Belonging

WUPR Washington University Political Review

BELONGING

36.2 APRIL 2022 WUPR.ORG

Table of Contents 6

Belonging Rated PG for Parent-Gated Jason Liu

18

National STL: Budget Millions, Spend Fractions?

Alejandro Ramirez

28

International Putin's Challenge to the World Phillip Lisun

9

Safe Spaces: Helping or Hindering?

Celia Rattner

19

Theme Art Eric Kim

30

Critical Context: Russo-Ukrainian War Hussein Amuri

10

A Seat at the Activist Table Bonnie Segel

20

How Democrats Won Redistricting Rishi Samarath

32

Context for the Russo-Ukrainian War Jordan Simmons

12

What is Tribalism?

Emily Woodruff

21

Theme Art Mei Liu

34

Nato Threatens World Peace and Security Jaden Lanza

14

We Need Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices Sean Chopa

22

Lobbying and Lies, Corporations and Climate Change Matthew Shepetin

15

Theme Art Ethan Loderstedt

24

Book Bans Are Back Alaina Baumohl

16

The Inevitability of Climate Refugees Lara Briggs

26

How Americans Turned Against Interventionism Will Gunter

27

Theme Art Caroline Weinstein

Editors' Note Executive Directors Alaina Baumohl Claudia Bermudez Editors-in-Chief Jaden Lanza Megan Orlanski Design Director Catherine Ju Assistant Design Directors Eric Kim Shonali Palacios Design Leads Lea Despotis Leslie Liu Jinny Park Staff Editors Sophie Conroy Christian Monzòn Oliver Rosand Jack Waterhouse Features Editors Shonali Palacios Treasurer Larry Liu Web Editors Adler Bowman Evan Trabitz Social Media Editor Harry Campbell Podcast Editors Alaina Baumohl Alejandro Ramirez Erin Ritter Leah Witheiler

Front Cover Megan Orlanski Theme Spread Ben Eskenazi Back Cover Carlos Cepeda

Dear Reader, As much as I have spent the last year joking about my supposed “retirement” from WUPR, now that the time has come for me to write my last Editor’s Note as Editor-in-Chief, I can’t help but feel verklempt, the Yiddish word for “overcome with emotion.”

It is only fitting that this issue’s theme is “Belonging,” when I am so grateful to have spent the past four years being part of this community that continuously encourages me, teaches me, and pushes me to expand my perspectives. Of course, it is clear that I only got this job because of my uncanny ability to be extremely corny at all times.

As I sat in what feels like our first real salon in ages, I am reminded of the incredible people who make up this organization, who come together to discuss issues with both near and far implications, who design artwork that speaks to these issues and formulate creative expressions of our writer’s ideas, and who work tirelessly to make sure the voices of our peers are heard and given a platform.

In this intense period of mounting tensions on the global stage, where geopolitical conflicts are continuously resulting in an unstable and dangerous international climate, we must all look for ways in which we can forge connections with one another, uninhibited by distances whether literal or figurative.

Celia Rattner examines the spaces in which belonging is promoted within academia, and the function and role of “safe spaces” amidst recent developments within academic institutions. Hussein Amuri discusses belonging in relation to Ukrainian refugees and argues that ethnocentrism is central to Europe’s acceptance of Ukrainian refugees and its refusal of non-European refugees historically.

On the national stage, Sean Chopra argues for term limits for Supreme Court Justices and how reforms should be implemented. Rishi Samarth discusses changes to Democrats’ efforts at redistricting that are changing the political landscape in certain regions.

Internationally, Jordan Simmons contextualizes the conflict in Ukraine amidst larger and longer legacies of violence in the area. Lara Briggs discusses the future in her piece on climate refugees, where she argues for increased attention on forced migration due to natural disasters and climatic shifts.

Belonging can take on many different iterations, it is never complete, its scope is constantly re-defined and its contents are continuously rewritten. Just as the mosaic on our cover, we incorporate the many facets of ourselves and our campus into this publication, and I will always be grateful for the chance WUPR has given me to feel a sense of belonging with each of you.

As Ever, Megan Orlanski Editor-in-Chief

4

WU Political Review

Belonging

5

P

arents are the role models and the gatekeepers of our adulthood. At least, that is premise upon which a growing political shift relies upon. As of writing, the Florida legislature has passed HB 1557, otherwise known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill, which seeks to set age limits for classroom discussions on sexual and gender identity. Parents are made the self-enforcers of this law, entitled to seek injunctive relief if schools violate the policy and demand schools disclose knowledge of their children’s LGBT+ orientation, whether or not the child wishes for them to know. On the opposite side of the coin, Texas Governor Greg Abbott has declared that parents who support their children with gender-affirming medical care must be reported as child abusers under state law.

Whether parents are empowered or policed, parents are seen as having the power to determine what their child can do, and as an implication, what they can be.

These brazen political moves may be new, but the role of parents as gatekeepers of children’s coming of age is systematically ingrained into our culture. Where this couldn’t be more apparent is arguably the same place children look towards for an alternative understanding of

what they can do and can be: film.

Since its establishment in 1968, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)’s ratings system has been the standard for the content rating of over 30,000 movies. Its initial introduction theoretically freed filmmakers to write LGBT characters as they pleased so long as it was rated properly, in contrast to the previous Production Code that forbid portrayals of “sex perversion” … but you and I both know what that was actually code for.

The thing is that this was initially a four-letter system: G for general audiences, M for mature audiences, R for restricted audiences (no people under age 17 without accompaniment), and X (now labeled as NC-17) for only those 18 and older. However, the M category has since seen multiple changes to adjust and clarify the definition of a “mature” movie. The end result was the creation of two specific categories: PG and PG-13, the former cautioning “parental guidance” of showing this kind of film to children, and the latter further warning of the inclusion of material potentially inappropriate for children younger than 13. The system designed to draw a line between youth and maturity in film has

instead passed on that discerning responsibility to, you guessed it, parents.

What you may not be aware of is just how literal that responsibility is. Every movie submitted to be rated is reviewed by a board of eight to thirteen raters. To be clear: there is only one board.

The decisions they make, while not binding, might as well be final, with only 1.4% of rated films having ever been appealed and only 0.6% overturned afterwards.

With this much influence concentrated in so few people, the board’s identities are for the most part hidden from the public, but they have one known commonality: they are all parents. In fact, they are required to be such, with children of ages 5-15 when they first join, moving to the Los Angeles area for the job. Once their children turn 21 however, they must step down from their position. There’s an underlying assumption to this policy: only parents active in their roles as guardians of maturity for their own children are “qualified” to play such roles for the movie industry at large.

The criteria for the ratings are just as opaque as the raters themselves. However, a 2015 study

What gives parents the right to deny their children queer representation because their children are too young for it, but in the same breath, accept exposure to heteronormative sex as a part of growing up?

6

WU Political Review

commissioned by the Classification and Rating Administration on parents in general serves as a useful frame of reference, considering that 80% of those surveyed expressed trust in the rating system’s accuracy. Out of a list of content parents were asked to rank, sexual content was the most cited as something they would refuse to let their children see (80%), followed by full male nudity (71%), use of hard drugs (70%), full female nudity (70%), and graphic violence (64%). If parents are the gatekeepers of maturity, they seal away sexual imagery with an extra padlock.

To single out sexual content as a particularly heinous taboo is in the process denying a frame of reference for teenagers in the process of exploring their own identity and sexuality. On top of that, this limitation is a disproportionate

burden for LGBT children growing up. In a social context, cisnormativity and heteronormativity is a presupposition. Exposure to role-conforming sex is treated as a given part of growing up.

But express interest in gay sex? You’re being either flamboyant or crude with no in-between.

Lesbian sex? Either you have daddy issues or you’re indulging in a fetish. God forbid you express interest in sex as a transgender person, because now you’re just being predatory. But you say you’re asexual? Nah, that’s just a phase.

persists in film. Sometimes, it comes in the form of a one-off quip, like in Perfectly Blonde where when Elle is asked to explain why she knows Enrique is gay, she exclaims “gay men know desires – straight men don’t!” Other times however, the stereotype bleeds out from the edges of the screen, like Blue Is the Warmest Color’s 10-minute-long sex scene, which garnered significant criticism for being uncomfortably pornographic, including from the original author and the actresses involved.

These are of course maligned stereotypes, but nonetheless they hold social power in preventing LGBT people from exploring their identity in fear of coming out. Media like films are a needed space to explore one’s identity independently of such stereotypes. Yet, the association of non-conforming identities with hypersexuality

By the way, what rating do you think Blue Is the Warmest Color received? Answer: the most restrictive rating of NC-17. And who spoke out when the IFC Center arthouse theater flouted this rating by allowing in teenage audiences?

The Parents Television Council, an advocacy group that on their website makes their purpose

Gabriel Squitieri ‘23 studies in the College of Arts Sciences. He can be reached at gabriel.s@wustl.edu.

Belonging

7

clear: “The TV Content Ratings System is failing America’s children … and the PTC is leading the way to fix it!”

Here's the ultimate question then: are films with LGBT representation given more mature ratings? The answer appears to be yes. According to a 2018 study, out of a compiled list of 150 films recommended for queer and questioning teens, 83% are rated R, NC-17, or are unrated altogether, with the latter category making up nearly half of the whole list. In contrast, only 48% of a comparable list of mainstream teen films fell into the same categories.

Are movies with LGBT characters are more restricted because they are more likely to be violent or drop an F-bomb? I doubt parental advocates and raters would attempt this argument. I’m willing to bet that they would instead lean instead towards the sexuality argument – such films are more likely to be sexually explicit supposedly because that’s an inextricable part discovering one’s queer identity.

In that case, I have so many follow-up questions.

Why should queer people need a sexual experience to affirm their identity, but conforming individuals not? Are LGBT films showing more sex because it’s a universal part of queer people’s experiences, or because they’re playing into their hypersexualized stereotypes? And even if we hold this claim to be true, what gives parents the right to deny their children queer representation because their children are too young for it, but in the same breath, accept exposure to heteronormative sex as part of growing up?

Why do we let parental attitudes dictate what LGBT people can do and can be?

he was. I didn’t grow up in a conservative environment by any stretch of the imagination, but if you asked me then what I thought about LGBT people, I would have said “I respect their right to be whoever they want to be … but I don’t understand why”. It wasn’t until entering college, learning that several of my friends were LGBT many months after I had first met them, that I began to understand at least one thing.

We all found our own way to grow into the people who we were meant to be.

I don’t think anyone should have to wait eighteen years before they can learn how to.

Jason Liu ‘22 studies in the Olin Business School. He can be reached at jliu1@wustl.edu.

I don’t have certain answers to these questions because, full admission, I don’t identify as LGBT. All the way through high school, I knew only one person who identified as such, who I saw being made the laughingstock of my gym class while he smiled and said he felt so accepted for who

As is probably apparent now, I’m not very familiar with LGBT stories, but I feel like it would be hypocritical for me to lament the lack of accessible LGBT representation without doing my part to share it. So here are two suggestions (though these are not films): The Owl House – I’ve only seen a little bit of the series, but given the high praise it has received, I am confident in saying that is proof that you can honestly depict a budding queer romance in a “childfriendly” show, even while working with (and against) Disney’s spotty track record.

My Lesbian Experience with Loneliness – A long while ago, I asked some of my friends for recommendations of stories with realistic LGBT representation. This autobiographical manga by Nagata Kabi was one of them. It does an amazing job at showing how important Kabi’s exploration of her sexuality was for confronting her own maturity and self-image, without sugarcoating or overromanticizing its impact on her life.

8

WU Political Review

Safe Spaces: Helping or Hindering?

Celia Rattner

I

n August 2020, the University of Chicago sent an email to all incoming first-years that condemned the use of trigger warnings and safe spaces on its campus.

“Our commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’” Dean of Students Jay Ellison wrote in the letter, as reported by the university’s newspaper “The Chicago Maroon.”

College campuses nationwide are experiencing a wave of pushback from free speech proponents through the idea of safe spaces. Some institutions, such as the University of California Berkeley and the Ohio State University have turned against students during protests in recent years, arguing that their demonstration tactics made university employees feel unsafe.

On the other hand, safe spaces offer vital comfort and camaraderie for those from minority groups and have gained much traction in academic spheres.

But what is a safe space? And how did it come be?

Their origin has been debated. The idea of a safe space can be traced back to Kurt Lewin, a Jewish refugee from Nazi Germany, who helped develop the field of social psychology and management theory. While working with supervisors and psychologists at the family-owned textile company, Harwood Manufacturing Company, Lewin created a “safe space” for the company’s female employees, where they could air concerns without fear of backlash.

From here, the term proliferated. According to Malcolm Harris, who cites scholar and activist Moira Kenney’s book Mapping Gay L.A., the term safe space grew in gay and lesbian bars during the mid-1960s, when consensual homosexual sex was still criminalized in many

states and the simple act of two gay people dancing together could be cause for criminal punishment.

The “safe space” was also adopted by feminist movements in the 1970s for women to congregate and freely share accounts of sexism.

As Vox’s Emily Crockett explains, safe spaces don’t necessarily entail literal safety, but are often a place for relaxation. Yet, she adds, our physical being can be impacted by our emotional wellness: “our mental well-being shapes and is shaped by our neural pathways, our digestive tracts, our muscular tensions, our hormones — especially cortisol, the stress hormone, which is associated with poor health outcomes at consistently high levels.”

For people hailing from groups that have experienced perpetual violence and trauma, this increased state of stress and emotional distress can promote especially poor health, as the fight-or-flight response is in constant use. If safe spaces can help alleviate the burden placed on such people, then why are they so controversial, especially on college campuses, which are havens of stress in the first place?

Some political commentators find safe spaces problematic in that they coddle youth: they promote the “political correctness” that irks academics and thinkers from both sides of the political aisle.

Frankly, I’m torn. I recognize that safe spaces can elicit a sigh of relief from minority groups who feel that their voice is often silenced by those from more privileged backgrounds. They undeniably provide a sense of belonging to those who may feel underrepresented, and with the rise of suicides on college campuses (statistic), they often provide the support that some desperately need.

rules or measures that attempt to halt speech in its tracks. As harmful as some thoughts and opinions may be, where do we draw the line?

Many theories from the past that seemed outlandish are now accepted as fact, and vice versa.

In an attempt to make those who have felt historically ostracized more comfortable, I fear that we are, at times, encouraging a sort of segregation that only leads to more polarization and miscommunication (take political tribalism as a prime example).

On college campuses specifically, where do we draw the line between debate and offensive speech?? How do we protect students who may feel underrepresented while simultaneously upholding core democratic values of free expression?

In an opinion piece for The New York Times, President of Wesleyan University Michael S. Roth suggests spaces that are “safe enough.”

Building on psychologist D.W. Winnicott’s model of a “good enough” parent—a guardian who enables their child to grow through failure, within the safety of the family unit—Roth proposes campus cultures that foster a baseline of inclusion and respect that enables its students to thrive (the baseline being a feeling of being “safe enough”).

Like Roth says, I believe we should promote intellectual curiosity and inquiry—good-hearted debate that makes students think without fear of harassment from others. While we should be wary of the polarization that is possible from a lack of free speech, the value of a space where marginalized students find belonging cannot be understated.

Celia Rattner ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at crattner@wustl.edu.

Conversely, I have always been wary of any

Belonging

9

A Seat at the Activist Table Bonnie Segel

I

am Jewish, and I ardently believe in fighting for what is right. These two parts of my identity are not mutually exclusive, but they are treated as dichotomous at Wash U. Instead of embracing diverse Jewish students as valuable allies in social justice movements, Wash U’s activist spaces have all but removed Jewish students from their ranks and branded them as the oppressors themselves. Alienating our campus’s Jewish population does not advance the moral arc of justice; rather, it perpetuates exclusion.

I have always connected Jewish values with human values. Caring for others and pursuing justice for the world’s Davids against its Goliaths was emphasized throughout my time in Sunday school as a child. Standing up for what I believe in was one of my main takeaways from my Jewish upbringing and understanding of Jewish history. It was not until college that I discovered many of my peers deem my worldview, informed as it is by Jewish tradition and history, to be incongruent with global justice.

Although not espoused by all campus activists, it felt as though the efforts to do good and support other communities that I have embraced throughout my life were erased by respected voices painting my Jewish peers and myself as white supremacists and settler colonists.

In December, members of a white supremacist group defaced “The Story that Never Ends,” a mural of Black leaders located on our campus, covering a beautiful portrayal of Black history with disgusting Patriot Front logos. Black students were outraged, along with the entire campus community. This act of hate explicitly targeted Black students, but I, too, began to feel unsafe on campus knowing that white supremacists, who indiscriminately target both Jewish and Black people, were so close by. This fear and uncertainty increased exponentially when students like me were publicly equated with such a hateful ideology.

Wash U Black and Palestinian Liberation (BPL), a non-recognized student group on campus with a large following, posted a “spot the difference” infographic comparing a photo of

10

WU Political Review

I was shocked that Jewish students, known targets of white supremacy, were called white supremacists True, this post did not say outright that “Jews are evil and the root of all problems.” If it did, we would have condemned it instantly. Nor did it say, “Jewish students at Wash U are directly responsible for the suffering inflicted on Palestinian people.” But, to be frank, it didn’t have to. The subtle assertion of Jewish double loyalty and a “conceal[ed] allegiance,” the erasure of non-white Jewish history and identity, and the call for “Death to all forms of Settler Colonialism!” after labeling a Jewish student group as supporters of settler colonialism did that work already. The first slide of a holiday season post from December (since taken down), featuring a cartoon insinuating that hook-nosed Jews killed Jesus and forcibly removed him from Bethlehem, did that already. The misguided notion that Israeli Jews engage in “population replacement” (which, for reference, is an idea stemming from white nationalist ideology) did that already.

BPL’s rhetoric effectively demonizes Jewish students and furthers age-old antisemitic tropes in a seemingly fashionable way, masking antisemitism as valid displays of anti-Zionism.

Ultimately, there are numerous avenues for criticism of Israel and the Israeli government that do not equate Jews with the very same ideology that prompts their support for the state of Israel in the first place. I implore BPL to try one of those avenues in their next post.

It is important to acknowledge that this ideology coming from a revered activist group is isolating and counterproductive. Public condemnation of Jewish campus organizations sends a clear signal that Jewish students who support Israel’s right to exist are not welcome here. The activist exclusion of Jewish students is not endemic to BPL, but part of a larger culture of Jewish

the Patriot Front vandalism to Wash U Hillel’s Birthright Israel trip in early February. Calling Hillel an organization that is “fundamentally inseparable from the greater rhetoric of white supremacy and colonialism that groups like Patriot Front espouse openly” was baffling to me. I was shocked that Jewish students, known targets of white supremacy, were called white supremacists – and by a group of activists whose mission I thought I supported. I had to wonder why Jews have been targeted by white supremacists throughout history if we are, in fact, just like them.

At first, I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.

Something didn’t feel right about what I had just read, but no one seemed to be fighting back. I questioned for a moment if this post was actually hateful or if I was simply looking for antisemitism where it did not exist. But the

One of the most insidious aspects of modern antisemitism is its subtlety... It has become easy to identify notoriously hateful iconography; When the symbols are less obvious, however, it can be difficult to accurately assess their danger. realization hit me: one of the most insidious aspects of modern antisemitism is its subtlety.

It has become easy to identify notoriously hateful iconography; no one will doubt that an altright rally filled with people waving Nazi flags is antisemitic and dangerous. When the symbols are less obvious, however, it can be difficult to accurately assess their danger.

student alienation in leftist campus spaces. Last May, for example, #MeToo Wash U shared a post about Israeli state violence and its relation to sexual violence, stating that “the annals of genocide, colonization, and imperialism attest to the proclivity of colonizers, belligerents, occupying forces, and state forces to weaponize sexual violence for the purpose of subjugation.”

Of course, the post was followed by a disclaimer that #MeToo Wash U condemns antisemitism, just in case. Jewish students took to the comments to share their confusion and worries that an account such as #MeToo, meant to be a safe space for all survivors, would draw such distinct lines.

Jewish students like myself desperately wish to be part of these important campus dialogues, but it is increasingly difficult to feel accepted or even tolerated in the world of Wash U activism. Following BPL’s posts, Hillel hosted a social media processing event where community members voiced their frustrations and concerns to members of the University administration.

During this event, Jewish students shared that they were: concerned about “peers assuming/generalizing all Jewish students’ views on Israel;” “concerned that our non-Jewish peers believe that Israelis, and by default Jews, are white supremacists;” concerned that “students at Wash U have a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be Jewish” and believe being both progressive and Jewish is impossible; disturbed by comments that anyone pro-Israel is not welcome at events combatting white supremacy; “feeling unwelcomed in activist spaces at Wash U;” and keenly aware that “every pogrom starts with ‘blame the Jews for x.’” As these concerns illustrate, Jewish students are scared. We are scared of facing violence, even when we try to fight against hatred. We feel isolated and lost in a world where we are not given a seat at the activist table. We are confused, since our shared faith has inspired us to fight for just causes, and we are now excluded from the fight. We are saddened that we have turned to organizations like Hillel for community, only to be told that this community is dangerous.

Not only is the exclusion of Jewish voices deeply upsetting on an emotional level, it is entirely counterproductive to broader aims of social justice at Wash U.

intergroup dialogue and our propensity to unite for what is right. It is certainly a lofty goal, but I wholeheartedly believe that our campus will be more vibrant if we can appreciate diversity in activism. In my own life, I will continue to fight for all Davids. Will you do the same?

Bonnie Segel ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at b.m.segel@wustl. edu.

upsetting on an emotional level, but it is also counterproductive to the broader aims of social justice at Wash U. According to Hillel, approximately 1,800 Jewish students attend Wash U, comprising 24% of the student body. To put things in perspective, a 2020 Pew Research poll indicates that 48 percent of U.S. Jews ages 18 to 29 feel attached to Israel. Should so many young Jewish adults be written out of the conversation simply because of positive sentiment towards the land of Israel? Why should nearly a quarter of the student body be excluded from campus activism based on a single sentiment?

With so many Jewish students eager to fight for others, to do what is right, and to apply their values to global causes, why are we constantly being silenced?

Jewish students belong in activist conversations at Wash U – and not as a mere footnote or disclaimer. It is not comforting to read a harmful post written off with a platitude of solidarity, and it is certainly disquieting to feel put down after finding the courage to stand up to it. I urge my fellow Wash U students to engage in some self-reflection: to evaluate when Jewish voices are considered in your own personal brand of activism, and to deeply question the times when they are not. I hope that we can all think more deeply and collaboratively and truly begin to work together to fight against the world’s ills.

When all is said and done, I hope that our school community can look back with great admiration for our campus’s ability to engage in successful

Not only is the exclusion of Jewish voices deeply

Belonging

11

What is Tribalism?

Emily Woodruff, Featured Writer Artwork by Lea Despotis, Design Lead

"H

owever [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion” George Washington 1796.

Political parties have been a part of American politics since the inception of the union, and they continue to be a defining feature of not only politics, but for some a personal identity.

According to a Gallup poll from January of 2022 24% of people identify as Republicans, 46% identify as Intendents, and 28% identify as Democrat. Why? How did people develop their political affiliation, Republican, Democrat, or Independent? Why do political parties define so much more than who you vote for? Why do people exhibit such strong loyalty to their political party?

Tribalism.

Google it and you will see all sorts of New York Times and Atlantic articles talking about how democracy is dying. But what is this thing that is supposedly killing America?

Tribalism, defined by the Merriam Webster Dictionary is tribal consciousness and loyalty or strong in-group loyalty.

But is tribalism good or bad? In the 1300s, Arab historian Ibn Khaldun wrote Muqaddimah in which he outlined that “tribal societies are defined by their social cohesion and a sense of group interconnectedness”. This loyalty “brings groups together in ways that are

12

WU Political Review

crucial for the creation of public goods” and can be used to “build strong empires, forge strong armies, and develop effective governance structures”. He believed that leaders who could not create tribalism would ultimately fail. Khaldun’s analysis can carry merit. Unquestionable loyalty can have its benefits for a leader and can inspire people into action. ABC News has described how in Ukraine loyalty and nationalism for their country have spurred ordinary people into action to stop the Russian invasion. But with the wrong leader tribalism can lead people to do horrible things in the name of their country, like the Nazis in Germany. What is the balance? Is tribalism a weapon that can be used for good or bad? Is it even possible to stop tribalism?

The very basis of the word tribalism is the reference to the historical nature of tribes. Groups of people loyal to each other no matter what.

Over time our society has evolved, but have we really? Just ask William Golding. Psychologists have researched for years on this question and many, including Clark et al. have concluded that “tribalism is human nature”. There is no way to stop ourselves from unquestioning attaching ourselves to a group and to a label.

Of course, there are levels to how far some of us go. Some people completely attach themselves to a group and are willing to accept whatever they say, while others will only follow so far. A variety of psychological factors like background, education, etc. impact how much tribalism affects us.

And how is tribalism different from patriotism? Patriotism, as defined by the MerriamWebster dictionary is “love for or devotion to one’s country”. For thousands of years all over the globe people have died for patriotism.

How is dying for your country different from dying for your tribe? And what about religion?

People define themselves by their religion, and show dying devotion to their beliefs. Doesn’t that mean religion is really based in tribalism?

Religions are full of people who are extremely loyal and would die for their religious tribe.

Not everyone is like that, and not everyone needs to be like that for tribalism to exist. If a group utilizes strong-in group loyalty to spread their message or mission, then they are using tribalism.

How is tribalism different from nationalism?

Nationalism, as defined by the MerriamWebster Dictionary is “placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations of supranational groups”. Nationalism involves action, while patriotism and tribalism are based in belief. So is tribalism really destroying America, or is nationalism destroying America?

George Washington warned against political parties, but he never had the power to stop them. It is human nature to organize into groups, be strongly loyal to that group, and define yourself by that group. One group is political parties. Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Another could be religions. All of these groups have some members that show intense loyalty. All of these groups have used tribalism to expand their causes, for better or for worse. None of them created tribalism, it is human nature. And if tribalism is really part of human nature who is destroying America? People.

Emily Woodruff ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at ewoodruff@ wustl.edu.

Social distancing doesn't mean we're not ad connected.

WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue.

To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute

Belonging

13

We Need Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices Sean Chopra

O

ne of the core pillars in any democracy is the electoral accountability of our representatives. If an elected official behaves counter to their constituents’ beliefs and ideologies or is just flat-out incompetent, we have the opportunity to voice our opinion by voting them out. In a similar vein, to make sure singular individuals do not hold power for too long, we term limit many of our elected leaders (Presidents, Governors, Mayors). However, one branch of the US government is not subject to any of these constraints: the United States Supreme Court.

Since we are eschewing electoral accountability, it makes it much more pressing we have some kind of surveillance on the court.

Now let me be clear; the Supreme Court is not privy to any electoral overview for some very clear-cut reasons. I sat through fifth-grade history class and got told how the founders wanted the supreme court to be as impartial as possible and not subject to the fast-moving winds of the American public. I am in no way advocating for this to change. When you consider how misinformed and uninterested the typical voter is, the last thing we need would be for them to elect more people of high salience, especially when the issues at hand are so complicated. However, since we are eschewing electoral accountability, it makes it much more pressing we have some kind of surveillance on the court. This is why we must end the life appointments of Supreme Court Justices and install term limits on their tenures.

are numerous reports suggesting that Justice Ginsberg planned on retiring had Hillary Clinton won in 2016, so there is no ideological divide.

One of the biggest problems with the lack of term limits is the game of strategic retirements.

It is a well-known fact that Supreme Court Justices stay on the bench many years longer than they otherwise would because they seek to be replaced by a President of shared ideology. This sentiment was echoed by former Chief Justice William Renquist, who famously stated that retiring from the court was “not a judicial act.”. In other words, he saw nothing wrong with allowing politics to play a part in retirement.

This sentiment was echoed by departing liberal Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, and there

14

WU Political Review

The absence of term limits leads to Justices who choose to stay on the Bench at the expense of their health and decision-making. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg was the most recent example of this. Now, in no way am I trying to diminish the impenetrable legacy Ginsberg leaves behind or the incredible life she led. However, over the final several years of her term, she suffered from a myriad of health problems that inarguably affected her ability to perform her duties on the court. She was unable to attend hearings for extended periods of time and was reportedly falling asleep in the hearings she was attending. It does not serve the Court well when we have Justices who continue to serve despite clear detrimental physical limitations. Term limits could help mend this problem. By presetting the number of years they would serve, Justices would likely not be as old by the end of their term. Furthermore, term limits would prevent Justices from selfishly staying on the court longer than their mental and physical capacities suggest they should.

Now that the problem has been identified and a broad solution put forward, it is fair to ask exactly how these term limits would work . For general guidance, we can look at the proposals

put forward by the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States.

This was a commission created by the Biden Administration to put forward answers on the various criticisms of the Supreme Court, many of which I outlined above. It suggested that - via a constitutional amendment - there be eighteen-year term limits put in place. The term would be non-renewable. This would help to create stability on the court. Instead of having to hold our breath waiting for the next Supreme Justice to retire or die, we would know exactly when their time was up. If a Justice did have to retire prior to the end of their set term, it was recommended a former Justice be selected to serve the remainder of the term after which a successor would be appointed. Alternatively, the President could nominate someone to fill the rest of the term, after which they could be re-nominated for their full eighteen years.

The arcane rules which legislate the Supreme Court have artificially made the Supreme Court nomination process increasingly political and have led to Justices staying on the bench for longer terms even at the expense of their health.

Modern-day reforms are desperately needed, and term limits would be a start in bringing back balance and credibility to the court.

Sean Chopra '24 studies in the college of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at chopra.s@wustl.edu.

Artwork by Ethan Loderstat, Staff Artist

Belonging

15

The Inevitability of Climate Refugees Lara Briggs, Featured Writer Artwork by Shonali Palacios, Assistant Design Director

T

he Russian invasion of Ukraine displaced over 1.5 million people in ten days—a record number, per the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. Recent refugee crises from Ukraine and Afghanistan have highlighted the strains of globalization and the political challenges that arise from a massive involuntary migration. Even though we do not yet know how the Ukrainian crisis will resolve, or where the next war will occur, there is another massive migration looming on the horizon. The cause? Climate change.

The sixth iteration of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment was released, coincidentally, within a week of the invasion of Ukraine. The IPCC reports highlight risks of climate change and areas where climate action is most critical. A crucial point of these assessments is the fact that while everyone on earth will be affected by climate change in some way, not everyone is affected evenly, or at the same time. Per the latest IPCC report, “approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people live in contexts that are highly vulnerable to climate change.” Vulnerability extends far beyond geography—warmer climate, coastal and island nations will feel the effects of climate change first and worst—but also includes adaptability. Wealthier nations have more resources to adapt to the effects of climate change, whereas developing, lesswealthy nations do not. Add into the mix that many wealthy countries heavily relied upon fossil fuels to achieve prosperity, and many

16

WU Political Review

Current international structures to address refugees are simply not equipped for the coming climate refugee crisis. countries most vulnerable are contributing the least to climate change. Climate governance now becomes an extremely difficult problem to solve.

One of the many global policy challenges presented by climate change comes the treatment of what have been termed “climate refugees.”

Yet while the name includes “refugees,” climate refugees differ from our traditional understanding of a refugee—and our governmental system’s protocols for refugees. Storm surges, sea level rise, and water shortages are projected to displace hundreds of millions of people in the coming decades. Where those who we usually call refugees are those who flee their countries following emergencies, war, or persecution, climate refugees will be migrating gradually, are unlikely to ever be able to return to their homes, and will likely be large groups of people, such as entire cities or states.

Additionally, climate refugees may be moving within the borders of their own country, not traveling internationally. Because of these critical distinctions, as outlined by Frank Biermann & Ingrid Boas in their essay “Protecting Climate Refugees: The Case for a Global Protocol,” current international structures to address refugees are simply not equipped for the coming climate refugee crisis.

However, the term “climate refugees” is contentious. Many of those who are most

Many of those who are most vulnerable are those in the global south, so national security rhetoric surrounding climate refugees, much like traditional refugees, can take on xenophobic and racist tones.

Climate change is now inevitable; it is merely a question of how harmful it will be, and for whom... powerful nations’ inactions have cemented that climate change is not a matter of if, but when and who and how much vulnerable are those in the global south, so national security rhetoric surrounding climate refugees, much like traditional refugees, can take on xenophobic and racist tones. Other arguments against the term argue against its depersonalization and how it could silence the voices of those most affected by climate change. Some criticism is murkier, such as the notion that “climate refugees” depoliticizes climate change. It is true that climate change is inherently political, and strong climate policy is essential to avert the worst consequences of climate change. Politics have allowed fossil fuel companies and other polluters to go

unchecked, and politics has stymied meaningful climate mitigation and adaptation measures.

Yet at this stage, climate change is apolitical as well. As mentioned previously, policy will avert the “worst consequences,” but policy has passed the point of halting anthropogenic climate change entirely. Climate change is now inevitable; it is merely a question of how harmful it will be, and for whom. Paradoxically, it is this very political nature of climate change that has allowed climate change to become apolitical, as powerful nations’ inactions have cemented that climate change is not a matter of if, but when and who and how much.

Arguments that “climate refugee” is a depoliticized term have merit, but climate change itself is already depoliticized to some extent.

This is not to say that political actions are pointless—quite the contrary—but there is a limit to what can be done.

migrations and recognizing where climate-induced migrations fit, or if there are new resources that must be created. To reframe the discourse around climate refugees, and all other types of refugees, it is also essential to empower vulnerable communities and emphasize human rights, not just national security, when creating policy. The climate crisis requires us to prepare for these migrations, but it should also serve as a time to reexamine our views and treatments of refugees everywhere.

Lara Briggs, ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at b.lara@wustl.edu.

In the meantime, how can we act? First is to continue to fight hard for significant climate mitigation and adaptation policy, especially for those most at risk. This requires local, state, and national governance to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and fund adaptive projects, but also considering climate change as a global, and vastly unequal, issue. Within this is revisiting current structures for refugees and

Belonging

17

STL: Budget Millions, Spend Fractions Alejandro Ramirez

B

udgets and finances have been central to debates throughout the pandemic, as people's lives are weighed against corporate bottom lines. How were governments, from local to federal, expected to keep themselves afloat without active commerce, loss of tourism, and reduced spending of their citizens during lock down periods? In March of 2021, President Joe Biden signed the American Rescue Plan into law, creating a historic $1.9 trillion stimulus package for the nation. This package included the direct stimulus payments of $1,400 and helped fund unemployment compensation but it also gave large amounts to state and local governments. So where has this money gone?

According to the Office of Missouri State Auditor, the state has, as of 3/3/2022, already received $7.47 billion and has spent $6.68 billion, returning only $3.4 million back to the federal government. While that $800 million difference may seem like a lot, it translates to only 10% of the budget. St. Louis, in contrast, has not been spending as efficiently as the state or its local citizens would like.

From the time the stimulus package was signed, it took six months for the city to agree on an initial spending plan. Mayor Tishaura Jones enacted the first round of spending, a $135 million budget, that outlined support to vaccine efforts, public health and safety, and economic relief for businesses and individuals. While the deliberations in part were held down by the stipulations and restrictions the federal government

A one time payment of $500 was expected to offset multiple losses of income over months of distress.

18

WU Political Review

If it took us 6 months to spend $3.4 million, how do we plan to spend $498 million in only four years? placed on how the funds could be used, the real thing slowing spending now is local policy and systemic issues.

This first allotment of spending created $500 direct payments for St. Louis households. The program was designed to aid roughly 9,300 residents, so it was supposed to cost a little under $4.7 million. Yet there was one main issue. The program strictly stipulated that the payments were per household. Each household could only be given $500, regardless of how many individuals in the home had experienced a loss of income due to COVID-19. A one time payment of $500 was expected to offset multiple losses of income over months of distress. So do you think they actually spent that budgeted $4.7 million? Not a chance.

If this relief program accounts for $4.7 million, where has the other $130 million gone to? Is it being spent at all? Not surprisingly, other programs did not exactly make it off the ground.

While $7.8 million was for emergency shelters for the unhoused population, only $392,000 has actually spent. Only 5% of the emergency shelter budget, and 0.02% of the whole program's spending. This is a literal risking of lives as we saw temperatures fluctuate throughout February and displaced unhoused population turning to overburdened volunteer based shelters. This disparity between roughly 600 city sponsored beds available and the actual size of the unhoused population, which is estimated at 1000, is critical, as we already saw one unhoused death this year.

Because of the promise of support of public health through vaccine efforts spent $950,000, with $727,000 being spent on gift card incentives. That gives us 0.07% of the total budget, with nearly double the amount being spent on housing going toward gift cards for a lifesaving vaccine.

The plan also budgeted $5 million dollars toward police overtime payment costs in an effort to aid in public safety. Yet the police department does not anticipate using any of the aid during the current fiscal year, according to Jones aid Nahuel Fefer. How did they budget $5 million dollars if there is no need for it? Was there no foresight to place these funds elsewhere, even if our spending is painfully slow across the board?

Other efforts don’t shape up any better, as a report submitted to the aldermanic panel by Mayor Jones’ office showed only $3.4 million having been spent as of January 31st. The city has spent 2.5% of its already approved spending over a period of six months. That’s 2.5% of funds that were allocated to the city in March of 2021. If all these delays in funding weren’t enough, these percentages aren’t even in the scope of total funding St. Louis will see, a whopping $498 million dollars. More concerning is the fact that if these funds are not spent by 2026, the federal government is within its rights to demand repayment. If it took us 6 months to spend $3.4 million, how do we plan to spend $498 million in only four years? We need policy reform for better spending, equitable distribution of funds to underserviced areas, and a better understanding of what St. Louisan actually need, or we will lose half a million dollars and countless lives.

Alejandro Ramirez ’24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at aframirez@wustl. edu.

Artwork by Eric Kim, Assistant Design Director

National

19

How Democrats Won Redistricting Rishi Samarth

E

very ten years, congressional and state legislative districts are redrawn due to the new census. Redrawing electoral districts is an inherently partisan process, as district maps can be drawn to favor one party over the other. Just before the redistricting cycle began, it was common knowledge that congressional redistricting alone would be enough to erase the Democratic party’s entire 4 seat house majority. With Republicans in control of redistricting in states like Texas, Florida, Tennessee and Georgia, and independent commissions in states like California and Colorado, it was assumed that Republicans would redraw and flip at least 4 congressional seats, and Democrats would not be able to fight back.

However, Democrats unexpectedly were able to win this round of redistricting, through strategically drawing favorable maps in states they had control in, getting favorable court decisions in Republican-controlled states, and through unenforced errors by Republicans, allowing for a very competitive national house map for the first time in a decade.

Unlike previous redistricting cycles, Democrats gained full control of congressional redistricting in New York, the first time in a century. A series of events allowed this to happen. First, Democrats were able to win a supermajority in both chambers of the state assembly, which allowed them to override any maps produced by the states independent commission.

Second, former governor Andrew Cuomo resigned due to sexual assault allegations and was replaced by Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul. Cuomo had a history of working with Republicans in the state legislature and would have lobbied against any map favorable for Democrats. Instead, Governor Hochul easily lobbied for a favorable map that would convert the current congressional delegation from 19D-8R to 22D -4R, with New York losing a seat this year. This map would allow Democrats to gain seats in Staten Island, Long Island, and in Syracuse.

20 WU Political Review

Democrats finally gained full control of congressional redistricting in New York, the first time they had full control since 1910.

states to remove Democratic congressional districts. In states like Kentucky, Indiana, and Missouri, Republicans could have easily split the cities of Louisville, Gary, and Kansas City, between multiple congressional districts to prevent these districts from electing a democratic representative. However, incumbent Republicans in neighboring rural districts did not want to take in these new constituents due to general disdain of these urban areas, which allowed these Democratic seats to stay intact.

Favorable court decisions in states like Ohio and North Carolina also allowed Democrats to gain seats due to Republicans violating the state constitutions. Ohio voters approved a constitutional amendment in 2014 which created an independent commission to redraw maps that cannot be “drawn to favor or disfavor a political party.” However, Ohio Republicans still drew a map that would elect 13 Republicans and 2 Democrats in a state where Trump only got 54% of the vote. The Ohio Supreme Court struck down the map and is requiring a fair map from the legislature. Ohio’s current congressional maps were very favorable for Republicans and have resulted in a 12R-4D split all decade.

A fair map would allow Democrats to win 6 or 7 seats, which would allow them to offset losses in other states. The North Carolina Supreme Court used similar precedent to strike down maps drawn by the Republican state assembly that would have elected 11 Republicans and 3 Democrats in a 50-50 state politically. The interim map released by the court had a 7D-7R split in the 2020 election. These states were expected to produce very favorable maps for the Republican Party, but these unexpected court decisions were very favorable for Democrats.

State Supreme Courts, especially those who have elected justices, are becoming a new battleground for redistricting, and GOP redistricting groups are targeting those elections.

Florida, which was widely seen as Republican’s biggest redistricting weapon, has hit a major roadblock. Republicans could have wiped out 3 Democratic held seats in St. Petersburg, Orlando, and in Northern Florida. After a 2015 lawsuit that struck down and redrew Florida’s Republican-drawn congressional districts, Republican legislators were hesitant to draw a very unbalanced map. However, Governor DeSantis released his own proposal that would convert all three of these Democratic-held seats to seats that Republicans would win. Republican state legislators ignored this proposal, and as such, DeSantis has promised to veto the current map passed by the legislature. This deadlock would most likely be resolved by the courts which would produce a fair map.

Unlike previous decades, Democrats have won the Redistricting Wars this decade through being aggressive in states they controlled, and through Republicans being unlucky in states they controlled. Even though Democrats are unlikely to keep the house of Representatives after the 2022 elections due to President Biden’s low approval rating, the national House map will be very competitive all decade, not just in midterm wave elections, which was not the case this last decade.

Rishi Samarth ’23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at rishi.samarth@wustl.

Another surprise for Democrats was Republicans not splitting urban areas in many

edu.

Artwork by Mei Liu, Staff Artist

National

21

Lobbying & Lies: Corporations & Climate Change Matthew Shepetin

H

ow many times have you been told to recycle your can of Coke? Or buy a hybrid? Or seen a politician take money from oil companies while advocating for environmental policy? Over the past decades, corporate leaders have intentionally reprogrammed the way we think about the individual’s role in combating climate change. We are told time and time again that climate change is a result of individual actions: we consume too much, recycle too little, and live too long. As a result, Americans have succumbed to the notion that we can mitigate climate change without fundamentally restructuring corporate America, a sentiment that pins blame on consumers and distracts us from advocating more seriously for corporate reform.

America Beautiful, a campaign that pinned individual-caused litter as the main culprit of plastic waste. Slogans such as “In the fight against litter and pollution, we still have so far to go,” and “Get involved now, pollution hurts all of us,” distorted our view of the issues. Consequently, plastic manufacturing companies face little to no consequences for their generated waste. The effects of the Keep America Beautiful campaign remain significant even today. Whether its plastic bottles or dental floss, the individual responsibility rhetoric persists in advertisements and public discourse. When we allow corporations to pin their pollution on the consumer, the scope and scale of regulations on plastic manufacturing will remain limited.

It’s no secret that corporations rely on profits to survive. Corporations, then, will do everything in their power to distract their customers from a business model that relies on environmental degradation to turn a profit. Worse yet, many go as far as to place the blame of their waste on the consumer. If shifting the blame costs less than taking responsibility for one’s actions, a profit-motivated industry can and will choose the former.

ExxonMobil’s campaign against climate policy in the 1980s serves as another example of the power of corporate lobbying and marketing. According to an eight-month investigation conducted by Inside Climate News, climate researchers alerted ExxonMobil to the possible consequences of burning fossil fuels in the late 1970s. As a business founded on the burning of fossil fuels, ExxonMobil swiftly took action, conducting their own independent research into the environmental impact of fossil fuels.

Think of the Keep America Beautiful campaign.

Funded by plastic manufacturing companies worried about the rise of knowledge about the harmful effect of plastic waste, “Keep America Beautiful” campaigned for Americans to be more mindful of their litter. Rather than revert back to a system in which glass bottles could be returned to the manufacturing companies for recycling, profit-motivated manufactures stuck to their system of producing non-reusable, easily disposable plastic bottles. The problem was, public opinion showed that many Americans were unhappy with the amount of wasted plastic manufacturing produced. As a result, plastic manufacturers worked to shift away the blame of this waste onto the consumer. What these manufacturers came up with was Keep

ExxonMobil’s independent study came to the same results: “doubling of the carbon dioxide blanket in the atmosphere would produce average global warming of 3 degrees Celsius, plus or minus 1.5 degrees C.” Despite this knowledge, ExxonMobil at first failed to act on these findings. Just as concerns about global warming were creeping into the attention of government officials and the public, Exxon “started financing efforts to amplify doubt about the state of climate science.” Over the coming years, ExxonMobil spent millions of dollars lobbying against carbon emission controls. In 1988, Exxon set up the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group comprised of oil and automobile companies “dedicated to defeating controls on carbon pollution.” Ten years later,

22 WU Political Review

Exxon helped create the Global Climate Science Team, a group of lobbyists who vehemently denied any human influence on climate change.

In 2000, Exxon paid for ads which “accused MacCracken’s office of putting the political cart before a scientific horse.”

ExxonMobil’s senior director for federal relations Keith McCoy quite literally admitted to anti-environmental lobbying efforts in a recent Greenpeace investigation. In the undercover interview, McCoy makes some damning remarks in a cartoon-villain style rambling of the company’s lobbying history.

“Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early [climate advocacy] efforts? Yes, that's true. But there’s nothing illegal about that. We were looking out for our investments. We were looking out for our shareholders…”

If this statement isn’t enough evidence for you, try watching the entire interview. Keith McCoy admits – almost comically – to nearly all of ExxonMobil’s wrongdoings in one fell swoop.

Why would he willingly divulge this information? He thought he was being headhunted for another corporate executive position.

“Did we aggressively fight against some of the science? Yes. Did we join some of these shadow groups to work against some of the early [climate advocacy] efforts?

Yes, that's true.”

Rather than using their resources to conduct research into more environmentally friendly forms of electricity, ExxonMobil found it more profitable to manipulate government and public opinion. These actions were entirely driven by profit. Exxon found it more efficient to spend millions on lobbying, advertising, and endorsements rather than creating a more sustainable business model. Lenny Bernstein, an executive climate researcher at ExxonMobil for about 30 years, alludes to this fact in an email to the professional ethics department at Ohio University.

In the email, Bernstein says, “Corporations are interested in environmental impacts only to the extent that they affect profits, either current or future. They may take what appears to be altruistic positions to improve their public image, but the assumption underlying those actions is that they will increase future profits. ExxonMobil is an interesting case in point.”

Bernstein’s message indicates that when driven by profit – and only profit – corporations will go to any length to lower their costs and protect their revenue. ExxonMobil used their resources to sow doubt into the minds of millions of Americans and policymakers, and they did so successfully. As a result of these campaigns, “[Climate skepticism is] substantially higher among political conservatives in the US. Indeed, it seems accurate to say that right-leaning Americans largely account for the United States’ outlier status on climate change views in cross-national comparisons,” says climate and public opinion expert Aaron McCright. This skepticism has allowed the “right-wing denial countermovement [to] become institutionalized within the Republican Party.” This climate pushback from Republicans has undoubtedly contributed to why the United States seems so far behind the rest of the world on climate policy.

So the next time you’re thinking to yourself,

ExxonMobil used their resources to sow doubt into the minds of millions of Americans and policymakers, and they did so successfully.

Individual action is far from the end-all-be-all of climate change. We live and operate under this system, and right now, there’s nothing we can change about that. Of course, it is always important to be mindful of your interaction with the environment, but it’s up to corporations and governments to take the steps necessary to reverse the negative effects of mere existence. If we allow mega-polluters to remain in the pockets of politicians, we will never see the change that we need.

“how is it possible that this many people refuse to believe in climate change,” keep in mind that much of the right-wing climate denial was perpetuated, if not inspired by, the fossil fuel industry. Congress’ refusal to act on sound science – which will certainly have long term economic and humanitarian consequences – is entirely a result of its stake in the oil industry.

As long as we keep believing in this rhetoric, we are distracted from the real question: How can we restructure corporate America to create a more equitable and environmentally friendly system? The answer to this question is complicated and uncertain, but this knowledge alone is a powerful tool in creating change. We need to know what to fight for. We must advocate for stricter pollution and lobbying regulations to fundamentally change Congress’ relationship of Big Oil.

This great corporate marketing scheme has caused a “shift from addressing our problems collectively to addressing them individually.”

American citizens have become the consumers of corporate waste, from plastic to carbon emissions and everything in between. In a sense, there is little to nothing an individual consumer could ever do (in terms of their consumption behavior) to offset their carbon footprint. This, though, is in no way the consumer’s fault. As much as corporations would like us to believe that we’re responsible for the Great Pacific Garbage Patch or a hole in the ozone layer, it’s the corporations themselves that have created the plastic and chlorofluorocarbons that caused these issues in the first place.

Please note, the essence of this article is not to say that you shouldn’t take responsibility for your actions. You should. It will never hurt to be mindful of your plastic consumption and carbon footprint. The point is, though, that corporations have run successful campaigns to shift the blame away from their major polluting habits onto the shoulders of their consumers.

So what, if anything, can we do? Vote! It’s time to elect politicians who understand the flaws in our system are who are unincumbered by Big Oil money. Recycling a plastic bag every day for your entire life isn’t going to reduce plastic waste by any significant margin, but electing a politician who bans those bags might. Spread the word, too. This might be the one individual action that matters the most. You don’t need to become an environmentalist preacher, but it’s important to keep in mind that knowledge is power. Talk to a friend, a colleague, a neighbor, or anyone willing to listen. The more people who know it’s less about behavior and more about the system, the more people will be willing get advocate for the change we need.

Matthew Shepetin ‘24 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at email@wustl.edu.

National

23

BOOK BANS ARE BACK Alaina Baumohl, Executive Director Artwork by Eric Kim, Assistant Design Director

T

he Wentzville School District, a county 30 miles west of St. Louis, recently made national headlines for banning Toni Morrison’s The Bluest Eye, supposedly due to passages containing incest and child rape. In response, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of two students. It argued that the ban violated their First Amendment right “to be free from official conduct that was intended to suppress the ideas and viewpoints expressed in the Banned Books.”

This ban is part of a larger wave of challenges over the past year as to which books belong in American classrooms. In Tennessee, one school district removed the Holocast graphic novel Maus for explicit language and nudity. In Wyoming, a county prosecutor’s office nearly charged librarians for stocking the books Sex is a Funny Word and This Book is Gay. In Oklahoma, the State Senate received a bill which would prohibit public schools from having books which included sexual activity, sexual identity, or gender identity. Ibram X. Kendi’s award-winning Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America has been targeted in bans for not discussing racism against all people.

The American Library Association (ALA) says they have seen a significant uptick in the number of books removed from school libraries, with 330 bans filed last year, many of which include multiple books. This is the highest number of book bans or challenges since the ALA first started recording them in 1990. The problem is likely even larger than these numbers reflect: the ALA estimates that 82-97% of bans go unreported: According to the Washington Post, around 2010 a Missouri student filed Freedom of Information Act requests for every school district in the state. These requests unearthed 83 different challenges, only 12% of which the ALA had heard of.

Book bans are not new to U.S. history. One of the earliest occurred in 1650 in the British, Puritan Massachusetts Bay Colony. William Pynchon’s The Meritous Price of Our Redemption was

24 WU Political Review

called blasphemous for arguing that obedience, and not suffering, granted one atonement. In the 1980s, during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, large scale book ban efforts were led by the Moral Majority. They prompted book bans through lists of ‘objectionable’ books, many of which included sexual themes. Most frequently targeted during this time was Judy Blume’s Forever since it explicitly addressed teenage sexuality.

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against book bans in the most significant case including libraries and the First Amendment, the Board of Education, Island Trees Union Free School v.

Pico. More recently in the early 2000s, the most commonly banned books were the Harry Potter series for promoting the occult or Satanism.

This wave of book bans in 2021 and 2022 is unique in scale and tactics. Book banning efforts are now taking place much more rapidly than before and are using social media and legal challenges in new ways. One strategy of these legal challenges includes criminalizing librarians for “pandering obscenity”. While these legal challenges have failed thus far, the threat of them alone may be enough for educators to censor themselves. Prior bans also tended to focus on sexual content or inappropriate language, whereas these bans target books that address race, LGBTQ identity, and sex.

The extent of these bans may be attributed to conservative grassroots organizations like Moms for Liberty, which promotes book bans as a part of parental rights. Their organization emerged as a part of conservative backlash to mask mandates in schools and curriculums discussing critical race theory, discrimination, and LGBTQ+ rights. Another organized called No Left Turn “fights the radical indoctrination in K-12 education.” No Left Turn maintains a website which posts lists of books categorized under critical race theory, anti-police, or comprehensive sexuality education. A handful of the books on their site include: A Kids Book About Racism by Jelani Memory, A People’s History of the U.S. by Howard Zinn, All Boys Aren’t Blue

by George M. Johnson, and Seeing Gender by Iris Gottlier.

These titles are often pulled from anti-racist book lists which became popular after the murder of George Floyd and the subsequent police-violence protests which spread across the U.S. The list curated by No Left Turn is often passed around in conservative circles, inspiring parents to inquire about the availability of those books in their children’s libraries and promoting bans of their own. An analysis done by St. Louis Public Radio also showed that two-thirds of the books banned in the St. Louis region were by authors of color or those who identify as LGBTQIA+.

While the frequency of these bans falls far short of a national crisis, free speech advocates say they are still cause for concern. According to Vox, these bans are representative of a larger movement on the right to use state and local government to control teachers and push an ideologically slanted vision of what children should learn about American history and culture. The timing of these bans seems to suggest they part of a larger conservative resistance to supposedly liberal mask and vaccine mandates as well as the increasingly mainstream nature of conversations regarding race, racism, sexuality and gender.

The hypocrisy of these conservative book banning advocates is evident. Many public schools already have mechanisms in place which allow parents to prevent their children from checking out specific genres or book titles. By banning books for a district or school as a whole in an effort to protect their child from supposed obscenities, conservative parents are infringing upon the rights of other parents and students to decide for themselves what media to consume .

Ironically, it has also been conservatives who complained about cancel culture or Facebook and other social media sites for censoring their posts as a violation of their free speech .

Conservativism once stood for limiting the role of government to maintain individual freedom: Now they are using mechanisms of government to restrict ideas that they believe threaten their own.

If conservatives were truly so concerned with protecting their children from obscenity, they should not focus their efforts on school libraries, but rather onto social media and the internet. Kids nowadays are much more likely to be exposed to inappropriate content like pornography and graphic violence due to time spent online, and yet you don’t see the same energy directed towards online censorship.

These bans make evident that conservatives don’t care about protecting their children, rather they are more interested in controlling them. Books teaching about the legacy of white supremacy in America, the Black experience and living with racism, or normalizing queerness in gender and sexuality threatens the power of white, patriarchal supremacy which makes up the core of conservative ideology.

By pushing these book bans and succeeding, conservatives are reassured that they still have control over which narratives get to belong in American society.

holding marginalized identities, I have felt both sad and overjoyed: I’m sad that I never got to experience these books for myself during my younger, formative years, but thrilled that many kids growing up today will get to read them and feel validated in their identities. My experience is one that’s echoed by many minority students who also spent the majority of their schooling in PWIs or in environments without other students similar to them. We will be the first to tell you of the importance of keeping these banned book titles in schools for the purposes of affirming kids with identities like ourselves.

Book bans are intended to silence voices which were only beginning to be heard. We must play close attention to them and fight back.

Alaina Baumohl ‘23 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at abaumohl@wustl. edu.

I grew up attending predominantly white institutions as a mixed-race, Chinese, Jewish girl. For my entire childhood, I never knew anybody else with a similar background to my own or saw myself represented in any popular media. I often struggled with feeling as if I belonged in any of the communities I was a part of . Banning books which share and validate the experiences of those with marginalized identities not only prohibits the education of those from a more privileged status, but further marginalizes students who are already excluded. As I’ve gotten older and witnessed the expansion of media and books to be more inclusive of kids

National

25

How Americans Turned Against Interventionism Will Gunter

“I

don’t want to try to put our troops in all places at all times. I don’t want to be the world’s policeman,” George W. Bush said on October 3, 2000. These closing remarks from the first presidential debate between Bush and Democratic candidate Al Gore are incongruous with the legacy of his two terms in office. Defined by the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, including the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, George W. Bush’s presidency became synonymous with destabilizing wars of regime change, blunders that shaped the political landscape with which the current administration is grappling.

Bush had positioned himself as the dovish frontrunner in the Republican primary that year, while neoconservatives backed John McCain.

Yet, after staffing his administration with hawkish apparatchiks who opposed his nomination and seeing the nation primed for war after 9/11, the Texan embodied the “world’s” policeman role that he had rejected just a year earlier.

Despite his wish to focus on domestic efforts in education, tax reform, and healthcare, Bush became a foreign policy president due to forces outside of his control.

By the end of his presidency, however, these forces had turned against Bush. The national outrage of late 2001 was channeled into support for Bush’s wars, but by 2008 the pair of invasions had morphed into sputtering occupations that were hemorrhaging public support. As Barack Obama entered office, most Americans opposed the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But by that time, partisan affiliation had polarized public opinion. Two-thirds of Republicans approved of the efforts that Bush initiated, even as Obama took control of them, while only a quarter of Democrats were sympathetic.

As the conflicts dragged on, Republican support waned, and in 2016 the party nominated a candidate who called the Iraq war a “big, fat mistake” and negotiated an American withdrawal from

26 WU Political Review

Jaded by two decades of American troops fighting in the Middle East . . . the American public turned against interventionism.

Afghanistan. Jaded by two decades of American troops fighting in the Middle East, with little to show for the money and lives lost, the American public turned against interventionism.

So as Biden entered the Oval Office, military engagement abroad was not on the agenda.

The former Vice President instead focused on passing social spending and infrastructure legislation to reinvigorate the pandemic-ravaged economy. But like Bush, Biden has been forced to adopt the mantle of a foreign policy president. Charged with executing the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, and now coordinating a Western response to Vladmir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the defining moments of Biden’s presidency so far concern matters beyond our national borders.

Yet unlike Bush, the current president must manage the present crisis with limited options.

Constrained by public opinion, any direct military involvement in Ukraine seems off the table.

According to a February YouGov/CBS News poll, 71% of Americans oppose any American troop deployments to Ukraine. Thus, doing so would put the president, who is already battling low approval ratings, in serious jeopardy for reelection.

Even as Biden has nearly exhausted his choices of non-military deterrence – imposing unprecedented sanctions and banning Russian planes from US airspace – the American public is yearning for a stronger response. Paradoxically,

Americans approve of the measures Biden has taken (76% in favor), but 59% disapprove of his handling of the situation nonetheless, indicating a general lack of faith in the president.

Wall-to-wall coverage on TV news and social media has put the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the center of the public’s attention, but it is unclear what the American people want. A YouGov/Yahoo poll from late February showed that Americans ranked the crisis as the top issue for the Biden administration. Aside from imposing sanctions, Americans aren’t willing to get behind any particular response. A Reuters/ Ipsos poll found that less than half of Americans support sending financial aid to Ukraine giving NATO membership to the country, while about a third prefer no response at all. And as Putin’s invasion continues, Biden is pushed toward more extreme measures to deter Russian aggression, further acerating inflation through sanctions on Russian oil.

With only a few months until the midterms, and serious doubts about Biden’s chances in 2024, the president will be desperate to get the public on his side. But currently he looks set up to fail. As long as Ukraine remains a high-priority issue for voters, and Biden’s potential courses of action continue to be unpopular, it is highly unlikely that the administration will bring his approval ratings above water in the foreseeable future.

When George W. Bush became a foreign policy president, he was given carte blanche by the public to issue a maximalist response and ride a wave of support to reelection. Biden, however, must deal with the world that Bush created, battling tied hands on the international stage and poor public approval as the midterm elections threaten the domestic agenda for his first – and perhaps his only – term.

Will Gunter ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at gunter.w@wustl.edu.

Artwork by Caroline Weinstein

National

27

Putin’s Challenge to the World Phillip Lisun

O

n February 24th, 2022, Russian President Vladimir Putin gave a speech which declared a “Special Military Operation” in which Russia would pursue a “demilitarization” and “denazification” of Ukraine. As he gave this speech, bombs dropped on cities all over Ukraine, and a full-scale Russian invasion began. Uncertainty reverberated across the world as Europe marked its first major interstate conflict in decades. One thing is clear: Ukraine is not the beginning, nor is it the end. This is not just a Russian confrontation with NATO expansionism. This is Putin challenging the international liberal order. (ILO) In 2005, Putin gave a speech in which he famously stated that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century. Putin, of course, viewed this catastrophe in terms of Russian power. Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Moscow maintained a significant sphere of influence over Eastern Europe. Since the 1990s, this sphere of influence has continually dwindled. The Soviet Union dictated the terms of the international order, or at least parts of it.

Russia, however, has fared far worse. Since 1991, the Russians have faced two options: reject the international liberal order or accept the fate of nations like Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea.

The international liberal order consists of institutions ranging from defense institutions such as NATO, to financial institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Bank. Many of the world’s most powerful institutions are headquartered, run, and controlled by western, liberal, and democratic nations. This leaves nations who reject those same ideals, such as Russia, to accept the terms of the ILO or face exclusion and economic calamity.

In his 2007 Speech in Munich, Putin indicated that this challenge is not just about NATO.

28 WU Political Review

Ukraine is fighting not just for Ukraine, not just for Europe, but for freedom and democracy across the world.

Russia has made it clear that they view NATO expansionism as provocative (despite it being a defense treaty) but it is not the only international institution Russia takes issue with. Putin points out that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) is largely dictated by western liberal governments. Putin is also critical of financial and economic institutions such as the WTO and IMF and has called for major reform. Putin seeks not only to challenge NATO expansionism, but every aspect of the international liberal order from defense, to finance, to trade.

Sergey Karaganov labels this shift in Russian foreign policy the “Putin Doctrine,” calling it “Constructive Deconstruction.” Russia, a declining economic power, has few options with which to rebuild its sphere of influence and to regain its power to dictate the terms of the international order. Thus, Putin has pursued the desperate option: rebuild his sphere of influence by force. In 2008 Russia invaded Georgia, followed

by Crimea in 2014, and most recently Ukraine in 2022. Clearly, if the West will not acquiesce to Russia’s requests now, then Russia will continue to expand its sphere of influence until the West accepts Russia’s terms or confronts Russia.

he could seek to unite the Russian mainland with Kaliningrad, a small Russian territory nestled between Poland and Lithuania. Today the conflict is in Eastern Europe, but we ought not be surprised when Russia’s challenge comes knocking on our door.

Perhaps Russia’s challenge is legitimate. After all, only democratic, liberal, western-style nations run the worlds’ most important institutions. Russia is not the only nation who has qualms about this. China, Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea have also shared in Russia’s dissent. Yet, we must seriously consider what a world run by Russia or China would look like.

The values that authoritarian nations target, representative government, fair elections, and free press, are the values the West upholds.

The ILO seeks not only to protect but also to promote these ideals. Thus, the Russia-Ukraine War reaches far beyond the borders of Ukraine through its challenge to the ILO. Liz Strauss, the current British foreign secretary said, “Ukraine [is] fighting for freedom and democracy, not just for Ukraine but also for the whole of Europe.” I disagree. Ukraine is fighting not just for Ukraine, not just for Europe, but for freedom and democracy across the world.

That is what the international liberal order represents—that is what Putin is challenging. We do not get to choose when or by whom we are challenged, but we do get to choose how we respond to those challenges. We can either stand up or bow down to Russia’s attack on democracy and freedom around the world–the choice is ours.

Phillip Lisun ‘25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at l.phillip@wustl.edu.

Should Russia emerge victorious in Ukraine, there is no reason to think that Putin will stop.

The Moldovan breakaway region of Transnistria (which borders Ukraine) is home to 400,000 ethnic Russians and 1,500 Russian troops.

Should Putin’s adventurism go even further,

Social distancing doesn't mean we're not ad connected.

WUPR invites you to write or illustrate in our next issue.

To get involved visit wupr.org/contribute

International

29

Ethnocentrism in the Ukraine Refugee Crisis Hussein Amuri

“I

’m very emotional… because…

European people with blue eyes and blonde hair [are] being killed.. every day by [Russian President] Putin’s missiles, helicopters, and rockets,”. In an interview with BBC, this is how Ukraine’s deputy chief prosecutor David Sakvarelidze commented on the humanitarian crisis caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on February 24th, 2022. But, amid a crisis the likes of World War II, criticism amounted on Sakvarelidze for comments that many rightfully pointed out to be racist and xenophobic.

But Sakvarelidze isn’t the only major figure in the international community caught on the wire for spewing racist comments, as Charlie D'Agata, Senior foreign correspondent for CBS's London bureau, came under fire for his words on CBS Live. In speaking to CBS viewers, D’Agata commented on Ukraine not being “like Iraq or Afghanistan that has seen conflict raging for decades,", but rather describing it as “relatively civilized, relatively European.., where you wouldn’t expect” war. But in a continent that used to refugees crossing their international borders, the way Europe and the western hemisphere media is covering the Ukrainian refugee crisis is different from how they covered past refugees crises. Specifically, the 2015 European migrant crisis met pushback by European leaders and their media. Fear of those seeking refuge being connected to ISIS aroused many. But it didn’t end there. From striking a deal with Turkey to stop the flow of Syrian immigrants entering Europe and deeming Middle Eastern refugees as others, Europe was determined to fight back. In a world that has long tried to force white, blue-eye supremacy on everyone, Sakvarelidze and D’Agata’s words are not surprising. Their words are part of a modern movement of European ethnocentrism meant to uphold white supremacy, through the rejections of non-white, Europeans from seeking refuge in Europe because they don’t look like them.

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the story being told about refugees in much of the

30 WU Political Review

In the case of the current Ukraine refugee crisis, the identification factors for the world’s sympathy toward Ukrainian are European heritage, blue eyes, and nonIslamic affiliation. greater western hemisphere has a different tone than that of 2015. Instead of hordes of wild beasts and lice, Ukrainian refugees are being dubbed as “European people with blue eyes and blonde hair”, and their country is a civilized, European state unlike the likes of Syria and Afghanistan. This is ethnocentrism at its best.

During the 2015 refugee crisis, many European countries made excuses that the reasons why they couldn’t accept refugees were because they didn’t have space for their excuses that they couldn’t accept refugees due to lack of space. But in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Europe now has space for over 2 million Ukrainians freeing their country than it did for 1.3 million refugees back in 2015. In stating that Ukrainian people are Europeans with blue eyes and blonde hair and refugees from the Middle East as are wild beasts and lice, Europe is upholding an institution of white supremacy that sees the immigration of people who don’t share their racial identities as invaders due to their perceived barbaric, uncivilized, and unintelligent nature. Associating these statements with trait empathic, many Europeans and people in the west are feeling compassionate and kind to Ukrainians fleeing war because they have blue eyes and blonde just like them.

In their 2017 European Journal of Social Psychology article titled “The unique effects of blatant dehumanization on attitudes and behavior towards Muslim refugees during the European ‘refugee crisis’ across four countries,” Professors Kteily, Hodson, and Bruneau from the University of Pennsylvania, Northwestern University, and Aarhus Universitet embarked on a journey to examine the blatant dehumanization of Muslin refugees during the “Refugee Crisis” that impacts much of Europe. In their examinations, the professors found that the dehumanization of Muslim refugees escaping conflicts in Syria and Afghanistan was largely fueled by anti-refugee, islamophobia sentiments, but beyond that, it was also fueled by ethnocentrism. The professors described how “Consistent with our predictions, we found that the degree of blatant dehumanization of Muslim refugees was uniquely associated with resistance to refugee settlement, support for anti-refugee policies. Importantly, this was true despite the inclusion of a rigorous set of controls, including political conservatism, prejudice, and trait empathic concern.” The key phrase there is “trait empathetic concern”. The phrase signifies human nature to act compassionate and helpful when they see other people in need. Images of conflicts that emerged from the wars in Syria and Afghanistan greatly helped people sympathize with refugees fleeing their homeland, seeking asylum in Europe.

But while a great number of people were outraged at the lifeless body of a two-year-old Syrian boy named Aylan Kurdi at the shore of a Turkish beach, much of the greater Europe felt was concerned about possible ISIS attacks. This was true because according to Professors Kteily, Hodson, and Bruneau, at its core, trait empathy pushes people to only feel warmth and compassion to those that look like them. In the case of the current Ukraine refugee crisis, the identification factors for the world’s sympathy toward Ukrainian are European heritage, blue eyes, and non-Islamic affiliation. This was the main concern for many Europeans and their leaders

during the 2015 European migrant crisis, that the people who might be entering their countries are affiliated with ISIS. This is where we are with Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine. Throughout the refugee crisis, many high-ranking political officials were highly critical of the possibility of Syrian refugees integrating into their countries, and often in vulgar terms. Then-Prime Minister of the United Kingdom David Cameron called the refugees a “swarm”, a Polish Member of the European Parliament by the name of Janusz Koran-Mekka referred to the crisis as an “invasion of human trash”, and Zsolt Bayer, founder of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party dubbed the crisis as a “hordes.. [of] wild beasts… and... lice”.

As means to increase its arms sales, in 2015, Putin and Russia joined the Syrian Civil War, choosing the side of President Assad. As a result of Putin joining the conflict in Syria, chaos and instability in Syria escalated in a war that had begun four years earlier. To be more specific, Putin’s involvement in Syria resulted in the 2015 European Migrant crisis that saw thousands of Syrians flee their country to seek refuge in Europe. But as previously stated, much of Europe didn’t want them due to their non-European heritage. Furthermore, Putin’s involvement paved waved for a chemical weapon crisis that took the life of innocent Syrian civilians. In an NPR article titled “Russia showed its playbook in Syria. Here's what it may mean for civilians in Ukraine”, writer Jason Breslow brings the point that in Syria, Russia was accused of similar war crimes it is presently being accused by the global community. War crimes that resulted in “civilian locations such as hospitals, schools, and markets were repeatedly targeted over the course of a major offensive.. and.. at least 1,600 people and the displacement of another 1.4 million” (Breslow). While the reality of Russia’s war crimes in Syria isn’t to discredit the global community’s empathy for Ukraine right now, where has the world outrage for Syria been though? While sanctions to disempower the Assad regime were taken by the US and some

Countries with the economic means to aid Ukrainian refugees must do so. But they must do so not because Ukrainians are European people with blue eyes and blonde hair, not because they are from a relatively civilized country, but because they are human beings

and blonde hair, not because they are from a relatively civilized country, but because they are human beings. Human beings like those who fled their countries for Europe in the 2015 European refugee crisis and those in Syria who since the second half of the 2010 decade, have been at the mercy of Russia war crimes. There’s no other way to put it, Europe’s reasoning for accepting Ukrainian refugees is one embedded in racism, islamophobia, and most importantly ethnocentrism. So, when standing up to Putin, it is imperative that we also stand up to racism as well. While the conflict between Russia and Ukraine is a complicated one, we must not allow ourselves to foster a society embedded in white supremacy. Ukrainians are suffering, and they need the global community. They need our help not because of their European upbrings, but because just like that one child in South America, or that elderly from Japan, we are all one tribe, the human tribe.

of its NATO allies, where was and is the media/ entertainment union against Russia’s war crimes, and their effect on Syrians? And while weren’t those sanctions to the extreme extent as they are now? The answer is simple. Similar to the Syrians and Afghanistan seeking refuge in Europe in the 2015 European migrant crisis, Syrians who have been at the mercy of the Russia/Assad Syria coalition war crimes, don’t have blue and blonde eyes, and their country is most definitely not civilized for the West and the greater global community to have pity on them. Trait sympathy simply doesn’t work that.

Hussein Amuri ’25 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at ahussein@wustl.edu.

There’s a crisis in Ukraine, but it is a crisis that is not equally weighted. The world needs to stand up to Putin’s aggression and he must be charged with war crimes. Humanitarian aid must be provided anywhere where aid is needed, regardless of the geopolitical of the region or the skin color of its people. Countries with the economic means to aid Ukrainian refugees must do so. But they must do so not because Ukrainians are European people with blue eyes

International

31

Critical Context: Russo-Ukrainian War Jordan Simmons

O

n, February 21, 2022, Vladimir Putin ordered his military into the Ukrainian breakaway regions of Donetsk and Luhansk to “perform peacekeeping functions.”

Three days later, Russian troops started a fullscale invasion of the country, the frontline stretching from Belarus to Crimea. Russia has, against all warnings, shattered the tenuous peace in Europe and largely united the West against it by making such an aggressive move.

But why did Russia invade? While many analysts are trying to shed light on this question, it is important to remember that, historically, Russia has continuously intervened in the affairs of its neighboring countries, either militarily or covertly. Let us not forget that Russia has been unofficially at war with Ukraine since 2014, following the invasion of Crimea and the uprisings in the Donbas. This full-scale invasion is by far the boldest move the Kremlin has made since the dissolution of the USSR but is not anything particularly new for them. When placed within the context of the Kremlin's past actions in neighboring countries, readers will see that the Russo-Ukrainian war is only the latest attempt

by Moscow to regain and maintain Soviet-era influence over policy in its near-abroad.

Let us start with the Second Chechen war in the 1990s. For context, the First Chechen War was a conflict sparked by Chechen separatists' declaration of independence from Russia in 1992. From 1994 to 1996, what was designed to be a quick pacification mission rapidly turned into a grueling war of attrition, in which both sides committed numerous atrocities. With many fewer restrictions on media coverage for news stations and a higher tolerance for political dissidence, public opinion turned against the war very quickly and the conflict ended in national humiliation. However, by 1999, Russian public opinion had turned against Chechnya, so when Russian soldiers repelled a raid by Chechen forces in their autonomous republic of Dagestan, it supplied the Kremlin with the perfect opportunity to re-invade.

32 WU Political Review

Re-invasion, combined with Russia’s tightened grip on media coverage of the war led to a much stronger and more durable war effort, relative to the previous effort. This war led to a few important developments for Russia’s war machine; in contrast to the First, the Second Chechen war introduced media controls and wartime propaganda, which helped to prime the Russian populace and keep them pro-war (or at least apathetic to it), by covering up the atrocities on the ground. This propaganda was, again, mobilized before the invasion of Crimea, this most recent stage of the Russo-Ukrainian war, and before Russian boots were sent in to quash protest movements abroad. This war was also the first that Vladimir Putin, elected in 2000, presided over. It is no secret that Putin craved the respect and fear the Soviet Union commanded and he was eager to try to build up the Russian national image; the Chechen conflict gave him experience in doing so through military means.

Russia’s next military move was an invasion of neighboring Georgia, in August 2008, dubbed the Georgia Crisis. Since independence from the Soviet Union, Georgia had been struggling to contain secessionist movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. When its forces decided to invade and reassert control over South Ossetia, Russia, which had nominally supported the breakaway regions, decided to intervene militarily. Their forces blitzed through the country and quickly subdued Georgian armed forces.

This conflict led to a few developments in Russia's favor. First, before the war, both Georgia and Ukraine had been openly flirting with the idea of joining NATO, which the Kremlin has long regarded as anti-Russia and an existential threat. The crisis indefinitely suspended Georgia’s accession to the organization and may have led to the election of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, who ultimately took NATO ascension and EU membership off the table. It essentially showed Moscow how easy it could be to rapidly secure its interests through

force. Second, Moscow was able to reign in Georgia’s actions covertly by occupying both Abkhazia and South Ossetia, giving the regions de-facto independence. This means that Tbilisi has to go through Moscow to deal with territories it essentially sees as its own. If Georgian policy develops contrary to Moscow’s interests, the Kremlin can tighten the noose and encourage separatist activity in the regions. Lastly, in this conflict Russia performed a litmus test for Western reaction; the US, which was dealing with the financial crisis and a Presidential election, chose to try and “reset” relations with the Kremlin, without taking real punitive measures.

Similar to the US, the EU was hesitant to push through measures against Russia. The lack of response from either power only emboldened the Kremlin for future conflicts.

The next time the Kremlin used its armed forces to try and secure its influence was following Ukraine’s 2013 Ukraine’s Maidan Revolution.

People reacted fiercely to then-President Viktor Yanukovych’s, a pro-Russian President, decision to refuse to sign the popularly anticipated Association Agreement with the European Union (following pressure from Moscow), which had the overwhelming support of Congress. Three months of intense protests followed by the occupation of government buildings, led the police to open fire on protestors.

This volatile situation led to multilateral negotiations to bring stability back to the country. The short of the deal was that new elections were to be called and constitutional reforms were to be adopted, to reign in the powers of the president.

Though there were rumblings that Yanukovych should remain president until an interim administration could be named, he was driven out of the country soon after the agreement’s signing (which Russia did not take part in). It was during the last days of this crisis, in February 2014, that Russia invaded and subsequently occupied Crimea.

In August, an uprising in Ukraine’s Donetsk Oblast provided the next site of Russian activity.

This pro-Russian uprising in Eastern Ukraine was quickly supported by Russian soldiers and Kremlin Wagner Group mercenaries. In fact, each time the Ukrainian forces threatened to regain full control of the Donbas, Russia increased the number of troops active in the region, to tip the balance of power away from the Ukrainian army. These actions not only represent the commitment to micro-managing each of these conflicts in Ukraine, but seedlings of the extreme measures Russia would subsequently take to keep Kyiv in its orbit; the occupation of Crimea and the uprisings in the Donbas came suddenly after Moscow’s interests were not met during negotiations. It seems that Russia’s retaliatory measures were meant to gain leverage over Kyiv, just as it had done in Georgia. Additionally, the crisis showed the Kremlin that Western support for Kyiv did not extend beyond financial sanctions. As long as Russia could weather the economic storm, it had the green card to do what it pleased in regard to its neighbors.

Subsequently, following Belarus’ 2020 election, Russia sent military forces into the country. This time the mission was simple: keep Alexander Lukashenko in power. President of Belarus since 1994, his wins in the 2006, 2010, and 2020 elections sparked accusations of voting irregularity and undemocratic practices. Following the 2020 election, more than 200,000 Belarusians participated in protests that called on Lukashenko to resign, but he doubled down on his measures and used the county’s security forces to forcibly disperse the protests.

During this crisis, Putin publicly offered to send in Russian troops to help pacify protestors.

Though official numbers are hard to come by, Russian forces did enter Belarus for this reason and assisted Lukashenko and his Belorussian forces. The combined Russian and Belorussian forces rapidly regained control of the situation.

In 2021 a similar situation happened in Kazakhstan. Following a hike in fuel prices,

large-scale protests emerged and subsequently devolved from simple opposition to contemporary fuel policy to calls for the resignation of the president. Notably, some analysts identified the origin of the protests as driven by ethnic/ tribal influences, rather than solely anger over national policy and lack of civil liberties, which adds another layer of complexity to this conflict. Either way, Russia sent a force of 2,500 troops to the country, on the behalf of President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev, to help assist the Kazakh authorities in restoring order to the country after government sites were attacked.

It seems that in each of these cases, Russia was extremely wary to let these popular movements playout, for fear of seeing another Euromaidanstyle “color revolution,” (which both Putin and the Kremlin’s foreign policy apparatus have repeatedly spoken out against) on its borders.

The Western response, again, largely consisted of sanctions and rhetoric.

This history reveals a few considerations to help us better contextualize this newest chapter of the Russo-Ukrainian war. First, while Russia has long lambasted “color revolutions,” largescale protest movements which bring about an immediate change in government, in its neighboring countries for being destabilizing, we now see that that fear is rooted in neighboring governments becoming pro-Western, such as seen in Ukraine. If the operations in Belarus and Kazakhstan show anything, it is that Russia is now ready to forcibly stop what it labels as foreign-backed “street revolutions” to maintain the status quo. Another aspect worth mentioning is the speed at which Russia expected to conclude large-scale military operations in Ukraine; the war with Georgia, which lies fully in the Caucasus, lasted only five days. This could be one of the biggest contributing factors for why, in 2022, the Russian military received logistical support that could only support three to five days of conflict, after full-scale fighting broke out. Moscow was sure its forces could blitz through Ukraine, just as it did Georgia.

Lastly, I should touch on some of the undercurrents of these conflicts. NATO expansion and protection of the Russian heartland (in case of a potential war with NATO) seem to underline the conflict with Ukraine. But let us not forget Putin's other justification of the war, that Ukrainians and Russians are essentially the same people, and that Ukrainian statehood is a Western construct. Let us not forget the hidden undertones on NATO expansion that played out in the Georgia Crisis. Let us not forget the justification of protecting Russians abroad or regaining Soviet glory that have underlined the conflicts in Crimea and the Donbas. Let us not forget that Russia has, many times, called for the prevention of “street revolutions.”

My point is this, though the justification for taking strong measures in neighboring countries have been varied and evolved over time, at its heart, Russia’s moves are those of a great power. This follows Putin’s desire to regain Soviet-level prestige and status; the first thing a country will do when it achieves great power status is to try and secure advantageous relations (using force if necessary) with neighboring countries, to avoid anxiety over threats close to home. This is what the U.S. did in the 1800s and what China seeks to do now, though to a lesser degree. The possible fruition of this expansionary trend is particularly worrying. Unless there are drastic changes in Russian political thinking and policy, its leadership will continually intervene in the affairs of its neighbors. The repeated use of soldiers keeps the Kremlin on a track for continued conflict with the West, regardless of the outcome of this war.

Jordan Simmons studies at the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.b.simmons@wustl. edu.

International

33

NATO Threatens World Peace and Security Jaden Lanza, Editor-in-Chief rG aphic by Jinny Park, Design Lead

A

s you’re reading this, the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine that began on February 24th may still be underway and a ceasefire not yet negotiated. If you support the antiwar movement, reflect critically on all the information you’ve heard in the last few months. Amidst an attack on Ukraine that violates international law, the propaganda campaign favoring American intervention has hit a fevered pitch. Punishing economic sanctions have been leveled against Russia, military assistance to Ukraine has been increased, with further military or economic escalations still on the table.

The greatest risk for wider catastrophe would be the U.S. government intervening militarily against another great power. As such, now is far from the time to set caution to the wind to “defeat” Russia. Now is the most appropriate time to forcefully criticize the narrative for American intervention.

In 2022, many see the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) as still necessary and needing expansion — a dangerously misguided proposition. Far from deterring Russian aggression, NATO’s continued presence post-Cold War only makes conflict more likely and the world less safe. NATO’s expansion has helped stoke the tensions and military buildup in Eastern Europe – and did not deter Russia from attacking Ukraine.

It’s unfortunate that it’s even debatable among antiwar Americans that NATO does not foster world security. NATO is a military alliance formed in 1949 comprising 16 nations designed to enact the Cold War containment of the Soviet Union. This objective was achieved completely when the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.

Yet the alliance has only expanded since then, adding 14 new member states in Eastern Europe and elsewhere. Today, NATO is the world’s largest military alliance with over three million personnel, consisting of 30 member states

34 WU Political Review

and dozens of other partners across the globe.

Most importantly, of course, it has the U.S. Department of Defense and its $777 billion budget on its side — the most advanced military colossus ever assembled.

NATO expansion is not, strictly speaking, the only cause for the current aggression against Ukraine, but try to imagine what it looks like to Russian leaders to have the mightiest military alliance in history actively expanding its reach – during peacetime – for over 30 years. This can only be described as a perilous U.S.-led policy of brinksmanship in Europe. There is no singular excuse or compelling rationale for expansion from 1991-2008; numerous Eastern European states were added to the alliance occurred before Russia’s aggression against Georgia in 2008 or in Crimea in 2014.

Leading up to the invasion, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s has argued that Ukraine shouldn’t be its own country. Eschewing “structural” or “schematic” explanations for the war, some pundits opine that the invasion centers on a “very personal desire to restore a mystical vision of greater Russia,” as Ross Douthat put it. Putin has claimed there is “historical unity” between Ukrainians and Russians, which he submits as a justifiable pretext for invasion. As Serhy Yekelchyk, a professor of Slavic Studies notes, “Many Russians today share Putin’s delusion that Ukraine has always been part of Russia. The truth is much more complicated.”

Given that complex history, there’s little validity to the idea that Ukraine deserves no sovereignty of its own. But this perceived (and real) occasional unity of Ukrainian and Russian peoples in history does serve as a convenient casus belli for Putin’s invasion, so it’s not really a surprise he made this argument.

So which is it: Is the threat of NATO expansion the cause of the war, or Russia’s innate desire for regional hegemony? The answer is it doesn’t actually make sense to think of Russian

nationalism and NATO’s threatening presence as separate issues – they’re actually intimately related!

Just looking at the words that the Russian president or his advisers say, there’s plenty of evidence that NATO expansion is a central issue of concern to their national security. “Especially in recent weeks, Putin has called NATO’s expansion a plot to destroy Russia,” New York Times reporter Max Fisher wrote on Feb. 24. Putin himself casts expansion as a security threat to Russia by hostile and untrustworthy powers that have continually ignored Russian pleas: “we invariably faced either cynical deception and lies or attempts at pressure and blackmail, while the North Atlantic alliance continued to expand despite our protests and concerns.”

This concern about encirclement is not ingenuine. Without ever enshrining it in treaty, American and German diplomats floated promise after promise to Soviet leaders from 19891991 that they would not “take advantage” of German reunification and the coming dissolution of the USSR to expand NATO. That it was not technically actually promised is not much comfort for Russian policymakers today, who have deal with the consequences of the ensuing enlargement of the Western sphere of influence in Eastern Europe.

In late 2021, Russia sent the United States a draft treaty with conditions they deemed necessary to avoid a military conflict in Ukraine.

Specifically, the Russian government asked for the U.S. to 1) halt NATO’s eastern enlargement, 2) freeze military expansion in former Soviet territory, 3) end military assistance to Ukraine, and 4) ban intermediate-range missiles in Europe.

All of the demands concern NATO activities in Eastern Europe. Thus, the notion that NATO’s presence in the region has nothing to do with the current conflict is easily proven erroneous.

It always comes as a surprise to Americans that

respond. The invasion will probably bolster Western leaders’ resolve to re-strengthen NATO and cement its alleged importance to security. Again, while I’m thankful the Biden Administration has so far made the correct call on declining to take extreme escalatory actions, the United states could foster security through greater measures of military de-escalation and diplomacy.

most of the world views the United States as threatening. An international Gallup poll was conducted in 2013 that showed that globally, the United States is considered overwhelmingly to be the number one threat to world peace, ahead of Pakistan, China, Russia, Iran, and others. After the annexation of Crimea combined with the invasion in 2022, Russia’s reputation around the world will no doubt decline, for good reason. However, they are a legitimate security threat mostly for bordering former Soviet bloc nations. Meanwhile, the United States is willing and capable of threatening intervention in virtually any country across the globe. The world is accordingly wary of American presence.

If you just take a look at the map of NATO partnerships and American military bases around the world, it’s easy to see why non-Western world leaders and citizens justifiably view the U.S. with circumspection. The scope of global military presence is nearly unprecedented for any one empire during peacetime. Not even Russia itself has avoided interaction with NATO, as they are part of the “Partnership for Peace” program that nominally involves cooperative military exercises and training. While wars come and go, NATO and American military installations remain in place on every continent, in particular surrounding America’s enemies and competitors such as Russia, Iran, and China.

The war in Ukraine is tragic. Russian and Ukrainian diplomats have been negotiating, so

far unsuccessfully. Diplomacy is nonetheless a worthwhile effort that we can only hope will lead to a ceasefire of hostilities as soon as possible. You know what would be worse than the conflict in Ukraine? A new Cold War between the great powers – the United States, Russia, and China. Even worse than that? Direct military conflict between those powers, which if it occurred, would probably be called World War III and engender a risk of nuclear annihilation.

Featured Writer Julian McCall noted in WU Political Review last month that the U.S. and Russia likely possess ~93% of nuclear weapons in the world with almost 7,000 warheads each. Both nations have a nuclear first strike policy, indicating their ability and commitment to deploy nuclear weapons at any time for their core national and geopolitical interests.

I appreciate President Biden’s decision to not raise the Pentagon defense alert after President Putin put Russia’s nuclear forces on high alert.

I’m grateful, also, for the administration’s ongoing refusal (so far) to do anything drastic like establish a “no-fly zone” over Ukraine, which would involve shooting down Russian aircraft and amount to a declaration of war.

But, you might be wondering, what is stopping Putin from launching more invasions against Russia’s neighbors, if not for NATO? I submit one intuitive piece of evidence that suggests the current deterrence strategy is unwise: NATO expansion did not prevent the invasion of Ukraine! Without the protection of being a full member of the alliance, no non-NATO country Russia has wished to transgress upon has been safe in the last 14 years. Expansion has, however, made Russia’s government insecure and more provocative in its foreign policy. Further enlargement of NATO would only make things even more dangerous – if all of Russia’s neighbors were to become member-states, Putin could decide to at last cross that line and invade a member of NATO, triggering a world war.

American policymakers are at a critical juncture in foreign affairs. The most likely scenario is that we continue down the road of containment that looks more and more like a new nascent Cold War. Such a situation would be grim and fought bitterly. This outcome isn’t inevitable. Hard power and military strength will remain important in world affairs for the foreseeable future.

But the United States could finally decide that NATO’s extensive projection of military power are no longer necessary in a multipolar world that is rightfully conducted first through diplomacy and restraint with respect to other great powers. The reintroduction of aggressive confrontation between powerful states would be a tragedy for the world.

Jaden Lanza ‘23 studies in the College of Arts &

I don’t know what will happen in the coming weeks in Ukraine, and even experts can never be truly sure what the future portends. Regardless of what does happen, the Ukraine invasion seems to be creating a massive shakeup in the Western world as leaders debate how to

Sciences. He can be reached at jadenlanza@wustl. edu.

International

35

36 WU Political Review