Page 1

the Wellesley Globalist Volume VI, Issue 2


Letter from the Editors


ear Globalist Readers,

Spring is a time where we shake off the snowy remnants of winter and reflect on the past year. This semester’s theme is imminent, an adjective meaning likely to occur at any moment, impending. While it often has a negative connotation, it can also simply indicate that something is about to happen. The rise of nationalist, populist movements, increasing nuclear tensions, and growing awareness of inequality lead us to a juncture in international relations where change feels imminent. Change is also imminent for the Globalist. We are pleased to announce that next year’s Editorsin-Chief will be Sarah Shireen Moinuddeen and Claudia Lamprecht, aided by Managing Editor Hajira Fuad. Under their leadership, we are confident that The Wellesley Globalist will continue to provide a space for a diverse array of international and internationally-minded students to share their research and opinions with the greater Wellesley community. On behalf of The Wellesley Globalist, we would like to thank our writers for their contributions as well as our lecture speakers Professor Keskin and Professor Matthes for their illuminating discussion. Lastly, we would like to thank The Wellesley Globalist staff for an exciting year. It was a pleasure to get to know and work with each and everyone of you, and we look forward to seeing where you take the organization in the future.


est, Your Editors-in-Chief Zarina Patwa ’18 and Katherine Schauer ’18

Editorial Staff Editors-in-Chief: Zarina Patwa Katherine Schauer Managing Editor: Sarah Shireen Moinuddeen Secretary/Treasurers: Devyani Kalra Lindsey Bennett Event Coordinators: Tiffany Zhou Lyana MacDonald Web Content Managers: Mika Thakkar Claudia Lamprecht Hajira Fuad Stephanie Makredes Helena Zeng


Associate Editors: Anna Wan Mallika Sarupria Yashna Shivdasani Manvi Chaudhary Martina Silva Floranne McComas Sophie Coppieters ‘t Wallant Makiko Miyazaki Copy Editors: Anastacia Markoe Laurel Stickney Stephanie Makredes Malena Castilla Chloe Pearce Layout Staff: Stephanie Makredes Claudia Lamprecht Laurel Stickney Chloe Pearce Martina Silva

Table of Contents: My Borderless Experience in Geneva Kelechi Alfred-Igbokwe 3

The Indo-Pakistani Nuclear Conflict Shrunothra Ambati 6

Medication Access Isn’t Enough: Will Your Next Donation Actually Fight AIDS? Alexandra Beem 10

North and South Korea: Barriers to Reunification Makiko Miyazaki 13

Make in India: Modi’s Economic Reforms and the FDI Dilemma Mallika Sarupria 16

How We Got Here: The 2018 Brazilian Election Martina Silva 19

The Power of Art in Ukraine Alexa Sydor-Czartorysky 22


My Borderless Experience in Geneva

By Kelechi Alfred-Igbokwe

Last fall, I stood in front of a portrait of a young girl named Hastie shyly smiling away from the camera. Near the photograph was a caption listing that she was born in Germany, her parents were born in Iran, and now she is here, in Geneva. I moved on to the next portrait—this one of another young girl named Emilie, smiling widely at the camera while being enveloped by her friends. She was born in Switzerland, and she speaks German, English, and French. Her paternal grandparents were born in Burkina-Faso, her maternal grandmother was born in France, her maternal grandfather was born in Germany, and her parents were both born in Switzerland. These are only a couple examples of the many fascinating portraits I encountered in Geneva at a photo exhibit at the Musee Rath that encompasses what it is like to live there. Titled “Genève, sa gueule” (which loosely translates to “Faces of Geneva”), the exhibit showcased the multiculturality of Geneva’s population through collating life stories. I was awestruck by the heterogenous cultural backgrounds on display. There were three rooms filled with

Photo by Kelechi Alfred-Igbokwe on top of the Hotel Metropole, Geneva 3

portraits, all in black and white, each featuring a different person or group of people (often friends) with different facial expressions and poses. Under every portrait was a label stating the subject’s place of birth, along with their parents’ and grandparents’ places of birth. I marvelled at how hardly any two subjects had the same cultural background or ethnic heritage. Often times, the subject’s parents would be from two different places in Africa, Europe, or Asia and had met in Geneva, or the subject would be from a different place with a mixed heritage and had decided to come to Geneva themselves. This display of portraits was a microcosm of the experience of living in Geneva, a city that feels borderless. How would you feel living in a world in which borders are fluid, permeable, malleable? Would that make you at ease or make you uneasy? My study abroad program—The Undergraduate Immersion Program at the Institut des Hautes Internationale et Developpement (IHEID)—took place in Geneva, Switzerland, a European city nestled between France, Italy, and Germany. Geneva is a

porous city, a unique blend of international cultures on account of the fluid and diverse population. Three in five residents of Geneva are first or second-generation immigrants. A neutral hub of international diplomacy and an immigrant nexus, Geneva attracts people from all over the world. Geneva’s pluralism extends into their education system as well. I was struck by how the classes I took were more generally European than specifically Swiss. People are educated on European history, politics, culture, and geography as a whole, and there seemed to be an emphasis on collaboration between European countries, rather than competitive independence. We were often asked to look at subjects in migration, law, and humanitarianism from a European perspective. In fact, being a student in one European country gave me special access and discounts in other European countries as well. When I went to visit the Sainte Chapelle in Paris, I was allowed a free pass to enter the site because I held a student ID from a European university. Language was utterly fascinating for me in Geneva and its surrounding cities. Switzerland is squeezed in between France, Italy, and Germany, and thus has a French region, an Italian region, and a German region. Geneva is part of the French region of Switzerland, and it is surrounded by France on almost all sides like a bottle-neck. The dominant language is thus French, though there are still German and Italian influences. What results is the use of a hodge-podge of languages, as most people are polyglots. This is heightened in “International Geneva,” the area of the city

How would you feel living in a world in which borders are fluid, permeable, malleable? above Lac Geneve that is home to the Palais des Nations, UNHCR, WHO, International Red Cross, WTO, and many more international organizations. The United Nations has its second-largest office

Photo by Kelechi Alfred-Igbokwe in the city and the Red Cross is headquartered there; 48 percent of residents are foreign nationals. Anything goes in International Geneva, where I was living and going to school. Multiple languages are intermingled there, but thankfully for me, the central languages were English and French —two languages I’m comfortable conversing in. That leads me to Switzerland’s membership in the Schengen Zone, an area encompassing 26 European countries where internal border checks have largely been abolished for short-term tourism, a business trip, or transit to a non-Schengen destination. This was an incredible part of my study abroad experience in Geneva, as I was free to travel to other Schengen countries with minimal checks. It was as though I was traveling within one country rather than between several. I was able to travel across the border to France semi-regularly for as minor a trip as grocery shopping. The biggest hurdle is 4

Photo by Kelechi Alfred-Igbokwe switching from the tram to the bus once one gets to the border between Switzerland and France from Geneva. Flying was the smoothest I’ve ever had it. I was shocked when I didn’t have to have any passport checks in the airport to travel from Geneva to Paris, and I got to skip the tedious security lines. Traveling to Portugal after that was a treat since I didn’t have to worry about scrutiny from immigration officers at all. The Schengen Zone is really effective in figuratively dissolving borders, as people find it so easy to travel for business, pleasure, or tourism. Weekend trips to other countries were commonplace, and crosscultural exchanges are frequent and the norm. The porous borders of Geneva resulted in me getting to know a wonderful array of people from all over the world within the institute where I studied and the city of Geneva as a whole. I seamlessly flowed with friends from Germany, India, the UK, Puerto Rico, Egypt, France, Italy, the U.S., Nigeria, the UAE, Switzerland, Liberia, Japan, Brazil, The Netherlands, Taiwan, and several more. Ironically, there weren’t many native Swiss people in the area, so it was very much a hub of multiple cultural identities without any dominant population. It was exhilarating to be in a place where the one thing that united us all was that we wanted to get out of our comfort zones and forge connections with other cultures in a place as heterogeneous as Geneva. My own background is that of a Third Culture Kid (TCK), a term used to describe a person who 5

has spent a significant part of their formative years in a culture outside of their parents’. Developmental psychologist Ruth Van Ecken explains, “The third culture kid builds relationships to all the cultures, while not having full ownership in any. Although elements from each culture are assimilated into the third culture kid’s life experience, the sense of belonging is in relationship to others of the same background, other TCKs.” For me, my third culture is the interstitial space between being Nigerian and being American. I found that other TCKs tend to be drawn to the Institute of International Studies as well, as they had experience navigating different cultures without feeling at home in any. It strikes our interest to be in a place where there is no dominant culture to conform to, a place where no part of our identity makes us stand out. Being in a space with permeable borders was so liberating for me. Having an international background was normalized, as most of the students I met were international and few distinctions were drawn between “international students” and “domestic students.” In addition, most people were used to being around those with dissimilar backgrounds and were very open to the multicultural environment. I felt comfortable and accepted for my global background. Geneva allowed me to embrace the duality of my own cultural background and to discover the value of culturally borderless spaces.

The Indo-Pakistani Nuclear Conflict By Shrunothra Ambati

Photo from Wikimedia Commons

The world watched with apprehension as two archrivals, India and Pakistan, entered a nuclear standoff following an attack on the Indian Parliament in December of 2001. According to the NPR article “Fears of India-Pakistan Nuclear War,” India claimed a militant group from Kashmir, backed by Pakistan, was responsible for the attack. Within weeks a mobilization termed Operation Parakram had deployed 500,000 troops and nuclear-capable missiles near the Indo-Pakistani border in response to the attack on the Indian Parliament. This tense period was the product of decades of mounting hostilities that began in 1947 with the partition of British India. A Concise History of Modern India, by Barbara and Thomas Metcalf, mentions that the violence-filled migration displaced over 12.5 million people. As each country established itself, the region of Kashmir became a highly disputed territory. This particular issue has caused three out of the four wars between the two South Asian countries and has accelerated their rivalry in the nuclear arena. There were many reasons for India’s development of nuclear weapons, relating both to its security and its identity. The father of the Indian nuclear program was Dr. Homi Bhabha, who had cited the importance of nuclear research more than three years before India’s independence. However, the necessity of a nuclear deterrent became a top priority for India after the Sino-Indian War of 1962, when China rendered them powerless and gained the Aksai Chin plateau in Kashmir. Previously, India had depended on the Soviet Union (USSR) for military backup, but the USSR was immersed in its own issues in the Cuban missile crisis and abandoned India. Forced to turn to the United States for help, India’s leaders decided that they would not be so defenseless again. India’s Nuclear Weapons Program - The Beginning: 1944-1960 suggests that perhaps the most pressing reason for India’s turn towards nuclear weapons was its desire to be a world power and for the level of influence held by the five permanent Security Council members of the UN. After British colonization, India needed to prove that it could not be manipulated, and that it was an independent and powerful state. Developing nuclear weapons would force other nations to pay serious attention to its concerns and raise its standing on the international playing field. According to Pakistan Nuclear Chronology | NIT, Pakistan’s nuclear program was initially formed 7

with peaceful intentions in 1953. It did not pursue the development of nuclear weapons until 1972, following the 1971 Indo-Pakistani War. This war, which lasted a mere 13 days, was a devastating blow to the nation. It lost half its population, and a significant portion of its economy, as East Pakistan became Bangladesh. India took more than 90,000 prisoners of war, and the entire country was severely demoralized by this defeat at the hands of their biggest rival, whom they thought was no match for their military because of a false sense of security perpetrated by the media. As a result of the war, Pakistan’s role as a geopolitical power in the South Asia region was diminished, according to an article written by Asad Hashim for Al Jazeera. Foreign Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto then assumed power, and shifted Pakistan’s stance in favor of developing nuclear weapons. Regarding the recent state of each nation’s economy, the gap between the two clearly indicates that Pakistan is falling behind. According to the CIA World Factbook, India’s GDP in 2016 was $8.721 trillion with a 7.6 percent growth rate, placing it as the fourth largest economy in the world. Meanwhile, Pakistan is ranked twenty sixth in the world, with a 2016 GDP of $988.2 billion and a 4.7 percent growth rate. The Indian economy is on track to overtake China’s in the next few years, while Pakistan remains stymied by political strife,

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto Photo by Karsh of Ottawa

ethnic rivalries, and low foreign investment. India’s diverse economy is composed of many industries, and integration into the global economy projects positive long-term growth for the country. Pakistan is vulnerable to changes in global trends because of the low diversification of its goods and services, which are primarily focused on textiles and apparel. While Pakistan’s GDP per capita is comparable to that of its larger rival neighbor, its mountainous and arid territory does not allow for the same scale industrialization and urban development. In 1965, Bhutto declared, “If India gets the bomb, we will eat grass or leaves, or even go hungry, but we will get one of our own. We have no choice.” On May 18, 1974, India conducted its first successful nuclear test, codenamed Smiling Buddha, maintaining that it was a peaceful nuclear explosion. Pakistan, uncertain about India’s intentions, did not believe this claim and delved deeper into the nuclear arena. The conflict between India and Pakistan reached outrageous proportions in 1984, when India initiated military action to take control of the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir. After its loss of AksaiChin in the Sino-Indian War, India could ill afford to lose nationalistic sentiment and support by taking a soft stance at its Kashmiri borders. Following the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971, the rivals signed the Simla Agreement that demarcated the Line of Control, a ceasefire point. However, according to Declan Walsh, author of “Siachen Avalanche Puts Spotlight on India-Pakistan Conflict,” in the New York Times, the agreement’s vague wording concerning the authority of the glacier gave rise to this dispute. Pervez Musharraf writes in In the Line of Fire : A Memoir, that fighting over an inhabitable, approximately 900 square mile barren ice territory at 20,000 feet above sea level, each side continued to drain their militaries in this seemingly absurd effort. The Siachen Glacier conflict was of strategic importance because the region separates Pakistan from China. With China in control of the Aksai Chin plateau which borders Siachen from the east, allowing Pakistan to have unrestricted access to this area would endanger India’s claim of any of Kashmir. Domestic support to openly proclaim India’s nuclear weapons status had been growing, and when India’s nationalist and outspoken Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power in 1998 it was all but guaranteed that the government would

indeed “garner the respect on the world stage that India deserved,” according to India’s Nuclear Weapons Program—Operation Shakti: 1998. The BJP’s historical pro-Hindu, anti-Muslim roots, and its vociferous outcry against Pakistan’s hostilities brought inter-state tensions to a head. The election of Prime Minister Shri Atal Behari Vajpayee, of the BJP party, was the impetus for the Indian government to follow through with their planned nuclear tests. The BJP then sanctioned the 1998 Pokhran tests, and India finally initiated Operation Shakti by detonating five different nuclear devices. After India’s 1998 provocative tests, Pakistan’s government was immediately under tremendous pressure to respond. Prime Minister Muhammad Nawaz Sharif was simultaneously under fire from the opposition Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP), the military, and even his own party, the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), to retaliate and show Pakistan’s strength to the world. Preventing Pakistan from responding became a priority for the United States, which wanted to avert a potential security spiral. The U.S. offered to repeal the Pressler Amendment, which cut off military aid to Pakistan. It also agreed to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars worth of weapons that Pakistan had paid for but that previously had been withheld. Disregarding all international repercussions and partnerships, in the face of a domestic security crisis, Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistani government ordered the detonation of six nuclear bombs (Chagai-I and Chagai-II), solidifying the nuclear arms race in Southeast Asia, as Nathan E. Busch writes in his book, No End in Sight: The Continuing Menace of Nuclear Proliferation. Rather than showing restraint and gaining respect from the international community for not succumbing to India’s instigations, Pakistan felt it was in their best interests to proceed with the Chagai tests. In short order, a predictably adverse international reaction followed. Economic sanctions were imposed by the U.S. and other countries, and UN Security Council Resolution 1172 strongly condemned both countries’ tests. In the Lahore Declaration, a historic bilateral agreement between India and Pakistan in February 1999, the BJP and PML parties committed to determining a peaceful resolution to the Kashmir conflicts that had plagued them for decades. By taking steps to reduce the risk of nuclear conflict, 8

the parties each took a significant domestic popular India’s intentions about how its atomic energy opinion hit by brokering a peace proposal with their research would be used were unclear. In 1948, after counterpart. While the PPP party supported the passing the Atomic Energy Act which established PML’s decision, the Pakistani army was vehemently the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, Prime against this agreement and decided to take this Minister Nehru remarked, “We must develop this situation into their own hands and occupy Indian atomic energy quite apart from war - indeed I think territory in Kashmir. The resulting fissure between we must develop it for the purpose of using it for Pakistan’s government and military resulted in the peaceful purposes.... Of course, if we are compelled Kargil War in May 1999, and almost brought India and as a nation to use it for other purposes, possibly no Pakistan to the brink of nuclear conflict once again. pious sentiments of any of us will stop the nation During the 1947 independence talks and the from using it that way.” One could look at India’s following Pakistani partition, Pakistan’s Muslim past and point to Mahatma Gandhi’s example of majority population was nonviolence in support of the premise of its creation. peaceful intentions, but the Thus, the state believed wars waged with Pakistan that Kashmir, a Muslim tell a different story. At the majority state, should time of the Partition, India be part of its territory. wanted to be a secular Through the lens of its nation. However, Hindu nationalist agenda, India nationalism has become did not want to define more and more prevalent itself as a Hindu nation, due to the conflict with but rather as a secular one. Pakistan, a Muslim nation. Having Kashmir as part Right wing, conservative of India would solidify political parties such India’s religiously tolerant as the Pakistan Muslim and inclusive aspiration, League and the BJP, which Barbara and Thomas is aligned with Hindu Metcalf write. This nationalist groups, have religious and territorial influenced public opinion struggle between the two and foreign policy stances. nations defined the IndoLately, tensions have Pakistani conflict for been growing in the Indira Gandhi the next seven decades. border region. According Photo by Wikimedia Commons Influence, respect, and to Arab News, an online aspirations to be a world publication, Pakistan leader also motivated recently tested its nuclearIndia’s path to become a nuclear power. This desire capable, submarine-launched cruise missile defined policy under the leadership of Indira Gandhi, (SLCM), named Babur, which provides Pakistan India’s first woman prime minister. Her influence and with “a credible second-strike capability.” India has direction is a primary factor behind India’s role as a a no-first-strike policy, while Pakistan does not, South Asian hegemonic power. She pushed India to but both countries remain on guard as each pushes be self-sufficient in food, and also led the country to the other to the edge. While attempts at peace and become the sixth nation to successfully manufacture and negotiations have been initiated multiple times, operate nuclear weapons through Operation Smiling the domestic politics and historical rivalry cannot Buddha. There is no doubt that India’s development of be forgotten. As long as each side feels the need nuclear weapons has given it a greater global standing. to fight for the prestige and dominance over the This feat, however, is only the beginning step in India’s other, no permanent solution can be achieved. journey to join the ranks of the top nations in the world. 9

Medication Access Isn’t Enough: Will your next donation actually fight AIDS?

By Alexandra Beem

HIV-outpatient clinic in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Photo by Alexandra Beem

A female nurse interviews a male patient at a USAID-sponsored HIV testing and counselling center in Hanoi. Photo by USAID. I spent the morning on a folding chair in an outpatient Human Immunodeficiency Virus clinic in Hanoi, Vietnam, watching as one hundred patients filed through to pick up another month’s prescription of anti-HIV medication. They walked up, got their file stamped by the kind Dr. Bao, spared a glance at the sweaty American in the corner, and received their pills without incident. In the seconds we had between patients, Dr. Bao explained that the clinic had become busier over the last few years. In 2014, the Joint United Nations Commission on HIV and AIDS announced their strategy for ending the HIV epidemic, making access to anti-HIV medication an international priority. The statistics are promising; by 2016, 77 percent of those who knew their HIV status had access to treatment. Unfortunately, accessing treatment is only helpful if the medication is working. As more and more people receive anti-HIV medication, the rate of viral resistance to these medications also rises. In 2017, 11 countries collected viral resistance data. Shockingly, six of 11

these countries reported that more than one in ten patients were unresponsive to the first round of treatment. It is essential that we prioritize drug resistance prevention alongside medication access in the fight against the HIV/AIDS epidemic. Over time, HIV kills off the majority of an infected person’s immune cells. Eventually, their weakened immune system can no longer defend against infections which a functional immune system could fight off easily; and, at this point patients are diagnosed with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome, or AIDS. These opportunistic infections kill patients with untreated AIDS. Dr. Bao’s patients were lined up for medication known as anti-retroviral therapy (ART). By preventing the virus from replicating in the body, ART decreases the amount of HIV circulating in an infected person’s bloodstream, limiting immune system damage. Effective ART is crucial to both prevention and treatment of the virus, as it dramatically reduces the risk of HIV transmission and can turn an AIDS diagnosis from

a death sentence into a manageable chronic illness. One woman had come to the clinic to get the results of her last viral load test, a blood test that would reveal the extent to which HIV was replicating in her body. There was nearly 50 times more HIV in her bloodstream than there should have been, given that she had been prescribed ART when she tested positive for HIV eight months ago. Dr. Bao discovered her medication made her nauseous, so she had stopped taking it on days when she had to work. She felt healthy and did not understand why missing a dose or two was a problem. Due to the rapid expansion of access to ART, overburdened clinical staff do not always have time to teach patients how to take their medication when it’s first prescribed. Unpleasant side effects, stigma, and simply forgetting to add ART to your schedule can make it really hard to adhere to ART and patients like this woman have not been told what is at stake if their adherence starts to slip. ART must be taken at the same time every day, to keep the drug concentration high enough to suppress viral replication, but not high enough to be toxic. Irregular administration of ART (missing between five percent and 10 percent of daily doses) causes the drug concentration in their bloodstream to drop between doses and allows the virus to replicate. HIV changes slightly each time it replicates so that each viral copy is different from the last. Every now and then, one of these mutations

Photo by NIAID

Viral resistance is a global issue, but it doesn’t have to be.

modifies the virus such that a specific anti-retroviral drug is no longer effective against it. When the patient resumes taking their ART, this resistant version of the virus will continue to proliferate. Patients with viral resistance risk developing AIDS and/or passing the resistant virus to others. Poor adherence is not just a problem in Vietnam; on average, a staggering 41 percent of North American patients skip at least one out of every 10 ART doses according to a 2011 study. That is 41 percent of patients risking developing AIDS and/or transmitting resistant virus. Additionally, the ease of international travel means that resistant HIV is not confined to the region in which it developed. Viral resistance is a global issue, but it doesn’t have to be. Treatment is becoming increasingly available and works when taken correctly. As organizations across the world provide funds to the scale up ART access, they need to ensure that new patients understand what optimal adherence looks like and why it matters. There is ongoing research into apps, pillboxes, and other strategies to help patients improve their adherence, hopefully before viral resistance develops. These strategies are important, but HIV positive people should have enough information to make informed decisions about how they take their ART in the first place. Effective anti-HIV campaigns need to pair increased medication access with corresponding funds for patient education, giving clinics the resources to prepare an influx of new patients for successful ART. The next time you donate to the fight against the AIDS epidemic, take a minute to read over the strategy of the organization you are considering. You can help to protect yourself, your community, and the world from resistant HIV by choosing an organization that prioritizes medication adherence and patient education, not just access. 12

Barriers to Reunification for North and South Korea

By Makiko Miyazaki

On April 27, 2018, North and South Korea signed a historic agreement called the Panmunjom Declaration for Peace, Prosperity, and Unification of the Korean Peninsula. This agreement, spearheaded by Kim Jong-un and President Moon Jae-in, declared the end of the Cold War hostility between the Koreas and called for groundbreaking policies for the peninsula’s future, such as the complete denuclearization of the peninsula; implementations of projects to ensure balanced economic growth and co-prosperity; and advancements in interKorean relations to “bring forward the future of coprosperity and unification,” including more reunion programs for families separated by the division. Among the many breakthroughs this agreement introduced, the theme of reunification is one of the most intriguing. While reunification has long been an idealized goal for both North and South Korean governments, up until now, the extent to which the states could and were willing to achieve reunification in real life faced much debate. Although much remains unclear today, this agreement ostensibly demonstrated to the world that both Koreas have a strong motivation to achieve reunification. Despite the will, there remains a multitude of factors that complicate implementing reunification in reality. In this article, I explore two of these factors: the ambivalent public attitude and the practical challenges of resolving political, economic, and linguistic differences. I note that while the Panmunjom Declaration may eventually reduce these factors, these factors have persisted for decades and so will not change overnight. Therefore, at the current point, I will examine what these factors have been before the Declaration. The Korean peninsula was divided at the end of World War II when Imperial Japan surrendered and Korea ceased to be its colony. The Soviet Union and the United States divided the peninsula into two and occupied the north and south respectively. Yet neither North Korea nor South Korea recognized each other’s 13

government, and during the Cold War, North Korea invaded South Korea to unify the peninsula. This war, called the Korean War, only reinforced the borders, and the peninsula has remained divided ever since. So far, the differing attitudes towards reunification between the north and the south, as well as between generations, has acted as a theoretical barrier to reunification. The North Korean government has consistently employed reunification rhetoric over the last seven decades for several reasons. First, such rhetoric, emphasizing that North and South Koreans are of one people split by outside forces, appealed to the population’s ethnic nationalism. The government would hope that such nationalism reinforced its legitimacy. Second, reunification could address North Korea’s geopolitical insecurity. North Korea has been diplomatically isolated, surrounded by states that it considers hostile. South Korea is one of such states, largely because it hosts American military personnel and anti-ballistic missile defense system THAAD. Reunification could ostensibly reduce this threat from South Korea. Scholars believed security to be an especially salient motive for the rhetoric in the recent months, in which Kim Jong-un expressed

Photo by Comrade Anatolii

willingness to engage in diplomatic talks with South Korea. They proposed that, by inducing cooperation from South Korea, North Korea may be attempting to drive a wedge between South Korea and its allies, notably the U.S. and Japan. On the other hand, the South Korean government under Moon Jae-in has been committed to reunification with the North, at least in terms of political rhetoric. Moon, a progressive, has promoted inter-Korean dialogue to solve economic, political, and nuclear issues. A number of his fellow progressives in government have opposed the division of the peninsula and promoted a peaceful reunification process through economic and social exchanges. Moon and his government have arguably considered reunification both as a possible policy and a practical strategy to establish common ground with North Korea that facilitates negotiations on solving inter-Korean issues. There are not enough declassified sources available to me to fully analyze the attitude of ordinary North Korean citizens towards reunification. However, there is information for South Koreans, and it demonstrates a generational gap in support for reunification. Many older South Koreans—who remember or know people who remember the predivision Korea—have supported reunification. They have often considered their North Korean counterparts as brethren. In their view, South Koreans and North Koreans are the same people who must not be separated. Meanwhile, many young South Koreans have been apathetic and have even opposed reunification. One reason is that many do not respond to the fact

that North and South Koreans share the same ethnic heritage. After decades of separation, in which there were nuclear and diplomatic threats from the North Korean regime, many considered North Korea as a completely separate entity that they were reluctant to deal with. In part because of this, 71.2 percent of South Koreans in their 20s opposed reunification, according to the government-run Korea Institute for National Unification based in Seoul. Another reason is that many young South Koreans placed more importance on domestic issues such as unemployment than on the large-scale, costly, and hypothetical operation of reunification. This apathy was exacerbated by the large difference in wealth and political systems between the Koreas: a gap that, for many, is too large to be reconciled. In part because of this perception, 24.7 percent of South Koreans did not believe reunification to be possible, according to the 2017 Unification Perception Survey conducted by Seoul National University’s Institute for Peace and Unification Studies. Even if reunification was possible, many young South Koreans were reluctant to take on the responsibility. As 22-yearold college student Park Min-cheol expressed, “I personally wouldn’t welcome reunification because it would create a burden for us, as we would have to help rebuild the North Korean economy.” From a practical standpoint, reunification is made difficult by the political, economic, and linguistic differences that must be reconciled. If the two Koreas reunite, the governments must decide what political system they would adopt for the new unified state. Will the unified Korea operate under the South Korean democratic system, the North Korean authoritarianism, or a hybrid of the two systems? Since neither government is willing to step down, the choice of political system would depend largely on which of the two Koreas has the greater power in the reunification process. This could result in inter-Korean competition for influence. (Some people look to the North Korean defectors who live in South Korea and are in politics to be the leaders of the unified Korea. However, there are also issues: North Korea is unlikely to accept defectors as legitimate leaders.) Even after a political system is determined, there would be challenges as the new government guides the political transition. For instance, if the unified Korea were to adopt a democratic system, 14

Photo by coolloud the government must instill political efficacy in the North Korean population, promote civic education on how to participate in a democracy, and aid with logistics such as voter registration. The government must also pass anti-discriminatory laws and ensure strict adherence to them. If there was to be a hybrid of the two political systems, then the governments must engage in a long and arduous negotiation process. Regardless of what political system the unified Korea would adopt, the transition would be long and bring about political instability. As aforementioned, there is an enormous economic gap between North and South Korea. According to the CIA World Factbook, while North Korea’s GDP in 2017 was $40 billion and 118th in the world, South Korea’s GDP was more than $2 trillion and 15th in the world. In terms of GDP per capita, North Korea’s was $1,700 in 2015 and 214th in the world, while South Korea’s was $37,500 and 45th in the world. Reunification means that there must be reconciliation between the South Korean and North Korean economies. Granted, the difference between the economic systems is not black and white capitalism and socialism: raw capitalism is gaining strength in North Korea. But the fact remains that the two countries have operated for decades under very different economic systems and practices, and converging them takes time, money, and effort. Additionally, the total level of output in the economy would change when North and South Korean economic systems converge. There must also be governmentled efforts to help reduce income inequality between North and South Koreans, which is arduous and may lead to opposition from South Koreans. In the seven decades of separation, the Korean language has evolved differently in North and South 15

Korea. The “North Korean” Korean and the “South Korean” Korean have different dialects, different words, and different pronunciations, which could hinder mutual understanding between North and South Koreans after reunification. Moreover, because of these linguistic differences, South Koreans could easily recognize North Koreans and vice versa. This could be used in social stigmatization, which would impede the efforts to bridge the emotional gap between the North and South Koreans. Exacerbating this is the fact that the “South Korean” Korean has incorporated a significant number of English words into their vocabulary, while this is not the case in “North Korean” Korean. Take the example of North and South joint women’s hockey team at the 2018 PyeongChang Olympics. When the South Koreans’ use of English words hindered communication between the North and South Korean athletes, their solution was to create a list with the English terms used by the South Koreans and their counterparts in “North Korean” Korean. However, it is extremely costly if not impractical to draft a similar standardized list for the entire Korean language if reunification were to occur; the government must introduce other solutions. Thus, the linguistic barrier could bring about a serious challenge to reunification. The ambivalent public attitude and practical barriers in resolving differences complicate the implementation of reunification. However, with the groundbreaking Panmunjom Declaration, reunification may not remain pure rhetoric after all. It is too early to tell whether the peninsula will be unified in the future, and if so, to what extent. But we know that the Panmunjom Declaration has ushered in a new era in the Korean peninsula, one whose historic nature cannot be understated.

Make in India: Modi’s Economic Reforms and the FDI Dilemma

By Mallika Sarupria

In 2016, Narendra Modi, the current Prime economic reforms. According to the Financial Times, Minister of India tweeted, “Key reform decisions between October 2014 and March 2017, FDI inflows were taken at a high-level meeting chaired by the were $99.72 billion, which is a 30 percent increase PM, which makes India the most open economy in in FDI inflows since the period between April 2012 the world for FDI.” This tweet refers to the “Make to September 2014, when the policies of Modi’s in India” initiative and reflects the importance predecessor, Manmohan Singh,were still in place. of Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in Modi’s Before the 1990s, India had a tightly-regulated, economic agenda. This initiative is aimed at centralized economy. However, high levels of inflation boosting the Indian manufacturing sector through and political strife along with a balance-of-payments the manufacture of products destined for both the crisis incentivized Prime Minister Narasimha Rao to Indian and international initiate liberalization to improve markets. It has loosened India’s international credibility. up restrictions on foreign These economic reforms focused investments in sectors like on opening up the Indian railway, defense, construction, economy to encourage FDI in aviation, and retail and order to increase competition and created an environment that stimulate industrial development. allows investors to invest with To increase FDI inflows, the ease. To further facilitate and government made modifications improve the ease of investing Narendra Modi, in the sectoral composition, and to reduce time lags, Photo by Kannada Times Photo Gallery sources and entry routes of FDI. the Modi government has The level of foreign ownership in also abolished the Foreign Investment Promotion these sectors was initially set at 51 percent but was Board (FIPB), which primarily worked to approve then increased to 74 percent in 1997. Previously, FDI proposals. These FDI reforms stem from most FDI was focused on the manufacturing Modi’s pro-investment and pro-growth approach sector. Liberalization, however, led to an increase and are aimed at increasing domestic employment in FDI to services and infrastructural sectors and a and production to stimulate economic growth. subsequent decrease in the manufacturing sector. For a developing country like India, attracting FDI Furthermore, the FIPB was created as a body that inflows is important because it facilitates economic would solely handle all FDI-related matters. It would growth and development by bringing in capital be responsible for facilitating the process of foreign and consequently filling in the gaps prevalent in investment by acting as a mediator for investors, the domestic economy. These aforementioned FDIreviewing proposals and creating rules and regulations focused initiatives and policies are a continuation that would guide investments into the country. Along of the economic reforms aimed at liberalizing the with this, there was a dual-approval system set up for Indian economy that begun in the early 1990s. In the FDI proposals. This included an automatic approval 25 years since liberalization, the Indian government channel for FDI in 35 sectors through the Reserve has implemented economic reforms aimed at Bank of India (RBI) and a government approval increasing FDI inflows to stimulate economic route through the FIPB and the Ministry of Finance. growth, to boost domestic capital, technology Another important change brought about by and skills and to increase employment. Modi liberalization was that FDI inflows into India were has accelerated the pace and magnitude of these now in the form of mergers and acquisitions of 16

existing Indian companies by foreign companies. This change had significant effects on the generation of knowledge, creation of productive capital and competitiveness of firms because instead of building their own operations and factories, foreign companies were now acquiring existing Indian companies. When Modi came to power, he inherited an economy that had seen one of its lowest growth rates in a decade and had been branded as one of the “Fragile Five” countries. Due to this, many foreign investors were uncertain about investing in India as they were unsure whether investing in the world’s largest democracy was a gamble or an opportunity. Therefore, Modi claimed in a speech in 2014 that his FDI policy would focus on “two FDI’s—First Develop India and Foreign Direct Investment.” According to his speech, “for Indians FDI is a responsibility” and “for global investors FDI is an opportunity in the form of foreign direct investment.” In order to stimulate FDI inflows into the country, Modi sought to further liberalize the economy by setting two main goals that stemmed from his ideology of “Minimum Government, Maximum Governance.” Firstly, he wanted to boost the manufacturing sector through increased FDI inflows to create more employment, stimulate economic growth and have beneficial spillover effects on other sectors in the economy. To do so, he aimed to increase the production of the manufacturing sector to 25 percent of the Indian GDP by 2020. Secondly, Modi also wanted to improve the ease of investing for foreign investors and create a reliable and efficient investment environment. Modi introduced the “Make in India” policy to achieve these aims by opening up more sectors for FDI, increasing sectoral caps and further easing existing FDI regulations. This policy focused on creating jobs and honing skills in 25 sectors, which include both labor and capital-intensive sectors. Furthermore, a report by the Indian Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) stated that the FDI cap was increased to 100 percent in many more sectors to encourage investment from abroad and give investors unrestricted access to these industries. Some notable examples of such sectors are defense, civil aviation, railways, construction, medical devices, and trading of food products (through e-commerce). To increase the ease of investing, the Modi government also made changes to the FDI policy by putting many sectors under 17

the automatic approval route to make the process of investing quicker. Now, more than 91 percent of FDI inflows come through the automatic route. Modi’s economic reforms have been focused and specific in their approach to increasing FDI as compared to previous reforms; however, these reforms have failed to achieve some of their initial goals of expanding the manufacturing sector and creating employment. According to an article in The Wire, the data on FDI inflows and GDP growth shows that while FDI inflows are increasing every year, the GDP growth levels have stagnated from 9.2 percent in 2016 to 5.7 percent in 2017. This is because the increase in FDI is more focused on investments that are facilitating the growth of startups and non-manufacturing companies. Startups are predominantly based in urban, metropolitan cities and usually employ individuals with higher skill sets who are technically proficient. Unlike the manufacturing sector, startups operate at a smaller scale and therefore cannot employ large numbers of people. Due to this, they only employ a small portion of the Indian workforce. This raises the question of whether Modi’s reforms are actually effective in achieving their initial aim of stimulating investments in the manufacturing sector to increase employment. According to The Hindu, the manufacturing sector has only grown 1.6 percent in the five years leading to 2015-2016, and there has been a decline in the sector in the early months of 2017. An important critique made by the previous RBI director, Raghuram Rajan, elucidates how FDI and export-led growth are not suitable as India is very different from countries like China, where such a policy has been effective. Export-led growth expands markets and firms and

Photo by narendramodiofficial consequently widens the gap between who benefits and who suffers. This is because these large firms employ individuals with skill sets that the average uneducated Indian does not possess, and they produce goods and services that benefit more educated, urban areas. This creates a disconnect between what Modi’s reforms are achieving and what the Indian economy, as well as the average Indian, needs. The manufacturing sector, unlike other sectors, can create enormous opportunities for employment because it doesn’t require the producer and consumer to be in the same place at the same time. Other than that, the manufacturing sector is also an ideal transformational sector for agricultural workers who want to transition from low-skilled to more valueadded jobs. Thus, manufacturing is important for a country like India where the population is constantly expanding and the agriculture sector accounts for a large percentage of employment. Additionally, according to the National Manufacturing Policy 2011, for every job created in the manufacturing sector, another two to three jobs are created in the services sector. However, since the policy has failed to substantially increase FDI inflows into the manufacturing sector, it has not been able to stimulate a significant amount of job creation. Thus, the inherent problem with Modi’s reforms is not its focus on increasing FDI but instead its inability to attract investments into the manufacturing sector. To encourage more FDI inflows into the manufacturing sector, the Modi government needs to adopt policies that enhance productivity within the sector and consequently create more incentives for foreign investors. According to a survey conducted by Ernst & Young, some of the things that foreign

investors seek in India are high potential of the domestic market, cost competitiveness and access to a highly-qualified workforce. To increase FDI, the Modi government needs to specifically provide incentives to foreign investors in certain manufacturing sectors where India is largely an importer, for example electronic equipment, automobiles, telecom equipment and mobile telephones. To do so, Modi would need to provide investors with land at subsidized rates and tax incentives which would reduce their production costs and achieve cost competitiveness. This would allow foreign investors to set up factories and produce these goods in India and subsequently take advantage of the domestic market. To further achieve cost competitiveness, the Modi government must focus on lowering production costs by developing infrastructure. This would facilitate quicker mechanization and utilization of technology and encourage large-scale manufacturing. As a result, foreign investors would be more interested in investing in the manufacturing sector as infrastructure development would not only enhance productivity but also give firms a competitive edge. Another important step would be loosening the legal and regulatory environment surrounding Indian labor reforms to allow successful utilization of labor. One example of a rigid labor law is the Industrial Disputes Act (IDA) of 1947 which covers all industrial disputes and prevents firms with 100 or more employees from firing anyone. This makes it impossible for firms to fire unproductive workers and reduces overall labor productivity, preventing manufacturing firms from growing. By altering such labor reforms, the government will make highly skilled workers more accessible and therefore encourage investors to invest in the manufacturing sector. Overall, Modi’s economic reforms, unlike the previous liberalization reforms, have been more specifically focused on targeting FDI inflows and therefore have been successful in increasing the overall FDI inflows into the economy. However, despite this, Modi’s reforms have not been consistent with the goals of attaining economic prosperity through job creation as they have been unable to boost the manufacturing sector. Thus, it is important for the Modi government to alter the existing policies in a way that will allow them to create more incentives for FDI investment in the manufacturing sector and consequently stimulate job creation. 18

How We Got Here: The 2018 Brazilian Election

By Martina Silva

For most of Brazil’s recent history, the Workers’ Party (PT) and the man who brought it to life— Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, a former president better known as Lula — defined Brazilian politics. This was the case until April 8, 2018, when Lula lost his last appeal before the Brazilian Supreme Federal Court. All of this occured right before the first presidential election since the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, who was Lula’s handpicked successor. Dilma Rousseff was a year into her second term, after which Lula was expected to be the PT’s candidate—a goal he is now prohibited by federal law to fulfill. The impact of these events is compounded by the political trend seen in Italy’s Matteo Salvini, France’s Marine Le Pen, and across Europe and the U.S., where far-right populist candidates have gained power. Such a trend puts a strain on the young Brazilian democracy—one that was already under pressure from the weight of Lula’s many televised trials, the tense 26 hours where Lula refused to turn himself into the police, and his zealous supporters. This weight continues to

create a wider divide and polarization in Brazil’s political climate, where the left and right battle armed with conspiracy theories surrounding Lula. To fully understand the current situation in Brazil, it is important to grasp Lula’s unique place in recent Brazilian history. Lula was the hero of a leftist camp that developed under threats from the military regime of the 1970s lasting through the 1980s, one that largely consisted of Socialist student movements, Communist Guerrillas, antimilitary complacence, and populist figures. Lula embodied the ideals of populism; he was a “man of the people” who came from humble beginnings, worked to become a mechanic, lost a finger in the process, and became a voice for the voiceless. His campaign for social programs and aid for the ignored and impoverished garnered support from many prominent leftists who came to represent the opposition to the oncoming dictatorship. Famous artists like Chico Buarque, Gal Costa, and another 34 musicians even recorded his presidential campaign jingle, “Lula Lá.” All of this culminated in

Lula’s supporters reaching for him Photo by Francisco Proner Ramos 19

his rise to power and subsequent initial presidential campaign in 1989, the second democratic election since the end of the military dictatorship. Lula ultimately narrowly lost the election to Fernando Collor de Mello, who was later impeached on corruption charges and remains an important political figure as a senior senator in the National Congress of Brazil. Despite his loss, Lula remained active in national politics, helping the party he built—the PT—continue to win elections and grow in number of participants. Lula was eventually elected on a populist platform that foreshadowed the rise of figures like Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn by 14 years, both of whom have given some form of statement in support of Lula. After two terms as president, Lula left Brazil with an 11.4 percent decrease in abject poverty, and increases across the board in monthly income per capita, average years of schooling, and access to basic sanitation. This was mostly due to his vast expansion and creation of safety-net governmental programs. However, critics have pointed out that his administration both benefited from favorable national economic trends left by his predecessor, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and emerged relatively unscathed from the worldwide 2008 financial crisis, especially given the volatility of the Brazilian economy. Lula was the most popular president in the history of the country, with an 87 percent approval in 2010, his last year in office. After this, many wondered if his approval was due to his natural charisma and inspiring story or to the booming economy and Brazil’s history of populism. Although there is some doubt with regards to the transfer of personal popularity, this matter seemed to be largely settled when his chosen successor, former Chief of Staff and Minister of Energy Dilma Rousseff, easily won the presidential election against a Tucano, a member of a popular centrist party. Rousseff did not appear to have the same political acumen as her predecessor, but contrary to popular belief, did seem to be relatively competent and was far more educated than Lula. She had a degree in economics and moved up the chain of command on her own, whereas Lula lacked a high school diploma. Still, critics and opponents constantly questioned her abilities, casting her as a symbol for the corruption and inefficiency of the system. Arguments surrounding the value of these charges and whether

they were centered on sexism or bad faith are endless, but they seemed to resonate with the public. It was impossible to ignore the decrease in popular support for the Workers’ Party under her leadership compared to its former glory under Lula. As what had been the party of change evolved into the establishment, its leaders became synonymous with corruption—both in reality and in public perception. Several corruption scandals emerged regarding Rousseff, the Lula administration, and the entire PT, which damaged the reputation of almost every level of government and almost every party. These scandals confirmed the suspicions most Brazilians had harbored, but never truly knew the scope of. The disaster began with Mensalão, the corruption scandal surrounding the PT’s schemes for power, in which officials exchanged congressional votes for “monthly stipends” for senators and congresspeople, subsidized with taxpayer money. Such exchanges led investigators to uncover an extremely wide variety of corruption scandals across both sides of the aisle, which was especially problematic because the PT had always campaigned on the basis of fighting the corruption of the status quo. The people had believed that Lula was not like Collor, and that he cared. This paradigm shift caused many Brazilians to feel disenfranchised and forced to go to the polls to vote between the lesser of two evils, with President Rousseff ’s reelection representing the PT’s status quo, and the other being a corrupt candidate with unpopular policies. Following the reelection of Rousseff, the Mensalão crisis developed into a much larger investigation called the Lava Jato, known in the U.S. as Operation Car Wash. This affected nearly every significant party present in the federal government, leading to a major political reshuffling to accommodate mass arrests of politicians and to calm public unrest. This, too, uncovered a significant arrangement made by the PT that laundered money through foreign contracts and the national oil giant, Petrobras, that not only sought to allow politicians to profit, but also financed the PT and kept it in power for as long as possible. It was in this investigation that the public learned of Lula’s triplex: a luxurious personal residence, bought with taxpayer money. To add to the chaos, a recession hit Brazil in 2015. Although there are many different conclusions to be reached regarding the cause of the recession, the most 20

Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, Photo by Marcello Casal Jr widely accepted view was that the recession was caused by a combination of the demise of Brazil’s largest company, Petrobras, in response to the corruption scandals that indicated an unstable government, and the Rousseff administration’s inability to adapt Lula’s previously successful policies to the changing and growing economy. Once the administration committed to solving these problems, they were not able to pass significant economic policy through Congress due to partisan gridlock and lacked the public support to apply pressure to the politicians. Essentially, this multilayered disaster culminated in extreme political polarization: Congress voted to impeach President Rousseff without actively agreeing on whether the charges brought forth against her constituted impeachable offenses, and left her largely unknown and unpopular vice president from an opposition party, Michel Temer, as the acting president. The main factor of divisiveness regarding the impeachment was not Rousseff ’s actual charges, but whether this should be considered a coup d’etat by the opposition party due to the unsubstantiated nature of the charges. This debate surrounding the impeachment came to represent many of the questions being asked in Brazil regarding the state of democracy and the role of the government in public life. Political divides between classes increased, with the lower classes holding on to Lula’s image and supporting the PT while the wealthier classes focused 21

on rejecting the PT. Inequality has always played a large role in Brazilian politics, as the entire country can be divided into disparate economic classes that rarely interact and have very little understanding of the other’s experiences and challenges. Lula’s entire career and the Workers’ Party’s platform were based on the idea that the living standards and inequality in the country were deeply wrong. They wanted to end widespread poverty and create redistribution programs, like Bolsa Familia, on which many lower class families came to depend on. Populism can arise from the far right or the far left. Today, Brazil’s populism is rising from both sides. While Lula represents the far left that used populism to gain power, and was then corrupted by the establishment into becoming the image of those he rebelled against, Jair Bolsonaro, a congressman from Rio de Janeiro, is the far right who has scapegoated minorities to create a platform. Before Lula’s arrest, he was set to win more votes than Bolsonaro. However, in a country where voting is mandatory and where many vote with almost no information regarding candidates, familiar names have a big impact. This is especially true in the second round of voting, when the two candidates with the largest share of the vote face off in a second round of mandatory voting. In a time defined by disdain for the status quo, when the current president has an approval rating of three percent and a low chance at winning, a second round vote is extremely probable. Meanwhile, the results of this second round are almost completely unpredictable. Jair Bolsonaro’s main strategy mimicked Trump’s in that he understood that he would be unable to acquire the necessary votes on the basis of the strength of his ideas, so he relied on anger towards Lula and the PT. According to recent developments, it is unclear how the PT will regain their power and who they will nominate. Bolsonaro is currently trying to remind Brazilians of the “good old days” when the country was under a military dictatorship. He has capitalized upon the despair in a country that finds itself with the murder rate of a war zone. This level of despair is emblematic of the current situation in Brazil, where many have lost hope in a their political system and find themselves forced into longing for dictatorial paradises and supporting the scapegoating of minorities to cope with one stressful question: who will the next president be?

The Power of Art in Ukraine

By Alexa Sydor-Czartorysky

“Culture is a bigger weapon than a machine gun,” Ukrainian artist Daniel Green tells CNN. He and fellow Ukrainian artist Daria Marchenko entered the international spotlight this past year for their collection, “Five Elements of War,” which features the portrait titled “The Face of War.” The menacing eyes and scowl of Russian President Vladimir Putin, the man largely seen as responsible for much of Ukraine’s turmoil, are portrayed in a seven-foottall portrait made of bullets from the Euromaidan Revolution. Marchenko and Green participated in this revolution in 2014 and their collection represents their resistance to Russia’s aggression. “Five Elements of War” is just one of many pieces of art following a trend set by protestors at the Euromaidan. This trend demonstrates how the threat of renewed Russian control spurred the celebration of Ukrainian culture and Ukrainian nationalism. To understand the current Ukraine-Russia dynamic and the importance of Ukrainian identity, it is imperative to consider the historical context behind the Ukrainian-Russian relationship. The two countries share a common origin in the Kievan-Rus, a loose federation of Slavic tribes that existed between the ninth and 13th centuries. For the last few centuries, different parts of Ukraine have been under both Tsarist and Soviet rule, with short periods of Ukrainian freedom. For much of Tsarist and Soviet rule, Ukrainians suffered censorship of culture that confined the Ukrainian identity to prevent any separatism and revolts. This carried special meaning because Ukrainians had a history of using art, literature, and music to express their nationalist desire for Ukrainian sovereignty. Beyond restriction of culture, from 1932 to 1933, Stalin implemented a forced starvation through collectivization of central Ukraine that led to millions of deaths to suppress any nationalism during the Holodomor (Голодомор). Although nationalism can invoke different interpretations today, the modern Ukrainian nationalism discussed in this article describes the sentiment among Ukrainians for Ukrainian sovereignty without

any Russian interference or aggression while celebrating and preserving Ukrainian culture. Because of this complex history, when Ukraine gained independence after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Ukrainian people debated whether Ukraine should remain aligned with Russia,

“The Face of War,” Photo by Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art or move towards Western Europe. Since 1991, Ukraine’s degree of allegiance has varied with every new president. However, in November 2013, then Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych broke his promise to sign a popular Association Agreement with the European Union, in order to enter negotiations for Russian oil with Putin. Hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians reacted to Yanukovych’s betrayal by protesting in what is now known as the Euromaidan. The Euromaidan started as a peaceful protest on the Independence Square (Maidan Nezalezhnosti/ Майдан Незалежності), in Kyiv, the capital. Many 22

Ukrainians viewed the Association Agreement as a positive step toward a closer relationship to the European Union and toward the promise of Western prosperity. Yanukovych’s decision to favor Putin for discounted Russian oil signaled that Ukraine’s already weak economy would become even more dependent on Russia, which many Ukrainians feared would mean more Russian control over Ukraine, a state they had only recently escaped after the fall of the Soviet Union. After videos showing Berkut police violently suppressing protesters in late November, the movement quickly gained momentum and spread across the country. Unfortunately, governmentsanctioned violence also erupted, turning the protests into riots and killing over 130 people, most of whom were protesters and are today remembered as the “Heavenly Hundred” (Nebesna Sotnya/Небесна сотня). The revolution concluded in late February of 2014 when Yanukovych and his allies fled Ukraine, the 2004 Constitution was restored, and new elections were organized. Shortly afterwards, Russia annexed Crimea, a peninsula with a strategically important warm water port and an ethnically Russian majority, an action condemned by world leaders around the globe. The Euromaidan’s legacy can be seen today in the war in Eastern Ukraine and in Ukrainian artistic and cultural movements, a prominent form of which is graffiti. Several artists expressed their discontent for Yanukovych’s regime by creating political murals that specifically targeted Putin and Yanukovych or spread pro-Ukrainian sentiment. Ukrainian artist #Sociopath’s three-mural project depicts portraits of major Ukrainian literary figures with street fighter gear. One particular mural is of the nineteenth century poet and political figure Taras Shevchenko, reading what essentially translates to “Fire does not burn the resilient and determined” (Vohon zapeklykh ne peche/Вогонь запеклих не пече). Ukrainians also expressed their discontent with the Yanukovych regime through impactful performance art. During the protests, dozens of members of the group “Civil Sector of Maidan” formed a line in front of riot police with mirrors

The Kingdom of Darkness is Surrendered Photo by Lorenz Seidler in their hands, some of which contained the words “God, is it me?” in a performance called The Kingdom of Darkness is Surrendered. Maria Dragina, a Ukrainian screenwriter, organized Ukrainian Women Against a Future of Slavery, where a group of women approached a government building carrying children’s toys, clothes, and shoes and proceeded to throw them, to represent how the Ukrainian government threw away the future of Ukrainian children when Parliament passed laws that took away Ukrainians’ civil rights. The construction of the Artistic Barbican, a wooden structure built by Dmytro Zhyla, best exemplifies the importance of artistic expression. Originally for defensive purposes, the Artistic Barbican soon became a venue for poetry, lectures, and posters showing Kyiv-based artists, but more importantly, it became a safe space for artists to express their discontent and to inspire others. When Ukrainian police killed the first three protesters on January 22, 2014, artists responded with representative and practical art fueled by grief. Street artists like Jerzy Konopie reacted by

Artists responded with representative and practical art fueled by grief.


Photo by Lorenz Seidler installing nine full scale human silhouette targets in front of the barricade where these first protesters were shot. The designs on each target represent the civilian nature of the protestors, as the first vest says “Press” (Presa/Преса) and the second shows a first responder vest. Along this same line of design, two Kyiv-based artists Andriy Zelinsky and Oleg Tistol supplied protesters with proper defense gear designed with art criticizing the Yanukovych regime as pictured above in an art exhibit. The resurgence of Ukrainian culture during the Euromaidan awakened an artistic movement that lasted longer than the revolution. This influence can best be seen in young local artistic organizations like the Mural Social Club and Art United Us, which have organized for international artists to visit and paint beautiful murals. Some were clearly political like the one by Portuguese artist Alexandre Farto, also known as Vhils, who painted Serhiy Nigoyan, the first protester shot dead during the Euromaidan, a tragedy that united Ukrainians from all walks of life in grief and anger. The portrait reminds passers-by of the “Heavenly Hundred,” forever keeping them in memory. Similar to the Euromaidan art discussed earlier, other artists in the movement used Ukrainian historical figures to call upon Ukrainian national

identity and the appreciation of Ukrainian culture. Australian artist Guido van Helten painted Lily of the Valley, a portrait of Lesya Ukrainka, famous Ukrainian poet, playwright, political activist and feminist, thereby revitalizing her national importance, especially since van Helten named the mural after Ukrainka’s first published poem, written at age 13. Because the Russian tsar had forbidden the publishing of Ukrainian literature, Ukrainka’s poems were published secretly and under a pseudonym. In the mural, she is holding an bird cage that represents Russian control, but, because it is open, the mural signifies the freeing of Ukraine, represented by the birds. Other murals called for Ukrainian unity. The mural by French artist Seth Globepainter shows two people wearing Ukrainian flags on their shirts while linked by the strings of the tryzub (тризуб), a symbol of Ukrainian independence. This work represents that Ukrainians are stronger when united. Another mural celebrating Ukrainian culture is in central Kyiv and says “Peace to Ukraine!” (Myr Ukrayiny!/Мир Україні!). It depicts a family of storks, Ukraine’s national bird, set on the background of a Ukrainian flag, along with other Ukrainian symbols, such as the red berries (kalyna/калина) and the rushnyk (рушник), a embroidered ritual cloth. By representing Ukrainian 24

Mural of Serhyi Nigoyan by Alexandre Farto, Photo by Nykola Vynogradov culture, the mural represents the strengthening of Ukrainian culture in face of Russian aggression. The continuation of the Euromaidan’s cultural influence went beyond painted murals and conventional visual art with the creation of reactionary movies and songs about the Euromaidan and the current war in eastern Ukraine. The documentary about the Euromaidan called Winter on Fire was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Feature Documentary in 2016. Ukrainian, but ethnically Tatar, singer Jamala won the 2016 Eurovision Song Contest with her ballad “1944,” about Stalin’s deportation of Crimean Tatars in 1944. This song not only criticized Stalin’s deportation of Tatars from Crimea, but also implicitly referenced Putin’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which marked another time in history when a Russian authoritarian leader takes control of a Tartarian region. By writing and performing “1944,” Jamala has shined light not only on historical issues, but also on current political issues in Ukraine. Unfortunately, like many other regions in the world, American media has forgotten about Ukraine. Although mainstream media covered the 2014 proRussia separatist movement in Eastern Ukraine and the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 that a Russian-built missile shot down while flying over the war-torn 25

region, people have forgotten that the War in Donbass continues. The conflict began as pro-Russia protests, in response to the Euromaidan, and escalated to a separatist movement. Since then, the death toll has reached 10,000 and aid agencies say that over four million people have been directly affected by the conflict with credible allegations that Putin’s regime supplied weapons and manpower to the separatists. Although Moscow and Kyiv signed the 2015 Minsk ceasefire agreement, each side has violated it several times and the promised constitutional re-integration with Ukraine and elections have not happened. Millions of Ukrainian citizens have been forgotten in this region and there appears to be no end in sight. The Euromaidan gave many Ukrainians hope that their country would soon be able to prosper economically and democratically like many Western European countries. However, that hope dwindled each month Ukrainian government corruption and the War in Donbass persisted. In the face of Putin’s aggression, Ukrainians find it difficult to have faith in their government, as well as in their country’s future. However, just as art carried morale during the Euromaidan, artists revive the hopeless today through political statements and celebration of culture.

The Wellesley Globalist Spring Lecture

Inspired by the college’s Sustainability Year, imposes vary by location and socioeconomic status, encouraging renewed focus on sustainable practices transitioning smoothly into the discipline of social science and allowing Professor Keskin to speak on campus, The Wellesley Globalist invited on the subject. Keskin is a microeconomist who Assistant Professor of Biological Sciences Jaclyn researches the effects of environmental challenges Matthes and Assistant Professor of Economics on decision-making in both developing and Pinar Keskin to speak about climate change and developed countries. Her current research focuses sustainable access to natural resources. Their specifically on water availability and access and respective talks, while broaching different topics its effect on land values and agricultural practices. from different disciplines, were connected by their In our lecture, Keskin introduced students to her interpretation of our issue’s theme and by their research on the Ogallala aquifer in the U.S. Plains. focus on adaptation to changes in the environment. The aquifer was formed from the run off of the Rocky An ecologist studying feedbacks between climate Mountains, and irrigation technology developed after change and ecosystem processes, Professor Matthes World War II allowed existing farmers to access this began the lecture with a simple explanation of the historic water source for the first time. She studied the difference between climate and weather: Climate is ways in which farmers slow and weather is changed their behavior fast. While scientists when given access studying climate to Ogallala, and how change are tracking their output differed slow processes, there from counties without are imminent shifts in access in terms of how weather that make it they adapted to years difficult but necessary of drought. Until the to adjust our behavior. 1970s, there was little Matthes argues that change in the crops the primary concern at that the counties the moment is weather with new access to variability, because it Ogallala produced, makes it difficult to but slowly these prepare for the effects Professor Matthes (left) and Professer Keskin (right) counties shifted to of climate change. more water-intensive crops. However, in shifting She describes climate change’s impacts through to water-intensive crops, farmers decreased their the analogy of a child eating a cupcake; there is an ability to adapt to imminent climate variability. increase in energy in the environment that leads Matthes’s lecture encompassed the theme to a large outburst rather than a slow burning of throughout, exploring the ways in which an energy. There is an increase in both the mean and event that seems slow to progress can have variability in terms of temperature. Stressing her immediate consequences. Keskin examined argument, Matthes said, “Uncertainty in the timing how people changed their behavior due to new and location of weather disasters caused by climate technologies. The lecture ended on a positive change make adaptation imminently necessary.” note: Humans can adapt their behavior to prepare Matthes ended her lecture on the note that for the imminent impacts of climate change. the impact of climate change and the risks that it 26

Interested in learning more about The Wellesley Globalist? Follow us on Facebook and visit our website at https://wellesleyglobalist.org/

Join the team and contribute next semester!

Spring 2018 Staff

Profile for Wellesley Globalist

The Wellesley Globalist: Volume VI, Issue 2 "Imminent"  

The Wellesley Globalist: Volume VI, Issue 2 "Imminent"