providing for the Russian people. Real incomes have been falling, purchasing power is being eroded, and services that people rely on, such as healthcare, are inadequate. Such economic hardship poses an existential threat for any government, as the economy is the most direct way that a citizenry has their needs met. If it is broken, it serves as a waiting social powder keg.
The Kremlin is aware of the implications of a stagnant economy. In his state-of-the-nation address for 2019, Putin paired his familiar nationalist grandstanding with promises for a spate of new social spending. But even government propaganda is becoming increasingly unreliable for the regime. More and more Russians are turning from state-approved television news to the more anarchic world of online media. Popular trust in television as a source is falling, and the number of Russians who rely instead on sources such as Youtube has tripled over recent years. This presents a serious threat to Kremlin control over information flow, as the internet has spent too long without the sort of strict control exerted over TV to be easily reigned in at this point, and it provides an accessible platform for opposition parties to reach large demographics.
This internal dysfunction presents an opportunity for opposition figures. If anti-Putin groups can cap-
Strong appeals to everyday issues have the power to cut through the identitarian smokescreen of right-wing populism. By targeting easily observable quality of life problems, figures such as Navalny can criticize the regime in a way that is easily apparent to the vast majority of citizens. They can crystallize the social problems in Russia into things that everyone can observe day-to-day, making them urgent and apparent. They can mobilize simmering social malaise into a movement for political change. After all, Putin can stage as many spectacular pieces of theatre as he likes, it won’t change the fact that the audience is starving.
All it takes is someone to show them the exit.
A Tale of Two Presidents: Years of Discord
Lead to an Uprising in Venezuela
By: Damian McCracken
Venezuela is in chaos, with a gaping chasm between the government of Nicolàs Maduro and the opposition, led by Juan Guaidó. What began years ago as suspicion for election results has now morphed into defections, arrests, and violence in the streets – all while the Venezuelan people are reeling from hyperinflation and struggling to survive.
Venezuela has been on this disastrous path since the inauguration of Maduro as President in April 2013, following his slim victory in the election. He succeeded the country’s famous socialist leader, Hugo Chávez.
Immediately after Maduro took office, a crash in oil prices in 2014 sent the oil-dependant economy into a downward spiral. The shrinking economy and fall in government revenue led to fiscal deficits and inflation. By the end of 2018, prices were doubling about every 19 days, and the inflation rate reached 1.3 million percent. Venezuelans have been struggling to afford such necessities as food and toiletries, which has prompted four million people to flee the country. Many blame the situation on Maduro and his socialist government, but it is not only the economic situation that gains him criticism; his treatment of the opposition has been authoritarian.
Venezuela’s legislative branch is normally unicameral, comprised solely of the National Assembly, which has been dominated by the opposition since 2015. In 2017, desiring to attenuate the opposition’s power, Maduro convened the National Constituent Assembly (NCA), a body meant for creating a new constitution. He justified this action with the vague promise that the body would bring reconciliation through constitutional reform, but critics stated that he simply wanted a legislature loyal to him and his party. The opposition objected to this action as it was unprecedented to convene the NCA without a referendum, and refused to take
part in the constituent elections. The result was an NCA packed with government loyalists, and a National Assembly controlled by the opposition, with neither body acknowledging the other.
Maduro was elected to another six-year term in office in May 2018, yet these results were fiercely impugned. Due to the imprisonment of many opposition candidates, which prompted others to flee, the election was boycotted by the opposition coalition. Voter turnout plummeted, likely due to the combined absence of opposition supporters and civilians’ preoccupation with their dire circumstances.
Just two weeks after the inauguration in January, the legitimacy of Maduro’s presidency was once again questioned by the opposition, now led by Juan Guaidó. Citing articles 233 and 333 of the Constitution and maintaining that the election was illegitimate, the legislature claimed that the head of the National Assembly must take over the executive powers. The 35 year-old Guaidó declared himself the Acting President of Venezuela on January 23.
Guaidó made efforts to rally support for his cause among the populace and military and gained significant international backing, including that of Canada and the United States, both of whom recognized him as the legitimate Acting President. Leaders in the US government publicly considered the deployment of military forces to the country – not just to deliver aid to the suffering civilians, but also to depose Maduro. Despite his international backing, Guidò’s biggest challenge has been rallying widespread support from his own countrymen and women, and especially from military members.
On April 30th, clashes between protesters and Maduro loyalists consumed Caracas. The uprising was directly called for by Guidò, who gave a speech surrounded by uniformed men in which he claimed he had the support of the military. He stated that “brave soldiers, brave patriots, brave men devoted to the constitution have heeded [their] call,” and that they were “in the streets of Venezuela once and for all.” Sources have indicated that this appearance was made possible by an alliance with high-ranking government officials, indicating that the dissatisfaction with Maduro’s rule has bled all the way to the inner circles of government.
Though Guaidó’s military support is not as widespread as he’d like onlookers to believe, there was still a notable number of defectors to his cause. The streets in the opposition’s territory were filled, and soldiers in blue armbands exchanged gunfire with the national guard.
However, the uprising was not successful in its goal of reaching the centre of Caracas, Maduro’s stronghold. Overall, there was a moment of fervour in the opposition-held regions of the city, but no major progress was made. Other uprisings that occurred throughout Venezuelan states were strictly repressed.
There were plans between the judiciary and opposition to legally grant Guaidó official domestic recognition, but these fell apart. The intent of this plan was to give the military leadership a legal incentive to support Guidò. Representatives came to an agreement wherein the Supreme Court Justices would keep their positions in exchange for this ruling, and inside
sources revealed that Maikel Moreno, the chief justice, sought to acquire the position of interim President for himself. The ruling was expected the night before the uprising in Caracas, but it never came. Although not considered solely responsible for the opposition’s overall failure, the collapse of this deal was a key element of it.
Maduro’s government was quick to accuse the US of intervening, claiming it was an attempt to start a civil war. The US responded by reinforcing that it recognizes Guaidó as the legitimate interim President and that his attempt to gain control of the military was entirely legal. National Security Advisor John Bolton advised the military leadership in Venezuela that if they were to remain loyal to Maduro, they would “go down with the ship.” Although the US is no stranger to lending support to democratic regime change, they are also keen on having access to rich oil reserves, which may be the reason that Venezuela is on the American radar.
The Venezuelan uprising has shown that Maduro has thwarted conventional political reform through his reduction of the opposition’s power and his relationship with the judiciary. The opposition was forced to back up their legal claims with military strength and popularity, more of which was required for the uprising to be successful. The clashes in the streets garnered international attention, but no significant progress was made during the event.
The conditions that led to the uprising in Venezuela, as well as its weak result, demonstrate that the balance between branches of government can be fragile. The conflict between the executive and legislative branches held back solutions to the crisis, and the opposition had little chance of seizing power during the uprising without military support, which was predicated on the action of the third branch of government – the judiciary. The path toward a resolution was obstructed, and encouraging words from foreign governments could do little to clear it. The chasm between the government and opposition remained, and the starving populace was left with little hope for the days to come.
It’s official: Democrats have entered into the largest presidential primary in American history. The party is running 23 major candidates, surpassing the previous record of 17, which the GOP set in 2016. The first test in this nearly twoyear long campaign season was an initial round of debates on June 26th and June 27th on NBC News. While the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary are still a long way to go (February 3rd and 11th, respectively), several favorites have established themselves, and the first debates were a key opportunity for candidates to boost their frontrunner status and gain traction among early primary voters. Each night featured ten candidates, the names of whom were decided by random draw.
For the Democratic National Committee (DNC), the central organizing force behind the Democratic Party, the debate requirements and back-to-back format raised red flags among pundits and contenders alike. In order to qualify for the first round in June and second round in July, candidates must either have earned 1% poll approval in three DNC-approved polls or received at least 65,000 individual donors with at least 200 from 20 different states. For September, the threshold rose to 130,000 donors and 2% poll approval. In theory, the DNC’s new system will create the most objective parity without making one batch of candidates seem like “the
The Democratic Presidential Primary: Are the Debate Rules Logical?
By: Albert Gunnison
kid’s table” or “the JV team,” as FiveThirtyEight Editor-in-Chief Nate Silver likes to say.
The problem is that there was clearly a kid’s table. According to RealClearPolitics analysis from June 2019, the consistent primary leaders have been former Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders, Senator Elizabeth Warren, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, and Senator Kamala Harris in that order. While June 27th boasted Biden, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Harris, Wednesday featured only the third-place Warren and sixth-place O’Rourke, meaning that voters were significantly more likely to tune in on only the second night. For Warren, and other potential stars like O’Rourke, Senator Amy Klobuchar, and Senator Cory Booker, grabbing headlines on the first debate night was tough, even among the lower tier of candidates. And while the idea of parity is certainly attractive, a frontrunner like Warren should not have had to share the stage with a candidate like New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, who, as NBC reported in June, “has not released proposals as a presidential candidate.”
From the lower-ranking candidates, there has been a concerted pushback against the DNC’s rules, one which could potentially ring true with voters in less populated states. Former Congressman John Delaney, who before securing his debate spot, called the donor threshold
“arbitrary” and criticized the DNC’s emphasis on grassroots campaigns that incentivize contenders to buy more campaign ads than in the past.
Montana Governor Steve Bullock and Wayne Messam, the Mayor of Miramar, Florida, also expressed frustration that their candidacies, neither which have earned a CNN town hall, would not be recognized on the debate stage in June.
I don’t buy this. Candidates like Delaney, Bullock, and Messam have flaws in their campaigns, so it’s no wonder that they feel disappointment. Delaney has been in the race since July 28th, 2017, the first of any candidate to declare his candidacy. In its first few weeks, Governor Bullock’s website listed campaign finance reform – not the sexiest issue – as his main motivating factor for entering the race. As of June 27th, 2019, Messam had yet to publicly announce any full-time campaign staff. If candidates like these cannot convince 65,000 Americans to make small endorsements for their campaigns, then I cannot justify why they deserve to be at the debates in the first place.
Moreover, it’s important to contextualize this campaign. In June 2015, at the same stage in the 2016 GOP primary as the Democrats are in their current race, Jeb Bush led the pack of candidates with a 22% favorability rating, followed by Scott Walker and Ben Carson. Donald Trump
was not on anyone’s minds. Congressman Seth Moulton, who failed to make the first round of debates, is very much aware of this reality, accurately stating on June 14th that “[it’s] a marathon, not a sprint.”
If you feel exasperated at the length of this Democratic primary, you need only look northwards to Canada for an example of a much cheaper, more concise version of what the U.S. has. The October Canadian elections have strict budgetary guidelines and only a few months of allotted campaign time that help remove the unhealthier parts of American campaigns. Third parties who wish to donate to Canadian politicians, however, cannot donate more than $150,000 Canadian for advertising, for example, in a restriction that would likely be overruled by an American court for infringing on freedom of speech (see: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission).
Ultimately, the DNC’s decision to give more power to regular people through the debate nomination process is a good thing, since individual contributions can help reduce candidates’ reliance on special interests. Donors will still play a role, as they have in years past, but there will be more intense scrutiny on big donor money going to establishment candidates like Biden than in either of Biden’s prior campaigns for president.
Debate spots are a privilege, not a right.
Constitutional Convenience: The Most Dangerous Populist Cop-Out
By Claire Parsons
Democracy is under attack. Not in the way that today’s politicians would have you believe nor through the old method of one state conquering another. There is not a lawless villain aiming to corrupt the system from within or a revolution from either side of the political spectrum attempting to quell the other. This is so much worse.
The real issue is that now we are facing something that seems to be riddled with good intention and lawful integrity. Today’s politicians
are using the state’s constitution, the most foundational document within modern states, as an invincible shield against critique and a deadly weapon to muscle through democratic checkpoints. This article will specifically focus on the US as their Constitutional crisis is the most evident, even if they are doing their best to hide it. In the past few months alone, populist posterboy Donald Trump has used the American constitution as justification for his administration’s policies. The front runner is evidently the Second Amendment, the Republican favourite, which has protected the right to gun ownership in a country where one hundred and ninety nine shootings have resulted in deaths this year alone. Those are merely the shootings in which fatalities occurred. No significant gun control policies have been passed.
President Trump emboldens those with hateful speech such as the demonstrators in Charlottesville, Far-right advocates, and online trolls by ‘protecting’ the First Amendment. By signing an executive order on protecting free speech on college campuses and refusing to censor hateful speech online, President Trump has made it clear that the constitution is his priority. Or he’s trying to show that it is. Most recently, American conservatives have protected the constitutional right to life by going against the Supreme Court precedent and ruling abortion illegal in some Republican states.
So, what does that have to do with populists? This is their perfect strategy because they do not have to hide it and the excuse always works. The devotion to the state’s integrity and loyalty to its principles present populist candidates as saviours and incorruptible protectors of state values. It’s what makes them so electable. However, the critical thing to understand about these protectionist governments is that they only protect certain values and certain people.
Most often, they do it in the most literal way possible. As a result, the American values that Donald Trump is supposedly trying to defend are three hundred years old. There are many things that we did three hundred years ago
that we do not do anymore for a very good reason. They were immoral or they did not reflect the modern and ever changing aspects of society today. By protecting these outdated values, the nation has suffered.
Here is what they’re not telling you about these ‘constitutional’ defences. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled against handgun possession, refusing to call the Second Amendment unlimited. They even went as far as to state; “It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The case has not been consulted on a mainstream level for gun control.
Concerning the ‘right to life’, a woman is protected under her right to life and personal liberty under the 9th through 14th Amendments of the Constitution, as well as protected by the Constitutional precedent of Roe vs. Wade. Lastly, President Trump’s decision to protect free speech on college campuses was done to protect far right speech alone. His decision not to make the symbolic promise to take action against hate speech online cannot be defended by the constitution as the internet is not a government agency. He can protect journalists and their freedom of the press, after the US was deemed one of the five most dangerous countries for journalists last year, but he has not. Rather, he slanders them.
The stubbornness of the US is not being ignored internationally. Prime Minister Ardern of New Zealand has stated she simply “doesn’t understand the US” in terms of their resistance to gun control. Canada, France, and other notable western democracies have taken her side, believing that censoring hateful speech is a true protection of other people’s freedom to expression, as well as maintaining gun control laws. The US is alienating itself in the name of its own Constitution and refusing to acknowledge that it, and the US itself, can be changed.
Of course, that’s exactly what populists want. No outside help for fear of dependance, no change from the norm or else true national values will be abandoned. While other international states move forward, adapt, and become
flexible, the US has convinced itself that it is legally bound to 1787. It’s the perfect disguise, call it a protection of the American values and the founding fathers’ Constitution and not what ‘constitutionally backed’ policies always are; a reason to exclude uncomfortable perspectives and maintain an ability to pick and choose which constitutional rights are the most convenient for what populist politicians want right now.
If the state is an altar at which populists worship, the Constitution remains its sacred scripture. Like religion, you are free to worship the constitution freely, but to use it to restrain the freedom of others is a violation of what it means to be an American. If you’re not convinced, the Constitution declares a freedom of religion but also a freedom from it. In fact, it declares it fundamental.
HUMAN RIGHTS
SOCIAL ISSUES &
Climate Change: How Trump’s America Impacts Indigenous Communities
80% of the world’s most biodiverse lands are ancestral homelands to Indigenous communities. Today, the communities who have nurtured and protected these lands face food and economic insecurity owing to threats to their land as a whole. These issues have been exacerbated by the decisions of the executive branch of the United States of America (USA), and the current president, Donald Trump.
The rights of Indigenous people have been consistently threatened for some time. Since 1851, the US Government and American Indigenous communities have had a complex relationship in which no clear precedent has been set in terms of Indigenous land ownership. In 1851, the Indian Appropriation Act forcibly relocated Indigenous communities onto reservations, therefore restricting their access to resources essential for their survival. By 1865, Indigenous land was forcibly removed and reservations were dissolved, leading many Indigenous communities to move to “Indian Territory,” better known as modern day Oklahoma.
Furthermore, in 1867, the USA took over Alaska. This was done without the consent of the Alaskan Indigenous communities. Just less than a year later, the Peace Policy was put in place. By this point in time, reservations were reinstated and Indigenous Americans were required to live on reservations or forced off their land. In 1887,
By: Emma Patton
the General Allotment Act was put into place, leading to a drastic change in the ownership of land. This act gave Indigenous individuals their own parcels of land in an attempt to get rid of tribal land. The General Allotment Act led to a loss of 86 million acres of Indigenous land. Many individual states made their own attempt at diminishing Indigenous land. This can be seen with both Alaska and Hawaii, in their attempts to determine who Indgenous land should belong to. In most cases, land was not allotted to Indigenous people. In 1953, the US Government made an impactful attempt to exterminate tribes and relocate Indigenous peoples in an attempt to assimilate them. This attempt was furthered in Alaska when all but one reservation was abolished.
In the USA, Indigenous people are facing threats to their land rights and battling the negative impacts of climate change. President Trump has proven to be unsympathetic to Indigenous people and disregards the significance of the issue of climate change.
It is well known that in Indigenous communities, land is a crucial part of culture. Moreover, safe preservation is required for the survival of Indigenous communities. Many of these communities have specific areas of land allotted to them known as reserves. Indigenous communities of-
ten have designated lands for hunting, fishing, and cultural practices. Businesses are also owned and operated from reserves. In order to provide food and economic security, as well as safe and healthy homes for Indigenous peoples, the environment must be protected at all costs.
One of the most impactful issues that Indgenous communities have and continue to face is the impact of mining on the environment. This can be seen with Tewa Pueblo where uranium mining has led to the exposure of uranium in their water. This causes an increased risk of contracting diseases and suffering from defects. Waste in Tewa Pueblo also gets exposed to the environment due to a nearby laboratory. This harmful waste impacts not only their water but their air as well.
In the USA, climate change is not a priority for President Trump. Since taking office in January 2017, President Trump has pulled out of the Paris Climate agreement which aims to fight climate change and has supported companies that supply resources harmful to the environment. Despite the USA being the world’s greatest consumer country -- contributing nearly one-third of the world’s household consumption originates in the USA -- the lack of priority given to the environment will result in a significant and continuously growing ecological footprint.
As of 2016, 175 states had signed the Paris Agreement with the majority of them ratifying it by 2018. By June 2017, President Trump removed the USA from the Paris Agreement. President Trump continues to seek to protect industries (eg. the coal industry) which produce significant amounts of pollution. President Trump has gone as far as reducing the Bears & Ears national monument from 1,351,849 acres to 201,876 acres so that extraction companies can have access to the land and resources.
Irrespective of President Trump’s unwillingness to acknowledge the seriousness of climate change, it has been scientifically proven to have a worldwide impact. Therefore, due to the USA’s negligence regarding the increasing impact of their ecological footprint, the USA is not only threatening the land and livelihood of Indigenous communities but also the future of a vari-
ety of communities and cultures. Climate change must be recognized for the pressing issue that it is in order to protect the environment that indigenous communities so heavily rely on.
It becomes extremely difficult to pass on traditions and languages when there is nothing left of the community and culture’s original foundation, which in Indigenous communities, is based within their ancestral homelands. With climate change impacting food and economic security as well as the health and safety of Indigenous communities, these communities may very well have to leave the land voluntarily, if they are not forced out first. Leaving the land could be their only choice for personal survival. This is distinct from the danger to their cultural survival. Indeed, cultural genocide may be one of the results of unchecked environmental change.
In conclusion, the disregard of the United States Executive Branch to the importance of climate change has and will continue to have a negative impact on Indigenous communities. The land is the source of their identity. Restricting human impact on the environment is of the utmost importance to the survival of Indigenous communities. The impact of the ever-growing ecological footprint of the USA will continue to worsen unless the priorities of the Executive Branch dramatically change. Absent of such change, the Executive Branch of the USA will bear significant responsibility for the cultural genocide of Indigenous communities.
Roe v. World: American Anti-Abortionists and their Effect on Sexual Based Violence Worldwide
By: Jeff Allen
In the decades following the landmark decision of Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s legal right to an abortion, pro-life and pro-choice factions have continued to dispute the controversial issue. Since the 1973 ruling, numerous legal battles, protests, and other grassroots efforts from both sides have highlighted the deep divide between Americans on the issue. Another startling chapter of this ongoing debate recently emerged this past May, when America witnessed many of its southern states pass new anti-abortion laws that are set to become the most restrictive in the country. Most notably, the state of Alabama signed a bill on May 15th that banned nearly all types of abortion, including those pertaining to cases of rape and incest. The new laws in Alabama also took aim at medical professionals, as doctors that perform abortions can now be charged as felons and can face up to 99 years in prison. Alabama was not alone in this pro-life crusade, as other states including Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana and Ohio also followed suit in drafting similar abortion restrictions.
For many, the extreme nature of this an-
ti-abortion legislation constitutes an attack on the safety and liberty of women in the United States. Unfortunately, however, the pro-life position of the lawmakers and politicians who gave birth to this new legislation has also begun to control American decisions at the international level, threatening the health and rights of women worldwide. For example, nearly a month before the announcement of Alabama’s controversial rulings, at a United Nations Security Council (UNSC) meeting focused on sexual violence in conflict, representatives from the Trump administration applied this anti-abortion framework to deeply alter the meeting’s outcomes.
The meeting, which was set in New York during late April, was held with the intention of devising global efforts to prevent sexual violence in conflict, and to aid the victims of sexual violence, both physically, mentally and legally. The meeting saw many prominent voices in the international community speak to the issue of sexual violence. These guests included activists, lawyers and survivors of sexual violence. Nadia Murad, a young woman who was held captive by ISIS militants that raped and beat her for months was one of those speakers. Murad briefed the UNSC on the need for the creation of working groups to help rescue girls still held captive today. Likewise, international human rights lawyer, Amal Clooney, argued for the UNSC to put forth an effort to bring former ISIS leaders to justice for their roles in sexual violence. Clooney highlighted the desperate need for legal action, informing the UNSC that this was their opportunity to “stand on the right side of history” and that this was their “Nuremberg moment.”
The efforts of speakers such as Clooney and Murad appeared to resonate with the voting members of the UNSC, as Resolution 2467 passed with 13 votes in favour and 0 against, with only China and Russia abstaining. The new resolution called upon member states to adopt new stances in the prevention and treatment of sexual violence in conflict, as well as strengthening previous commitments. Overall, the resolution appeared to be a positive breakthrough for women worldwide. But what seemed to be a moment of collective support from the international community was quickly erased by representatives from the Trump administration, who
feared this commitment may lead them on a path towards supporting legal abortions. As a result of this fear, American representatives proceeded to block any attempts to pass a resolution that they believed contained pro-choice language. It was evident from this action that the American pro-life stance had already made its way onto the international stage, weeks before it would make headlines in Alabama.
In the days prior to the vote, American representatives raised a major concern over the use of certain terminology within the resolution. Officials from the Trump administration claimed that the term “sexual and reproductive health” was a reference in support of abortion. The United States even threatened to veto the resolution unless all references were removed. After heavy editing and deliberation, the following paragraph from an original draft was completely removed from the final version:
ranged from disappointment, anger and dismal expectancy. The UN ambassador for France, Francois Delattre, commented on the American actions stating, “it is intolerable and incomprehensible that the Security Council is incapable of acknowledging that women and girls who suffered from sexual violence in conflict…should have the right to terminate their pregnancy.” Similarly, Tarah Demant, the director of the Gender, Sexuality and Identity Program for Amnesty International stated, “any international response to rape as a weapon of war that doesn’t consider sexual and reproductive health rights is a false response, it’s an empty response.” It goes without saying that an “empty response” to sexual violence can cost women their freedoms, health, and even lives.
“Recognizing the importance of providing timely assistance to survivors of sexual violence, urges United Nations entities and donors to provide non-discriminatorand comprehensive health services, including sexual and reproductive health, psychosocial, legal, and livelihood support and other multi-sectoral services for survivors of sexual violence, taking into account the specific needs of persons with disabilities.”
As sexual violence continues to plague conflicts around the world, the neglect to include these sections in Resolution 2467 could prove detrimental to many women. In a 2018 report on conflict-related sexual violence, the United Nations Secretary General (UNSG) found that when abortions are not available, unwanted pregnancies in conflict zones can result in numerous problems for victims of sexual violence. Women who become pregnant as a result of rape during conflicts often face rejection from their own communities and are often forced to flee their former homes. Similarly, the children of the victims also face harsh treatment from their communities, as they are often labelled as “children of the enemy.” This often causes many of the unwanted children to leave their homes, making them increasingly vulnerable to child soldier recruitment.
When the vote was finally over, this paragraph, as well as all mentions of “sexual and reproductive health” had successfully been eliminated by the American representatives. Trump representatives also argued for the elimination of a section of the resolution that would have established a “UN monitoring body to report atrocities.” They were successful in its removal as well.
Reactions to the efforts made by the Trump administration to weaken Resolution 2467
The report also found that the lack of safe abortions causes younger victims to often dropout of any education they may be taking. If no proper abortion options are present, many victims of rape often choose unsafe treatments that can result in severe injury or death. In the Central African Republic for example, unsafe abortions as a result of conflict driven sexual violence are one of the leading causes of maternal mortality. Yet for these women, and women worldwide who have survived the horrors of sexual violence, their freedom to claim bodily autonomy has now been erased by Washington.
Taiwan Inspires Hope for the LGBTQI + Movement: The Legalization of Same-Sex Marriage
By: Sinead O’Hara
On May 17th, Taiwan legalized same-sex marriage. This makes Taiwan the first country in the region to do so and Taiwan is increasingly being recognized as the most LGBTQI+ friendly country in Asia. Jennifer Lu, the coordinator of Marriage Equality Coalition in Taiwan, says that the new legislation sends the message that traditional culture is not against LGBTQI+ culture.
This notion is deeply inspiring to the LGBTQI+ community throughout Asia, and provides hope for momentum in the liberation. Taiwan has started an important discussion in Asia on the debate between culture, human rights and independence. This begs the question, why is Taiwan at the forefront for changes in legislation, and what does this mean for the nation?
The social and political repercussions of permitting the LGBTQI+ community rights are immense in Taiwan. It touches on gender politics, colonialism, independence, and activist methodology. Taiwan is a country that has been deeply impacted by imperialism. This means emphasizing their independence and celebrating their
culture is of utmost important to the
Taiwanese. The LGBTQI+ liberation indicates the stark differences between Taiwan and China, which makes it an additional incentive to support the cause. Problematically, the methodology of the LGBTQI+ liberation is often constructed through Western means. This often impedes the development of the LGBTQI+ movement in Asia. Diversity is incredibly important, and it is often lacking within the LGBTQI+ movement. These issues are complex; culture, history, eurocentrism, and privilege must always be acknowledged and navigated within social movements. Behind every issue lies another political agenda, intentional or not, which one must look past to accept the universality of human rights. Although it has been argued that LGBTQI+ rights are not human rights out of respect for cultural differences, historically, traditions have been more diverse and welcoming. While Taiwan is the first country in the region to legalize same-sex marriage, such unions have been socially accepted for centuries throughout East Asia. Unfortunately, the 400,000 Taiwanese Aborigi-
nal peoples are often overlooked in cultural assessments of Taiwan due in part to Taiwan’s long experience with colonialism.
A historical example of same-sex unions is found in Fujian, a Chinese province located on the coast across from Taiwan. Forms of samesex union were common in Fujian according to a Chinese writer during the Ming Dynasty. Unions between men would last for years, but typically were ended to procreate. The Fujian culture is important to consider while looking at Taiwan due to a wave of migration of Han people from Fujian to Taiwan at the start of the 17th century. Now, approximately 80 percent of the population originates from Fujian. Additionally, around 15 percent of Taiwan’s population is Hakka, who have been traced to Guangdong and surrounding areas. Guangdong, a Chinese province that borders Fujian, was the home of the Golden Orchid Society. This was a movement with well-documented female ‘quasi-marriages’ from the late Qing dynasty until the early 1900s. It was an alternative for women who did not want to get married for a variety of reasons.
While there has never been explicitly homophobic laws surrounding sexual relations in Taiwan, the Martial Law imposed in 1949 by the Chiang Kai-shek regime was strictly anti-sex. This included both homosexual and heterosexual sexual expression. During this period, the LGBTQI+ community were specifically targeted by the police. Before the recent legalization, same-sex couples were not allowed to apply for marriage registration which effectively prevented the official union and protection of same-sex couples.
The notion of respecting religion and culture has always featured in contemporary debates over same-sex marriage. In Taiwanese culture, the tendency is to prioritize procreation and constitution of a family. As a means to achieve those goals, the culture primarily focuses on marriage. Fittingly, homosexuality was not viewed as a problem as long as it did not interfere with marriage. This cultural tendency clearly undermines same-sex relationships as happy, healthy, and loving unions that already are a basis for a family. The importance of preserving culture has been a steep obstacle for the LGBTQI+ movement in Asia, and in many ways the movement
has been derailed by assertions of Western values. First, European colonialism strengthened homophobic ideology. Secondly, the liberation of the LGBTQI+ community in the West has shaped the social, legal, and cultural aspects of the LGBTQI+ movements. This has influenced the ways LGBTQI+ activists in Asia have had to navigate their liberational methodology.
In Asia, the LGBTQI+ rights movements are dominated by activists who think in binary oppositions and categories that are based on Western models. This is increasingly problematic due to the huge diversity within Asia which fails to be acknowledged by Western models of LGBTQI+ liberation. It is important to the Taiwanese LGBTQI+ community to respect and maintain the diversity and culture of Taiwan while protecting their rights. After the legalization of same-sex marriage, the President Tsai Ing-wen of Taiwan stated that this change in legislation is a chance to make history and show the world that progressive values can take root in an Asian society. The movement now has momentum throughout East Asia after Taiwan’s change in legislation. Specifically in Hong Kong, the LGBTQI+ community is hoping for such change in their country. LGBTQI+ groups reacted with great excitement to the legalization in Taiwan and feel encouraged by the news. They are hoping Taiwan’s actions will not only focus minds and rally support but also set a precedent for the ways LGBTQI+ liberation can be achieved in Asian countries.
Interstate Politics
The New Cold War: Rivalry, Qualms, and Costs
By: Mohit Mann
The relationship between the United States and China has incessantly soured over time to the point where many observers believe there may be no return. Political rhetoric that was once crucial to the art of statesmanship has become a rarity and outright geopolitical threats between the two countries have become increasingly commonplace as a result. Thus, President Trump and President Xi Jinping have entered their respective countries into a new cold war, which has substantial ramifications for the world order at large if their geopolitical rivalry continues on the same course that it is currently on. If this rivalry is mismanaged with complacency, however, everybody stands to lose.
The relationship between the United States and China is fairly strong and complex in nature. Although both sides perceived a mutually advantageous relationship as an ideal form of association in the past, it was unequivocally American pre-eminence on the world stage which solidified over time. The countries have formed a considerable economic partnership since the United States first gained independence, thereby necessitating constructive political relations between them which have solidified and lasted for more than two centuries. U.S.-Chinese relations since the Nixon era rapprochement initiatives have particularly been regarded as harmonious
geopolitical developments in the recent histories of both the United States and China. However, relations with China have become bleaker under the Trump administration’s perpetual efforts to defy China’s rise to global pre-eminence.
Accordingly, the nature of this relationship has come under potent scrutiny in recent times by the Americans, Chinese, and the rest of the world. China’s rise as a global superpower has come to be viewed as a direct threat to American superiority. Americans are flustered over China’s rapid rise in various domains such as global economic influence, technological expertise, military spending and planning, and ideological pervasiveness. Therefore, China is firmly convinced that the United States wants to block its path to hegemonic status because it cannot accept its own decline as global superpower.
This new type of cold war is much different from the cold war between the United States and the Soviet Union. Relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were certainly premised upon their mutual hostility. The liberal democracies of the West, particularly the United States, perceived the expansion of Soviet influence as a direct threat to their very own geopolitical stability in the aftermath of two devastat-
ing world wars. Much like the relations between the United States and China today, relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were premised upon promoting two opposing economic and political ideologies. However, the United States has considerable trade relations with China as opposed to the minute amount of trade that it conducted with the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, the United States’ allies have also become more and more entangled over time in their complex relations with China and are therefore wary of choosing sides since their own prosperity may become threatened if they choose to do so. For instance, many countries have become wealthier on the back of China’s economic rise–this is certainly true for much of Asia. This may nevertheless be due to fear of China rather than openness to Chinese values. As such, China has not managed to grow its soft power much despite its economic rise. However, traditionally anti-American powers, namely Russia, are pushing for a tighter relationship with China.
President Trump has responded to China’s growing international influence with a trade war. The United States’ imposition of tariffs against China targets various Chinese goods such as steel and aluminum products and advanced technologies. Moreover, China’s retaliatory tariffs against the United States have escalated these hostile trade relations. As a result, the deteriorating ties between the two countries are influencing everything from overall geopolitical strategy to the daily lives of everyone involved in the global economy. This trade war does indeed affect where products are made, where jobs are created or lost, and the technology that we will be able to use in the near future. However, this trade war represents but one avenue in which the United States and China are at odds with one another.
China’s rise in various domains, as previously mentioned, has become a central foreign policy issue for the United States. China’s economic influence stems from its economic growth on low-cost exports of machinery and equipment. Massive government spending on stateowned companies, such as PetroChina, helped fuel such exports and those companies came to
dominate their industries. China’s ambitions to make a China-dominated Eurasia an economic rival to the American-dominated transatlantic trading area thereby represent a formidable challenge to the United States’ economic resolve away from home.
The United States’ security is also increasingly at risk of being compromised as China continues to bolster its military and technological capacities. Foreign electoral intervention has become a central issue in American politics in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election, and the recent banning of the Chinese multinational technology company, Huawei, has done little to ease the tensions between the Chinese and Americans in the realm of cyberwarfare. As such, serious concerns have been raised about Huawei’s security practices by a number of international observers, whereby Huawei’s security framework is believed to be vulnerable to future cybersecurity attacks. Additionally, China’s investments in defense spending have steadily increased over time and its military budget is now the second largest in the world only behind the United States. The United States is certainly aware of these developments in China as its defense spending has also increased, possibly acting as a check on China’s military activities.
China’s ideological pervasiveness represents a direct threat to the international liberal order established by the United States. For instance, countries in Africa and Latin America have become an ideological battleground as China continues to ramp up its investments on the continents, especially in infrastructure. As a result, China has taken advantage of decreasing western influence in these areas. Therefore, China is increasingly viewed as a new market and a potential alternative to the traditional American dominance in the area. Yet, China must not be viewed as the new saviour for the problems of developing countries. Although China may be a source of opportunity, developing countries must realize that Beijing has its own ulterior motives in seeking economic and geopolitical advantages for itself. The recent protests in Hong Kong nevertheless demonstrate an ardent desire for the greater protection of rights and civil liberties despite the state’s numerous attempts to muffle dissent even within its own bounds.
The U.S – China Trade War: Causes and Implications
By: Angela Feng
Once again, global economic harmony depends upon relations between the U.S and China. The trade war between these great economic powers invite much concern from the rest of the world, as the global economy can go awry with any further escalation. The U.S and China have had a rocky relationship historically due to contrasting ideologies. Nonetheless, trade relations between the two nations were normalized in 2000 under the Clinton administration, shortly before China joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. However, tensions in their relationship have since risen again. The two countries have clashed over economic and military matters, such as the Chinese land reclamation in the South China Sea, and when the US administration accused China of violations of international trade norms regarding the exportation of rare earth metals in 2012.
Such tensions remain present under the new leadership of both nations. Since trade negotiations started in January 2018, the Trump administration has imposed 3 tariffs on a total of $250 billion in Chinese imports. On May 20, 2019, Trump announced the 4th tariff, in which he raised tariffs from 10% to 25% on $200 billion worth of goods. In retaliation, China imposed a 25% tariff on $60 billion worth of U.S goods on June 1, 2019. The beginning of this trade war
and further escalation holds serious implications for the U.S and China, as well as the global economy.
Tariffs are a tax on foreign products that encourage consumption of cheaper, domestic goods and therefore are designed to protect domestic industry. Trump is using these tariffs to address America’s trade deficit with China, a country he accuses of employing unfair trade practices. He states that China takes advantage of America’s open markets while keeping its own closed, therefore creating unfair competition. Cutting U.S trade deficits, which widened to $419.2 billion with China, was thus a main element of his presidential campaign.
However, this trade war is also rooted in issues surrounding intellectual property. In early May, after rocky trade negotiations, President Trump accused China of “breaking” a deal it reached in previous trade talks. In a rally in Florida, Trump stated “by the way, you see the tariffs we’re doing?....because they broke the deal… they can’t do that, so they’ll be paying.” He alludes to the apparent changes made by China in the draft agreements that undermined its pledges to meet US demands on intellectual property rights and currency manipulation.
Foreign businesses are required by China’s foreign-ownership restriction laws to form joint ventures with domestic Chinese companies to sell their goods in China, which often include some type of technology transfer and exposure of foreign businesses to theft. A CNBC poll indicates that one in five corporations report China stealing their intellectual property within the last year. This represents the loss of intangible assets, such as IP, which constitutes 80% of the value of S&P 500 companies. Consequently, companies suffer the loss of opportunity and competitive advantage that amount to an estimated $600 billion in annual loss. In April, Trump attributed the then proposed tariffs to the “harm caused by China’s unreasonable technology transfer policies.” However, Chinese Ambassador to the WTO Zhang Xiangchen recently said that these technology transfers are “based on mutually agreed terms.”
The consequences of this trade war will be felt by American consumers and the Chinese economy. The burden of Trump’s tariffs on China fall on US consumers because the border taxes paid by US importers of Chinese goods are driving up consumer costs. Almost half of imported Chinese goods are processed raw materials needed to produce final consumer products in the US. Trump’s tariffs raise such costs, resulting in increased prices or employee cuts. Americans will also be hurt by the 0.5% curb in economic growth in 2020, which will result in the loss of an estimated 300,000 jobs. However, besides from the effects on the American economy, China will face harsher losses because its volume of exports to the U.S. greatly outweigh its imports from the US. In 2018, the U.S imported $539.5 billion worth of goods while exporting $120.3 billion in its trading relationship with China. However, China still has considerable leverage due to its export of rare earth minerals required by US firms.
China is preparing to restrict the export of rare-earth elements in response to the trade war, which would cripple high tech manufacturing. This leaves serious implications for stock markets around the world. The U.S and China trade war has rocked the global stock market, prompting the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to warn both nations of the increasing risks to the global economy. The FTSE 100 in London fell by 100 points and stocks in Germany, Italy and France have also dropped. Japan’s Topic index of leading compa-
ny shares dropped by 0.9% while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index fell by 0.6%. Thus, it is clear that the effects of this trade war will ripple throughout the world, impacting local economies everywhere.
Trump is beginning to receive warnings from global economic leaders that further escalation of this trade war will end in significant damage to the American economy and global trade. The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates the global GDP will fall by 0.7% by 2022, amounting to $600 billion lost in the world economy. The worst case scenario for escalation would result in paused investments. The U.S. GDP would drop 0.8% and China’s GDP would fall more than 1.1%. These dangerous implications for the global economy should be taken into serious consideration by both the U.S and China during further negotiations, as the shock of this trade war will be felt by citizens across the world.
The Chief economist of the IMF, Gita Gopinath, expressed her concerns, stating that “U.S.-China trade tensions have negatively affected consumers as well as many producers in both countries…While the impact on global growth is relatively modest at this time, the latest escalation could significantly dent business and financial market sentiment, disrupt global supply chains, and jeopardise the projected recovery in global growth in 2019.”
However, despite warnings from the IMF and WTO, amongst other global economic organizations, Washington and Beijing are preparing to engage in further trade protectionism for technological dominance. Roberto Avevedo, Director General osf the WTO, warns of a crisis “for the whole multilateral trading system,” as “ basic principles of the organisation, principles of cooperation, principles of non-discrimination are being challenged and put into question.” He urges for the “mode of engagement” between China and the US to shift “threats, accusations and finger pointing to one of finding solutions”.
Northern France’s Exposure to Brexit: Extending Beyond the Economic
Ongoing disagreements along British party lines, discord within the British Isles, and the resignation of Theresa May, cast a shadow of uncertainty over Britain’s Brexit plans.
Brexit’s impact on European territories is asymmetric insofar as different countries—and regions within those countries—present varying degrees of exposure to Brexit. Regions under exceptional economic stress and whose primary export is Britain, tend to be more exposed to the withdrawal. The degree of exposure, or vulnerability, to Brexit varies considerably between member-states, but also differs intra-regionally. The extent to which ‘hard’ borders interfere with regional trading activities and local economic conditions collectively affect exposure.
To illustrate clearly what is meant by ‘intra-regional exposure,’ consider Polish politicians
By: Annie Seeley
proposing that repatriated citizens—Britain hosts many Polish migrants, whose living visas may expire—will bolster the Polish labour force, thereby stimulating growth. Admittedly, this proposition has merit, particularly with respect to the Polish economy as a whole. However, it does neglect Polish regions that have particularly high unemployment rates and relatively high expatriate rates. Low-skilled workers returning to such locations could worsen local employment rates, thereby negatively affecting regional economies.
The Northern French (picture above) Maritime region, contiguous to the English Channel, that extends across Northern France, has a disproportionately high exposure to Brexit, relative to France as a whole.
For instance: Haute-de-France features exceptional unemployment rates—the highest
in France. The Nord-Pas-de-Calais and Picardy regions are wrought with unemployment rates that are significantly larger than the national average and the European average. Perhaps not coincidentally, these regions have high exposure to Brexit. The local economies of port-cities like Dunkerque and Calais rely heavily on open-borders with Britain. A departure from the European customs union, referred to as a ‘hard’ exit, will render the British coast as an external border of the Union. Hard borders will interfere with regional trading activities, particularly within the French Maritime Region, whose port-cities routinely interact with British freights. They would effectively preclude French commercial access to the British Channel, which in turn will negatively affect local economic sectors. The French Maritime economy depends heavily on open borders with Britain. 50% of Brittany’s fishing activity occurs within the English Channel, which also accounts for 70% of all Haute-de-France catches.
The likely devaluing of the pound-sterling will decrease British purchasing-power, thereby dissuading British investment in—and consumption of— now relatively expensive, foreign goods. Tighter custom-controls can constrict the movement of goods, leading to costly delays. By resurrecting strict border-controls and duties on trade, Brexit will severely impair Anglo-Franco trade in the North. The border-controls will bring about conditions discouraging trade such as more frequent traffic delays and freight congestion. Simply put, the new regulations brought by Brexit will impair trading efficiency. Brexit, whose implications extend beyond the economic, would not only affect businesses and harbours. Politically, Brexit could benefit populist movements within regions plagued with economic hardship. An expansive surge in populist support, that swept across the Haute-de-France during the 2017 French Election, indicates growing popular unrest.
Disenchanted by the lacklustre regional economy, Northwestern voters increasingly embraced anti-establishment politics. In the 2017 French election, just over half of those who voted from Dunkerque voted for Marine Le Pen, who heads the right-wing, populist party, the Nation-
al Rally. Le Pen received significant backing in areas that saw surging poverty and unemployment rates over recent decades due to deindustrialization. Apart from traditional National Rally strongholds in Southeastern France like Marseille—which expectedly favoured Le Pen—it is only within the Haute-de-France region where Le Pen was able to gain significant ground.
Brexit will not resolve the economic malaise afflicting the Haute-de-France. It will likely worsen it and bolster popular support for populist factions.Those living in areas like Dunkerque will have to confront new challenges—despite already struggling to adjust to its present economic woes.
Hence, one should avoid focusing exclusively on the broad, macroeconomic implications of Brexit, thereby ignoring its significance beyond the British borders. Even though France may, as a whole, be less exposed to Brexit than its other counterparts, it is no less important to recognize that a withdrawal will significantly affect regional economic sectors and the individuals living there. A withdrawal will directly—and possibly indirectly, with public distrust in traditional party politics likely to increase in areas under particular economic stress—affect real, individual lives. For individuals living in highly-exposed areas already wrought with economic uncertainty, there is much to lose in the event of Brexit, and relatively little to gain.
Public Health
Using Ebola to Get
Elected
By: Isha Gill
We live in dire times; times where the world is too preoccupied with the latest scandal to see the long term humanitarian problems elsewhere. Times where doctors are killed for attempting to save lives. Times where political leaders can abuse an Ebola outbreak for their own personal political gain.
Ebola has been an epidemic that has shocked the world in recent years. The latest epidemic in the northern region of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been widely overlooked by the general public. This is an astonishing fact seeing as it is the second largest outbreak as stated by the World Health Organization (WHO). Ebola is a disease that is thought to have come from the ingestion of infected bushmeat, but the virus’ original host is unknown. Ebola results in fever and internal bleeding which is often fatal, and is considered extremely contagious due its ability to be transmitted through
contact with infected bodily fluids. This outbreak in particular is concerning due to the high levels of child mortality as a result of the Ebola disease, which is not typical. A quarter of the 1,300 people that have died from this outbreak are children, and even more have been infected.
This major crisis has many facets, and the recent history of the DRC is a massive influence in the current situation. The DRC has been wartorn for many decades, with continental and civil wars that have been ongoing since 1996. Having a population of 78 million citizens and being the largest country in Sub Saharan Africa, these wars have affected millions within the country and the global community.
The civil war has resulted in massive political turmoil, and the government continues to attempt to solidify their power. With an upcoming election, political leaders have begun spreading propaganda to their citizens which urges them to stop foreign aid from helping them with their Ebola outbreak. This has resulted in mass outrage from the citizens of the DRC towards foreign doctors that have tried to quarantine the outbreak. A point of tension between the two parties is that doctors take the bodies of the deceased from their families to avoid the
spread of Ebola postmortem. This act of aid is seen as offensive to the citizens because of the propaganda that has been spread which gives the citizens the illusion that the doctors are part of the “Western World’s” attempt at creating the Ebola outbreak to destroy their country. This outrage has resulted in doctors being threatened and held at grenade point by both the civilians and the rebels of the DRC.
Recently, Dr Richard Valery Mouzoko Kiboung, an epidemiologist with the WHO, was killed in an attack on April 19th, 2019 in a hospital in the northern region of Kivu in the DRC. He had been there attempting to control the outbreak and unfortunately lost his life.
The tragedy that is the death of Dr. Kiboung speaks volumes about the problems occurring during this outbreak. Doctors’ should not be killed for their attempt to give people the basic healthcare they deserve, but the unethical use of propaganda by political leaders has resulted in this. A fair election is the basis of democracy, but a hate fueled propaganda campaign does not stop this healthcare epidemic and it does the country massive harm. It seems as though these political leaders care more about their election into power than they do about the good of the citizens they wish to represent, which cannot be tolerated.
Another problem that has resulted from the in-
tervention of the WHO and other doctors, is that families are unable to perform their personal funeral rights that belong to their family and their culture, which is why it has been so easy for the citizens to believe the propaganda. What makes this more difficult is that a large number of deaths from this outbreak are children, and it is difficult for a family of any culture or religion to part ways with their child. This grief makes it easy for people to blame an outsider, even if the outsider is genuinely trying to help them.
We as a global community cannot turn a blind eye towards those in need, because we risk losing our humanity in doing so. Although there are risks in aiding this cause, we cannot stand idly by watching thousands die when we can help. There are ways that we can contribute to this cause even though we are not in immediate proximity. We can donate to the Doctors Without Borders and the WHO, so that they are able to fund more missions to the DRC and attempt to control this outbreak.
This upcoming election will be one to monitor, especially now with the escalating tensions between the citizens of the DRC and the foreign aid attempting to mitigate the Ebola epidemic. The large problem of misinformation and propaganda has resulted in enough deaths already in this election. The horrendous acts encouraged by political leaders has resulted in the foreign aid becoming a scapegoat for the problems the DRC is facing. These acts result in personal gain for these leaders, but has detrimental effects to the health of their constituents. As the Ebola epidemic continues to ravage the DRC the continued aid from the WHO and other doctors is necessary to prevent further outbreaks and contain it. Despite the scapegoating and misinformation being used, it must not prevent the global community from doing our part.
Divisive Ignorance: What anti-vaccination propaganda means for the health of a nation
By: Gwynn Magnan
Nearly two decades ago, in 1998, the esteemed medical journal The Lancet published a study that has now become one of the most infamously damaging pieces of research ever released. This study, led by the former physician Andrew Wakefield, suggested a link between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine and behavioural regression and pervasive developmental disorder in children, commonly referred to as autism. The impact this study has had on the decisions of its readers has been evident, as parents are increasingly withholding their children from receiving their vaccines, much to the endangerment of those around them.
The very vaccine targeted in this study is the one which almost wholly eradicated measles
in the United States by 2000. Measles had once been the scourge that infected nearly 3 to 4 million Americans annually, of whom an average of 400 to 500 would die from its complications. The virus spreads through the air when an infected individual coughs or sneezes and is thus incredibly easy to catch if one is not vaccinated. Public health experts have now claimed this report as responsible for the dangerous movement of vaccine skepticism and refusal around the world and, since its publication, measles outbreaks have erupted in Europe, Australia, and the United States. As the topic of vaccines continues to raise debate, it is thus essential to examine where these conflicts arose in the first place and how they can influence so many at such an alarming rate.
Although rife with issues, many still support Wakefield’s conclusions, which poses a significant risk to the health of any nation where this false evidence has been used for debate. First and foremost, the paper was a case report, which are detailed stories about patient medical histories. Due to them just being stories, they are considered one of the weakest kinds of medical studies. Further, it is no surprise that the only 12 children tested had received their vaccines, as receiving vaccines is incredibly common and by this age most children will have gone through the process. Many children have autism and nearly all have taken the MMR vaccine, thus interpreting this as evidence is dubious at best.
The most indicative piece of evidence, however, for Wakefield’s faulty report was the existence of a severe financial conflict of interest. While discrediting the MMR vaccine, Wakefield suggested that parents give their children single dose vaccines over a longer period, as he was conveniently filing patents for that very product. This action suggests that Wakefield intended to create this report to increase the sales of the single vaccine product he was wishing to manufacture, and thus gain the royalties from. Even worse, the General Medical Council found evidence that he had paid children at his son’s 10th birthday party to donate their blood for re-
search. The final nail in the anti-vaccination coffin was that Wakefield never replicated his findings, which remains one of the essential aspects of the validation of scientific research. However, despite the enormous amount of research that has effectively rendered Wakefield’s findings obsolete, there remain those who refuse to vaccinate their children and go out of their way to influence others to not do so as well.
not satisfactory for some parents.
According to a new report out of the United Kingdom, parents are often targeted with potentially misleading information about vaccines on social media. Researchers with the Royal Society of Public Health (RSPH) surveyed more than 2,600 parents and found that 2 out of 5 parents with children under the age of 18 claimed they had “often or sometimes” been exposed to misleading information about vaccines on social media. However, despite the scores of studies from around the world, showing conclusive evidence that vaccines do not cause autism, that is often
Many anti-vaccination proponents say that if science is capable of proving that vaccines do not cause autism, science should be able to say what does. Researchers do not know, as a growing body of evidence suggests that brain differences associated with autism can be found early in infancy, well before children receive most of their vaccines. Further, there are some genetic risk factors for autism, including advanced parental age, which has been associated with the condition. Despite there being evidence to substantiate these findings, people continue to speculate. But what is truly worrisome is that this issue, although seemingly centralized, are exacerbated by outside forces.
The meddling in American democracy by outsiders has always triggered public concern, but what is not commonly brought up is how foreign bots, trolls, and malicious hackers also work to undermine public health. A new study by the American Journal of Public Health examined
nearly 2 million tweets, collected from July 14th , 2014, through September 26th, 2017, to explore how anti-vaccine messages are broadcasted by bots. The researchers found that in some cases, Russian trolls used Twitter hashtags explicitly designed to make vaccination a political issue by not only spreading one-sided messages but by spreading information from both pro and anti-vaccine perspectives. This practice thus intensified and normalized a debate that was not previously present. This was specifically designed to instill confusion in the American population. The existence of a Russian disinformation campaign that could make individuals hesitant to vaccinate their children highlights a vital aspect of the information war on the United States. The goal seems as though its aimed to exacerbate distrust of one another and, in turn, the erosion of their confidence in government.
By April 4th of this year, the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention had already reported 465 cases of the disease, more than the entire total for all of 2018. These figures are chilling, as the anti-vaccination movement threatens to undo years of progress made against a range of preventable diseases. If this movement continues, there will be greater potential for measles to spread across borders, and preventable diseases are more likely to kill in densely populated cities with poorer health care infrastructure. Until governments enter the argument against anti-vaccination, health workers will continue to face the challenge of containing measles in countries where the disease is still severe, as well as those where it was thought to be gone.
It has not only become a topic of public health, but of moral character too. This war on vaccines simultaneously wages war on the autistic, on those children who have yet to receive their vaccines, and on those who have been so grossly misinformed by self-interested former physicians. What is required now is increased government intervention, as the spread of easily-eradicated diseases is inherently a public health issue. Countries such as Australia, for example, offer financial incentive to boost compli-
ance rates by providing parents A$129 for each child who meets their immunization requirements. Further, Slovenia currently has one of the world’s most aggressive vaccination programs, whereby religious and conscience based reasons for vaccine exemptions are not considered and those who do not comply get fined. Either way, there are numerous examples around the world of governments stepping in to protect the health of their people, and as measles outbreaks continue to rise, the silence of inaction will continue to grow louder.
The Painkiller That Provoked More Pain: A Look at the Opioid Epidemic
By: Vruksha Vakeeswaran
The American opioid epidemic has been one of the most destructive public health crises in recent history. Although initially intended to be the cure-all for chronic pain, synthetic opioids have instead become the root cause of it all. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of deaths resulting from synthetic opioids has increased by 45.2 percent over the period of one year. Moreover, the issue has accumulated an economic burden of 78.5 billion dollars due to costs associated with treatment, loss of productivity, and the involvement of the criminal justice system. Although the primary blame has been placed on “big pharma” companies, larger loopholes and biases in government policies have contributed to the growth and magnitude of the epidemic.
Purdue Pharma, a renowned pharmaceutical company, has been implicated as the primary culprit in the crisis. Since its incorporation in 1991, Purdue Pharma’s mission has been to develop the best pain-reducing medication on the market. Although their goal seemed like a noble one at the time, Purdue Pharma has faced several lawsuits since the 1990s for deceptive marketing of their OxyContin drug. In 1996, OxyContin was released onto the market as an extended-release medication, claiming to provide long-term pain relief with less frequent dosages. Despite the lack of scientific evidence to back this claim, Purdue Pharma successfully released the drug onto the market due to high demand and the opportunity for enormous revenues. After patients consumed the painkiller, it was found to be ineffective at controlling pain and, in fact, generated withdrawal symptoms leading to drug cravings. As a result, patients became inclined to illegally purchase opioids from drug traffickers
and use tactics such as “Doctor Shopping” — a term coined for receiving prescriptions for the same medication from several physicians. In May 2018, the Justice Department found hundreds of internal company memos revealing that executives of Purdue Pharma were aware of the illegal trafficking of their drug yet took no action.
At present, Purdue Pharma is being sued by over 45 states in the U.S. due to false marketing of their drug, OxyContin. The greater question to be asked is whether more parties should be held responsible for the crisis – namely, the government itself. At the core of this issue is the lack of policy and regulation that allowed harmful drugs to be released onto the market in the first place. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a critical organization in assessing and upholding safe drug regulations, receives more than 75 percent of its drug review budget from the biopharmaceutical industry. This evokes the question: how did the FDA become reliant on an external source for their budget funding?
Approximately a quarter century ago, several advocacy groups and helpless patients scrutinized the American government for their slow
drug approval rates in comparison to Europe. In 1992, to combat this issue, the American government enacted the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which allowed the FDA to collect a standard fee for each new drug application filed by a pharmaceutical company. The revenue incurred supported the FDA in hiring new medical officers, chemists, and other experts to increase the efficiency of the drug review process. Since then, the user fee per application has increased drastically, and in total, its collection in 2018 amounted to over 2 million dollars in revenue for the FDA. The FDA’s dependence on revenue acquired from user fees poses a severe threat to the validity and honesty of the drug review process. Perhaps, drugs such as OxyContin may have received deeper inspection if the budget for the drug review process was provided by an external, unbiased group. Undeniably, there were numerous ways through which the opioid epidemic could have been prevented – whether it was through stricter FDA drug approvals or closer patient compliance procedures.
In an attempt to reconcile their actions of the past, the FDA has embarked on a journey of implementing changes to existing policies and establishing new partnerships to mitigate the negative impact which they, in part, created. In 2019, they partnered with International Mail Facilities (IMF) to closely monitor suspicious packages and prevent the entry of illicit drugs. Most importantly, their efforts have been focused on lobbying to make therapeutic drugs, such as naloxone, available over the counter, while promising to regularly monitor the effects of the current painkillers on the market.
Despite being a global leader in science, medicine, and technology, the American government carelessly overlooked fundamental issues such as the approval of unsafe drugs, the sale of illegal painkillers, and overall unrestricted regulations. If an epidemic of this magnitude could occur in a country with such great financial and scientific resources, it is possible that epidemics of the same nature could occur in other countries. At present, countries such as Sweden, Denmark, and Norway have strict regulations for prescribed opioids; however, with the rise of diseases causing chronic pain and an ageing population, there is a possibility that the use of opioid-based drugs will become more commonly prescribed. Thus, it is important that the world uses the American opioid epidemic and the FDA’s new policies as a learning guide to take preventative measures as opposed to corrective ones. By evaluating the need for opioid-based drugs and finding alternative, less harmful painkilling therapies, governments around the world can formulate strict drug reviewing processes — ones that are not dependent on buttering the hands that feed them.
Topics
in Technology, Art and Fashion
A Voice for the Living: Considering Lived Experiences in Remote and Autonomous Weapons Policy
By: Bibi Imre-Millei
“We’re always scared. We always have this fear in our head.”
Students from Stanford and New York University (NYU) produced a report in 2012 entitled “Living Under Drones: Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan.” The above quote is taken from extensive interviews with the residents of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), where over 99 percent of all strikes in Pakistan occur. But little attention is paid in policy-making and academic circles to these lived experiences. While human rights watchdogs discuss the unethical nature of Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) strikes and military leaders discuss their efficiency and accuracy, lived experiences in places like the FATA become a tool to threaten the US, and as a result, often end up dismissed by policy-makers.
The US has been using RPAs in counterterrorism and counterinsurgency since at least 2000, when an unarmed Predator flew over Afghanistan in search of Osama bin Laden. Since 2004, there have been roughly 400 strikes in the FATA, with varying ratios of civilian casualties. For US policy-makers, RPAs are the perfect vehicle for
clandestine, “low impact” and long distance operations. These operations became predominant in the 2010s, when intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance technologies became a strategic priority. Policy-makers tend to underestimate the cost of RPAs, and overestimate their abilities, making them far more likely to recommend RPAs for almost every situation. Risk-averse leaders are also more likely to suggest RPAs, with risk-tolerant leaders suggesting conventional options. Finally, as human rights and other activist groups accuse US officials of wrongdoing with regard to RPAs, officials become less and less receptive to accounts of civilian casualties.
It’s not only policy-makers who focus on the abstract capabilities of RPAs, and other future-facing technologies, as opposed to their real impact. Ethical theorists who investigate automation and artificial intelligence (AI) in weapons technology stray away from lived experiences, perhaps because they think there are none. They believe that because RPAs are piloted, the experiences of those on the ground do not apply. However, the Stanford-NYU report makes clear that many of those who reside in the FATA believe the RPAs they see are un-piloted. Mainstream ethical discussions of autonomy instead revolve around how autonomy might fit into the just war tradition, how ethical autonomy can potentially be achieved, or why robots should not kill. These theorists often discuss the harms
of artificial intelligence as abstract and against all humanity, but neglect to investigate the dynamics at play today in places like the FATA.
Those affected by strikes in the FATA reported a climate of constant fear. One father discussed how community members do not approach victims of strikes for hours, fearing that the RPA will attack rescuers – a practice reported on multiple occasions. Phrases which echo this climate of fear feature in over half the quotes in the report. Mental health professionals treating those who live in the FATA discussed how anticipatory anxiety confined community members and aid workers to a state of paralysis. Many of those affected experienced physical and persistent symptoms, including an inability to leave the house. Some reported relatives physically restrained or locked up in their homes due to their “mental imbalance.”
The report also states that anonymous government officials revealed: “for the purpose of tracking civilian casualties, the government presumes that all military-age males killed in drone strikes are combatants.” While intentional physical injury to civilians cannot be definitively shown, it is concerning that US actions in Pakistan land just shy of formal definitions of state terrorism. From the lived experiences of strike zone residents, it is clear that the US government achieves a sense of terror in the civilian population. Fear is harm, and sustained harm to civilians, especially civilians not in a warzone, is morally and legally impermissible.
Further, the incitement of fear in strike zones is intentional, as the US attempts to use the fear caused by RPAs as a disincentive to terrorism. The war on terror is no conventional war, and RPA strikes in Pakistan are not part of a declared war. RPAs and other remote and autonomous weapons make this practice far easier and far less risky for states such as the US, who no longer have to put boots on the ground or declare war to apply pressure in the form of death and destruction.
The current trends in US politics are moving further away from a focus on lived experiences. In March of 2019, president Trump revoked Obama’s policy of reporting civilian casualties in strike zones. If policy-makers turn their back on and are skeptical towards civilian casualties, they will shy away from incorporating experiences on the ground into their policy-making. The technologists who develop new AI capabilities for weapons system applications must remember that focusing on the violent fallibility of human beings is not the only perspective to be taken when considering the impact of the weapons they develop.
We already have a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips from almost two decades of known US strikes in the FATA. Journalists, human rights organisations, and research institutes continue to emphasise these characteristics in the lived experiences of strike victims: constant anxiety, disassociation from normal life, and the belief that the robots in the sky do not care about them. At the same time, the US continues to claim they wish to protect the civilian population from local terrorists in the FATA. The incongruence of these narratives must be addressed before RPAs and weapons like them become fully automated if we want to see any real change in the lives of civilians in strike zones. This change can only be realised if we encourage policy-makers, ethicists, and technologists to centre lived experiences over their perceptions of precise, powerful killer robots.
Internet Not IncludedThe Unintended Social and Political Consequences of Facebook’s Free Basics Initiative in the Developing World
“For many in Myanmar, Facebook is synonymous with the internet.”
In the aftermath of the 2017 genocide of the Rohingya people in Myanmar, social media giant Facebook faced considerable media backlash for its role in the lead up to violence by enabling the spread of anti-muslim hate-speech. The New York Times described a systematic propaganda campaign led by members of the Myanmar military on Facebook, meant to inflame pre-existing ethnic tensions in the region, and incite mass violence. The UN stated that Facebook played a “determining role” in the incitement of anger against the Rohingya minority. Facebook’s failures included ignoring repeated warnings from human rights groups going back to 2013, reporting tools being unavailable in the local language, and a severe understaffing of Burmese speaking content-moderators.
The lack of corporate responsibility in Myanmar may paint a disappointingly familiar
By: Sarah James
picture for those familiar with Facebook’s ever growing list of ethical scandals over the past few years. However, to focus solely on Facebook’s failure to adequately self-regulate content distribution on its own platform is to fail to ask another more perplexing question, of how Facebook became such an unusually important influence on public discourse in Myanmar to begin with. How, in a country with an internet penetration rate of only 31.7%, did Facebook not only become synonymous with the internet, but gain enough influence to play a “decisive role” in inciting ethnic violence?
Facebook’s Free Basics initiative, alternatively called Internet.org, was launched in 2013 with a lofty, seemingly philanthropic mission of “connecting the world.” Geared towards the mobile internet markets in developing countries, it has publicly been marketed as a form of “free internet.” It launched in Myanmar in 2016 as a collaboration with the state-run telecom company MPT, and through this agreement mobile users could access a stripped-down version of Facebook without incurring data charges. In 2017, mobile subscription rates were 89.85 per 100 inhabitants, and by then, the number of Facebook
users had rapidly grown from 2 million in 2014, to 30 million.
On the surface, this may seem like a win for the international development agenda. Increased internet access has been shown to increase economic development and opportunities, but access is typically severely limited in the developing world due to high costs and low economic earnings. Furthermore, the notion often persists that the internet has some sort of inherent democratizing effect and/or potential, both in its ability to deepen democratic practices, and provide the means for resistance against undemocratic government control. But let us be clear, Facebook’s Free Basics is not the internet.
Facebook is an intermediary platform through which users can gain access to online content in a way that is filtered and curated using online algorithms, meant to nudge users towards specific patterns of behaviour. Functionally, Facebook’s algorithm is meant to maximise user engagement and retention with the aim of increasing advertising profits. While this strategy has proven to be immensely successful in promoting the economic interests of Facebook, a growing body of research suggests that its algorithm may also inadvertently favour the creation of echo chambers, encourage opinion polarization, and prioritize emotional, extreme or negative commentary.
Arguably, a growing body of research also exists which suggests that the real political effects of social media platforms may in fact be
exaggerated. However, most existing research has focused on developed countries with mature democracies, where social media platforms are merely one component of a larger information ecosystem. The Free Basics initiative is so significantly problematic because it has been rolledout exclusively in developing countries, where it is often the only affordable means of access to digital content. This means that in these participating countries, Facebook Free Basics becomes the primary or sole source of digital media and information consumption for most citizens. Free Basics then grants users a limited and incomplete access to the digital realm, one that is heavily shaped towards its own private interest, even as it gains an unusually significant position of influence over citizens and public discourse.
The belief that the Facebook Free Basics program is bringing the “internet” to developing countries and low income populations is false, and the consequences of this initiative are potentially dangerous. While internet access is an important goal, this is not what Free Basics is, and it should not be treated as an acceptable alternative to full internet connectivity. While growing criticisms of Facebook regarding content management practices are important and valid, an equally important discussion needs to be had about the social and political consequences which emerge when a social media platform is allowed to become the primary/sole means of access to online content consumption and public discourse, particularly in developing or more politically fragile states.
As several governments, including Canada, consider the possibility of increased regulation of social media platforms for their role in the dissemination of violent online extremism, the 2017 Rohingya Crisis may certainly seem like one more example to justify a push towards platform content liability legislation. However, it might serve as an even better example of why net neutrality principles, which aim to protect against the favoring of particular content, platforms, or types of communications over others, are so vital to the proper functioning of democratic institutions in our ever more digitally dependent world.
Digital Radicalization: A Policy Making Nightmare
By: Owen Wong
An alarming trend is emerging, one that ties mass murder to technology. Recent shootings around the world have captured international headlines. Such shootings include the attack at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, which killed 51 people, the Pittsburg synagog shooting that took a death toll of 11, and the shooting in San Diego, California which left one dead and many injured. Together, these three racially-charged shootings bring to attention the issue of alt-right digital radicalization.
Digital radicalization is the process by which individuals adopt extreme views as a result of their online activity. The investigations conducted after aforementioned tragedies reveal that the shooters in all three events shared one thing in common: adopting their radical views online. In the wake of these shootings, it has become clear that digital radicalization led to the death of innocent people.
There are two main reasons why social media and online forums are effective at radicalization: they allow and encourage anonymity, and enable groupthink. Although the adoption of extreme views is nothing new, what is unprecedented is the way in which technology streamlines the process. The anonymity that is attached with online activity empowers individuals to engage with a community they may not have previously engaged with. With their real lives hidden behind a computer screen, individuals have nothing to lose during a “liminal exploration period“ charged by racist views.
Before the invention of online groups/ forums, engagement with extremist groups was limited to “the real world.” This meant that family and friends would often intervene if they disapproved of their family/ friend’s membership in these extremist groups. The anonymity attached with digital groups provides a budding extremist with a frictionless access point to begin exploring their radical views.
Once engaged with these digital forums, the radicalization process is expedited by a psychological phenomenon called groupthink. Groupthink occurs when an individual’s beliefs/ ideas are justified by other community members. Since commonality in belief is what links members in extremist groups, there is pressure to
support another member’s idea in order to fit in. What occurs is an echo chamber of ideas which involves a perpetual cycle of support for radical beliefs such that over time, views become more extreme.
Post-attack investigations reveal the link between hate crimes and digital radicalization. The question that remains regards policy. To what extent and how should these digital mediums be regulated?
What makes answering this question so difficult is how nuanced these communities are. Oftentimes, they will communicate their radical views through inside jokes and phrases that have hidden meanings. For example the line “don’t forget to subscribe to [the gaming YouTuber] PewDiePie.” Although PewDiePie is not a white supremacist, the phrase is interpreted in alt-right forums as roughly “don’t forget to continue the fight for an aryan nation.” The hidden meaning behind what is a seemingly innocent phrase is what creates challenges for policy makers. In chat rooms that are clouded in ambiguity, creating policy which would require the technological platforms to monitor and regulate radicalizing content is difficult. What counts as radicalizing? What is just a joke and not an inside joke with racial underpinnings?
Furthering the difficulty in policy making is the fact that the technology companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and 8chan are multi-national. Different countries have different conceptions of free speech. One country might view a platform such as Facebook as a publishing company while another country might view it as a tool which facilitates free speech. If considered a publishing company, Facebook would have to follow strict guidelines, guidelines which would require the monitoring of these nuanced conversations. However, if another country views Facebook as a tool that enables free speech, there would be little room for devising policy that mandates the regulation of these radicalizing forums. Since these technology companies are multinational, country specific regulation would have little effect. A user with adequate knowledge of computers would easily be able to bypass country specific regulation and continue their engagement on radicalizing forums.
Technology companies require greater regulation. The radicalization and hate crimes that occur as a result of technology companies operating within the current set of rules is proof that greater regulation is required. If governments want to reduce the hateful digital radicalization they must work together. First, they should debate freedom of speech, and how to classify technology platforms such as twitter. There must be a standard international classification of social media multinationals. This will provide the framework from which regulation is based. Secondly, they must discuss what constitutes a radicalizing forum and develop a uniform policy to manage the issue. This is easier said than done.
There are international agencies to aid in the process. Agencies such as the United Nations can act as a mediator to developing uniform policies. Leaders such as Donald Trump need to stop attacking these institutions and instead use them to develop international policy. It is now a matter of life and death.
The Fast and The Furious: The Global Impacts of the Fast Fashion Industry
By: Scarlett Robinson
For anyone who follows major fashion retailers on social media, or receives newsletters that go straight into the junk folder without a second glance, it feels as if our rotation of four distinct seasons has multiplied from slight variants of “Spring,” “Summer,” “Autumn,” and “Winter.” In fact, the fashion industry boasts 52 microseasons a year. As advertised by major retailers Zara, H&M, TopShop, and The Gap, our previously distinct seasons have blended into each other, opening up an ever-increasing opportunity to manufacture and sell new clothes to fill the nonexistent gaps in our wardrobe.
The growth in retail has been driven by increased advertising, promotional sales, as well as a growing consciousness of social media influencers that never wear the same thing twice. The outcome of our retail consumption habits has led to global retail sales amounting to almost $USD 25 trillion, up almost $USD 5 trillion since 2015. Further, continued growth in the industry has been driven by the increased affordability of these retailers and the growing global middle class. In conjunction with promotional sales, the average item in Fast Fashion stores such as For-
ever 21 or H&M comes in at below 30 dollars. As more people buy more clothes more often, it begs the question: what is the overall impact? The seasonal cycle of fashion driven by large, multinational corporations, poses significant threats to the environment, the integrity of global labour laws, and developing economies. The most serious impacts affect the Global South, which reflects the selective blindness the Global North has had for the negative effects of Fast Fashion.
As has been reported by the United Nations Environment Programme, the fashion industry is responsible for 20% of global wastewater, and 10% of carbon emissions, overtaking industries such as commercial air travel, and maritime shipping, and becoming equivalent to agriculture. The impacts of air and water pollution, such as worsening air quality and water quality as a result of the textile industry, are disproportionately impacting Global South countries, especially coastal cities in East Asia where the majority of textile production is outsourced by major retailers. It typically takes 2000 gallons of water to make a pair of jeans,
which is a sad kind of irony when considering the lack of water accessibility in fast fashion hubs such as Taiwan, China, and Korea. Meanwhile, the increasingly poor quality of garments and the push for consumers to purchase new clothes seasonally has resulted in 15 million tons of textile waste being produced in the United States per year alone. Plastics, such as acrylic, nylon, rayon, and polyester can not break down or be recycled as efficiently as natural fabrics. The waste produced has contributed to the odd industry of garbage exporting, which Canada has been lambasted for when in May 2019, the Philippines shipped 1,500 tons of Canadian trash back to Canada. This indicates the overall lack of responsibility Global North countries tend to take regarding the implications of their consumption habits, and the slow uptake of sustainable options by Global North consumers.
rush orders from Walmart, Joe Fresh, and Mango (among others), prioritized timeliness over the safety of factory workers.
Unfortunately, Fast Fashion’s impacts are not limited to environmental ones. Labour standards in key textile exporting countries such as India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and Indonesia fall far below the fair and safe conditions established by the International Labour Organization (ILO). The 2013 Rana Plaza factory collapse in Dhaka that killed 1,134 people demonstrates how deadly the textile industry can be, as subcontracted
Outsourcing and subcontracting is common in the retail industry, and the practice has allowed many multinational corporations to be exempted from any kind of blame for the mistreatment of the garment workers that produce their clothes. Good on You, an online brand directory that rates the sustainability and ethics of retail brands, has indicated that some of the fastest growing retailers such as Fashion Nova, Nasty Gal, and Romwe consistently fail to share information about their supply chains and have not made commitments to ILO labour standards. As most of these brands outsource and subcontract their production to unauthorized manufacturers, they do not operate under government regulations, making it near-impossible to track or hold brands accountable for what occurs along their supply chain. Though tracking their factories is difficult, the affordability of their garments most likely points to the kinds of wages and conditions that are being paid out along major retailers’ supply chains. That said, commitments to the ILO do not ensure corporate accountability. A 2018 report conducted by Green America uncovered
that even companies that have made global commitments to labour and environment standards employ third-party manufacturers that are responsible for exploitation and mistreatment, with the report illustrating instances of physical abuse, sexual harassment, and forced overtime in unregulated textile factories.
In addition to the population-level impacts of Fast Fashion, the industry also contributes to the declining terms of trade between Global North and South countries. Liberalized international trade laws that took off in the 1970s saw several companies move their production overseas, seeking faster turnaround and larger profit margins, and as competition increases in the industry, prices have stagnated, and declined. As garments decrease in price, so too has the profits Global South countries receive from multinational corporations for apparel production. This disparity can contribute to flagging economic growth in developing economies that rely on textile production, which ultimately leads to long-term lowered GDP and living standards.
Ultimately, the Fast Fashion industry is a beast that we are quickly losing control of. Fast Fashion brands such as Zara, H&M, and The Gap are being replaced by even faster fashion brands, such as Fashion Nova, which is notorious for turning out celebrity garment copies within 3 days. Our environmental and labour situation has been created out of our constant consumption and is only getting worse, despite growing concerns about environmental sustainability. Market options for both sustainable and affordable garments have been limited and not readily accessible. Although pulling Fast Fashion brands from developing economies may solve the direct problem at hand, it would not fill the inevitable employment vacuum created, nor would it improve labour or environmental exploitation in the developing world. Textile exports are a major tier of many countries’ economies, no matter how exploitative, and the withdrawal of fast fash-
ion retail companies would leave a gaping hole in many developing economies.
Instead, there is a push for increased transparency and accountability from the brands we shop at from a consumer-level (after all, thrifting or buying from sustainable brands is not a clear-cut solution for many consumers). In this way, sites such as Good on You is an invaluable source for consumers to measure the ethics of the brands they support, but real action needs to be taken by consumers for lasting change to be implemented within the fashion industry, as it has clearly been demonstrated that fast fashion brands are hesitant to seek out ethical manufacturing options on their own accord.
The World’s Artists Put Politics on Display at This
Year’s Venice Biennale
by Rebecca Frost
There is a lot that lurks beneath the surface of our politics. From the stories that countries tell themselves about their history, to irrational human impulses; these forces play a major role in political life. The problem is that they are often hard to notice, and even harder to put into words. This is where art comes in.
Between May and November, over half a million people will descend upon the Italian city of Venice for the Venice Biennale. The Venice Biennale, often called “the Olympics of the Art World,” is an exhibition held every two years to showcase some of the leading artists from around the world. Countries from around the world send an artist -or group of artists- to represent them at the Biennale. This year, 90 countries sent artists to represent them at 90 national pavilions stationed throughout Venice.
The previous Biennale, held in 2017, took a step back from politics. Following 2015’s politically charged exhibition, the 2017 Biennale’s main curator, Christine Marcel, chose to steer the show toward an appreciation for art for its own sake, rather than for its political message. Many national pavilions took a more introspective tack -exploring narratives and tensions that existed in their home countries. A piece in the 2017 edition of The Observer’s Summer in Review argued that many of these pieces ended up being political in their own, more subtle ways. But it’s 2019 now, and politics are back with a vengeance.
In addition to the national pavilions, there is also a central exhibition. This year’s show is titled May You Live in Interesting Times. It is curated by Ralph Rugoff, of the Hayward Gallery in London. The exhibition’s name comes from a phrase that is often said to have been a curse that originated in China, although investigations
into its origin have yet to establish any firm link between the saying and China. While it bears some resemblance to a Mandarin saying from the 1600s, it’s likely just a Western fabrication. Rugoff called the phrase an Orientalist cultural relic. Regardless of its dodgy origin, the phrase is meant to express the sentiment that “interesting times” mean times of danger or conflict. Rugoff felt that this “counterfeit curse” was a fitting title for an exhibition that reflected upon the precariousness of today’s world. Rugoff is explicit about the political limits of art, writing:
“…let us acknowledge at the outset that art does not exercise its forces in the domain of politics. Art cannot stem the rise of nationalist movements and authoritarian governments in different parts of the world, for instance, nor can it alleviate the tragic fate of displaced peoples across the globe… May You Live in Interesting Times will take seriously art’s potential as a method for looking into things that we do not already know - things that may be off-limits, under-the-radar, or otherwise inaccessible for various reasons.”
This year’s Biennale might not stop any nationalist movements, but some of the works on display in Venice this year might help illustrate the stories and impulses that, although fly under the radar, have significant political consequences.
On of the pieces featured in May You Live in Interesting Times is Sun Yuan and Peng Yu’s Can’t Help Myself. It’s often just called “the blood sweeping machine.” The piece consists of a mechanical arm surrounded by a puddle of red liquid meant to resemble blood. The machine uses high tech sensors to sweep a dark red liquid toward it whenever the puddle spreads too far. According to the piece’s description on the
Guggenheim museum’s website, the machine is designed to have anthropomorphic, often silly, movements as it frantically sweeps the blood back into the middle of the puddle. It’s meant to comment on the seemingly endless and futile task of containing problems like migration and sovereignty. The machine goes about its ridiculous dance containing the liquid, only for streaks of blood, representing the violence that occurs in attempts to guard borders, to be left behind.
Many of the national pavilions also brought otherwise hidden conversations to the surface. Canada is being represented by Isuma-an Inuit artist collective. Their installation tells an Inuit narrative of Canadian history. There is a short film depicting the interaction between a representative of the Canadian government and an Inuit group in the 1960s. It focuses on the conversation between the government representative and a young Inuit translator as the government representative tries to convince the group to abandon their homeland and relocate to a permanent settlement. CBC described the film as “a slow verbal dance rife with unspoken threats, deep suspicion, mistranslations and, above all, masterful storytelling.”
The coercion that went into the creation of modern Northern Canada is not known to most people, even. The little communities that are scattered across the modern Arctic were created this way. While it is possible to tell people that these forced resettlements happened, the film presented by Isuma does something more. It shows the dynamic between the Canadian government and Inuit groups with a precision that is
nearly impossible to capture in writing. The Canadian Government’s abuse and deception still influences its relationship with the North, so a clear articulation of what went on in the creation of these settlements is critical.
Climate Change is also a major theme of the Biennale this year. The Gold Lion prize for the best national pavilion went to Lithuania. At the Lithuanian pavilion, a rotating cast of opera singers and volunteer extras perform an opera about impending ecological disaster while lounging on an artificial beach. They sing about the everyday inconveniences that climate change is bringing them. It brings to light the more lazy, mundane aspect of the impending climate disaster. This everyday apathy does not typically gets discussed in climate change rhetoric, at least not in this precise way, but it probably lies just under the surface of a lot of climate inaction. What this piece shows is that, in addition to green energy investment and carbon capture technologies, a big part of the fight against climate change needs to happen within our own psyches.
In all these pieces, and countless others, the Biennale’s artists have managed to put their fingers on some of the underlying dynamics and tensions that are at work in the world of politics. Whether it’s the absurdity and subsequent bloodshed that characterizes so many political happenings, or our everyday culpability in global problems like climate change, these pieces encourage the kind of self-reflection that is needed when making political decisions. Hopefully, work like this can make these interesting times a little more livable.
The ObserverMetric
150,000: Lives taken during Sri Lanka’s 26 year-long civil war.
1 in 3: The number of Estonians and Latvians that are Russophones.
52%: The percentage of people that voted to leave the EU in the Brexit Referendum.
2 billion: The amount that the federal deficit is expected to increase by in the 2019/2020 fiscal year.
1.3 billion: The inflation rate in Venezuela by the end of 2018.
86 million: The amount of acres that Indigenous people lost in the General Allotment Act of 1887.
65,000: The amount of individual donors candidates must have received in order to participate in the first round of Democratic debates.
400,000: The number of Taiwanese Aboriginal peoples often overlooked in cultural assessments of Taiwan due to Taiwan’s experience with colonialism.
250 billion: The amount in Chinese imports that the US targeted with tariffs.
70%: The percentage of Haute-de-France fishing catches that occurs in the English channel.
78.5 billion: The economic burden that the opioid epidemic has accumulated as a result of costs associated with treatment, loss of productivity, and the involvement of the criminal justice system.
400: The amount of Remotely Piloted Aircraft(RPA) strikes that have occured in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas(FATA) since 2004.
30 million: The number of Facebook users in Myanmar in 2017, up from 2 million in 2014.
52: The number of microseasons that the fashion industry boasts per year.
O
