History

Featured Geopolitics Globalization History Human Rights Humanitarian Aid Security and Conflict

A Call to Amend the Security Council Veto

In the aftermath of the Second World War, the global powers came together to create an intergovernmental organization, the United Nations, that would facilitate diplomacy and “save the world from the scourges of war.” The spirit of the UN Charter was to create an international community that would prevent a disastrous third world war in the nuclear age and establish legal procedures and forums to address the world’s darkest problems. Since then, the United Nations has saved countless human lives and acted as a mechanism for preserving and building peace. However, there are many significant structural problems in the institutions of the international community. Multilateral humanitarian intervention, or the deployment of a multilateral peacekeeping force to halt genocide and crimes against humanity, is one of the most controversial actions of the UN. One should be critical of the effectiveness of Article 27 (3) of the UN Charter which allows the permanent members of the Security Council to veto resolutions for this type of military intervention.

The victors of the war had the most influence in forming the laws for this new international agency and for establishing new diplomatic norms. For example, the Allied powers organized the Nuremburg Trials to hold leaders who committed genocide and crimes against humanity during the war accountable. But because the winners, the Allies, were holding the trials, only Nazi leaders were tried for war crimes. The Allied powers also created the legal structure for the Security Council, and the US especially advocated for the veto power because it was an added protection of American domestic sovereignty. But the veto power has continually inhibited the functions of the Council, especially humanitarian intervention, and conflicted with the spirit of the UN Charter.

Multilateral humanitarian intervention exists to protect those who are suffering from the worst of crimes, crimes which are perpetrated by the victim’s own state. And while the UN recognizes the sovereignty of each of its member states and functions in an anarchic international system with no higher enforcement, if a state were to begin systemically exterminating its own people, the UN has the authority under international law to intervene with peacekeeping forces. Thus, multilateral humanitarian intervention is one of the two exceptions to the UN Charter’s ban on the use of force. The deployment of peacekeeping forces is authorized by the Security Council, who is bestowed with this authority because of Article 42 of the Charter. The permanent five (P5) members of the Security Council, the U.S., the U.K., Russia, France, and China, all have veto power when considering resolutions that authorize multilateral humanitarian intervention. Ten rotating non permanent members also vote on related issues and nine affirmative votes are needed to approve a resolution, but one veto from any of the P5 stops it from passing. This presents a problem when factoring in geopolitics and international relations into how the Council votes.

If a P5 nation decides that an act of humanitarian intervention would not be in their interest domestically, or in the interest of their allies, they can stop it from happening. This hypocrisy has been cited as a reason for a failure of preventing or halting genocide in the Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and Syria among other cases. Some would argue that multilateral humanitarian intervention should rarely ever be used and that the veto power encourages the Council to keep this type of resolution as a last resort. However, because this intervention is only ever considered in emergency situations, delay only means death for those affected. The Security Council veto promotes inaction by allowing a select few states the ability to act in their own interests at the expense of protecting human life.

It’s also important to remember that humanitarian intervention, which is a use of force, is only allowed as an exception under international law. One of the fundamental purposes of the UN is to prevent war and thus the UN Charter bans the use of force in Article 2(4). This law states that “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations”. Yet, the UN also codifies two major exceptions. The first is outlined in Article 51, which makes an exception for cases of individual or collective self-defense as no state would have signed a treaty that prohibited them from striking back after an attack. The other exception, outlined in Article 42, allows the use of force with Security Council approval if it is conducted in the spirit of Chapter V or “maintenance of international peace and security”. The UN gave themselves the power to intervene in another state if international peace is at stake. The exact law that details the structure of the Security Council veto on this type of force is enumerated under “Article 27 (3)…[which] establishes that all substantive decisions of the Council must be made with ‘the concurring votes of the permanent members’”; it also requires 9 affirmative votes out of both the 5 permanent and 10 rotating members to move forward with multilateral action, but the P5 are the only states with the ability to perpetuate inaction by dismissing a draft resolution. Historically, Article 27 (3) becomes problematic when most members (9 or more) will agree on a resolution and then one P5 state halts the process.

Syria has become a visceral example of how gridlocked the Security Council can become. The Syrian conflict began in 2011 when the revolutions of the Arab Spring reached Syrian borders. Assad’s regime began using violence against protestors and turmoil swelled. A civil war began, drawing in many other countries and ravaging the country for the last decade. According to the Human Rights Watch “World Report” that covered the events of 2018,

“The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), a monitoring group based in the UK, estimated the death toll since the start of the war to be as high as 511,000 as of March 2018. Years of relentless fighting left 6.6 million displaced internally and 5.6 million around the world, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)”.

Despite the desperate circumstances and the mass migration into Europe, the Security Council was again deadlocked. Russia supported Assad’s regime and vetoed any military intervention. The Syrian people have since suffered from the following human rights violations, described in the The World Report, such as chemical weapon attacks, arbitrary detention, and forced disappearances conducted by Assad’s government, as well as indiscriminate attacks by a Syrian-Russian alliance, persecution by non-state armed groups, deaths and displacement from Turkish military offenses, and violations by US-backed and US-Led coalitions; all of these human rights issues contributed to the disastrous displacement crisis. Because Russia has domestic interests in backing Assad, the Security Council remains deadlocked and no legal military intervention can occur. Instead, other illegal uses of force are occurring, and Assad’s regime continues operating with impunity. In a July 2020 UN Report, the Commission of Inquiry on Syria found “fresh evidence of war crimes committed by all sides in the Syrian Conflict”. The conflict and humanitarian disaster continues on. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been lost and entire cities have been displaced as the veto power halts legal international help.

There are various proposed legal Security Council reforms including: abolishing the veto and then expanding permanent membership to five other states or supporting the resolution “Responsibility Not to Veto” where P5 members’ veto power would not apply to military intervention related to genocide prevention. While these propositions have their own faults, a change to the legal structure of the Security Council is needed to prevent further inaction.

One proposed solution is to abolish Article 27 (3) and expand permanent membership to five other states from differing regions of the world. The reasoning behind this solution comes from a historical analysis of the UN structure. During the creation of the UN in 1945, the Council consisted of five permanent members and only six non-permanent members because the total number of members of the UN was only 51. Following decolonization, the number of states in the UN grew and by 1963, there were 113 member states. In response, an amendment to the Charter was made and went into effect in 1965 to add 4 more elected seats of nonpermanent members; this expanded the total number of members in the Security Council to 15. But now, the UN has 193 members and the Charter hasn’t been amended in 55 years; there are no permanent member countries from Latin America, Africa, or Southeast Asia. One solution is to expand the number of states from 15 to 20 and abolish the veto power. This would provide more representation to other parts of the world and reflect the global changes in international relations that have occurred in the half of a century since the last amendment. In addition, this idea could help solve the gridlock problem caused by the veto, which realistically occurs when all countries are in agreement except for one P5 state. The complications associated with this resolution lie in selecting the states that would form this new Council. One scholar described the frustration of diplomats trying to pass Security Council reforms when he states, “Beyond the idea of expansion, any consensus falls apart, with fierce regional rivalries over who might gain new permanent seats making any changes problematic, if not impossible”. The decision of which states can be on the new Security Council has also produced gridlock in moving forward with reforms.

Another possible solution is the acceptance of the “Responsibility Not to Veto” or the RN2V initiative which is associated with the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine. R2P was a paradigm shift in the early 2000s that changed how the international community viewed state sovereignty when faced with atrocious human rights violations; it was in reaction to the failures of the UN to stop the genocides of the 90s, including Rwanda and Srebrenica. R2P claims that the international community has a responsibility to protect citizens of other countries if their states begin to commit egregious human rights violations against them; it thus views sovereignty as a responsibility which could be revoked by the international community on the grounds that the state is committing a crime so atrocious and offensive, they have disrupted international peace. The RN2V is an initiative to eliminate the deadlock of the Security Council veto so that humanitarian intervention can be effectively applied. More specifically, the RN2V requires that “‘[t]he Permanent Five members of the Security Council should agree not to apply their veto power, in matters where their vital state interests are not involved, to obstruct the passage of resolutions authorizing military intervention for human protection purposes for which there is otherwise majority support’”. This initiative has met resistance from most of the P5, but has actually found support from France. The Official French diplomatic website states,

“…in 2013 France launched an initiative proposing a collective and voluntary agreement by permanent members of the Security Council whereby permanent members shall not exercise the right to veto in the event of mass atrocities. The Security Council’s ability to prevent or put an end to situations of mass atrocities is key to its legitimacy. As of September 2020, the political declaration of support to this initiative, carried by France and Mexico, had been approved by 105 countries”.

Like the previous solution of expanding P5 membership, which France also supports, many of the complications lie in the process of implementing these new laws. What will convince the P5 to sacrifice their own power? In addition, the RN2V initiative “explores the interaction of power and law, and the role of secondary rules therein…. Hence, the legitimacy crisis of the Security Council is at the same time a legitimacy crisis of international law”. Circumventing international law, even to provide necessary action, only decreases the legitimacy of these conventions. The ability for the P5 to restrain their own power and reform the Security Council represents the complicated interaction of power, politics, and international cooperation.

In conclusion, the inaction created and perpetuated by the Security Council veto is deadly. While the Allied Powers had the most influence in creating new international norms 75 years ago, future international conflicts ought to have leadership that more accurately represents the current international community and not just the domestic interests of the P5. The evidence for reform is clear. There is already a legal precedent for Security Council veto reform as a result of an increase in membership in the United Nations. There are many case studies where the veto power cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and Syria specifically serves as an example of when human life was lost when military intervention could have stopped militias from systematically massacring their own people. The international community already accepts, as a result of the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, the idea of humanitarian intervention for the purpose of stopping or preventing the worst of humanity’s crimes is needed to maintain international peace. However, Article 27 (3) prevents the UN from fulfilling its duties because it codifies the ability for the most powerful states to act in their own interest at the expense of the most vulnerable.

The Syrian case study also presents another dilemma: how society interprets international law. If states and civil society see case after case of deadlock that is only alleviated by illegal uses of force, what precedent does that set for international norms? The validity of Article 2 (4)’s ban on the use of force will be questioned or even disregarded. The cornerstone purpose of the UN is to prevent war, but unless the Security Council reforms its veto power, the status quo for genocide prevention will be inaction until illegal action is taken: the world cannot afford either. Two possible reforms could include abolishing the veto and expanding permanent members or accepting and promoting the Responsibility Not to Veto. Either of these reforms provide solutions, yet may be difficult to instate because they would require the most powerful states to limit themselves.

The issues of the veto power thus represent the broader dilemma of international cooperation. There is no overarching power, only states with individual interests that must work together to solve humanity’s most complex and dark problems. But, reform has occurred before and these necessary changes could save millions of lives. Reforming the Security Council to check the most powerful will increase the validity of the UN and international law in the future, which will help ensure that international aid will not forget the most vulnerable. Beth Simmons perhaps describes this power dilemma and importance of international human rights law when she states,

“No other international legal regime has aimed quite so consistently, explicitly, and universally at improving the quality of human existence… The key question is not whether crime exists – that is an indubitable point. It is, what and how has international law contributed to the chances that human beings will enjoy their rights more fully than would have been the case in the absence of the major human rights treaties?”

While international legal institutions, like the Security Council, need reform, a world without global forums dedicated to protecting human rights would be much worse. Therefore, reforming these institutions is not a sign of failure, but a commitment to the laws that will protect the human rights of future generations.

October 25, 2020 0 comment

History Racism United States

Why Dismantling Monuments Does Not Always Constitute Erasing History

written by Zachary Durkee

This article is the first of five pieces from our summer series for 2020. The theme this summer is “Challenging Narratives.” In the coming days and weeks, The Generation will publish more articles where our writers challenge various notions to provide new and different perspectives on the debates and events shaping your world.

“Around the country and the world you set aside race, class, age, language and nationality to demand respect for human dignity.” Civil Rights leader and Member of Congress John Lewis, who passed away this past month after a long battle with cancer, wrote these words as he lay dying. It succinctly captures the global scale at which events this summer have played out.

Shaken by the raw footage of a man pressed to the pavement while pleading for his life, protests in response to George Floyd’s death have erupted in places as far as Scotland and Seoul. His murder at the hands of Minneapolis police this past May demonstrates the potency and prevalence of racism in the modern world. The outrage expressed on a global scale is not just confined to the incident itself, but has snowballed into broader demonstrations surrounding race relations in various countries.

An area where this growing debate has raged and dominated in recent years regards publicly displayed monuments of figures whose pasts’ are saturated with the perpetuation and extension of oppressing others. In mid-June alone, countries such as the United States, France, Belgium, Italy, England, and New Zealand witnessed widening public calls to reconsider dozens of historical monuments. Although no monument can be labelled the same, the contentious debates surrounding their placement in society often boils down to whether dismantling them erases history, or corrects it.

For those against the dismantling of specific monuments and statues, history is an indifferent subject matter that must be grounded in objective truth in order to preserve the identity of a nation, provide a lesson for the living, and impart wisdom on future generations. Statues, to them, constitute a vital aspect of this necessary outlook. Tearing them down not only transgresses this ethic, but it leads a society down a slippery slope where it runs into the danger of damaging national identity, subjectifying history, and tarnishing the lessons that the living must pass on to their posterity.

This notion may sound compelling, but it is not reflective of reality. On a fundamental level, history has never been a subject of objective truth. Though people should strive for painting the most authentic picture of history (and many respectable people do), the reality is that history is most often analyzed, written, and retold by individuals with inherent biases or motives. On a national level, it is often bent and caricatured for the purpose of constructing and stoking nationalism, for good or bad. It assists individuals, institutions, and organizations with cultivating legitimacy, galvanizing a group against an enemy, constructing a sense of group solidarity, and boosting collective pride in one’s people. In short, history is inextricably linked to the culture and pride of a political community. If history is looked at from this more critical angle, it becomes clear that it’s truth can often be undermined in favor of political expediency rather than progress or wisdom. In the noble pursuit of utilizing history for the opposition’s intended purpose, societies must recognize this fact and continually challenge the historical markers that have already been written or erected in the decades or centuries that have gone by. If history was distorted in the distant past, it runs the risk of becoming an unchallenged truth in the present.

With this said, current controversy surrounding the erection and dismantling of Confederate monuments throughout the American South largely reflects this dynamic at play. It is an issue that is often misconstrued, which polarizes and drives discourse in a divisive direction. Widely disseminated images of mobs of people bringing down statues does not facilitate productive dialogue regarding how history is remembered in a country historically plagued by racism. Many advocates of keeping the monuments displayed provide the same line of argument stated above: history is an objective subject matter that must contain the good, bad, and ugly, regardless of how it makes us feel. And even if it is appropriate to take down monuments of enemy combatants of the United States, doing so (especially with mobs), puts the country on a slippery slope where we may soon witness the broader destruction of our national heritage. Figures who had outsized roles in shaping our country, even while embodying characteristics intolerable by today’s standards, will be erased and destroyed by unruly, radical mobs that will invoke the transgressions of racism indiscriminately.

There are two main issues with this argument. For one, unruly mobs do not constitute the majority of Americans. There is insufficient evidence to support that, from an institutional and broader societal level, statues of figures such as George Washington are being slated for systematic destruction. In fact, only 52 percent of Americans even believe the country should lawfully remove Confederate statues. This number drastically decreases when statues are unlawfully toppled as well. Mobs desecrating and tearing down a statue in the midst of a riot is not a strong argument for justifying the long-term preservation of Confederate monuments. Subscribing to the slippery slope argument to this degree takes away from the deeper reasoning behind why a growing number of people are calling for the removal of Confederate statues in the first place.

This leads to the second issue with arguing for the preservation of Confederate monuments. The Confederate statues are not objective symbols of history. If anything, they were erected for the purpose of revising history. Three periods when there were clear spikes in their construction lie in the wake of Jim Crow Laws in the late 19th-century; the apex of Ku Klux Klan lynchings and the advent of the lost cause movement (which aimed to mythify and nobilify the cause of the Confederacy) in the early 20th-century; as well as the backlash in response to the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s. If it is authenticity people seek in their pursuit of constructing history, it is not found in the Confederate figures who line city squares throughout the South. In fact, their placement runs directly against what Americans are supposed to learn and gather from the Civil War: rampant injustice, inequality, and racism deeply conflict with the core ideals of the United States and that failing to confront such contradictions not only tore the nation apart, it also threatened to destroy the Union and divide it into two sovereign countries. The construction of them was ultimately intended to immortalize the very wounds that continue to harm the United States to this day.

History is not set in stone from the moment it is recorded. It is a rough sketch composed by fallible people, oftentimes with incomplete information at hand. Beyond that, history can often be bent, distorted, or reinvented to serve a specific agenda for a higher power. If all history is assumed to be sacred facts of life, weaving it into a powerful myth can transform history into a powerful force that helps shape the present. If people are to make history a more productive, authentic force for guiding the present and future, it becomes the duty of the living to challenge distorting narratives that prevent us from realizing the honest lessons we must gather from it. Combating discrimination and demanding respect for human dignity entails rooting out falsely constructed notions of history that aim to cement, misconstrue, and advance racism generationally. We should not bolster a sense of false pride of the infamous upon marble platforms that loom over the very descendants of the people they enslaved.

August 23, 2020 0 comment

China Global Health History Russia

Is Xi’s Coronavirus Gorbachev’s Chernobyl?

written by Taylor Fairless

On December 31st, the government in Wuhan confirmed they had been treating dozens of cases of an unknown virus. By January 20th, other cases of this pathogen appeared in the United States, South Korea, and Thailand. Three days later, President Xi Jinping closed off Wuhan when 570 more cases had been confirmed.

The initial, negligent handling of the coronavirus and official’s delayed response is analogous to the disasters that unfolded with the 1986 Chernobyl incident, and is severe enough that Xi should be worried.

At 1:23 a.m. on April 26, 1986, almost exactly thirty-four years ago today, a routine test of the Chernobyl nuclear power station located in Kiev, Ukraine caused control rods to enter into the nuclear core. This created an unprecedented power surge that blew the 1,000 ton roof off of the reactor and caused radiation to spill into the air for 10 days.

At 2 p.m. on April 27th, some 36 hours later, Soviet officials finally proclaimed there had been an accident and began evacuating citizens for a “temporary” restabilization period. All the while, radiation was spilling so quickly that air monitors 2,577 km away in Sweden detected large amounts of iodine-131 the day after the evacuation. Despite this, Soviet officials falsely stated that “everything is under control.” People unknowingly carrying radiation on their bodies were migrating around the Soviet Union, with the government’s knowledge.

“It was a sunny Saturday, and I had spent most of the day outside, playing with other kids from our apartment building…We collected wildflowers and jagged clay pieces that we thought treasures until our mothers hollered our names through open windows, summoning us to dinner…As I ate my dinner, the sky was blue outside the wide-open window of the kitchen. I didn’t learn about Chernobyl for several days.”
Sophia Moskalenko, 10 years old at the time of the incident

Within weeks, 54 people died from radiation exposure. Another 4,000 civilians would get cancer, and some 120,000 clean-up workers would pass away from radiation poisoning. Today, these figures continue to rise.

Today’s threat is different from a nuclear explosion. Radiation is not a pathogen; during the 1980’s, the spread of radiation went only so far as available transportation could carry it. And this occurred at a much slower rate. On the other hand, the coronavirus has spread across the globe at incredible speeds through modern transportation and increased interconnectivity.

What parallels is individual reaction. There is an omnipresent feeling of vulnerability to an invisible threat. Trying to distinguish fact from propaganda and truth from deceitful words of relief raises questions about the trustworthiness of the government. To be sure, questions are proliferating in all realms and, the matter is, scientists are working with the unknown and political leaders across the globe have intentions that may vary from our own.

The nuclear disaster at Chernobyl struck a critical juncture in Gorbachev’s rule, just following his promise of transparency and reconstruction through glasnost and perestroika. Yet, it took weeks before Gorbachev stood in front of the public to discuss the incident for the first time. His promises were quickly overturned as the Soviets reverted back to their ways of secrecy and self-serving interests.

Xi’s authoritarian regime had many of the same initial responses, and subsequent strategies. As of last week, China’s propaganda blitz has focused on pivoting the blame of COVID-19 away from China, saying that it had nothing to do with its spread. Similar to the Kremlin, the Chinese government let the virus go unchecked for weeks from its initial start in Wuhan earlier last December. Despite cases emerging across Southeast Asia, as in Thailand and Singapore, Chinese officials muzzled scientific reporting and rejected visits from American health authorities in the earliest stages of the epidemic.

Chinese officials also lied about the seriousness of the situation. One of China’s more esteemed epidemiologists (a person who studies the accumulation and spread of diseases) said that if the government had acted sooner, “the number of sick would be greatly reduced.”

“The false information released by the relevant departments — claiming the disease was controllable and would not spread from human-to-human — left hundreds of doctors and nurses in the dark, doing all they could to treat patients without knowing about the epidemic.”
Said by an anonymous Central Hospital department head in Wuhan, China

As was the case with the Soviets, Chinese authorities failed to critically address the burgeoning issue, making claims that the virus could not spread from human contact. Social media discourse about the virus was heavily censored, even when propagated by doctors and health officials. And like Gorbachev, it took Xi weeks before he finally acknowledged the crisis on January 20th. A full three days later, he declared Wuhan to be on lockdown. But by that time, some 5 million Wuhan residents had traveled across China and overseas.

Beijing has tried to project the lackluster response to the virus onto local officials, as the Kremlin did to devoid themselves from the growing reprisal. But in both cases, the blame lies within the penchant for praise funneled through censorship, misinformation, and dystopic control.

The world should look towards the handling of both the nuclear disaster and the coronavirus outbreak as an example of the need for more transparent, intimate, and regular collaboration between governmental officials and health personnel to act earlier and more decisively in a globalized world. There needs to be an open, international forum for discussion that leverages the work of impartial IGOs and NGOs, such as the WHO and Doctors Without Borders. This is especially true for underdeveloped countries who are shouldering immense burden from the outbreak. A decisive plan for recovering from the fragmentation of the economy and society and strategizing ways to prevent its further dismembering needs to be reached.

With Chernobyl capturing the world’s attention almost 40 years ago, perhaps the current world was myopic when it came to the coronavirus outbreak. In the aftermath of the pandmeic, Xi needs to acknowledge his government’s failure to respond to the initial outbreak and subsequent disregard for its spread.

March 30, 2020 1 comment

Featured History Human Rights

Can the Liberal World Order Stop Genocide?

written by Alex Langsam

In October, a gunman killed 11 people at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in the deadliest attack on a Jewish community in the history of the United States. Such a blatant act of antisemitism should trigger alarm bells for the West, as it accompanies a growing fear that history may start to repeat itself. Jews are a canary in the coalmine for the West which, following the end of the Second World War and the crimes of the Holocaust, attempted to create a world order that would prevent such a thing happening again. But now, more than seventy years later, with nationalism on the rise and racist attacks seemingly increasing, it seems like the attempt failed. The so-called “Liberal” World Order has been apparently unsuccessful in containing the Second World War’s horrors. What can the West learn from its mistakes and what must it do about them? Genocide is preventable, but it demands work from many world actors.

After the Second World War, there was an effort, led by the US, to build a fairer and so-called “Liberal” World Order. The United Nations was established, with a charter that promoted “universal respect for… human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion”. Various other measures were employed to encourage a more co-operative and empathetic global community, such as the establishment of the European Union, the creation of the Sister City program and the decolonisation of both Asia and Africa. The US championed a new form of international politics, using its immense power to establish a set of norms for the world that would make it a more just place. But large-scale conflict was inevitable, and both the US and the new intergovernmental organizations it set up would not be enough to completely eliminate barbarity from the world.

Instead of extinguishing persecution and bringing about a perpetual peace, the second half of the twentieth century resulted in numerous genocides across Asia, Europe and Africa, as well as the forty-year long Cold War. The systems put in place to prevent a repeat of the Second World War were a step forward, but are not enough in and of themselves. They required constant support and improvement. Instead, they were only a moment of sobriety in an otherwise alcoholic world order.

These days, pundits have heralded the end of the Liberal World Order, due to a variety of factors including the rise of European nationalist parties, Britain’s attempted exit from the EU and the election of Donald Trump. But perhaps the Liberal World Order they mourn was in need of a re-evaluating shake. It had been taken hostage by American Exceptionalism, an ideology that places the US as superior to other countries, and the idea that its brand of capitalism should run the planet. Masked by the US’ excitement following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Liberal World Order seemed to be strengthened, but in truth it had been cracking for awhile and was in need of repair.

Three particular cracks run deep into the Liberal World Order: the sovereign states of Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia and Herzegovina. In these countries, genocide was carried out, while the Liberal World Order stood by and watched. Atrocities were ignored, bloodshed denied, and international responsibility abandoned. They are proof of the international community’s reluctance to prevent genocide. And the problem continues today, with the Rohingya in Myanmar, the Yazidis in Iraq and Syria, and Darfuri citizens in Sudan facing all-too-familiar stages of ethnic cleansing.

The world must figure out what it can do to prevent future genocides. The United Nations was granted some power to do so in 2005, when it established a principle called the Responsibility to Protect. This provided a framework of diplomatic and military steps to combat genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity, and seemed to be a step forward in mobilising the international community to take action. However, recent interventions have left a bad taste in the international community’s mouth and the Responsibility to Protect has been accused of basically being an easy excuse for regime change. New-age “intervention” can be hard to distinguish from good old-fashioned imperialism. However, despite the criticism against it, the Responsibility to Protect could still prove useful in preventing atrocities. It is a step in the right direction for solidifying rules in the international community.

What the world must do is to continue to support and develop the many systems and institutions in place to prevent genocide, as. The Liberal World Order needs to evolve from the US’ alter ego into something new, while the norms it set up must remain. The United Nations must continue to act as a forum and monitor for the international community. The Responsibility to Protect has to be refined and evoked when needed. The citizens of democratic states have to hold their governments accountable. The checks and balances that exist to stop genocide are in a constant state of flux – strengthened when states are in solidarity with them and weakened when states ignore them.

Constant normalisation of rules for the international community and solidarity against genocide is the best way to prevent it from occurring. It may seem unrealistic or too optimistic a premise, and in a way it is, but much progress has been made already. War has decreased, homicide rates are down and education rates are up. While there have been failures of the post-WW2 world order, there has also been tremendous success. The last seventy years have been among the most peaceful on Earth. Citizens in the West have developed a tendency to abhor genocide, taught to them by the failings of previous generations. The world is becoming smaller and smaller, and it needs to continue to be pushed in the right direction. Progress takes time, so long in fact that few possess the ability to properly comprehend the direction it follows. However, through a committed and maintained opposition, the brutality of international politics can perhaps be tamed.

January 20, 2019 0 comment

Africa Environmental Change Featured Geopolitics History Security and Conflict

The Renaissance of Water Conflict

written by Katarina Kosmala-Dahlbeck

Ethiopia first announced its plan to construct the Grand Renaissance Dam in 2010, as the Arab Spring began to threaten political stability throughout the region. Upon completion, the hydropower plant on the Blue Nile River will become the largest dam in Africa, storing about 70 billion cubic meters of water and flooding 1,680 square kilometers of land. In addition to displacing 20,000 Ethiopians from their homes, the dam also poses a serious water security threat to Ethiopia’s powerful downstream neighbor, Egypt. Ethiopia’s damming of the Blue Nile will propel Egypt into absolute water scarcity, severely limiting supply to its agricultural sector and to urban residents in Cairo. Tensions regarding the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) have consequently spanned nearly a decade as the two countries have struggled to reach a deal that will supply both of them with a desirable amount of water.

Due to colonial-era agreements, Egypt historically owns the rights to a majority of the Nile’s water. The 1929 Anglo-Egyptian Treaty and its modification in 1959 granted Egypt control over the Nile as well as veto power over any water projects upstream. These agreements were signed under British rule to maintain colonial control over Egypt’s agricultural exports and the Suez Canal, but did not take into account the needs of any other Nile Basin countries. Ethiopia, which controls the supply of 70-80% of the Nile’s water, was not included in either of these treaties and continues to deny their validity to this day. Addis Ababa has thus viewed GERD as a rightful opportunity to become the primary energy exporter in the region and lift the country out of poverty. Egypt, however, has viewed its construction as a secretive and unilateral decision to violate these treaties, escalating a conflict that has at times even threatened at military action.

Conflict over the Nile is not a new phenomenon, but Ethiopia’s announcement of the dam’s construction came at a time of particular uncertainty following the Egyptian Revolution in 2010. This had significant implications for the balance of power in North Africa, and Ethiopia took the opportunity to move on a neighbor preoccupied with domestic instability. However, tensions flared regardless as Egyptian President Muhammad Morsi asserted in 2013 that “if our share of Nile water decreases”, the alternative will be “our blood”. Egypt’s dependence on the Nile goes far beyond water resources and national security. The river is frequently mythologized in Egyptian culture, and the country’s constitution even characterizes Egypt’s existence as a “gift of the Nile”. After securing peace with Israel in 1979, President Anwar Sadat famously wrote that the only issue that could bring Egypt to war again is water.

More pressing than geopolitics, however, is Egypt’s domestic water security threat. Even without the dam, overpopulation and increasing desertification have forced the government to increasingly import water-intensive crops, especially rice. 625,000 acres of arable land are currently vulnerable to drought, and hundreds of thousands of farmers face a lack of livelihood should these trends continue. GERD’s completion, expected within the next five years, will reduce Egypt’s water levels by an additional 25%, posing major challenges for the desert-ridden country as droughts only continue to lengthen. The government has taken few steps to address this issue, and has instead mitigated the problem through increasing food imports and threatening the dam’s construction in Ethiopia. While Egypt’s attachment to the Nile is understandable, military action will not guarantee Cairo its water supply. Instead, the country should take the changing status quo as an opportunity to renegotiate water rights in the region outside of colonial dependence. A deal that provides all Nile Basin countries with water would help prevent dissatisfaction in Ethiopia and set a precedent for sharing international water bodies as resources become more scarce.

Fortunately, Ethiopia’s new prime minister Abiy Ahmed reached out this May stating his intention to “aid development in Ethiopia without harming the Egyptian people”. Known as a reformer, Abiy has made it clear that he wants to collaborate with Ethiopia’s neighbors rather than threaten them. However, the country’s staunch defense of the dam’s construction has signaled that Ethiopia does intend to rival Egypt as the primary energy exporter in the region and is now bargaining from a position of strength. The best course of action for Egypt now would be to concede its regional power and resort to diplomacy rather than threatening war. Temporary lapses in GERD’s construction due to domestic corruption and infrastructure problems have slowed the dam’s progress, and Egypt would be well advised to take advantage of this opportunity to negotiate a deal with Ethiopia. A temporary reprieve in construction allows all parties to preemptively negotiate without the pressure of full development underway.

Meanwhile, Egypt can more effectively mitigate the dam’s threat through its domestic water policy. Relying more on wastewater recycling would utilize its already available water supply, and drawing from groundwater aquifers would decrease its reliance on surface water. The government can even invest in desalination plants to help support its urban populations along the coast. In the agriculture sector, the country can update its irrigation technology to more efficient techniques that require much smaller amounts of water. Smarter irrigation and a transition away from water-intensive crops will considerably decrease agricultural water demand without decreasing food output. All of these strategies can help Egypt better adapt to water shortage while preparing for resource scarcities already expected due to climate change.

Unfortunately, this kind of conflict is not uncommon, and water grabbing has become one of the most profound vestiges of colonialism around the world. Powerful countries facing a water deficit have offset their losses by acquiring water in developing countries, often without the institutional protections and regulations to guard against resource exploitation. The majority of water grabbing takes place in Indonesia, the Philippines, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, although nearly 60% of global water appropriation is made by the United States, China, the United Kingdom, Egypt, and Israel. As water resources become more scarce, historical power structures continue to define the allocation of resources that seem to provide too little for both the rich and the poor. To make matters worse, legal agreements concerning international water bodies do not include climate adaptation policies or incorporate climate models for the future. As a result, the Grand Renaissance Dam is a powerful example of what we can expect in the coming years as water resources become increasingly limited and valuable.

The utilization of water as a national rather than a collective right has historically harmed all states involved and resulted in the power imbalances existent in the Nile Basin. All parties would be better off bargaining if they approached water as essential to their collective security rather than as the property of singular national governments. However, this requires the dismantling of centuries of unequal water distribution rights and the power hierarchies surrounding them. Until sufficient agreements can be made regarding the just allocation of water rights going forward, we can expect to see a surge in water conflict not only in Africa but throughout the world.

January 13, 2019 0 comment

Europe Featured Geopolitics History Military Russia Security and Conflict Territorial disputes Vladimir Putin

The Russo-Georgian War, 10 Years Later

written by Conor McDonald

On August 7th, 2008, the leaders of the Russian Federation shocked the world and made the controversial decision to mobilize and invade Georgia, a small, sovereign nation located in the Caucasus Mountains just south of Russia. The Georgian military had been engaged with separatists from the regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia for just under a week, yet by the time a large batch of Russian military personnel entered their territory through the mountainous Roki tunnel at 11:00 PM, it was too late. Despite what any news outlets would later report, the international community knew that Georgia had just lost a major chunk of its territory to this aggressor from the north. What no one knew, however, was that this seemingly minor excursion would begin a decade’s worth of continued Russian belligerence and adventurism toward its neighbors. But why start with Georgia?

Historically, the strained relations between Russia and Georgia are nothing new, and can be traced back as early as the year 1785 when the Russian Empire violated a treaty and refused to defend the eastern Georgian Kingdom during a Persian invasion. Some decades later, in 1801, Georgia joined the Russian Empire, and it remained a protected member up until 1918 when the independent Democratic Republic of Georgia was established following the Russian Revolution and the abdication of the Russian Tsardom. This was short-lived, however, as the Bolsheviks and the Red Army overthrew the Georgian government in 1921 and forcibly annexed the region into the newly-established United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR) in 1922.

The USSR forced an era of tension, fear and powerlessness upon the citizens of Georgia. Under the first three years of Soviet control alone, approximately 50,000 Georgians were executed by the government, while an insurmountable 150,000 were purged up through 1951 by Joseph Stalin, a native Georgian himself. Additionally, basic rights to citizenship were stripped; according to Michael Parrish in The Lesser Terror: Soviet State Security, 1939-1953, Stalin forced entire Ingush, Chechen, Balkarian and Karachay populations, all native to Georgia, into deportation. Georgian territories were seized and distributed amongst various states, including Armenia and Turkey, and nearly half of the 700,000 soldiers that the country was forced to contribute toward the Red Army were killed over the course of World War II. Even when relatively progressive leaders like Nikita Khrushchev took control of the Soviet Union — “progressive” in that he succeeded Stalin — Georgian protests promoting independence from the USSR resulted in the massacring of hundreds of college students and demonstrators.

Thus, it should surprise no one that, upon the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Georgian officials were quick to declare sovereignty and begin holding democratic elections. Unfortunately, the radical and autocratic Georgian presidency of Zviad Gamsakhurdia prompted some to lose faith in their nation, and pro-Russian separatist groups gained prominence in certain regions — most notably in South Ossetia and Abkhazia — leading to a short-lasting civil war in the latter. Somewhat ironically, this forced Georgia to join the post-Soviet Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) in order to receive Russian military support, and, in 2001, Abkhazia and Georgia co-signed “an accord pledging not to use force against each other.”

After the accord’s ratification, a shaky sense of peace was established between Georgia and the separatist regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. It was clearly imperfect, though, as protests and skirmishes continued to break out while political tensions rose unwaveringly; South Ossetia even went so far as to hold an unofficial referendum in which 99% of the public voted in favor of independence, an act ignored by the European Union but supported by the Russia Duma. Two years later, after hearing direct pleas for support from Abkhazian and South Ossetian officials, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev stated that allying with the separatist regions “is not an easy choice, but it is the only way to save the lives of people,” and pledged both political and military support to both. Several months later, after the Georgian military responded to another South Ossetian attack, Russia launched its now-infamous military invasion.

Russia’s 2008 seizure of the Ossetian and Abkhazian territories provided eerie foreshadowing for what the Federation’s neighbors had in store. Six years later, in 2014, a near-identical crisis transpired in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine’s Luhansk and Donbas regions, disputes which continue to the time of this article’s publication. The primary characteristic that both the Georgian and Ukrainian annexation attempts had in common is that they highlighted deep, pervading insecurities from within the highest ranks of Russian leadership. These insecurities are two-pronged, with stress placed on both military and political pressures. From a military perspective, the intimidating reach of NATO expansion is obviously considered to be a pervading, existential threat; Georgia and Ukraine were invaded while the United States and the West considered their bids to enter NATO. However, the more alarming insecurities are political, and they continue to grow increasingly problematic as democracy gains popularity within Russian spheres of influence.

During a 2005 visit, President George W. Bush proudly referred to Georgia as a beacon of liberty in a region where freedom is not always to be taken for granted. He spoke glowingly about the 2003 Georgian Rose Revolution, in which a peaceful change of power allied Georgia more strongly with the West. This revolution preceded and arguably inspired Ukraine’s 2004-2005 Orange Revolution, which forced the overturning of then-President Viktor Yanukovych and his corrupt, Russophilic administration in favor of the more Western-oriented candidate, Viktor Yushchenko. These so-called Color Revolutions, which also took place in post-Soviet Yugoslavia and Kyrgyzstan, sent a message to their former occupier that these nations were now independent and desirous of fair domestic representation. Seeing that his neighbors were quickly working to distance themselves from the influence of a relatively weakened Russia, it would not take a foreign affairs specialist to understand that Vladimir Putin, a longstanding disbeliever in the promises of democracy, was far from pleased with the symbolism of these revolts.

Following the 2008 invasion of Georgia, Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko began to indirectly lay the groundwork for his own country’s invasion by publicly voicing his support for Georgian independence. It is no coincidence that this controversial anti-Russian stance hurdled Ukraine toward further political crisis in November of that year, a window which Russia seized to further exacerbate political troubles. When Yanukovych successfully regained his presidency in 2013, Ukraine spiraled into yet another revolution, and this time Putin chose to involve himself on his pro-Russia counterpart’s behalf. Shortly after, the autonomous region of Crimea was annexed by Russian soldiers.

Russia had been guilty of testing Western resolve all throughout the 21st century, particularly in Eastern Europe, but the dramatic actions against Georgia in 2008 marked a critical shift in Russian foreign policy. Long gone were the days of press releases or discrete political subversion, and ushered in was an era of violent military intervention and territorial seizures. The only thing protecting Russia’s other Western-oriented, post-Soviet neighbors is their NATO membership, and the United States and its allies should not be surprised to see Russian intervention on behalf of other separatist groups from non-member states in the coming years. Ten years after the events in Georgia, the world still waits to see who will be next.

September 26, 2018 8 comments

Environmental Change Featured Global Health Globalization History Human Rights International Trade Society and Culture The International Economy

Bayer Acquires Monsanto: Controversy & Implications for Global Agriculture

written by Sareen Ishanyan

Following two years of negotiations and approval seeking from various governmental bodies, the acquisition of the American agricultural biotechnology company known as Monsanto by the German pharmaceutical and life sciences giant Bayer was approved in spring 2018. Less than half a year later in August, Dewayne Johnson of the Bay Area was awarded $289 million in a civil suit which charged Monsanto’s infamous Round-Up Ready herbicide–also known as glyphosate–with causing Mr. Johnson’s diagnosis of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

For years, Monsanto has been decried by environmentalists and farmers alike for its pesticides, herbicides, genetically modified seeds, and seed policies. Additionally, with Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto, there are concerns for monopolization of the global seed market, as Bayer itself is a highly important player in the field of agriculture. This article seeks to understand the implications of a potential monopolization of the global agriculture system. First, however, this article will provide a background with a brief overview of the various controversies associated with Monsanto.

Criticism of Monsanto has spanned decades. During the Vietnam War, Monsanto was the largest American manufacturer of Agent Orange, an herbicide and tool of warfare used by the American military. Research in this area suggests that exposure to Agent Orange is associated with negative health effects. Vietnamese people and American veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange have been found to have higher cancer incidence rates than those who were not exposed. Meanwhile, the spraying of Agent Orange in Vietnam resulted in serious environmental problems, namely deforestation and reduction in the diversity of animal species.

Additionally, the seeds produced and patented by Monsanto have been a major source of controversy. One common charge involves cross-pollination lawsuits. For example, if a farm has planted the seeds of a patented GMO and, by way of cross-pollination, these seeds reach a neighboring farm and produce plants, it is often believed that Monsanto will sue, and has sued, the latter farm simply because of wind patterns affecting the movement of pollen. However, in reality, as one NPR article notes, there have been no such suits. But in 2013, the United States Supreme Court heard a seed saving case involving Monsanto. Based on patent law, the Court ruled in favor of Monsanto, which had sued a farmer from Indiana for saving seeds. Saving seeds refers to the practice whereby after harvest, seeds are saved and planted during the next year. Monsanto requires farmers who purchase their seeds to sign contracts in which they pledge not to save the patented Monsanto seeds they purchase in a given year. Still, this issue and the surrounding debate remain controversial as many question the practice of granting companies patents of living things. Arguably, patenting seeds is especially problematic as seeds are, both literally and symbolically, one of the most important living things on the Earth. Further, in India, over ninety percent of the cotton seed is controlled by Monsanto. In fact, some have even argued that increased suicide rates among Indian cotton-farmers is associated with Monsanto’s practices and patents of seeds. The evidence regarding a causal relationship is not conclusive, and many argue that a causal relationship does not exist; still, it is striking that Monsanto owns over ninety percent of the Indian cotton seed.

Additionally, the biotechnology of Monsanto has serious implications for agriculture and the environment. Round-Up Ready, also known as the chemical glyphosate, is the most popular herbicide used in agriculture. Glyphosate is a powerful chemical that is able to eliminate the growth of unwanted plants such as weeds. Yet glyphosate is also capable of killing valuable plants too. It is for this reason that Monsanto created genetically engineered crops that are resistant to glyphosate. The first of the company’s genetically engineered crop was the soybean in 1996. However, the use of glyphosate has the potential of developing so-called superweeds, which are resistant to glyphosate. Also, the development of such superweeds may induce the increased use of herbicides and pesticides by farmers attempting to contain such weeds. It is for these reasons that some protest Monsanto on environmental grounds.

Another issue is that there are concerns about the impact of glyphosate on human health. In 2015, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research concluded that glyphosate is a possible carcinogen. And, as discussed, a recent court ruling in San Francisco ruled in favor of Mr. Johnson, who claimed that Monsanto’s Round-Up Ready herbicide caused him to develop cancer. Monsanto, now considered a ‘unit’ of Bayer, faces thousands of other similar lawsuits, with many dying individuals in Northern California being given expedited trials. Still, Bayer is arguing that Mr. Johnson and the court ignored certain pieces of scientific evidence which claim that their is no link between cancer and glyphosate, and are seeking a mistrial.

However, it ought to be noted that the link between glyphosate and cancer is one that is under debate. For example, the National Institutes of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency have concluded that glyphosate is likely not carcinogenic. Monsanto has also been accused both of attempts to suppress scientific research reports which offer a negative assessment of Monsanto pesticides, and also instances of ‘ghostwriting’ scientific research findings which hold that glyphosate is safe for human health. For example, The New York Times notes of one 2015 article posted on the Forbes website that is believed to be ghostwritten by Monsanto but is credited to an academic named Henry I. Miller. Still, however, a study published in Scientific Reports found a link between glyphosate and fatty liver disease. Along with the recent court ruling, the possibly carcinogenic nature of glyphosate has been particularly salient in the last several weeks following a report that found traces of glyphosate in cereal such as Cheerios. The environmental research and advocacy group that published this report, Environmental Working Group, claim that such traces of glyphosate can says could “increase cancer risk for children.” However, as stated, findings about the nature of glyphosate remain inconclusive.

Amid the debate on the health and safety of glyphosate, there has been much talk in the European Union on the question of whether or not glyphosate should be a banned chemical. Many contend that glyphosate should be banned across all EU member states. While states such as Belgium voted against re-licensing glyphosate in the European Union in 2017, the vote ultimately ended in Monsanto’s favor with glyphosate’s license being extended for an additional five years. It will be interesting to see whether the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer, a German company, will have any effect on the use of glyphosate in the EU.

Further, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto suggests that alterations in the agricultural arena await. First, it should be noted that there has been a recent trend of consolidation in the agriculture industry. For example, before the Bayer-Monsanto merger, the companies Dow and DuPont merged, as did Syngenta and ChemChina. As Mark Connelly, an agriculture analyst notes, Bayer’s acquisition of Monsanto indicates that “$1 out of every $3” that farmers spend on seeds, pesticides, and herbicides will go to Bayer. In other words, a third of the world’s agriculture supply is now controlled by one company–Bayer. This consolidation has farmers across the globe concerned. For many, the increased trend of monopolization means increased prices. This is supported by data and research from the Farmers Business Network. In research that focused on the price of corn seeds and chemicals, this group found that greater market share was associated with higher market prices for products. As mentioned, Bayer now controls a third of the market share. Dow-Dupont and Syngenta-ChemChina are not far behind.

Monsanto has historically been associated with a variety of controversial products and practices. Despite all this, it is undeniable that the science and innovation of Monsanto has been remarkable. For instance, in the 1990s, the ringspot virus threatened to destroy the papaya industry in Hawaii. However, Monsanto, which had a patent on transgenic technology, allowed for this technology to be used to create the Rainbow Papaya, a genetically modified papaya that is resistant to the ringspot virus. This saved the Hawaiian papaya industry. However, there is the the fact that Monsanto manufactured Agent Orange, a biochemical weapon with possible long-term health effects, that was used in Vietnam. But Monsanto was not the only company contracted by the American government to produce this war chemical. There is also the fact that Monsanto’s patents over biological entities, such as seeds, has also received considerable attention. However, sensational claims of Monsanto suing small farmers because of wind patterns and pollen drift appear unsubstantiated. Also, the health and safety of Round-Up Ready is a current and hotly-debated topic. Thus, while Monsanto has been a topic of debate for decades, it is not clear whether Monsanto has done more harm than good, especially with regard to the agriculture industry, human health, and the environment.
Finally, while the acquisition of Monsanto by Bayer means that, legally, the name Monsanto refers to a company of the past, doubtless, the issues associated with (what was) Monsanto will continue to persist. Further, this recent acquisition marks a highly significant moment for the global agricultural sector. It is especially important to see how all of this will unfold in the coming years.

September 24, 2018 0 comment

Africa Europe Featured History Military Security and Conflict Uncategorized

La Guerre du Sahel

written by Grayson Peters

Along a desert road, a military convoy is passed by an unassuming gray car. There is a sudden explosion, then gunfire. Fifteen minutes later, four civilians are dead and eight Western soldiers are wounded. This is not the first act of terrorism in the region, nor will it be the last. The story is familiar – an Islamic terrorist attack against Western soldiers stationed in the region – but the players and setting are not. These foreign forces are not American, and the battleground is not Iraq or Afghanistan. The soldiers are French, and they are in the Sahel, a sub-Saharan strip of Africa that links the Atlantic Ocean to the west and the Red Sea to the east.

The Sahel is a vast, scarcely populated, and loosely governed region that stretches across fourteen African countries, including Mali, Chad, and Niger. In recent decades, the absence of effective governance has allowed the Sahel to become a hotbed of political violence and a safe haven for transnational terrorist organizations. Boko Haram, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), and smaller, regional terrorist organizations have all used the Sahel as a base of operations and refuge from counter-terrorist operations. The Sahel states’ porous borders enable militant groups to travel unchecked across vast swaths of the continent and strike targets in North African nations such as Algeria and Tunisia.

Ethnic and economic tensions in the Sahel predate the arrival of transient Islamic terrorist organizations, but temporary alliances between militant groups and villagers increase the scale and danger of regional violence. The New York Times reported that France and Mali estimate that ISIS in the Greater Sahara has only 40 to 60 core members. By inflaming local passions and escalating grievances between villagers, small groups of transnational militants are able to create disproportionately large violence and chaos. For instance, Niger and Mali’s cattle-herding Tuareg people, who had previously only taken up arms to defend their cattle and on occasion engage in small-scale ethnic violence, became involved with international terrorism. Far from home, Tuareg recruits have been involved in terrorist incidents in Libya, raids in Nigeria, and “banditry” in northern Niger and southern Algeria. Ethnic grievances between the Tuareg and Fulani peoples in both Mali and Niger led to ethnic armed conflict which was dramatically escalated by the presence of Islamic militant groups. Because these ethnic grievances are often intertwined with economic concerns, especially cattle ownership, external pressures that threaten the livelihood of Sahelian villagers can catalyze conflict.

As global warming progresses, the increased frequency of droughts, expanding desertification of the Sahel, and dwindling resources in the area will likely worsen regional tensions and create conditions favorable for the growth of terrorist networks. In 2012, according to the State Department, droughts and failed harvests in the Sahel placed 18.7 million Africans at risk for food insecurity, further fueling instability in the region. It is no coincidence that, immediately following the outbreak of drought, cattle die-offs, and famine, relations between Mali’s Tuareg and Fulani peoples worsened. A series of escalating cattle raids led to an arms race and created an opportunity for al-Qaeda affiliates to supply villagers with automatic weapons. Within the year, the Tuareg people of northern Mali, with support from al-Qaeda in the Maghreb, formed the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (NMLA) and rebelled against the central government of Mali.

When French military assets entered Mali in 2013, the campaign, known officially as Operation Serval, aimed to support the beleaguered Malian government and block the NMLA’s war for a Tuareg ethnostate in northern Mali. Although Mali and France decisively defeated the NMLA after only a few months, the French remained in Mali in an attempt to suppress a continued insurgency. Five years later, Operation Barkhane, France’s ongoing operation to stabilize the greater Sahel is ongoing and there are fresh casualties. As recently as July 1, a car bombing in Gao injured French soldiers and killed dozens of Malian civilians. Nusrat al-Islam, an al-Qaeda linked organization and the primary terrorist network currently operating in the Sahel, claimed responsibility.

In 2013, three-quarters of the French citizenry supported Operation Serval, the original intervention against NMLA secessionists in Mali. Today, substantial French support endures for the ongoing Operation Barkhane despite the campaign’s duration and casualties.

At first, it may seem surprising that France is leading the international effort to stamp out terrorism in the Sahel. After all, in 2003, the French government’s opposition to American intervention in Iraq was widely mocked in the United States. In protest, Los Angelenos (and even some UCLA students) publicly poured out French wine in front of the French consulate, and the U.S. House of Representatives cafeteria menu infamously renamed French fries to Freedom fries. During this wave of anti-French sentiment, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman declared that “France is becoming our enemy.” In 2003, France insisted on a multilateral diplomatic approach to Iraq, in opposition to U.S. President Bush’s insistence on unilateral military action. Yet, ten years later, the French army unilaterally entered Mali, touching off a protracted five-year campaign that has expanded to include the entire Sahel region.

What changed between Freedom fries and a permanent French presence in the Sahel? In reality, France’s relationships with Iraq and the Sahel are vastly different. Countries in the western Sahel such as Mali and Niger were colonized and imperialized by France during the European Scramble for Africa in the late 19th century. These Francophone African nations still bear both the trauma and cultural legacy of French rule.

Many leftist and African scholars argue that France’s reassertion of authority and military power over historic colonial possessions is best characterized as neo-imperialist. Skeptical that France’s primary concern is protecting Malian citizens from terrorism, these critics of French intervention point to plausible ulterior motives including the protection of French corporate mining interests and nearby uranium mines (in both Niger and Nigeria) on which the French energy sector relies. In February, Congolese novelist and UCLA professor Alain Mabanckou criticized la Francophonie, the informal and institutionalized network of French speaking countries, and described it not as a partnership of equals but as an instrument of French neo-imperial domination.

However, there is also evidence that the French feel a sense of obligation to and fraternity with the Francophone Africans of the Sahel. Cultural ties, a shared language, and a sense of historical interconnectedness (despite the region’s colonial past) are all factors. Arguably, elements within France feel a sense of guilt and noblesse oblige, or responsibility of the privileged, towards the nations their ancestors exploited. Whether this concern is genuine or paternalistically self-serving is a matter of debate. What is clear, however, is that the security situation in the Sahel is as of yet unresolved and that the potent mixture of ethnic conflict, Islamic terrorism, rising global temperatures, and increasingly severe droughts represents a enduring security risk for African nations and a source of serious concern for France.

September 19, 2018 0 comment

Asia China Featured Freedom of Speech History

The Non-Legacy of Tank Man – The Chinese Government’s Suppression of Activism

written by Xinong Wang

Though technically classified as a “developing country”, the People’s Republic of China holds an enviable place in the international arena as the world’s second largest nominal GDP and third largest global firepower. Governed by of the Communist Party of China (CPC) since 1949, China’s autocratic government presides over a population of almost 14 billion. Though these 14 billion people reside in one of the world’s most powerful countries, they are amongst the world’s most politically disempowered people; China as a country currently ranks eleventh worst in personal freedoms and fifth worst in freedom of press. Travellers to and from China are subject to a strict system of visa regulations, which, along with heavy government censorship, help insulate China from the rest of the world. Activism, from political reform to investigating fair trade practices in Chinese factories, is treated negatively by the government. In a country so large the people theoretically hold a tremendous amount of power. China’s vast population gives rise to the largest standing army in the world. Even if only the smallest fraction of people chose to participate, small insurgencies could escalate to a sizeable revolutionary force. As such, the CPC opts for the harshest of measures, from internet censorship to disappearances of dissenting individuals, to control its massive population under its dictatorial regime – it is a government that fears its own people.

The CPC has a history of using force against the civilian population to suppress their movements. Almost thirty years ago, military tanks opened fire and killed an unknown number of university students (estimates range between several hundred to over a thousand) who were advocating for political reform. This is what is now known as the Tiananmen Square incident of June 4th, 1989. This incident spawned the internationally famous “Tank Man” – the unidentified man who was removed by the authorities for standing in front of four tanks to slow their path towards the protesters. The identity and fate of this man remain speculative to this day. An iconic photo of his moment of defiance is widespread overseas, but Tank Man is not common knowledge within China. The entire incident at Tiananmen Square, including Tank Man, has been meticulously erased from history books, textbooks, films and television. News reports, documentation, statistics of casualties, or any mention of the event by news and entertainment are banned within mainland China. Censorship is meticulous; over 260 words, phrases, and dates categorised as “sensitive” are blocked, regulated, or filtered online. Some are as seemingly innocuous, random, or indirect as “63+1” (adding up to 64 – the date of the incident), “stock market” (referencing the Shanghai Stock Exchange Composite Index falling 64.89 on the 23rd anniversary of the massacre), or “gugudian” (a nonsensical phrase which has become a euphemism for tanks rolling over people). On the 24th anniversary of Tiananmen Square, an image which replaced the tanks in the iconic Tank Man photo with giant rubber ducks circumvented censorship and began circulating the internet. Following this, Chinese media began monitoring the words “big yellow duck”.

This entire incident and the government’s response enshrines how threatening activism is to the CPC’s autocratic rule. It relies on the inaction of its truly massive population, and censorship helps erase both the insurgency behind protests and the government’s brutality towards its own people. Statistics show that this censorship is working. Only 15 out of 100 students across four college campuses in China’s capital, Beijing, recognised the image of Tank Man in 2015. Even overseas in Chinese territories Hong Kong and Taiwan, sympathy for the protesters and their memory is dwindling while support for China’s actions is growing. In an Orwellian manner, the CPC has recrafted history to remove the offending incident from public memory. The population finds it harder and harder to hold onto an incident it cannot remember, much less prove.

China’s suppression of activism is not limited to the Tiananmen Square incident. Activism validates both the idea that it is legitimate for citizens to be dissatisfied with their government, and that individuals can be effective agents of change – allowing such momentum to build amongst such a large population would be hazardous for the CPC. Undercover investigators documenting poor worker conditions in a Chinese factory producing Ivanka Trump branded shoes disappeared in May 2017 after ignoring warnings by the Chinese police to desist. Five female activists planning a march for women’s rights on International Women’s Day in 2015 were arrested and detained for 37 days even as President Xi attended the UN’s Fourth Annual Conference on Women in Beijing. Activist Liu Xiaobo was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2010 for promoting democratic reform in the late 20th century. He was, however, unable to attend the ceremony as he had been incarcerated for “inciting subversion of state power”. He had been imprisoned in isolation without access to his family or his lawyer for eleven years when he passed away in July 2017 from liver cancer, for which he was denied treatment until it grew inoperable. News of his death was not broadcasted or announced in China.

While such incidents are often picked up by foreign reporters and journalists, the average Chinese citizen may never hear about them or only hear a biased account from state-approved sources. China’s attack on activism is inseparable from its meticulous regulation of media. Internally controlled social media sites, news, and entertainment create a filtered environment for communication which insulates China from ideas circulating in the international arena. State sponsored media is the most ubiquitous channel of mass communication in China. Chinese president Xi Jinping personally asked for continued loyalty to the CPC and their party line from the three largest state media organisations. They are the source of editorials informing the public of the dangers of western democracy, often incorporating current events outside China. Lately in particular, American politics are used as negative examples. From the healthcare bill estimated to eventually cause the loss of healthcare for 26 million Americans to the 2018 government shutdown, the US political system is framed as “chronically flawed” and democracy in general denounced as chaotic. This ensures that, since the Chinese people do not consider any alternative forms of governance more desirable, the political atmosphere of China remains stable and the majority of people continue their inaction. Overall, China has crafted a nationalistic narrative whereby the Chinese people currently live under the best system of governance offering optimal conditions to the people. This way of thought entrenches itself in the popular consciousness over time, as there is no free access to unregulated media which could contradict the state-sponsored narrative.

Yet even as media continues to deliver a carefully curated reality to Chinese citizens, a small number are able to view and use blocked sites through rerouting their IP addresses with VPNs The VPNs encrypt their location, which allows them to bypass the firewall and access the unregulated internet of the world outside China. This practice is not unknown to the government, which allows it on the premise that language barriers prevent this from being a significant threat. Not only this – this practice is most common in younger, millennial generations. Their parents tend to be of the generation who were activists in the 1980s, and were most immediately impacted by the consequences of student protests at Tiananmen Square. Given this precedent, they are typically more reluctant to engage in political activism, including raising their children to be politically aware or active. As a result, political apathy is widespread amongst those technologically savvy enough to overcome internet restrictions.

Freedom of speech is technically protected by the Chinese Constitution. However, it is superseded by regulations reserving the government’s right to exert its authority on matters deemed to endanger state secrets or the well being of the country – regulations which are evidently fairly flexible in their interpretation. Government suppression continues. The combination of reluctance from older generations, lack of overall political inclination, and inaccessibility of free information is causing the stagnation of mass political awareness. With no further upheavals to the regime since 1989, the Chinese government’s crackdown on activism continues to be successful.

January 24, 2018 0 comment