Home Featured
Category

Featured

AfricaCrisis ReliedFeaturedHuman RightsPrint ArticleSecurity and ConflictWomen's Rights

As the Anglophone Crisis Worsens in Cameroon, Women Continue to Organize for Peace

written by Annabelle Werner

Annabelle Werner’s article is additionally featured in The Generation’s Spring 2022 Digital Print Edition: Women. Coming June 2022.

While the Anglophone Crisis rarely surfaces in the international news cycle, millions of Cameroonian civilians are caught in a deadly stalemate between the armed separatist groups and national security forces. 765,000 people have been displaced since the conflict began nearly five years ago.1 Terrible atrocities are being committed by both sides, including the burning of villages, school shootings, improvised explosive devices (IEDs), sexual violence, and extrajudicial killings.2 Schools were shut down for nearly three years for fear of attacks and are only now hesitantly reopening. 

To aggravate this quagmire, water scarcity due to climate change in the Far North region has invigorated intercommunal tensions. Herders and farmers as well as various ethnic groups are vying for dwindling resources. This past December, the UNHCR declared a level 2 (out of 3) emergency in the region when 112 villages were burned to the ground, 15,000 people became internally displaced, and 85,000 people fled to Chad;3 a state that already hosts nearly a million refugees and internally displaced people (IDPs).4 This violence compounds the Far North’s existing suffering from a war against Boko Haram that has killed over 3,000 people and displaced nearly 250,000.5

Scholars such as Henry Ngenyam Bang and Roland Azibo Balgah have predicted that the state will devolve into a “Complex Disaster Emergency”(CDE), or a type of disaster scenario that is of a “multi-causal nature…[and holds] the propensity to interrelate political, economic, social, and environmental factors including internal armed conflict”.6 

It can be difficult to find hope when the region faces a litany of such complex and devasting violence. However, a shred of optimism may be found in one marginalized group that is organizing for peace and rebuilding community relations at the grassroots level: women may be the peacebuilders Cameroon so desperately requires.

But to further understand the recent violence Cameroon faces and how women may be able to facilitate desperately needed local reconciliation, specifically in regard to the Anglophone Crisis, let’s return to the beginning of the active conflict. In 2016, dissonance over language and political autonomy stirred peaceful protests headed by lawyers and teachers. The unrest was rooted in the repression of the Anglophone minority and an unsolved question of autonomy that began under colonization. The British had carved out 20% of Cameroonian land while the French occupied the other 80%. The smaller Anglophone regions were demarcated from the other eight Cameroonian provinces as the British and the French established differing legal and education infrastructures consistent with these separate metropoles. The clearest difference was language. 

In the decolonization process of 1961, the two Anglophone regions were quasi-autonomous but were eventually joined under the same state, the “Republic of Cameroon”. There were decades of “Negative Peace”7 rife with tensions between the Anglophone regions and the French majority, with the Northwest and Southwest regions arguing that Yaoundé was employing repressive tactics and erasure of their culture, such as requiring there to be solely French-speaking teachers at schools where no one spoke French. In 2016, the state security forces met peaceful protestors with violence in an attempt to quash dissent against the government. About a year later, a militant secessionist group called the Ambazonia Defense Force was formed.  Civilians are now caught in the crossfire between militant groups who burn villages and enforce “ghost town” protests in order to gain power through terror, and the government that has used state security forces to commit crimes against civilians. The state also continues to ignore and minimize the conflict with the secessionists, thus perpetuating the crisis.

Across Cameroon and humanitarian crises elsewhere, it holds true that women and girls are affected differently by armed conflict than men. They are always at risk of gender-based violence in times of peace, but sexual violence can be turned into a weapon in times of war. Women and children also make up the displaced at high rates, making the gender distribution among adults at refugee and IDP camps almost all women. For example, during intercommunal violence in Cameroon last December, 98% of the adults in IDP camps were women. 

This gender distribution reflects the terrible realities of conflict and survival. As men leave their families to fight, women take on the responsibility for both economic stability and childcare. They must make difficult decisions to flee, or even to stay in dangerous conflict zones to assume the burden of caring for vulnerable persons in the community who can’t relocate such as the elderly, disabled, and sick. Further, if a woman’s village is destroyed and she flees to the bushes, she would be subject not only to the dangerous natural elements and hunger but also to sexual violence by warring parties. If she flees to the city, her vulnerable position may make sex work the only viable option for survival. Thus, women suffer from conflict differently and typically assume the responsibility for the survival of the family and community during war.

But these burdens do not equate to a decrease in agency or their ability to affect political outcomes. Because while the Cameroonian cultural context has entrenched patriarchy, and women have typically been conceptualized solely as nurturing mother figures (like many cultures), these views of women as motherly and peaceful have allowed them to “organise undisturbed”.8 For example, in 2019, “more than 700 women from different cultural groups gathered in the Yaoundé Conference Centre to urge the government to put an end to the killings in the Anglophone regions”.9 Scholar Ivoline Kefen Budji describes how women utilized “sounds of mourning” to create stress and move peace talks forward.10 As they “wept, screamed, ululated, and sang dirges”, one woman explained to the media: 

“These are the women of the North-West region who have been in pain for the past three years, and because we heard that the prime minister is coming here today we decided that we should come out and cry aloud because the flow of blood has been too much. There is pain! We don’t sleep! There are incessant killings every day. We think that as women we have to do our own part of the job by coming out to cry, to tell the powers that be that they should try to put an end to this.’”11

Women have also organized diplomatic groups comprised of representatives from across the entire country. These reconciliation strategies include the formation of the Southwest and Northwest Women’s Task Force (SNWOT) which is a women-led group in Cameroon that fights against all forms of violence and the Cameroon Women’s Peace Movement (COWPEM) which is an assembly of women from all ten regions of Cameroon and various diasporas aimed at advocating for women’s right to participate in decision-making at all levels.

Women have taken up such roles as organizers and peacebuilders across the country, but they also face barriers to further leadership roles that could further thwart Cameroon’s chances for stability. One scholar, Zoneziwoh Mbondgulo-Wondieh, began her research to discover if/how gender operated during the Anglophone crisis, and if the substantial amount of women’s participation in the protest movement brought gender inequality into the agenda.12 Ultimately, Mbondgulo-Wondieh concluded that while human rights issues were discussed during this period of social reflection, gender equality was not an issue that was highlighted.13 If Cameroon pushes gender equality into the agenda, it could serve as a life raft for ensuring the survival of entire communities.

Thus, while women experience marginalization and are caught in a terrible crossfire between separatists, national forces, and intercommunal conflicts, they have continued to organize and demonstrate their agency in facilitating community and regional reconciliation. They have communicated and negotiated between large, militarized actors, and could be the best diplomats to reduce intercommunal tensions at the grassroots level. The problems Cameroon faces are sobering, but women could play an important role in putting out “small fires” as well as shaping long-term solutions. 

Endnotes:

1. International Crisis Group. “Cameroon”. (n.d.). Accessed May 6, 2022. https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/central-africa/cameroon 

2. Jess Craig. “Violence in Cameroon’s anglophone crisis takes high civilian toll”. Al Jazeera. April 1st, 2021. Accessed May 6, 2022. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/1/violence-in-cameroon-anglophone-crisis-takes-high-civilian-toll

3. United Nations. “Cameroon: Intercommunal clashes continue to displace thousands”. UN news. December 17, 2021. Accessed May 6, 2022. https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/12/1108242 

4. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. “Clashes in Cameroon’s far north displace more than 100,000 people”. December 17, 2021. Accessed May 6, 2022. https://www.unhcr.org/news/briefing/2021/12/61bc54734/clashes-cameroons-far-north-displace-100000-people.html

5.International Crisis Group. “Cameroon”. (n.d.). Accessed May 6, 2022. https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/central-africa/cameroon

6. Henry Ngenyam Bang & Roland Azibo Balgah. “The ramification of Cameroon’s Anglophone crisis: conceptual analysis of a looming ‘Complex Disaster Emergency’”. Int J Humanitarian Action 7. January 24th, 2022. Accessed May 6, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41018-022-00114-1

7. Gladys M Ashu. “The Impact of the Anglophone Conflict on Women and Children and Their Advocacy For Peace in Cameroon”. Gender & Behaviour Vol. 18 Issue 1. January 1st, 2020. Accessed May 6, 2022. p 14830. https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=4d24cd5b-d71f-4df4-8492-d193a6f07555%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=144348065&db=a9h

8. Comfort Ero & Ellen Johnson Sirleaf. “Women are suffering in Cameroon’s war, but they also hold the key to peace”. International Crisis Group. March 9, 2022. Accessed May 6, 2022.https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/central-africa/cameroon/women-are-suffering-cameroons-war-they-also-hold-key-peace

9. Gladys M Ashu. “The Impact of the Anglophone Conflict on Women and Children and Their Advocacy For Peace in Cameroon”. Gender & Behaviour Vol. 18 Issue 1. January 1st, 2020. Accessed May 6, 2022. 14842. https://eds.p.ebscohost.com/eds/detail/detail?vid=2&sid=4d24cd5b-d71f-4df4-8492-d193a6f07555%40redis&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#AN=144348065&db=a9h

10. Ivoline Kefen Budji. “Utilizing Sounds of Mourning as Protest and Activism: The 2019 Northwestern Women’s Lamentation March within the Anglophone Crisis in Cameroon”. Resonance: The Journal of Sound and Culture, 1(4). December 1, 2020. Accessed May 6, 2022. 443. https://doi.org/10.1525/res.2020.1.4.443

11. ibid. 

12. Zoneziwoh Mbondgulo-Wondieh. “Women and the Anglophone Struggle in Cameroon. In Gender, Protests and Political Change in Africa”. July 4th, 2020. Accessed May 6, 2022. 144. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46343-4_7

13. ibid.

June 2, 2022 1 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
FeaturedPrint ArticleSociety and CultureWomen's Rights

The State of Women’s Soccer in the World

written by Andreas Papoutsis

Andreas Papoutsis’ article is additionally featured in The Generation’s Spring 2022 Digital Print Edition: Women. Coming June 1st 2022.

There is still much more work ahead to achieve gender equality in the world of soccer. In the United States alone, more than 70% of professional soccer athletes are men, one of several indications that suggest participation among amateurs and youth can be hardly close to even among genders.1 For women looking to enter the sport, whether it be in the grand pursuit of a professional career or merely for leisurely purposes, a stark difference in pay rates for men’s and women’s national teams is a head scratcher considering the sport’s reputation as a game that welcomes egalitarianism.

The debate for equal pay reared its head most forcefully in the United States, with stars such as Megan Rapinoe advocating on behalf of female athletes everywhere, only to be met with harsh criticism from certain factions of the American public. After years of activism and drawn-out legal proceedings, courts in the United States ruled that the national soccer federation must pay both teams, regardless of gender, equally for representing their country in international competition.

Where does the United States stand in terms of progress on the matter? The agreement to offer equal pay to female athletes made the United States just the eighth country to enact such a policy, joining Ireland, Australia, the Netherlands, Norway, New Zealand, England, and Brazil. FIFA officially recognizes 168 different women’s soccer federations, meaning only 3.5% of female professionals representing their countries earn the same pay as men. In fact, FIFA recognizes 211 men’s soccer federations, meaning entire regions only have infrastructure and pathways to international athletic competition and recognition for men.

Of the other seven countries that beat the United States in the race to offer female athletes equal pay, many of them have been known to afford women more equality in several aspects of life beyond soccer. In the U.S. News and World Report rankings of the best countries for women to live in, Norway checks in at third, the Netherlands at fifth, New Zealand at eighth, Australia at 10th, Ireland at 13th, England at 14th, and Brazil in 42nd, whereas the United States checks in at 18th.2 With that being said, there seems to be a pretty direct correlation in determining which countries are most likely to offer equal pay to female soccer players, which is bad news for the current state of affairs since many of the world’s countries lag distantly behind in women’s rights. Since living standards for women typically correlate with a country having more infrastructure for women’s athletics, it is therefore all the more concerning that the United States, which is in the top 10% in terms of the rankings, falls so far behind in providing women with access to the same sporting opportunities it provides its men. In other countries where women experience even more unfavorable standards of living, their access to sports like soccer is restricted to an exponentially larger degree. The gross lack of sports infrastructure for women across the world is also a direct harm to women’s standard of living. A Rasmussen poll found that 82% of American parents viewed sports as important to the development of their children.3 Without equal access to opportunities across sports, many young girls are robbed of crucial development opportunities that are abundantly afforded to their male counterparts.

Outside of the global north, women’s access to the sport is often far more reduced. In 2013, Uganda’s government pulled its U-20 women’s soccer team from world cup qualification matches because of a supposed lack of funds.4 If the men’s team were in a position to contend for a spot in the World Cup, it is difficult to imagine that the government wouldn’t have done more on their behalf. In Iran, women face substantial barriers in accessing the sport where Muslim clerics have often dictated that women should not even be allowed to attend games, making it substantially more difficult for the sport to grow among the female population. Only recently have women been allowed into stadiums, while women competing for the national team often face hostility and discrimination that transcends the issue of equal pay.5 Khalida Popal, a woman who sought to create women’s soccer leagues in Afghanistan, was forced to seek asylum in Denmark after receiving countless extremist threats.6 In Brazil, it wasn’t until 1979 that women’s soccer was even legally sanctioned; cultural narratives up until that point suggested the sport was incompatible with “female nature”.7 In countless other countries across the world, women face extensive cultural (and oftentimes legal) barriers to access a sport that derives its beauty from being accessible to humans from all walks of life.

On the domestic level, pay discrepancies can be even more severe. Even in the United States, a sizable amount of professional female soccer players are paid no higher the poverty line. The minimum six-month salary for a woman competing professionally in the NASL is $6,842 whereas the poverty line in the United States is demarcated at $11,880 per individual. A blue-collar worker earning minimum wage would generate more than some female professional soccer players. Such low salaries understandably reduce interest in the sport and foment a discriminatory environment for prospective female athletes. For context, the minimum salary in Major League Baseball is $500,000 per year. The lack of fair pay at the club level only amplifies the harsh effects of financial discrimination seen at the international level. For the women have been able to break through such pervasive cultural and legal barriers to earn selections to their national teams (assuming their country sanctions one), and represent their nations in the World Cup Finals, they too find themselves at a great pay disadvantage to their male counterparts. In the men’s World Cup, competing teams fight for their share of a prize pot of roughly $400 million, while the women’s teams are forced to scrap for a pot of just $30 million.8

In the United States, however, the women’s national soccer team generated more revenue than their male counterparts, strengthening their argument for equal pay from both an ethical and economic perspective. In 2016, US Women’s soccer generated revenue of $50.8 million in comparison to $49.9 million produced by their male counterparts. If anything, it’s confounding that they aren’t paid more than their male counterparts.9 The counterargument to the equal pay initiative suggests that women athletes should earn pay equivalent to the size of the fiscal market associated with their sport, and since female sports don’t generate nearly the same revenue as male sports, they should not be paid equally. The 2018 men’s World Cup Final brought in over 1.1 billion television viewers.10 The women’s World Cup final, by comparison, drew in a total of 263.6 million viewers. While the women’s numbers might fall short in comparison, they are by no means anything to scoff at. Over the course of the entire women’s World Cup, roughly 414 million viewers tuned in. The UCLA-Gonzaga Final Four thriller, by comparison, saw about 15 million viewers.  It speaks to the immense growth of women’s sports and the cultural revolution that has taken place, albeit too slowly in most places and at a snail’s pace in other areas.

The economic argument, however, must be interpreted in context. Men’s sports typically do, on average, generate far higher viewership than women’s sports. But women’s sports also suffer from a lack of exposure to several media markets. When UCLA women’s basketball squared off against UConn in the first ever women’s basketball game broadcast on ABC, they broke the record for the most-viewed regular season women’s college basketball game of all time. The match brought in 839,000 viewers, which was 302,000 more than the amount who tuned in for a top ten men’s matchup between Villanova and Baylor the following day. Villanova and Baylor are two of the most venerated programs currently in men’s college basketball; to eclipse their viewership ratings by a wide margin speaks to the potential women’s sports possesses. Hence the economic argument should be understood in the context of inequitable exposure to media markets. When women’s sports are broadcasted on television and advertised across different mediums, they generally have no problem in attracting fans or viewers.

I would suggest that the ethical argument trumps the economic argument anyway. 

 Representing your country should not be viewed differently on the basis of gender. It takes immense sacrifice on the part of female athletes to represent their nations at the highest levels of the sport, and the message sent by paying them woefully less than their male counterparts is deeply damaging to young girls and young women seeking to pursue a career or even a hobby in soccer.

What can be done to remedy the problem? That would require a complex solution, since the issue of gender inequality is one that transcends soccer and intersects nearly every fabric of society. But the easiest first step that can be taken is for other soccer federations to follow the lead of countries like Australia and guarantee equal pay to female athletes who represent their country at international soccer competitions. FIFA should also step in and incentivize federations to make equal pay a hallmark of their governing structure. One such way to do so could involve penalizing countries that are clearly apathetic to the notion of gender equality, whether that be through financial penalties or outright bans from male competitions until some verifiable progress is shown that a given national federation is taking steps to ensure a more equal landscape for a sport that prides itself on equality. If a country’s soccer federation refuses to pay women equally for their service in competition, perhaps their men’s teams should not be afforded access to the glory of competition either.

The beauty of the sport lies in its ability to not discriminate across socioeconomic spectrums. That same equality should be demonstrated across genders.

Endnotes

1.“Professional Soccer Player Demographics and Statistics in the US,” Zippia. https://www.zippia.com/professional-soccer-player-jobs/demographics

2.“Best Countries for Women,” U.S. News and World Report. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/best-countries-for-women

3.“Americans Say Sports Are Important For Kids,” Rasmussen Reports. July 20, 2017. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/sports/july_2017/americans_say_sports_are_important_for_kids

4.Oryada, Andrew. “Uganda Withdraws Team From U-20s Women’s World Cup Qualifiers,” Uganda Radio Network. November 27, 2013. https://ugandaradionetwork.com/a/story.php?s=58478

5.Merhi, Karim Abou. “Women allowed to attend soccer game at Tehran stadium, a first in nearly 3 years,” The Times of Israel. January 27, 2022.

6.Lourim, Jake. “How Close Is The Rest Of The World To Catching The U.S.?” FiveThirtyEight. June 11, 2019. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-close-is-the-rest-of-the-world-to-catching-the-u-s/

7.Ackerman, Xanthe & Asquith, Christina. “Soccer is Still Out of Reach for Half the World’s Women,” Time Magazine. July 8, 2015. https://time.com/3949377/world-cup-women-global-equality/

8.Weber, Joe. “The Status of Equal Pay for Women Soccer Players Worldwide,” Girls Soccer Network. September 22, 2021. https://girlssoccernetwork.com/the-status-of-equal-pay-for-women-soccer/

9.Hess, Abigal Johnson. “US women’s soccer games now generate more revenue than men’s – but the player still earn less,” CNBC. June 19, 2019.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/19/us-womens-soccer-games-now-generate-more-revenue-than-mens.html

10.Glass, Alana. “FIFA Women’s World Cup Breaks Viewership Records,” Forbes. October 21, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanaglass/2019/10/21/fifa-womens-world-cup-breaks-viewership-records/?sh=40e6191a1884

May 31, 2022 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
EducationFeaturedHuman RightsPrint ArticleSociety and CultureWomen's Rights

Global Gender Inequality and Disparity in Education

written by Shannon Courtney

Shannon Courtney’s article is additionally featured in The Generation’s Spring 2022 Digital Print Edition:Women. Coming June 1st 2022.

Education provides individuals with the tools, skills, and knowledge needed to succeed in a complex and interconnected world. Throughout history, girls have struggled to receive equal access to schools to further their educational goals. Although there have been recent international initiatives and treaties to combat this challenge, there is still a persistent struggle in many countries to provide girls with universal access to education and close the gender enrollment gap. Educating girls contributes to women’s empowerment globally and positively affects the family and communal structures of society through health status, education, and overall socioeconomic prosperity. 

Where Gender Inequality in Education Stands in the Present

In 2007, the Global Education Monitoring Report identified gender equity and women’s empowerment as “requiring greater international attention in order to create sustainable development and increase global growth.”1 In 2013, the United Nations created the Sustainable Development Goals to achieve societal and global progress through commitments such as cutting poverty, empowering women in education and the workplace, reducing infant mortality, and improving health institutions worldwide. This initiative declares that “every human being, including every child, is entitled to receive an education.”2 However, despite the strong legal initiatives and advancements for access to educational institutions for women and girls, societal structures and systems continue to perpetuate disparities and boundaries between women and men. Studies show that although international social and economic policies have prioritized increasing women’s education, they “ignore the harsh impact of structural adjustment especially on poor households where female education may not be of a high priority.”3 The ‘global feminization of poverty’ refers to women disproportionately living in poverty throughout the world without adequate healthcare, food, water, housing, and education. Furthermore, women are denied fundamental rights and access to education, civil rights, and money in developing nations. In 2015, girls’ proportion of children out of school was 52%, specifically in Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and the Arab Nations.4 Also, two-thirds of global illiterate adults–773 million people–are women, and around 129 million girls are not in school.5 Educational inequality for women drastically impedes social and economic prosperity and development within society. 

Why Does the Education Gap Exist?

Although the Sustainable Development Goals assert that educational access is a basic human right for all children worldwide, the current legal pathways to education ignore the social factors such as gender bias, poverty, and violence that enable the global education gap. Gender bias within primary agents of socialization — parents, school, and social institutions — also reinforces messages that affect girls’ perception of their societal roles, labor engagement disparities, and occupational segregation. Education is a vital social institution and equips individuals with skills and tools to carry out different functional roles in society. For example, through socialization, children model their parents’ behavior, actions, and beliefs to develop their education and career goals. More specifically, girls tend to model their mothers and boys tend to do the same with their fathers as they attain their ideas, beliefs, and aspirations.6 Thus, if children, especially girls, are being disincentivized by their primary agent of socialization to not attend school or lack educated role models, it can cause a cyclical process of unequal access to formal education. 

Poverty is also a significant factor indicating accessibility to educational institutions for women and girls. For example, the education expenditure in Somalia was .99% in 2017, where only 23% of girls compared to 42% of boys were enrolled in school.7 In comparison, the United States has an education expenditure of 5% of the GDP at $700 billion.8 Since there is a lack of universally free public education globally, girls may not have equitable access to educational resources compared to boys even within the same household. Moreover, the spread of Covid-19 has had substantial adverse effects on the educational, social, and behavioral development of children. Although it roughly affects more than 90% of the world’s student population, remote learning is scarce in communities facing extreme poverty, failed states, and refugee camps. For example, less than 1/2 of primary and secondary schools in SubSaharan Africa had access to “electricity, the Internet, computers and basic handwashing facilities, key basic services and facilities necessary to ensure a safe and effective learning environment.”9

Gender-based violence also impedes girls’ completion of formal education. According to the Global Women’s Institute at George Washington University, an estimated 60 million girls are “sexually assaulted on their way to or at school every year.”10 This particularly impacts the Sub-Saharan region of Africa which accounts for 50% of the global percentage of children out of school and results in a higher probability of sexual assault than literacy completion for girls.11 For example, in Nigeria, 42% of the primary school age population were out of school.12 Moreover, 43% of girls in Nigeria are married before 18 years old and 60% have experienced physical, emotional, and sexual violence under 18 years old.13 This produces drastic consequences for girls’ mental and physical well-being as well as lower attendance and higher dropout rates. According to the data, this can result in higher probability of sexual assault or child marriage than primary school completion for girls. Moreover, violence against women can cost up to 3.7% of countries’ GDP, “more than double what most governments spend on education.”14

How Women’s Education Affects the Individual, Household, and Society 

When women achieve educational equality and close the gender enrollment gap in school, it empowers them, creates a fair and just community, and increases societal and economic productivity. On an individual level, education allows women to “be confident, independent, earn self-respect in the society, and unleash their full potential.”15 Education provides women with social interaction, knowledge, and tools to combat daily challenges, accomplish their professional aspirations, and acquire leadership in the community. A society’s investment in women’s education tends to have positive effects not only for the individual woman but for her family. Educated women tend to marry at a later age, which helps decrease the number of child marriages and health issues within a society. Increasing women’s health education benefits children through improved hygiene, immunization, nutrition, and lower infant and maternal mortality rates.16 Furthermore, when women have more access to resources such as money and knowledge, they are more likely to spend money on food, health, shelter, and education for their children.17

Investing in women’s education helps lift entire communities and countries out of poverty through increased workforce participation, higher incomes, and savings. Globally, despite constituting half of the world’s population, women make up only 10-12% of the entire formal workforce.18 For example, women in Latin America and East Asia consist of 53% and 59% of the labor force participation rate; this is strikingly higher than regions in South Asia and the Middle East with rates of 24 and 20%, respectively.19 However, through increased education, women are more likely to participate in the workforce, dramatically increasing a society’s economic productivity because women make up half the world’s population. When women’s income increases by 10%, and there is a 35% increase in GDP per capita of any country for every additional year of education for women.20 Thus, educating women improves the quality of the individual women’s lives, family, community, and societal structures. 

Solutions to Combat Gender Inequality in Education Throughout the World 

Although the right to education is ingrained in global government institutions, economics, social, and cultural factors prevent girls accessing education. Therefore, the best solution to increasing women’s education worldwide is to provide social funding, scholarships, and mentorship programs that change the economic barriers of poverty for women to accomplish their professional and educational aspirations. In many societies stricken with absolute poverty, girls do not usually attend school because their families have to pay for them. Instead, parents would rather pay for their son’s education to attend school and have the daughter stay home and help with the household operations, which develops a cyclical womb-to-kitchen pipeline. Thus, scholarship programs would be a beneficial tool for girls to access school affordably and break the cultural expectation of traditional gender roles. For example, a scholarship program in Cambodia that helps girls afford to attend secondary school has increased girls’ school enrollment and attendance by 30%.21 In Ghana, a three-year senior high school education roughly costs 70% of the GDP per capita of the country.22 In an experimental study to assess the impact of free secondary education, winners of scholarships were 60% more likely to complete secondary education, receive 1.25 more years of education than non-winners, and 30% enrolled in tertiary education.23 Although these various social welfare and scholarship programs address the economic barriers, it is crucial that initiatives to combat global educational inequality address the root cultural challenges as well. A consequence of implementing these solutions is that the scholarship program thrives on the support of the community or society on educating girls. If a particular society believes women should stay in the domestic sphere rather than being educated, it can make it difficult to change the social norms and stereotypes of women and receive funding. Therefore mentorship programs with educated women supporting and guiding younger girls within their community could help them feel empowered and encouraged to follow their dreams. For example, Project Kuongoza empowers women and girls across Sub-Saharan Africa and MESA “with STEM, ICT skills and enable them to compete successfully in the global information economy.”24 The program offers a yearly fellowship program  that pairs young girls aged 15-25 with professional women in STEM to help cultivate digital literacy and access untapped labor markets where women are historically underrepresented. 

Women make up half of the world’s population; however, they are robbed of fundamental human rights such as the right to receive education worldwide. Educating girls and women worldwide help solve global issues such as poverty, health, malnutrition, and social and economic development. When women lack educational access and socioeconomic opportunities, it impedes society’s economic growth, further subjugating women to an inferior quality of life. Therefore, a political commitment by countries is essential to raise awareness regarding the importance of women’s education for themselves, the household, and the greater society and create programs to combat educational inequality. Increasing girls’ access to educational opportunities through mentor and scholarship programs will help increase the overall international development of countries. 

Endnotes

  1. Leah Jackson. “Educate the women and you change the world: Investing in the education of women is the best investment in a country’s growth and development.” Forum on Public Policy, 2009. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ870099
  2. Tabreek Somani. “Importance of educating girls for the overall development of society: A global perspective.” Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 2017. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jerap/vol7/iss1/10/
  3. Shailaja Fennell and Madeleine Arnot. “Gender education and equality in a global context:Conceptual frameworks and policy perspectives.” Routledge, 2007. Accessed on January 15, 2022, https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203939598
  4. Tabreek Somani.. “Importance of educating girls for the overall development of society: A global perspective.” Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 2017. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jerap/vol7/iss1/10/
  5. World Bank. “Girls’ Education.” 2021. Accessed on January 21, 2022. https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/girlseducation#1
  6. Buchmann, C., DiPrete, T., & McDaniel, A. “Gender inequalities in education.” Annual Review of Sociology, 2008. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29737793
  7. UNDP Country Office for Somalia. “Gender in Somalia” August 27, 2014. Accessed February 19, 2022. https://www.undp.org/content/dam/somalia/docs/Project_Documents/Womens_Empowerment/Gender%20in%20Somalia%20FINAL1.pdf
  8. Mack DeGeurin. “The US spends more on education than any other country, but students lag behind academically. Here’s how much other countries spend and how well their students perform.” Insider, 2019. Accessed on January 25, 2022, https://www.insider.com/how-much-countries
  9. United Nations Sustainable Development. “Goal 4.” Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2021. Accessed on March 1, 2022, https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal4
  10. The Global Women’s Institute. “School-Based Interventions to Prevent Violence Against Women & Girls.” The George Washington University. Accessed on January 21, 2022, https://globalwomensinstitute.gwu.edu/sites/g/files/zaxdzs1356/f/downloads/Evidence%20Brief-%20School-Based%20Interventions%20to%20Prevent%20Violence%20Against%20Women%20and%20Girls.pdf
  11. UNESCO Institute for Statistics. “Reaching out-of-school children is crucial for development.” UNESCO, 2012. Accessed on January 25, 2022, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000216519
  12. Ibid.
  13.  Girls Not Brides. “Nigeria” Accessed on February 10, 2022, https://atlas.girlsnotbrides.org/map/nigeria/
  14. Caren Grown & Diana J. Arango. “Taking the fight against gender-based violence to schools” World Bank, 2020. Accessed on January 21, 2022, https://blogs.worldbank.org/voices/taking-fight-against-gender-based-violence-schools
  15. Tabreek Somani. “Importance of educating girls for the overall development of society: A global perspective.” Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 2017. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jerap/vol7/iss1/10/
  16. Leah Jackson. “Educate the women and you change the world: Investing in the education of women is the best investment in a country’s growth and development.” Forum on Public Policy, 2009. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ870099
  17. Ibid.
  18. Tabreek Somani. “Importance of educating girls for the overall development of society: A global perspective.” Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 2017. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jerap/vol7/iss1/10/
  19. World Bank. “Labor force participation rate, female (% of female population ages 15+).” 2021. Accessed on January 25, 2022, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.TLF.CACT.FE.ZS
  20. Tabreek Somani. “Importance of educating girls for the overall development of society: A global perspective.” Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 2017. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/jerap/vol7/iss1/10/
  21. Leah Jackson. “Educate the women and you change the world: Investing in the education of women is the best investment in a country’s growth and development.” Forum on Public Policy, 2009. Accessed on January 20, 2022, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ870099
  22. Esther Duflo, Pascaline Dupas, and Michael Kremer. “The Impact of Free Secondary Education: Experimental Evidence from Ghana.” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2021. Accessed on January 22, 2022, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3874078
  23. Ibid.
  24. STEMi Makers Africa. “Project Kuongoza” Accessed on February 19, 2022, https://stemiafrica.org/project-kuongoza/
May 17, 2022 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AsiaFeaturedGeopoliticsHuman RightsPrint ArticleTerrorismWomen's Rights

The Cost of War in Afghanistan: Women’s Rights

written by Arya Goyal

Arya Goyal’s article is additionally featured in The Generation’s Spring 2022 Digital Print Edition:Women. Coming June 1st 2022.

Conditions surrounding the rights of Afghan women have long been unstable. The Taliban rule in the 1990s was extremely oppressive as women were forced to practice a radically conservative form of Islamic law. Although the US occupation of Afghanistan in 2001 helped Afghan women enter the public discourse and played a significant role in improving healthcare and education access, their efforts were not completely altruistic or effective. Thus, the current withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan calls for an examination of the US occupation in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2021, particularly their motives and the outcomes with regard to women’s rights.

The Bush Administration thoroughly capitalized on the rhetoric around women’s rights in Afghanistan to justify their invasion. Indeed, the administration presented the occupation as driven by not only the need to avenge 9/11 and destroy al-Qaeda but also to liberate Afghan women.1 In fact, in November 2001, a few weeks after the US invasion, Laura Bush equated the “fight against terrorism” to be a “fight for rights and dignity of women.”2 The New York Times also referred to freedom gained by Afghan women as a “collateral benefit” of the war. 3

The use of Afghan women as “pawns and symbols” by the United States is also apparent through their constant reiteration of women’s rights amidst the violent bombing of  Afghanistan.4 The support for Afghan women is seen to lend a “feminist glow” to the harsh military action and increase both domestic and international support for it.5 In fact, Rep Carolyn Maloney wore a burqa whilst giving a speech to the House of Congress in 2001 on the inhumane treatment of Afghan women by the Taliban. 6 By donning the burqa, she exemplified what Rafia Zakaria, a Pakistani-American feminist author, and journalist, calls “American feminist exceptionalism.” It is the idea that American women are bold and veil free, considering it their duty to preach their version of empowerment, regardless of whether it suits the situation. 7 Indeed, Rep Carolyn Maloney lauded the Bush administration “for dropping food as well as bombs” in Afghanistan. 8 More than the initial bombing, the role of the savior helped them both legitimate and build a case for a longer occupation of Afghanistan. The latter of these is, in fact, hotly debated on whether the United should have withdrawn from Afghanistan earlier or not. Thus, in spite of the justifications used for invading, President Biden, while commenting on US withdrawal, said that women’s rights is not a topic that can be dealt with through reliance on military action. 9

Despite using this political rhetoric for gaining support, however, the United States did deliver improved healthcare and education for Afghan women. According to the 2010 Afghanistan Mortality Survey, the largest of its kind taken until then, life expectancy had risen from 42 years to 62 years between the years 2004 to 2010. This difference can be partly attributed to the way aid was managed and directed in the region during this period. Rather than having “quick impact, quick collapse” projects which had a short-term vision and focused only on areas incurring heavy warfare, these were channeled through the Afghanistan Ministry of Public Health itself and sought to have long-lasting effects. 10

Another important aspect was female participation in formal sectors such as media and law as well as gender parity in education. For example, under the Afghan law around 20% of seats are reserved for women and around 39% girls were enrolled in secondary school education in 2017 compared to only about 6% in 2003.11 However, there are issues with taking these statistics at face value as they are inflated by the government’s method of counting a child as “attending” unless they do not attend for three years. Moreover, these figures do not provide information on the ratio of boys to girls enrollment across provinces, one which is widening as the number of girls going to school is falling in certain provinces.12

In an interview with Ms. Hasina Safi, Afghanistan’s Acting Minister for Women from May 2020 to August 2021, she referred to 2014 to 2021 as a prime time for the advancement of Afghan women. She attributed this change to Afghan women, the Afghan government, and the international community. For instance, the cabinet in July 2020 approved the position of a female deputy governor, empowering women to be involved in local politics. This position was essential, she said, in creating a pipeline from houses to districts to the cabinet where women such as her would be able to help. Additionally, in September 2020, the cabinet passed a law to have mothers’ names on children’s ID cards. “This was our first legitimate space on a piece of paper,” she said. Thus, although the United States was not directly responsible for these changes, the international community’s involvement helped further these goals. 13

One significant drawback in the American way of tackling women’s rights was that it was Eurocentric and thus not necessarily suited to Afghanistan. The most direct impact of American involvement was evident in cities such as Kabul wherein other foreign funding and military were also present. In other areas, however, due to differences in religion, culture, etc., women were hesitant to speak out, and thus “NGO-ized feminism”—one relying on conferences and western values—was not adaptable. 14 For instance, the Bush Administration depended on the organizations such as Feminist Majority which did not possess experience in either Afghanistan or foreign affairs. In fact, a program called “PROMOTE”—endorsed as a huge female empowerment program by the USAID—cost $280 million and was labeled as a “failure and a waste of taxpayer money”. For example, providing women with a single “workshop” without any further follow-up or information on its long-term benefits. Moreover, according to some activists, the US occupation was a breeding ground for corruption as the aid dollars were passed onto the rich and or to warlords, the latter of which remain in control of Afghanistan. 15

The lack of on-ground experience meant that the United States took an imperialist stance and gave the Taliban an excuse to reject the efforts of local movements by calling gender equality a western value. This meant that opposing women’s rights was synonymous with resisting US occupation— a connection that had disastrous effects on Afghan women. In fact, soon after the US invaded Afghanistan, a representative of RAWA (Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan) condemned it stating that it gave more motive to the ultraconservatives by becoming the “foreign invader” that they sought to protect the country from. 16 Many Afghan women expressed “relief” when learning about the withdrawal of the United States from Afghanistan. 17 This stemmed from the fact that although the US had helped certain sectors of the economy, the rural areas—where about 76% of the women live—were in a constant state of war. This meant they lived through recurring airstrikes and bombing which made it next to impossible for girls to go to school. 18

Thus, although the occupation helped progress women’s rights in Afghanistan, this altruism on behalf of the United States was motivated largely by the benefit that it had in disguising the accompanied military undertakings. Additionally, the United States’ brand of women empowerment differed markedly from what Afghan women needed, a fact that greatly diminished the impact they could achieve.

Lastly, the Taliban takeover of Afghanistan in August 2021 has meant that this progress in women’s rights has not only been brought to a standstill but is being reversed. Afghan women felt a range of emotions upon hearing about the US withdrawal from Afghanistan—anger, fear, relief—but none of them was as dominant as the feeling of being left alone.

Endnotes:

  1.  John R. Allen and Vanda Felbab-Brown. “The fate of women’s rights in Afghanistan.” The Brookings Institution, September 2020. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-fate-of-womens-rights-in-afghanistan/.
  2. Jen Kirby. “Women’s rights have an uncertain future in Afghanistan.” Vox, August 24, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.vox.com/22630912/women-afghanistan-taliban-united-states-war.
  3. The New York Times. “Liberating the Women of Afghanistan.” November 24, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/24/opinion/liberating-the-women-of-afghanistan.html.
  4. Kim Berry. “The symbolic use of Afghan women in the war on terror.” Humboldt Journal of Social Relations​​, 2003. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.jstor.org/stable/23524156.
  5. Ibid.
  6. Kevin Frey. “Maloney defends wearing burqa, as the Taliban’s takeover in Afghanistan triggers debate in the NY-12 Democratic primary. ” Spectrum News NY1​​, August 25, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2021/08/26/maloney-defends-wearing-burqa-amid-criticism-from-challenger
  7. Rafia Zakaria. “Two Muslim Women Ar.e Headed to Congress. Will They Be Heard?.” Foreign Policy, November 12, 2018. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/11/12/two-muslim-women-are-headed-to-congress-will-they-be-heard-midterms-rashida-tlaib-ilhan-omar-democrats-feminism/.
  8. Bevan Hurley. “NYC congresswoman who wore burqa in 2001 speech tells of ‘heartbreak’ over Afghanistan.” Independent​​, August 17, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/afghanistan-burqa-congress-speech-b1904142.html.
  9. Fatma Khaled. “Joe Biden: Using Military Force to Handle Women’s Rights in Afghanistan is ‘Not Rational’.” Newsweek, August 19, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-using-military-force-handle-womens-rights-afghanistan-not-rational-1621098.
  10. Justin Sandefur. “Here’s the Best Thing the U.S. Has Done in Afghanistan.” The Atlantic, October 10, 2013. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/10/heres-the-best-thing-the-us-has-done-in-afghanistan/280484/.
  11. John R. Allen and Vanda Felbab-Brown. “The fate of women’s rights in Afghanistan.” The Brookings Institution, September 2020. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-fate-of-womens-rights-in-afghanistan/.
  12. Human Rights Watch. “I Won’t Be a Doctor, and One Day You’ll Be Sick.” October 17, 2017. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.hrw.org/report/2017/10/17/i-wont-be-doctor-and-one-day-youll-be-sick/girls-access-education-afghanistan#
  13. Interview Notes 
  14. Jen Kirby. “Women’s rights have an uncertain future in Afghanistan.” Vox, August 24, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.vox.com/22630912/women-afghanistan-taliban-united-states-war. 
  15. The New York Times. “U.S. Aid Program Vowed to Help 75,000 Afghan Women. Watchdog Says It’s a Flop.” September 13, 2018. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/13/world/asia/afghanistan-women-usaid.html.
  16. Shreya Chattopadhyay. “As the US Leaves Afghanistan, Anti-War Feminists Push a New Approach to Foreign Policy.” The Nation, August 11, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.madre.org/press-publications/article/us-leaves-afghanistan-anti-war-feminists-push-new-approach-foreign-policy. 
  17. Susannah George, Aziz Tassal and Sharif Hassan. “With a sense of betrayal and relief, Afghans eye a future without U.S. troops.” The Washington Post, April 16, 2021. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/04/16/afghanistan-civilians-us-troop-withdrawal/. 
  18. John R. Allen and Vanda Felbab-Brown. “The fate of women’s rights in Afghanistan.” The Brookings Institution, September 2020. Accessed April 22, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/essay/the-fate-of-womens-rights-in-afghanistan/.
May 10, 2022 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AsiaEconomicsFeaturedGlobal HealthHuman RightsPrint ArticleWomen's Rights

Human Trafficking in Nepal: The Push Factors and Pushback

written by Samriddhi Sapkota

Samriddhi Sapkota’s article is additionally featured in The Generation’s Spring 2022 Digital Print Edition:Women. Coming June 1st 2022.

When Nepal signed the Indo-Nepal Treaty of Peace and Friendship with India in 1950, the nation certainly was not expecting to face one of the greatest human rights crises in the South Asian region. Intended to reflect their long-standing friendly diplomatic relations and act as a strategic security alliance, the treaty opened up the almost 1,100-mile border between Nepal and India and enabled citizens of each respective country to pass freely.1 This agreement was fundamental to the socio-economic development of Nepal, providing the nation with vital resources from India to develop many of its economic and social sectors including basic infrastructure, healthcare, education, and human resource development.2 Yet, even with the treaty’s efforts to establish the border between Nepal and India as a symbol of peace, the agreement ultimately opened the door to grave atrocities towards women and children. The vast area that the border covers, combined with limited border resources and security capabilities, has created the perfect formula to orchestrate the trafficking of women and girls from Nepal to India with greater ease. 

The NGO ABC Nepal first raised awareness of the phenomenon occurring at the border in the 1980s, when they discovered that countless women and girls were being taken from Nepal and sold into sex trafficking, labor trafficking, and organ trafficking in India.3 Today, the Nepal-India border is considered to be one of the busiest human trafficking gateways in the world, with approximately 30,000 women and girls trafficked each year.4 Because traveling  across the border between these two nations does not require any visa or documentation, border security tends to be extremely weak. A large portion of the border cuts through the Tarai region of Nepal, an area that has a large population of people of Indian origin due to the proximity to the border. Yet, the Tarai region only has 22 check posts that generally monitor international trade rather than surveillance of people, making it one of the easiest places to traffick innocent women who travel to the area for work.5 Moreover, Nepali girls are considered to be especially attractive in India due to their lighter skin tone, alongside the perception that Nepali virgins can ‘cure’ AIDS.6 

Although the open border certainly contributes to the trafficking rates, the issue of human trafficking in Nepal is a result of many more complex factors besides border security. In recent years, trafficking has only been exacerbated by degrading circumstances in Nepal, including poverty, social discrimination, natural disasters, and political instability, which has tied the hands of the government to address human trafficking at its roots. Ultimately, with the government at a standstill, local organizations have begun to take matters into their own hands.

Nepal is one of the poorest countries in the world, with a GDP per capita of $1155.14.7 As such, the most common push factors for human trafficking are poverty and unemployment. Though rich in natural resources, particularly in its water resources, Nepal has still not been able to utilize these assets and establish any large industry on which to base its economy. And while the nation has the land and capability to mass-produce agricultural products, outdated farming practices make it difficult to establish a widescale agricultural industry. Without a representative industry, Nepal has a difficult time attracting foreign direct investment, the key to kickstarting economic growth. Consequently, Nepal relies on other countries, particularly India, to acquire the majority of its goods. With a stagnant economy and an overreliance on imported goods, poverty and unemployment rates remain high. It is estimated that in 2019, 17.4% of Nepali people, around 5 million individuals, were considered to be multidimensionally poor, which includes lacking access to housing, clean cooking fuel, nutrition, and years of schooling.8 Additionally, according to the World Bank, the unemployment rate in 2020 was 4.7%, a sharp increase from the previous year’s rate of 3.09%.9 

Given these dire economic prospects, it is not unusual for many Nepali women and girls to either look for work outside of the country or be sent by their families to make extra income. Common tactics used by traffickers include promises of work, opportunities, marriage, and other good fortunes available abroad, which is usually enough to convince the women or their families that opportunities outside of the country are better than prospects at home.10 Women and girls who face domestic violence at home, lack familial support, or live in rural areas are at even greater risk of falling victim to these tactics, as their desperation to escape their circumstances at home and their general lack of resources make them even more likely to believe the promises made by traffickers.11 

Poverty and unemployment are worsened by ongoing natural disasters at home. In 2015, Nepal experienced one of the most devastating earthquakes in its history, which killed almost 9,000 people and severely disrupted the nation’s social and economic structures.12 The earthquake left many women and children without homes or a livelihood. Numerous children who were orphaned or left without work were forced to move further away from home in search of employment. This made them even more vulnerable to tactics used by traffickers to lure them into lucrative practices abroad. It is estimated that around 12,000 children are trafficked into India every year, mainly for sexual exploitation but are also often sent to work in fisheries, construction sites, circuses, sweatshops, and sometimes even sent into the illegal organ trade.13 The market for organ trafficking, in fact, was found to have expanded as a result of the 2015 earthquake and the subsequent worsening of poverty.14 

Social discrimination against women is another consequential push factor that forces women and girls out of their homes and into dangerous work abroad. More specifically, caste-based and gender-based discrimination continues to be a major problem in Nepal today, despite strides made by the government to eradicate such practices in public and private settings. This is because instances of discrimination are generally not enforced to the highest degree.15 As a result, women and those from the Dalit class, formerly referred to as the “untouchable” caste, remain considerably behind the majority groups in Nepal both in terms of their economic prospects and representation in politics.16 The intersectionality of these identities also has a large impact on the vulnerability of women and girls to trafficking. NGOs in Nepal report that low-caste girls living in the Terai region of Nepal and in early and forced marriages were significantly more vulnerable to sex traffickers.17

Finally, political instability and corruption within the government make it difficult to punish traffickers even if they are caught. For one, even though the Nepali government has passed anti-trafficking laws, they generally have not been strictly enforced. Most notably, Nepal became the 176th country to ratify the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking Persons, especially Women and Children, also referred to as the Palermo Protocol, in June 2020.18 Nevertheless, the government has yet to make serious changes to its existing laws to implement the conditions of the protocol, which most importantly includes promoting cooperation with other states that have also ratified the protocol to combat trafficking.19 Because most of the trafficking that occurs out of Nepal entails foreign employment, implementation of the Palermo Protocol into the existing anti-trafficking laws in Nepal is a vital first step that the government must take to protect the women and girls who are sent to work across the border. 

Moreover, many individuals who are in charge of trafficking women and girls have deep political connections within the government. Several NGOs in Nepal have claimed that there are many police officers and political party leaders that are complicit in sex trafficking and the adult entertainment sector establishments where women and girls are forced to work.20 Hence, even when traffickers are arrested for their crimes against women and children, they can call upon their political connections and prevent any prosecution. The government has not made any significant efforts to investigate or prosecute any individuals for bonded labor and instead continues to misidentify the bulk of transnational labor trafficking cases simply as labor violations, which are generally resolved without a criminal investigation and result in short and insufficient sentences.21

Furthermore, some actions that have been taken by the government have actually created more problems for female migrant workers. In reaction to the rising cases of trafficking and sexual abuse, the Nepali government has continually passed measures to ban women under the age of 40 from traveling abroad to work without the consent of their families and local ward offices.22 This proposal has been met with intense public backlash, as it targets the already vulnerable women instead of attempting to dismantle the systems and trafficking networks in place that perpetuate the issue.23 The mandate fuels existing systems of oppression against women, who are already disadvantaged in social and economic circles and thus have difficulties finding work. Moreover, women who are unable to legally migrate out of the country for work might resort to illegal pathways to support themselves or their families, providing an even easier gateway for traffickers to take advantage of their dire circumstances.  

As evident from the push factors that increase the risk of falling victim to trafficking tactics to the lack of closure they receive even if their perpetrators are caught, Nepali women and girls are being underserved in every possible avenue. However, unlike the government, local communities are not simply sitting back and watching these atrocities unfold. Even though the government has been unable to make any notable progress to address human trafficking, countless numbers of NGOs in Nepal have stepped up to the job and been quite successful in their work to combat trafficking. These NGOs do a wide array of work including monitoring the Nepal-India border, collaborating with police officials to intercept women at the border or working in lucrative businesses in India, operating safe homes, and providing the necessary tools for rehabilitation.24 The majority of NGOs provide education and access to vocational skills for rescued women and children, such as sewing, cooking, housekeeping, and beauty, that they can utilize to find and establish a stable income.25 There are also a number of rescued women that have themselves assumed roles in anti-trafficking NGOs to address the problem. Survivors are often seen stationed at monitoring booths set up by NGOs at the Nepal-India border questioning suspicious individuals and cross-checking information to determine whether women and girls who are traveling to India are indeed safe.26 There is also an NGO established in 1996 called Shakti Samuha which became the world’s first organization that was established and run by women who were survivors of human trafficking.27

In addition to the work done on the ground, many NGOs have also taken the initiative to research and document trafficking. Nepal does not yet have a centralized database system for trafficking on a governmental level and the illegal nature of the act makes it that much more difficult to track. Thus, the majority of information regarding trafficking in Nepal comes directly from NGO publications, hence why there is a lack of concrete figures and numbers on the issue. NGO publications are also limited in their scope, as they tend to include anecdotal cases, newspaper reports, and commentaries from the agencies that are conducting the research.28 Despite the shortcomings of the research that NGOs have done, the extent to which trafficking has been documented through these organizations has played an essential role in bringing light to the issue of trafficking. NGO publications are a pivotal reason why the government has begun to act on trafficking in Nepal, even if these actions have not been quite effective.

For many Nepali women and girls who have been victims of trafficking, the work that is being done by NGOs to raise awareness for and combat the problem provides a small glimmer of hope for their futures. Even so, the process of reintegrating back into society following their rescue still presents its own difficulties. Women who had been able to earn money before returning to their homes are more readily accepted and more likely to be able to marry than those who return still carrying their debt or have become sick.29 Social stigma surrounding trafficked girls has also been an incredible hurdle in the lives of women and girls who try to start a new life in their communities. Specifically, women who had previously been involved in sex work are often perceived as being ‘tainted,’ suggesting that their communities have already labeled them to be a lost cause.30 

Evidently, Nepal is still quite far from combating all of the factors that produce the conditions in which trafficking thrives. Nevertheless, the actions being taken by local organizations proves that Nepali people truly seek to address human trafficking, even if this means that they must take on the responsibility alone. NGO work has been pivotal to bringing the issue of human trafficking to the forefront of general discourse, shedding a light on the dangerous repercussions of Nepal’s current economic and political environment on women and girls. That being said, there is still much more work to be done. Because the issue finds roots in larger and much more complex problems that the country faces, it will require major changes in the government to dismantle the social, political, and economic inequities for women and girls. Anti-trafficking initiatives need to not only be more heavily enforced, but they should also be targeted towards supporting women when they look for work outside of the country instead of finding ways to prevent them from doing so. Domestically, security and economic opportunities for impoverished women and girls must improve so that they are not forced into situations where they can be taken advantage of by traffickers. Lastly, further education is necessary in vulnerable communities on the tactics commonly used by traffickers to lure women, alongside the impacts that gender-based discrimination has on increasing the risk of trafficking to occur. 

Endnotes

  1. Maxine Betteridge-Moes. “Human trafficking persists during Covid at Indo-Nepal border.” University of London, November 26, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2022, ​​https://study.soas.ac.uk/indo-nepal-border-human-trafficking-persists-amid-pandemic/.
  2. Embassy of Nepal – New Delhi, India. “Economic Relation.” Accessed February 20, 2022, https://in.nepalembassy.gov.np/economic-relation/.
  3. Maxine Betteridge-Moes. “Human trafficking persists during Covid at Indo-Nepal border.” University of London, November 26, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2022, ​​https://study.soas.ac.uk/indo-nepal-border-human-trafficking-persists-amid-pandemic/.
  4. Friends of WPC Nepal. “Trafficking in Nepal.” Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.friendsofwpcnepal.org/nepal/. 
  5. Geetanjali Sharma. Indo-Nepal Cross-Border Human Trafficking: A Rising Concern: International Journal of Creative Research Thoughts 6, no. 1 (2018): 1345-1354. https://ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT1802174.pdf. 
  6. Human Rights Watch. “Rape For Profit: Trafficking of Nepali Girls and Women to India’s Brothels.” 1995. Accessed February 20, 2022. https://www.hrw.org/reports/1995/India.htm. 
  7. The World Bank. “GDP per capita (current US$ – Nepal).” 2020. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2020&locations=NP&start=2020&view=bar.
  8. OPHI, UNDP, UNICEF. “Nepal Multidimensional Poverty Index 2021: Report.” September 2021. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.unicef.org/nepal/reports/nepal-multidimensional-poverty-index-2021-report#:~:text=In%202019%2C%2017.4%20percent%20of,schooling%2C%20assets%2C%20and%20nutrition. 
  9. The World Bank. “Unemployment, total (% of total labor force) (modeled ILO estimate) – Nepal.” February 2022. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.UEM.TOTL.ZS?locations=NP. 
  10. Maxine Betteridge-Moes. “Human trafficking persists during Covid at Indo-Nepal border.” University of London, November 26, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2022, ​​https://study.soas.ac.uk/indo-nepal-border-human-trafficking-persists-amid-pandemic/.
  11. ibid.
  12. Violeta Santos Moura. “Spirit Me Away: The women and girls lost to trafficking in Nepal.” Al Jazeera, March 8, 2021. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2020/3/8/spirit-me-away-the-women-and-girls-lost-to-trafficking-in-nepal.
  13. ibid.
  14. Dom Gallogly, Layla Hart, and Georgina Kassim. “Human Trafficking in Nepal.” Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://uprdoc.ohchr.org/uprweb/downloadfile.aspx?filename=8088&file=EnglishTranslation.
  15. The World Bank. “Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste, and Ethnic Exclusion in Nepal.” 2006. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/745031468324021366/pdf/379660v20WP0Un00Box0361508B0PUBLIC0.pdf. 
  16. ibid. 
  17. U.S. Department of State. “2020 Trafficking in Persons Report: Nepal.” 2020. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.state.gov/reports/2020-trafficking-in-persons-report/nepal/
  18. Chandan Kumar Mandal. “Nepal needs to amend human trafficking laws to fully enforce Palermo Protocol, experts say.” The Kathmandu Post, February 21, 2021. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://kathmandupost.com/national/2021/02/21/nepal-needs-to-amend-human-trafficking-laws-to-fully-enforce-palermo-protocol-experts-say.
  19. ibid.
  20. U.S. Department of State. “2021 Trafficking in Persons Report: Nepal.” 2021. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.state.gov/reports/2021-trafficking-in-persons-report/nepal/.
  21. ibid. 
  22. Lekhanath Pandey. “Nepal’s bid to deter women’s job migration draws fury.” DW, February 25, 2021. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.dw.com/en/nepal-women-migration-exploitation/a-56696325.
  23. ibid.
  24. Violeta Santos Moura. “Spirit Me Away: The women and girls lost to trafficking in Nepal.” Al Jazeera, March 8, 2021. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2020/3/8/spirit-me-away-the-women-and-girls-lost-to-trafficking-in-nepal.
  25. Maxine Betteridge-Moes. “Human trafficking persists during Covid at Indo-Nepal border.” University of London, November 26, 2020. Accessed February 20, 2022, ​​https://study.soas.ac.uk/indo-nepal-border-human-trafficking-persists-amid-pandemic/.
  26. Violeta Santos Moura. “Spirit Me Away: The women and girls lost to trafficking in Nepal.” Al Jazeera, March 8, 2021. Accessed February 20, 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2020/3/8/spirit-me-away-the-women-and-girls-lost-to-trafficking-in-nepal.
  27. Shakti Samuha. “Introduction.” Accessed February 20, 2022, http://shaktisamuha.org.np/about-us/introduction/.
  28. Padam Simkhada. Life Histories and Survival StrategiesAmongst Sexually Trafficked Girls in Nepal: Children & Society 22, no. 3 (2008): 235-248. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2008.00154.x. 
  29. ibid.
  30. ibid.
May 3, 2022 1 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AuthoritarianismEconomicsEuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsHuman RightsInternational TradePrint ArticleThe International EconomyUncategorized

Why Liberal Internationalism Can Survive a Global Rise in Autocracy

written by Annabelle Werner

“Will we apply and strengthen the core tenets of the international system, including the U.N. Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as we seek to shape the emergence of new technologies and deter new threats? Or will we allow those universal principles to be trampled and twisted in the pursuit of naked political power?”

In his first speech before the UN General Assembly, President Biden acknowledged his administration’s sustained commitment to a rules-based order. He affirmed that the fundamental international legal doctrines created in the post-World War II era are not rendered obsolete by the passage of time, “new technologies” or recent grabs for power. Yet Biden’s declaration of support for the international system is far from accepted in the international relations community. In fact, the liberal international order (LIO) is coming under more fire than ever. Because while theorists agree that the world is collectively experiencing democratic decline, scholars and practitioners want to know: can liberal internationalism survive this global rise in autocracy?

According to Freedom House, 2021 was the 15th straight year of an overall rise in global autocracy and the worst single year of democratic deterioration.1 The “overall rise” occurs when more states experience a decrease in democracy than an improvement. This translates to nearly 75% of the world’s population living in a state that experienced democratic backsliding in 2020.2

It is widely accepted that 2020’s drastic deterioration occurred because of state leaders using emergency measures regarding COVID – 19 to postpone elections, indefinitely expand executive power, and erode democratic institutions. Few states were spared in the rise of populism as both struggling democracies like Hungary and secure governments like the United States both felt their democratic safeguards tested. The upcoming Freedom House reports will most likely measure whether political officials relinquish some of this emergency power. But while COVID – 19 may explain the rise in autocracy in 2020, there have still been years of democratic decline before it. Many theorists are claiming that the liberal international order is failing to prevent such decline, and it will not survive further changes in international hierarchy, such as the rise of China.

In order to tackle this argument, let’s first define what the liberal international order is, and what it is not. The LIO is a rules-based system defined by the essential, universal principles of human rights as well as political and economic liberalization that was established following World War II. Many international organizations and treaties were founded on these principles in the post-1945 era. Yet it is key to mention a fundamental idea developed by Professors Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and Stephanie C. Hofmann: not anyone international organization defines the entirety of the rules-based order – organizations can come and go as long as the fundamental principles of the LIO remain the same.3 It is also important to understand that the organizations created in the name of these principles were created by and for a handful of western states left after the end of WW2, thus they were designed to facilitate diplomacy between only a few state actors. Thus, it seems only natural for the organizations themselves to change over time in reaction to new events, phenomena, and actors. As long as newly amended or created organizations are upholding the LIO’s key principles, these are to be considered changes within the LIO, not challenges to them.4

Since the post-1945 world, one can see how the LIO has survived developments in world politics. For instance, the post-World War II hierarchy shortly gave way to the bipolar world and international stalemates of the Cold War. And while the LIO and its various international organizations were able to survive the great power competition, many of its functions were blocked throughout this period. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the LIO was essentially run by the U.S. until 2001. This unipolar, U.S.-led system arguably provided stability as the LIO’s agencies and mechanisms functioned unencumbered by the interests of other powers. 

But the U.S.’s unipolar moment ended in 2001 after the attacks on the Twin Towers and President Bush’s declaration of the “War on Terror”. The ensuing failures of unilateral intervention in the Middle East soon became synonymous with the failures of the LIO. Other troubles arose, like the deadlock of the WTO, which has resulted in the stalling of the Doha Round for 20 years, and the deadlock of the UN Security Council (UNSC), which has resulted in the perpetuation of humanitarian disasters in Syria and Yemen. Furthermore, the nature of war has shifted: internal/civil conflicts are more common than state versus state conflicts, and now non-state actors as powerful players in international relations. These changes have brought into question whether the LIO and its structure operating with states as primary actors, can adapt to such new challenges. Some theorists are even questioning if the LIO ever truly existed in the first place.

Despite this laundry list of problems regarding the efficacy of liberal internationalism, the general disillusionment with its ability to quell the rise of autocracy, and the doubt that our rules-based system can live through a change in the international hierarchy like the rise of China, the LIO is not obsolete and can survive in the 21st century. Rather than abandon our core principles, lower our standards for the quality of life, and abandon the pursuit of sustainable development, I argue that the LIO can stave off this rise in autocracy. Although in order to do so, the international community needs to apply new, innovative mechanisms to actualize the LIO’s core principles of multilateralism, and its international organizations need to adapt to a broader view of global governance and the reality of a multipolar world. The good news? In some ways, these adaptions have already started.

Although the Doha Round has been stalled since 2001 due to conflicts between the US and China, trade liberalization and the average global lowering of tariffs have continued exceptionally well; the average world import tariff remains below 5% (as of 2019).5 Economist Richard Baldwin argues that this is due to the increase in bilateral investment treaties and regional trade agreements (RTAs), which are innovative adaptions to a world that is far more globalized and complex than the one that existed at the conception of the WTO in 1995; he argues that such complex and nuanced solutions will be a part of the future multilateralism in the global economy.6 And while we still need to work with and reform the WTO in order to actualize its benefits, such as its dispute settlement body, we can pair this necessary reform with utilizing other innovative, solutions to promote key principles of the LIO: multilateralism and economic liberalization. And while we will still have yet to see the outcome of the current trade war between the US and China, I mention these localized adaptions to argue that despite the trade war, tariffs globally have been kept low. Thus, these aforementioned adaptations and suggested reforms can occur within the rules-based order despite periods of great power contention and stalemates between powerful actors.7

Another application of Sangiovanni and Hofmann’s theory to the WTO can be explored through the transition from the GATT (the former tariff lowering practice) to the very creation of the WTO in 1995. The WTO was created in order to adapt to the end of the Cold War as well as better incorporate so many of the newly decolonized states at the end of the 20th century. This development occurred without the claims that the end of the LIO was upon us, thus showing how there have been historical changes in our international economic systems within the liberal international order in order to adapt to new events. And while it is important to mention that agreements like RTAs could be used to facilitate protectionist policies, they also have the potential to “pave the way for deeper multilateral integration”.8 OCED describes RTA’s as having the ability to establish “deep and comprehensive market integration” while covering pressing issues such as intellectual property and environmental regulation.9 In summation, as long as the LIO’s key principles like economic liberalization and multilateralism are being actualized (which can be measured by analyzing tariff rates), the prominence of regional agreements should not be used as evidence that the end of LIO is here.

While innovative adaptations are already happening, our international organizations themselves still need to adjust to a multipolar international hierarchy. The reality is that we are no longer in a world that operates at the will of U.S. hegemony, and our current IO’s are struggling to operate because they were designed around an essentially unipolar world. They also face significant bureaucratic red tape in the pursuit of any reform. If some of the LIO’s structures can be amended to reflect an expanded system of global governance, and its mechanisms are better equipped to learn from their own shortcomings, the LIO can propel a recession of autocracy without reconceptualization or a retreat from our principles. 

One area that needs such reform is the UN Security Council. The P5 shaped the Security Council to reflect the victors of WW2, and it doesn’t even include a single state from South America, Africa, or Southeast Asia. The UNSC has been deadlocked, even during genocides, leading to a failure to halt such atrocious crimes. But an expanded and reformed Council could include more world powers and reforms such as where “permanent members shall not exercise the right to veto in the event of mass atrocities”, which is an idea proposed by a P5 member themselves, France.10  The stakes regarding the UNSC reform are particularly high as this is the only international mechanism that can legally sanction the use of force, which is one of the most powerful functions of the international community.

Yet the stakes are also high for many issues we face in the 21st century, and success cannot be achieved by regression to unwavering reverence to state sovereignty: we cannot simply give up on the principles or current mechanisms of liberal internationalism. Global pandemics and climate change do not occur in vacuums that individual states can solve on their own. Large swaths of our planet will become uninhabitable due to rising temperatures and sea levels, and massive levels of migration are inevitable. Resorting to isolationism and dismissing the fundamental principles of the LIO will only lead to more suffering. Accepting the inevitability of conquest and war will only lead to self-fulfilling prophecies. The only sustainable solutions to collective action problems will involve the just principles of equality and collaboration defined in a rules-based order.

So, if there’s broad consensus that the world is inevitably moving towards a multipolar world, shouldn’t we also ask ourselves what the benefit could be to 1) having our international organizations match the current international hierarchy and 2) having a multipolar world that also falls along the with LIO? Because couldn’t “a multifaceted world order based on complex and polycentric governance arrangements among a wider community of national governments, international organizations and non-state actors” better lead to more accountability and efficacy in our diplomatic practices? 

Overall, instead of rejecting the LIO on the grounds that it has failed to quell a rise in autocracy, we should focus on adapting these institutions to a world that is no longer unipolar while ensuring that our principles remain the same. Because it is not our guiding principles of equality, peace, and multilateralism that have allowed for autocracy to develop, but rather a lack of reform that has hindered our global governance and accountability mechanisms from being used, or for being used as vehicles to serve other interests. Ultimately, the LIO can outlast this rise in autocracy. But in order to tackle these modern dilemmas, we need to apply nuanced solutions and update our structures to fit the modern international arena while upholding the principles of the rules-based order.

Endnotes:

1. “Freedom in the World 2021: Democracy Under Siege.” Freedom House, 2021, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2021/democracy-under-siege.

2. ibid.

3. M. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and S.C. Hofmann. “Is the Liberal International Order in a state of terminal decline?” London School of Economics, January 7, 2020, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/01/07/is-the-liberal-international-order-in-a-state-of-terminal-decline/.

4. ibid.

5. “International Trade in Goods – tariffs. International trade in goods – tariffs – Statistics Explained.” Eurostat, July 21, 2021, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=International_trade_in_goods_-_tariffs.

6. R. Baldwin. “The World Trade Organization and the future of multilateralism.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 2016, 30(1), 95-116.

7. Mette Eilstrup-Sangiovanni & Stephanie C. Hofmann. “Of the contemporary global order, crisis, and change,” Journal of European Public Policy, 2020, 27:7, 1077-1089, DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2019.1678665.

8. “Regional Trade agreements,” OECD, https://www.oecd.org/trade/topics/regional-trade-agreements/. 

9. ibid.

10. “Ministère de l’Europe et des Affaires étrangères,” France and the United Nations, France Diplomacy – Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs, https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/french-foreign-policy/united-nations/france-and-the-united-nations/.

11. M. Eilstrup-Sangiovanni and S.C. Hofmann. “Is the Liberal International Order in a state of terminal decline?” London School of Economics, January 7, 2020, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2020/01/07/is-the-liberal-international-order-in-a-state-of-terminal-decline/.

February 16, 2022 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AuthoritarianismEconomicsEuropeFeaturedNational SecurityPrint ArticleRussiaUncategorizedVladimir Putin

Why Angela Merkel’s Tenure has Emboldened Authoritarians

written by Andreas Papoutsis

Angela Merkel has often been likened to the replacement leader of the free world in the absence of active American leadership, particularly during the isolationist years of the Trump administration. Logically, her departure from the international stage is considered an imminent loss for the prosperity and security of the free world, though her legacy on the international stage should not be remembered fondly by those who truly support global democracies. Despite the occasional victory notched for neighboring democracies or domestic German society, Merkel’s legacy as a diplomat should be defined by the several inconsistencies in the values she chose to defend and the failures she has notched when standing up to autocrats.

Despite a whopping 16 years spent in office as the German Chancellor, Merkel has failed to raise German defense spending to the 2% of GDP threshold as required by NATO doctrine, instead of shrugging off the disregard for defense expenditures as a matter that should not be the worry of NATO allies. She will have left public office with a military budget that amounts to a meager 1.36% of the country’s GDP in 2019 before the pandemic-induced recession led to a sharp downtick in GDP that raised the figure to 1.57% in 2020.1 Indifference to defense expenditures has forced the issue of foreign NATO missions to be disproportionately shouldered by other allies such as the United States. The issue of German defense spending has also left Europe in a strategically vulnerable position in the face of a revanchist Russian adversary in Vladimir Putin, whom she has seemingly cozied up to. What meaningful military response can be taken by Berlin in the event that the Kremlin’s juggernaut military invades Finland or Ukraine? At this point, the answer is clear: hardly anything of consequence. If Putin’s 2014 invasion of Crimea or repeated scares of Russian military buildup along Europe’s borders isn’t convincing enough of the very real possibility of an attack orchestrated by Moscow, we could simply turn to the leaders of Russia’s neighboring democracies, who constantly warn of the threat posed by Vladimir Putin’s dictatorship.2

Perhaps one of the most disruptive and troublemaking authoritarian governments in the world, Russia has relied largely on its oil economy to project power and support the financial needs of its military proliferation. Amid a decline in European demand for fossil fuels, the Kremlin has been handicapped by a changing energy environment. Where would the Kremlin possibly find a lifeline? Perhaps from like-minded authoritarian governments such as the one seen in Beijing? Contrary to what logic would dictate, the helping hand was instead extended by Germany under the leadership of Angela Merkel, against the wishes of close allies such as the United States and the frantic warning of Eastern European countries like Ukraine.3 No amount of diplomacy, sanctions, or common sense could convince Germany otherwise of completing the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline despite its blatantly conspicuous strategic repercussions.

Trying to rationalize such a decision by pointing out political technicalities or lauding economic conveniences simply implies an apathetic attitude towards NATO security and laziness when configuring Germany’s energy structure. Even when Alexei Navalny was intentionally poisoned by the Kremlin for being an anti-corruption advocate, Berlin responded with inconsequential statements and sanctions that ignored the crown jewel of Putin’s objective in Europe: the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline.4 Norbert Roettgen, the conservative party’s leader on the German foreign affairs committee, correctly assessed the seriousness of the situation by suggesting Germany, “must pursue hard politics, we must respond with the only language Putin understands – that is gas sales.”5 Despite calls from several Western countries and numerous politicians within her own country, Merkel decided against implicating the pipeline in any response levied by Germany. 

German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas merely questioned and offered hollow consternation surrounding the future of the project in the aftermath of the Navalny poisoning, essentially demonstrating to one of the world’s most notorious authoritarians that his efforts to snuff out and assassinate pro-democracy advocates was entirely acceptable by Berlin’s standards.6 Germany seemed more enraged by American sanctions against the project than the assassination attempt undertaken by the Kremlin. Merkel instead figured that the wishes of her democratic allies were secondary to the desires of Vladimir Putin and the misconceived economic expediency he offered.

The decision to finalize the pipeline despite the Navalny poisoning now puts Ukraine and several other European partners at risk, as Kiev fears that Moscow could once again cut off oil supply to the region in an attempt to punish or coerce neighboring democracies. There does not even appear to be a surefire guarantee that implementation of the pipeline would be able to increase the volume of oil transported to Europe; we only know for certain that it would change the source of said oil. Likewise, neighboring Poland finds itself incredibly vulnerable and downright shocked in this situation, since repairs to the Ukrainian-Polish pipeline would have been significantly cheaper than the construction of the Nord-Stream 2.7 Since the pipeline will run through the Baltic Sea, NATO allies in the area should expect additional Russian naval assets in the region, an opportunity that Moscow will surely take advantage of to intimidate its neighbors.

All of the details and nuances of the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline, however, can be boiled down to a simple rhetorical question: why would Merkel want a sizable share of Germany’s energy supply to be in the hands of one of the world’s most notorious enemies of democracy? Considering that disdain for the project emanated not just from allies, but from domestic German lawmakers and a wide array of members of Merkel’s own party, there is no valid justification. 

In recent weeks, the possibility of a Russian attack on Ukraine has grown. Despite a drawdown of troops along the Ukrainian border in April this year, Russian military assets have once again accumulated in the region, alarming officials in Kiev and causing many security officials from NATO countries to warn of an invasion. With over 100,000 troops in position, defense officials in Kiev project an attack before the end of the winter. Many American officials consider it a “high probability,” including Fiona Hill, who described Putin as “deadly serious” about commencing an incursion into Ukraine.8 In response to what could devolve into a major European war, Merkel has merely suggested imposing sanctions against the Kremlin. Levying sanctions against Moscow after allowing the Nord-Stream 2 pipeline to be constructed, however, seems like a rather hollow threat.

Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis expects the Kremlin to divert NATO’s attention away from Ukraine by fomenting unrest along the Polish border.9 Over the last few months, asylum seekers and migrants primarily originating from the Middle East have flooded the Polish border after being escorted by Belarusian security forces. Moscow has employed the strategy of attempting to create a refugee crisis within a NATO country by using the Belarusian government as a smuggler of vulnerable migrants. The predicament at the Polish border has been met with condemnation from Merkel, who rightly demonstrated solidarity with her counterparts in Warsaw. This solidarity, however, has not been consistently extended to other European democracies that have experienced similar hybrid attacks by authoritarian governments.

When standing up for European Union allies, Merkel has picked and chosen when to exhibit a commitment to democratic values. Merkel has often been perceived as the de facto leader (or co-leader alongside France’s Macron) of the European Union, especially with the departure of the United Kingdom. The Union’s mission statement includes promises of promoting peace, freedom, and security, yet it has been rendered virtually useless in acting on such promises in instances where Merkel’s leadership has deemed it as inexpedient, particularly as it relates to Turkey. For 47 years now, Ankara has militarily occupied the northeastern portion of Cyprus. Seventeen years ago, the Republic of Cyprus joined the European Union, which means that, for 17 years, a foreign nation has militarily occupied European territory with little to no backlash whatsoever from Berlin. Last summer, when Turkish warships were escorting oil surveying vessels in Greek and Cypriot waters, leading to a tense situation that nearly devolved into armed conflict between two NATO allies, Merkel framed the situation as if it were an incidental and natural dispute between two neighbors rather than an aggressive incursion of EU territorial waters. Instead of explicitly siding with a European partner and a country committee to good neighborly relations, Merkel chose neutrality, further emboldening the strongman residing in Ankara.

The aforementioned “hybrid attacks” that entail the intentional funneling of asylum seekers into a neighboring country to overwhelm their immigration infrastructure is a tactic that has been regularly utilized by Turkey when confronting neighboring democracies like Greece. In fact, many of the migrants attempting to cross the Polish border made their way to Belarus through Turkish flights to Minsk, which were eventually stopped once the European Union and the United States agreed to sanction third-country airlines involved in flying asylum seekers to Belarus.10

In March 2020, several thousands of migrants attempted to cross into Greece’s Evros region after President Erdogan announced he would allow their passage into the European Union despite no mutual agreement from the Greeks. The Turkish president’s intentions were clear: to threaten Greece with an unsustainable influx of migrants while unethically generating leverage to exact a more financially lucrative immigration agreement with the European Union. His efforts were successful in generating more financial assistance from the European Union, and although Merkel condemned Turkey’s actions as unacceptable, her government did little to enact any consequences.

While Turkey has grown increasingly authoritarian, both in how it operates domestically through Erdogan’s consolidation of power and in his militaristic foreign policy that threatens regional democracies, Merkel and her government have rewarded such behavior with new arms sales that include the transaction of new German submarines. The decision lends a strategic advantage for an authoritarian government in its aggression directed towards neighboring democracies. Her indifference on such matters also strengthens Ankara’s disdain for the democratic aspirations of its people, knowing that corruption and authoritarianism will result in little backlash from its longtime German partner.

No leader is perfect, not even some of history’s most respected figures, but Merkel’s vaunted reputation is largely based on the intentional ignorance of her shortcomings in defending global democracy. Her work as a domestic politician has received praise from vast ranges of German society, evidenced by her incredibly long tenure as German Prime Minister, but her work in the international community is not particularly impressive considering the urgency of challenging authoritarianism.

Merkel’s true legacy as a diplomat should instead reflect the inconsistencies in her values and the appeasement she demonstrated to some of the world’s most notorious dictators, the likes of which have utilized Merkel’s support to advance their objectives of consolidating power and tearing down democratic institutions within their own countries while simultaneously lashing out against neighboring democracies that are struggling to ensure the free world’s future. So, when it comes to defending democracy and confronting authoritarianism, Merkel’s record will forever be far from perfect.

Endnotes:

1. Leah Carter. “Germany reports record €53 billion in NATO defense spending.” Deutsche Welle News, February 2, 2021, https://www.dw.com/en/germany-reports-record-53-billion-in-nato-defense-spending/a-56491017.

 2. Micheal Phillips and James Marson. “Russian Aggression Spurs Neighbors to Rebuild Defenses.” Wall Street Journal, January 5, 2021, https://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-aggression-spurs-neighbors-to-rebuild-defenses-11609859853.

3. “Ukrainian ambassador calls Nord Stream 2 ‘a stab in Ukraine’s back’.” Ukrinform, March 11, 2021, https://www.ukrinform.net/rubric-economy/3344084-ukrainian-ambassador-calls-nord-stream-2-a-stab-in-ukraines-back.html.

4. “Russia responsible for Navalny poisoning, rights experts say.” United Nations News, March 1, 2021, https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1086012.

5. Madeline Chambers. “Germany pressed to rethink Nord Stream 2 pipeline after Navalny poisoning.” Reuters, September 2, 2020, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-navalny-germany-nord/germany-pressed-to-rethink-nord-stream-2-pipeline-after-navalny-poisoning-idUSKBN25U0UF.

6. “Germany has alternatives if it abandons Nord Stream 2 over Russia tensions: Experts.” Alarabiya News, September 7, 2020, https://english.alarabiya.net/business/energy/2020/09/07/Germany-has-alternatives-if-it-abandons-Nord-Stream-2-over-Russia-tensions-experts.

7. Mark Temnycky. “The Security Implications of Nord Stream 2 for Ukraine, Poland, and Germany.” Wilson Center, March 17, 2021, https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/security-implications-nord-stream-2-ukraine-poland-and-germany.

8. John Haltiwanger. “Putin is ‘deadly serious’ about neutralizing Ukraine, and has the upper hand over the West, former US diplomats and officials warn.” Business Insider, November 26, 2021, https://www.businessinsider.com/puti-deadly-serious-about-ukraine-has-upper-hand-over-west-2021-11.

9. Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis. “Why it’s better than a 50-50 chance that Russia will attack Ukraine this winter.” Fox News, November 27, 2021, https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/russia-attack-ukraine-winter-biden-putin-robert-maginnis.

10. Aykan Erdimir. “Swift trans-Atlantic action kept Turkey from fueling Belarus’ hybrid attacks,” DefenseNews, November 16, 2021, https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2021/11/16/swift-trans-atlantic-action-kept-turkey-from-fueling-belarus-hybrid-attacks/.

February 7, 2022 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AuthoritarianismEconomicsFeaturedGlobalizationInternational TradePopulismPrint ArticleThe International Economy

The Free-Market Democracy Scam

written by Katherine Jones

“The Free-Market Democracy Scam” was originally published in our Fall 2021 Print Edition: Authoritarianism.

Our story starts in 2000, at the close of Bill Clinton’s second term in office. Clinton, a man who has been known to “see the world through rose-colored glasses,” saw a brighter, more democratic future for China.1 At the eleventh hour of his presidency, Clinton advocated the admission of China into the World Trade Organization (WTO), with the sincere belief that an open and free economy would lead to prosperity, and that prosperity would gradually force an increase in civil liberties.2 History has unfolded quite differently, yet Clinton was not wrong to see a connection between free markets and democracy. 

Where he may have miscalculated is the way in which these phenomena relate- perhaps free markets destroy democracy rather than create it. Perhaps Clinton should have expected that the rise of China, the first genuine competitor to U.S. economic supremacy since WWII, would slowly diminish the relative economic power of the United States. The ensuing “race to the bottom” would force the U.S. to introduce economic reforms that would reduce standards of living in order for our economy to remain internationally competitive. Such reforms would have sociopolitical consequences including increasing Americans’ appetites for authoritarianism. When all was said and done, China’s free-market may have reduced Americans’ civil liberties rather than building up their own.

Free markets, Free Men?

Free markets and democracy exist not as compliments, but largely in opposition to each other. At their core, the motives that govern markets and democracy almost always directly contradict one another. Democracy seeks to find the best outcome for the majority, capitalism seeks to satisfy individual self-interest.3 Democracy relies on the principle that we are all equal, capitalism inherently produces inequality.4 Democracy can break down free markets through punitive redistribution and regulation. Free markets break down democratic systems through poverty and inequality. 

Every “free market democracy” relies on the fragile balance between the interests of citizens and corporations, with the pendulum swinging back and forth depending on the era’s prevailing economic theory. In 1950s America, the more “democratic” Keynesian system of regulation and social welfare was popular. This was an era of strong unions and a robust middle class. By the 1970s, economists such a Milton Friedman interpreted the success of the 1950s and 60s to be due to democracy and capitalism reinforcing one another.5 A more “free market” focused ideology came into vogue. This period was characterized by deregulation, financialization, and an increasing frequency and severity of financial crises. Since the 1970s, this trend has only continued to intensify.

In modern-day America, we have levels of inequality that rival the pre-WWI era, stagnating wages, a breakdown in labor unions, and large-scale political discontent.6 However, our domestic economy tells only a fraction of the story. All other Western liberal democracies have, to some extent, suffered a similar fate. Globalization would have deteriorated regulatory and social welfare frameworks even if strong national policies had been maintained.

Globalization’s Caused Much More Than Discontent 

Free-market globalization has contributed to a breakdown in democratic accountability and produced instead governments accountable to, and run by, corporations, banks, and international organizations.

International trade has insidiously contributed to the breakdown of democratic accountability, by forcing countries to undercut the needs and best interest of their own citizens, in favor of more competitive economic policies. Take for example the corporate tax rate: large corporations pay almost zero tax, however countries are often hesitant to raise their tax rate, as businesses may then choose to base themselves in another country with a lower corporate tax rate. This phenomenon   is further applicable to labor rights, environmental protections, and many other components of the “ease of doing business.” Within this framework, there are more extensive rights granted to corporations than to people with respect to free movement and migration, the movement of capital, law enforcement, and more. 

Countries grant these special rights and privileges to not only corporations but often to international organizations and banks as well. Such was demonstrated during the Euro crisis when all of the countries within the Eurozone were accountable to the European Union over their individual sovereign governments. This policy required the Germans to pay the debts of the Greeks, and the Greeks to undergo harsh austerity, despite that neither of these policies would have been democratically feasible in their respective countries.7 In addition, the very premise that the Northern European countries were bailing out “The Greeks” or “The Irish,” veils that everyday citizens were required to bail out international financial institutions, demonstrating nation’s loyalties to banks over citizens.8

In tandem with this, banks, corporations, and International Organizations have all contributed to the direct deterioration of democratic systems, particularly in the global south. Countries within the global south have less developed economies than countries in the global north. For the last several centuries “free markets” in the global north have been subsidized by the imposition of exploitative and extractive policies in their “colonies,” then former “colonies.” These policies have resulted in structures of economic and political dependence that encumber many countries in the global south from maintaining free and open democracies. As an illustration, let’s say there’s an election in Latin America, and Western banks may favor one candidate over the other. Voters essentially must choose to pick the banks’ candidate or choose to undergo a painful recession.9 Any “choice” is an illusion. 

The Allure of Authoritarianism

As the global economy continues to erode democracy, many countries shift towards the authoritarian model. Authoritarianism’s growth in popularity in recent years could be due to its perceived superior ability to ensure economic growth. Authoritarian governments can execute the most favorable economic policies without winning elections, compromising with opposition parties, or contending with unfortunate voter decisions (such as Brexit.) In many ways, these authoritarian regimes have experienced unprecedented success. A 2009 IMF study shows that economic growth in capitalist authoritarian nations averaged 6.28% over the previous 15 years, whereas growth only averaged 2.62% in liberal democracies.10 In addition, there are individual case studies, such the China, boasting growth rates as high as 19.3%, which make authoritarianism appear as a guarantor of success.11

The growth of authoritarianism speaks to countries, and perhaps people, valuing economic prosperity over freedom. For those that have never known either this deal with the devil may be worth the price, yet what about those that already have both?

To the Republic, for which it stands…

People like authoritarianism; even in Western Democracies. Political theorist Robert Kuttner warns that support for right-wing extremists in Western Europe is even higher today than it was in the nineteen-thirties.12 According to a 2021 study from the Morning Consult, 26% of Americans are in favor of right-wing authoritarianism.13 The increase in authoritarian sentiment seems to be linked to the failures of free-market globalization, particularly the decline in voter power and the growth of inequality. According to economist Dani Rodrik, the issues that draw supporters to populism (authoritarianism more palatable precursor) are the same on both sides of the aisle: voters are “anti-globalization, anti-free trade, anti-immigration, and anti-Wall Street,” though it usually manifests in opposing ways.14 Rodrik explains that “When mainstream politicians are unable to generate meaningful responses to inequality, social exclusion and insecurity, populists of various ilk gain ground.”15 However, what’s interesting, and sad, is that this feeling of powerlessness leads people to cede even more power to strongmen. And there is a precedent for democracies developing in authoritarian regimes. Take for example ancient Rome, Hitler in Weimar Germany, Chavez in Venezuela, Papa Doc in Haiti, Mugabe in Zimbabwe, Erdogan in Turkey, and many more. As Socrates stated, “tyranny is probably established out of no other regime than democracy.”16

Potential Solutions 

What can we do to save the world’s democratic capitalist system? There are more ways in which we can reimagine the relationship between our economic and political systems to produce more favorable outcomes. 

On the international scale, The most desirable, and perhaps most unrealistic solution would be to establish democratically accountable global regulatory bodies to effectively create a fair and even playing field. We currently have organizations such as the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) constructed to fulfill this role, that have in some respects fallen short and may be improved by democratic accountability and enhanced enforcement power. We additionally have national organizations such as the Securities and Exchanges Commission that are relatively effective and would be valuable to be expanded on a global scale.

However, in reality, compliance on a global scale would be near impossible to achieve. Worldwide solutions, in general, will be difficult to implement; it is possibly more productive to put forward domestic solutions. 

If our problem is globalization, the natural reaction may be to tend towards isolation. Yet, complete isolation is not feasible in the modern world due to global issues including cyberattacks, pandemics, terrorism, and climate change. The closest examples we see to isolation are pariah states such as Iran and North Korea. However, the world, and the United States, may be ready for a period of American withdrawal. A 2019 poll shows that “a plurality of Americans want the country’s role in the world to shrink or end altogether.”17 An American retreat could allow for more resources to be directed to education, cybersecurity, and social welfare, all of which would likely aid our ailing democracy. On the other hand, a retraction is risky as it could damage alliances, leave a power vacuum, and allow us to fall behind other countries. 

Perhaps we should instead abandon democracy altogether to save global capitalism. There are relatively more attractive forms of authoritarianism such as technocracy that may allow for a smooth transition. We have already experienced a huge growth in independent agencies unaccountable to the voter, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Federal Reserve, and the FDIC.18 This is potentially an interesting proposal in light of the many modern Americans who believe in ceding individual rights and freedoms for the collective good, for example removing the individual right to choose in terms of guns, abortions, or vaccines, for the sake of public health and safety. Should people give up the right to vote for the collective good? Should we all? 

Endnotes:

1. Joel Roberts. “Bill Clinton: The Optimist.” CBS News, June 25, 2004, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-the-optimist/.

2. Brian Stauffer. “When the World Opened the Gates of China.” Wall Street Journal, July 27, 2018, https://www.wsj.com/articles/when-the-world-opened-the-gates-of-china-1532701482.

3. Wolfgang Merkel. “Is capitalism compatible with democracy?” Harvard University, July 26, 2014, https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/mobilized_contention/files/merkel_-_is_capitalism_compatible_with_democracy.pdf.

4. ibid.

5. John Weeks. “Free Markets and the Decline of Democracy.” Open Democracy, July 18, 2018, https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/can-europe-make-it/free-markets-and-decline-of-democracy/.

6. Michael Hirsh. “Why Trump and Sanders Were Inevitable.” Politico, February 28, 2016, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/why-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-were-inevitable-213685/.

7. Joseph Stiglitz. The euro: how a common currency threatens the future of Europe. WW Norton & Company, Inc. 2016.

8. Wolfgang Streek. “The Crises of Democratic Capitalism.” New Left Review, September 2011, http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/StreeckNLR2011.pdf.

9. Joesph Stiglitz. “Decades of free market orthodoxy have taken a toll on democracy.” The Guardian, November 5, 2019, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/nov/05/decades-of-free-market-orthodoxy-have-taken-a-toll-on-democracy.

10. John Lee. “Western v. Authoritarian Capitalism.” The Diplomat, June 18, 2009, https://thediplomat.com/2009/06/western-vs-authoritarian-capitalism/.

11. “GDP growth (annual %)- China.” The World Bank, 2020, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=CN.

12. Caleb Crain. “Is Capitalism a Threat to Democracy?” The New Yorker, May 7, 2018,  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/05/14/is-capitalism-a-threat-to-democracy.

13. Cameron Easley. “U.S. Conservatives Are Uniquely Inclined Toward Right-Wing Authoritarianism Compared to Western Peers.” Morning Consult, June 28, 2021, https://morningconsult.com/2021/06/28/global-right-wing-authoritarian-test/.

14. Michael Hirsh. “Why Trump and Sanders Were Inevitable.” Politico, February 28, 2016, https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/why-donald-trump-and-bernie-sanders-were-inevitable-213685/.

15. ibid.

16. Andrew Sullivan. “Democracies end when they are too democratic.” New York Magazine, May 1, 2016, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2016/04/america-tyranny-donald-trump.html.

17. Charles Kupchan. “Isolationism Is Not a Dirty Word.” The Atlantic, September 27, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/virtue-isolationism/616499/.

18. Yascha Mounk. “America is Not a Democracy.” The Atlantic, March 2018,  https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/03/america-is-not-a-democracy/550931/.

January 31, 2022 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AuthoritarianismEuropeFeaturedHistoryPrint Article

When in Rome: How the Romans Fell to Autocracy and Their Connection to Our World

written by Joshua Potter

“When in Rome: How the Romans Fell to Autocracy and Their Connection to Our World” was originally published in our Fall 2021 Print Edition: Authoritarianism.

In the wake of recent political events, there has been greater worry and focus on autocracies. Though there was an increase in democracies due to decolonization and the end of the Cold War in the 20th century, today 54% of the world’s population lives under an autocracy.1 This is not limited to small unstable states either, as larger, more established democracies are not as free as they once were.2 While this is concerning it’s not that surprising, as autocracies are one of the oldest forms of government around the world and will continue to exist. Even though every state  is different, there are general patterns that allow for an autocratic government to take over that can be traced to the first major autocracy, The Roman Empire. 

Altogether the term Autocracy can be traced back to the ancient Greeks in the 5th century, the Romans were the first major power in history to practice the system. It’s  a system of government where one man holds power. Also, they can happen in many ways; from a democratically elected ruler slowly taking control, instability within the nation, or through assassinations.3 Regardless of how autocrats obtain power, it’s important that they maintain the facade of the past state that they took over, in order to make the transition of power look legitimate and to create stability. This is why after decades of civil war and instability within the late Roman Republic, the victorious Octavian  did not disband the  Roman Senate, nor did he become Emperor immediately.4 Furthermore, only candidates loyal to Octavian were allowed to run, and all of this was done  to consolidate his power. Octavian made many good decisions to ensure his power, and he learned from the mistakes of his adopted father, Julius Caesar. 

By the year 45 BC, Julius Caesar had won the civil war and firmly established himself as the most powerful man in Rome. With no major political opponents left, Caesar worked quickly to test the limits of his power. He was declared Dictator Perpetuo (Dictator for life) and had almost unlimited power.  In addition, he wore purple-the color of royalty, had a special “chair” in the senate building that was just for him, and would be dead the following year.5 These major changes scared the Roman senate and they were worried that he would declare himself king.  The Roman Republic had been around since 509 BC and was strongly against the idea of a monarchy, and this contributed to his assassination.6 Due to these events, Octavian,  having seen the short-sighted decisions of his uncle, took over two years to declare himself emperor in 27 BC  after winning the second civil war in 29 BC.  He went through  great lengths to increase his powers “legally” by making the senate that he controlled grant him absolute power. Another one of his ideas was  the reformation of the Praetorian Guard. During the days of the republic, the Guards’ purpose was to protect Roman Generals. However, Octavian changed them into his personal bodyguards. They did much more than this though and often acted as secret police, through intimidation, conducting arrests and executions.7 The Guards’ existence was paradoxical, as they both protected the emperor and were his biggest threat as only they could carry weapons inside the  pomerium (capital). Due to this, they received better pay than other units.  Through this period in time, we see the first historical example of keeping the appearance of a republic intact in order to further the pursuits of an autocratic government, and this is one of the most common forms of government today.8

The Romans showed that stability and the appearance of representative government were essential after a power struggle. President Erdogan of Turkey is one of the few that have pulled this feat off. The modern state of Turkey came into existence after the end of World War One, with its leader Kemal Ataturk pushing for a secularist and industrialized state. However, Erdogan has been using Islamic rhetoric since the 1990s.9 Due to this, he became  Prime Minister in 2003 and drew controversy in 2014. He was elected President, which was a ceremonial role, but then took the powers of prime minister, making him the undisputed  leader of Turkey. However, he almost lost power in 2016 as there was an attempted coup by his generals. This coup resulted in the deaths of 240 people, and in 2017 a referendum was  passed to drastically increase Erdogan’s power.  Once the extra powers were passed to him, his journey to an autocrat was officially complete. Another more well-known example of this changing power dynamic can be seen with Vladimir Putin and the Russian state. 

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Republic was devastated throughout the ‘90s and Boris Yeltsin had to pick a successor for President. He picked Putin, the former KGB operative and current prime minister in late 1999, and he won a democratic election the following year. He was able to get the oligarchs on his side, won reelection in 2004, and was appointed prime minister in 2008. In 2012  Putin won a controversial election for president and was accused of voter fraud, and the legality of a third term was questioned as well.10 From this point on Russia’s rise to autocracy was complete. When analyzing all these examples, it’s clear that all three rulers were able to capitalize off of political instability to secure their political positions. Furthermore, they did not drastically change society so that their opponents did not oppose them in any significant way. They have also entrenched themselves so deeply in their states that it would be very difficult to remove them through legal means. When people do try to change the status quo, these rulers are quick to unleash state power. 

Political violence was very common in Rome during the end of the late republic, with senators and politicians being threatened or outright murdered. The most obvious example of this was with Caesar, but there are many other examples during this period. Rome had this tradition of proscriptions, which is where the government puts out a list of names, and each person listed is an enemy of the state. If someone that was proscribed was killed, the person that killed them would be allowed to confiscate some of their property.11 This was a brutal affair, and its purpose was two-fold, as it allowed rulers to kill political dissents, as well as gain valuable property for their own benefit. There were also purges, but many, including Caesar, tried to avoid this due to its destructive nature. In cases where Roman rulers wanted to avoid bloodshed, citizens had the choice to be banished.12  if they wanted to avoid forced labor or death. The concept of prison was not normalized, but when comparing the past and present the same principles of preserving political power are applied.  While most autocracies do not have the same extreme methods as the Romans did, many autocracies today imprison or commit violence against political prisoners so that they are not a threat to the current regime.  

Currently, we see similarities between the past and present of autocracies today. Turkey in July 2016 had an attempted coup, and hundreds of  activists, politicians, journalists,  and others are being held due to suspected links to terrorist organizations, regardless of how flimsy the evidence is.13  Not only is this a potential human rights violation, but due to the pandemic, many of those imprisoned are at risk. Furthermore, President Erdoğan has a personal security detail called Turkey’s Presidential Security Department (TPSD). This department spent $35.9 million last year  for his protection, which is more than double what the whole parliament of Turkey received after the events of 2016.14 The TPSD has also been involved in numerous acts of political violence. One infamous event was when they attacked anti-Erdogan protestors in D.C.15   We are now seeing similar events happening in Russia. Currently, there  are around 400 political prisoners throughout the country, and likely there are many more.16  In addition, at the start of 2021, there were major protests around the country because Alexei Navalny (a prominent opposition politician)  was arrested. This resulted in five thousand people being arrested, the restriction of freedom of movement, and increased the risk of covid-19 for many people throughout the country.17  Autocracies have either been punishing, imprisoning, or killing political prisoners for thousands of years, and some of the earliest examples in history can be traced  back to the fall of the Roman Republic. There was also the issue of bribery and corrupt officials. 

During the late republic, corruption was widespread. Though bribery was illegal it was practiced by almost every senator except for Cato, one of Caesar’s major political rivals. It was not until 171 B.C. that the first bribes were recorded.18 This was due to the state nearly being bankrupt after the Punic Wars, and wealthy citizens realized they could gain influence if they loaned the government money. As the republic grew through conquest, the need for money increased, and this only exacerbated the issue. From 67 BC to 50 BC, (the civil war started in 49 BC) there were major incidents of bribery every year, and it was no secret.19 It would be foolish to say that corruption started with the Roman republic, but it’s the first time that we see a major republic tearing itself apart due to corruption and leading to a new government. 

There is some form of corruption within every country on earth, and it is found most frequently in autocratic states. Since the fall of the Soviet Union,  Russians have made billions from corruption within the state that the government pays little attention to.20 This can contribute to an ever-widening wealth gap between the rich and poor, where the autocracy can further its control of the state. There is also widespread corruption within both the public and private sections of Turkey.21 In autocracies, it’s difficult to stop corruption, and it can lead to an increase in suffering. This is just another unfortunate link between past and present. 

While many may not think about the Roman republic when discussing the autocracies of today, both possess corruption and attacks on political dissent, as well as a need to consolidate power so they are not overthrown. While history doesn’t repeat itself  it certainly rhymes, and by looking at the past maybe it’s possible to find answers for the future. 

Endnotes:

1.Shelley Inglis et al. “Autocrats in the 21st Century Aren’t like Past Dictators – Just Look at Putin.” ThePrint, April 11, 2021, https://theprint.in/world/autocrats-in-the-21st-century-arent-like-past-dictators-just-look-at-putin/637577/. 

2. “Autocratization Surges–Resistance Grows .” V-Dem, March 2020, https://www.v-dem.net/media/filer_public/de/39/de39af54-0bc5-4421-89ae-fb20dcc53dba/democracy_report.pdf.

3. Barbara Geddes, et al. “Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 12, no. 2, [American Political Science Association, Cambridge University Press], 2014, pp. 313–31, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43279909.

4. S, Alen. “Octavian Augustus Reign in Roman Empire (27 BC – 14 AD) – Principate.” Short History Website, February 22, 2019, https://www.shorthistory.org/ancient-civilizations/ancient-rome/octavian-augustus-reign-in-roman-empire-27-bc-14-ad/. 

5. Elizabeth Rawson. “Caesar’s Heritage: Hellenistic Kings and Their Roman Equals.” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 65, [Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, Cambridge University Press], 1975, pp. 148–59, https://doi.org/10.2307/370068.

6. “Roman Republic.” National Geographic Society, July 3, 2018, https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/roman-republic/.

7. Evan Andrews. “8 Things You May Not Know about the Praetorian Guard.” History.com, July 8, 2014, https://www.history.com/news/8-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-praetorian-guard.

8. Jonathan Eaton. “The Praetorian Guard.” The Classical Review, vol. 64, no. 1, [The Classical Association, Cambridge University Press], 2014, pp. 234–36.

9. “Recep Tayyip Erdogan: Turkey’s Pugnacious President.” BBC News, October 27, 2020, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-13746679. 

10. Pamela Engel. “How Vladimir Putin Became One of the Most Feared Leaders in the World.” Business Insider, February 14, 2017, https://www.businessinsider.com/how-vladimir-putin-rose-to-power-2017-2.

11. Frank N. Magill, et al. “Life’s Work .” Dictionary of World Biography, Fitzroy Dearborn Publishers, Chicago, IL, 1998, pp. 1208–1209.

12. Reitzenstein Ronning. “The Development of Exile and Banishment from the Roman Republic to the Early Empire.” The Development of Exile and Banishment from the Roman Republic to the Early Empire – Ancient History – LMU Munich, https://www.en.ag.geschichte.uni-muenchen.de/research/exilium/index.html. 

13. “Turkish Court Jails Hundreds for Life over 2016 Coup Attempt.” The Guardian, November 26, 2020, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/turkish-court-jails-hundreds-life-2016-coup-attempt.  

14. “Turkey Spent $35.9 Million to Protect Erdoğan in 2020 .” Turkish Minute, March 2, 2021, https://www.turkishminute.com/2021/03/02/ankara-spent-35-9-million-protect-erdogan-in-2020/.

15. Nicholas Fandos and Christopher Mele. “Erdogan Security Forces Launch ‘Brutal Attack’ on Washington Protesters, Officials Say.” The New York Times, May 17, 2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/turkish-embassy-protest-dc.html.

16. Vladimir Kara-Murza. “Opinion | Russia Has Hundreds of Political Prisoners in Geneva, President Biden Can Help Free Some of Them.” The Washington Post, June 14, 2021, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/06/14/biden-putin-free-russian-political-prisoners/. 

17. Kgalalelo Gaebee. “Russia: Stop Violence against Peaceful Protesters.” CIVICUS Global Alliance, February 1, 2021, link unavaliable.

18. Howard Troxler. “Electoral Abuse in the Late Roman Republic.” Digital Commons, April 2, 2008, https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1536&context=etd.

19. Andrew Lintott. “Electoral Bribery in the Roman Republic.” The Journal of Roman Studies, vol. 80, [Society for the Promotion of Roman Studies, Cambridge University Press], 1990, pp. 1–16, https://doi.org/10.2307/300277.

20. Anne Applebaum. “The Disturbing New Hybrid of Democracy and Autocracy.” The Atlantic, June 9 2021, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/06/oligarchs-democracy-autocracy-daniel-obajtek-poland/619135/.

21. “Turkey Corruption Report.” GAN Integrity, November 5, 2020, https://www.ganintegrity.com/portal/country-profiles/turkey/.

January 24, 2022 0 comment
1 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
AuthoritarianismEuropeFeaturedGeopoliticsPrint ArticleRussiaUnited States

Bulgaria’s Rising Autocrats and Their EU Enablers

written by Manon Snyder

“Bulgaria’s Rising Autocrats and Their EU Enablers” was originally published in our Fall 2021 Print Edition: Authoritarianism.

Whereas Poland and Hungary have taken a front seat in 2021 autocracy news, Bulgaria, alongside other Balkan nations, has been quietly slipping back into autocracy itself, at a less noticeable but nonetheless important pace. Bulgaria’s Democracy Score declined from 4.61 to 4.54 during 2019.1 The numerical decline can specifically be attributed to the decline in the electoral process rating (from 5.75 to 5.50) and the independent media rating (from 3.75 to 3.50). Bulgaria is slowly undoing the democratic progress it has made since the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991.2 Several trends indicate democratic deterioration: an unreliable legal system, illegal seizures of territories on its borders, top party officials who threaten businesses to rob Bulgarians of aid package money, police brutality towards protestors, and the continuing oppression of journalists and free press are chief culprits.3

Why has this decline been occurring? Bulgaria suffers from high levels of corruption stemming from the recycling of top officials from the Cold War period, with the most notorious example being ex-Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, who served as a bodyguard to Bulgaria’s last communist leader before climbing the civil service ranks.4 The corrupt judiciary is another major reason for the decline of democracy in Bulgaria: judges across the country frequently practice arbitrary judgment, and are easily bribed. At the highest level, Chief Prosecutor Ivan Geshev protects Borisov despite mounting evidence of his corruption and extortion.5 According to Hristo Ivanov, former justice minister turned leader of the anti-corruption Yes Bulgaria party, the judicial branch “has been weaponized for intra-oligarch turf wars and extortion of businessmen.”6

As Bulgaria’s government pushes the fragile boundaries of democracy, international liberal organizations which were partly instituted to ensure the proliferation of democracy after the Cold War are failing to hold parties accountable. Despite Borisov’s clear violations of democracy, abuses of power, and murky ties to over three hundred political deaths, Angela Merkel–as both the largest player in the European Union and as the German Chancellor–and the European People’s Parliament (EPP) continue to express their support of Borisov.7 Despite deepening internal turmoil and increasing reports of corruption and mafia-like behavior in its government, the EU’s Cooperation and Verification Mechanism on judicial reform provided suspiciously “rosy reports” on Bulgaria, according to Ivanov.8 Given that there is little that citizens of Bulgaria can do to improve domestic judiciary problems, the EU’s inaccurate reports on Bulgarian rule-of-law make the problem difficult to subsequently remediate.

At the heart of Borisov’s apparent immunity to EU scrutiny are Angela Merkel and Borisov’s protectorate relationship. Borisov puts on a “golden boy”, pro-EU, anti-Moscow attitude, and in return Merkel, alongside the EPP, turns a blind eye to corruption in Bulgaria.9 Instead of holding the government accountable for their actions and condemning corruption in leadership, the EPP continues to funnel money into aid packages to alleviate poverty in Bulgaria, which the government, in turn, mishandles and partially pockets.10 Recently, a GERB party member used money from a hundred million euro EU aid package intended to help rural poverty to instead build himself a mansion. Despite proof of collusion, the former minister retains his house and remains free.11 The misuse of EU aid packages is causing many protests to erupt in the capital, Sofia, and throughout the country.12

This begs the question of how the EU is actually helping. Instinctively, aid packages may appear to help; however, because of rampant corruption, the aid is almost always mishandled.  The European Union’s strategy of pumping money into increasingly autocratic countries (see the EU’s COVID-19 packages to Hungary and Poland €5.6 and €7.4 billion euros respectively, in contrast to Italy’s €2.3 billion) while leaving too much discretion to the autocratic leadership of each country only enriches those anti-democratic leaders.13 What is behind the European Union’s moral paradox? The short-term benefit for the EU’s protection of autocratic regimes in Southern Europe is monetary: Germany, a creditor to southern European states, has made billions of dollars in interest off of loans to those countries during the ongoing eurozone debt crisis.14 Long-term, however, it is clear that empowering autocratic regimes can only corrode the European Union’s power and standing, and it would serve the EU to utilize the tools it has at its disposal to suspend bailout payments and aid packages to countries violating rule of law.

The murder of anti-corruption journalist Viktoria Marinova in 2018 demonstrates another consequence of enabling autocratizing regimes. Marinova covered corruption in the EU and Bulgaria, and her death, which is thought to have been politically orchestrated, sent the message that governments can silence independent media and get away with it.15 Bulgaria holds the lowest press freedom ranking in Europe, and the lack of a charge linking the Bulgarian government to Marinova’s murder further indicates how its flawed justice system enables media corruption.16 Even more alarmingly, international institutions are doing little concretely to effectively condemn and prevent further targeting of journalists. The European Commission has provided recommendations to ensure media safety, but they are non-binding, like many multinational legal frameworks. The protection of journalists’ lives, and thus the preservation of freedom of speech and the right to criticize one’s government, must go beyond teethless recommendations and half-hearted attempts at justice.

The European Union is perhaps Bulgaria’s last chance at backtracking on its mafia-like government and rampant corruption. Bulgaria’s citizens know; they protest in the hopes that other, more powerful governments than their own will hear and apply pressure accordingly. However, the EU has left the citizens of Bulgaria frustrated. If the Bulgarian government is able to chip away at the shell of a democracy which governs its state today, the slope to autocracy is slippery, as is the European Union’s ability to enforce its legal codes and recommendations across the board. “If the EU is unable to guarantee minimal standards of rule of law in a member state as weak…as Bulgaria, what is it good for?” points out Ivanov.17 As the expression goes, a parliament is only as good as its weakest link, and currently the weakest link—Bulgaria—is being wholly neglected.

As Bulgaria heads towards its third election, it is attempting to re-establish a ruling party which will address corruption and re-democratize. Severe divisions amongst the Bulgarian populace and a political system that allows room for a seemingly endless political tug-of-war is setting Bulgaria up for a power vacuum, which would likely allow a dictator-like figure to rise and continue to consolidate power in one party. In combination with widespread misinformation, Bulgaria’s electoral integrity has also been declining, showing little promise for a more democratic future.18

Autocratization in Bulgaria and Eastern Europe reflects a larger pattern of increasing autocratization globally.19 This autocratization is largely due to domestic failures, but if the international liberal institutions put in place to prevent nations from returning to autocracy and totalitarianism are not doing their job, what gives?

Endnotes:

1. Emilia Zankina and Boris Gurov. “Nations in Transit 2020: Bulgaria.” Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/country/bulgaria/nations-transit/2020.

2. Nikolay Nikolov. “It’s been 30 years since the fall of communism, and now we’re all facing similar challenges.” Independent, November 10, 2019, https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/bulgaria-communism-democracy-anniversary-brexit-trump-a9197126.html.

3. Christian Oliver. “How Bulgaria became the EU’s mafia state.” Politico, September 9, 2020, https://www.politico.eu/article/bulgaria-how-it-became-mafia-state-of-eu/.

4. “Bulgaria: At the Crossroads.” Al Jazeera English, August 19, 2021, Youtube video, 0:00 to 25:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvjyh8Z-D4Q.

5. ibid.

6. Christian Oliver. “EU’s credibility is at stake over Bulgaria, says reformist leader.” Politico, August 10, 2020, https://www.politico.eu/article/bulgaria-hristo-ivanov-eu-credibility-at-stake/.

7. ibid.

8. “Commission reports on progress made in Bulgaria under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism.” European Commission, October 22, 2019, https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_19_6136.

9. Alexander Andreev. “Bulgarian prime minister is Brussels’ ‘golden boy’.” DW, May 26, 2016, https://www.dw.com/en/bulgarian-prime-minister-is-brussels-golden-boy/a-19285290.

10. Daniel Keleman and Jacob Soll. “The EU is undermining its democracies while funding its autocracies.” Politico, May 13, 2020, https://www.politico.eu/article/the-eu-is-undermining-its-democracies-while-funding-its-autocracies-coronavirus-covid19-rule-of-law/.

11. “Bulgaria: At the Crossroads.” Al Jazeera English, August 19, 2021, Youtube video, 0:00 to 25:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mvjyh8Z-D4Q.

12. Christine Milenova. “What the Bulgarian protesters mean by “EU, are you blind?” The Political Economy Review, November 26, 2020, https://medium.com/the-political-economy-review/what-the-bulgarian-protesters-mean-by-eu-are-you-blind-48caea04b6ba.

13. Daniel Keleman and Jacob Soll. “The EU is undermining its democracies while funding its autocracies.” Politico, May 13, 2020, https://www.politico.eu/article/the-eu-is-undermining-its-democracies-while-funding-its-autocracies-coronavirus-covid19-rule-of-law/.

14. ibid.

15. “Bulgarian journalist Viktoria Marinova killed in Ruse.” BBC, October 8, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-45777948.

16. Emilia Zankina and Boris Gurov. “Nations in Transit 2020: Bulgaria.” Freedom House, https://freedomhouse.org/country/bulgaria/nations-transit/2020.

17. Christian Oliver. “EU’s credibility is at stake over Bulgaria, says reformist leader.” Politico, August 10, 2020, https://www.politico.eu/article/bulgaria-hristo-ivanov-eu-credibility-at-stake/.

18. Andrea Fumarola and Nikolay Marinov. “Bulgaria’s new voting reforms risk undermining the country’s electoral process.” London School of Economics, May 3, 2016, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/05/03/limiting-the-vote-from-abroad-erodes-bulgarias-democracy-evidence-from-the-electoral-integrity-project/.

19. Daniel Keleman. “Curing the virus of autocracy in Europe: Q+A with Daniel Keleman.” UCL Europe Blog, December 7, 2020, https://ucleuropeblog.com/2020/12/07/curing-the-virus-of-autocracy-in-europe-qa-with-daniel-kelemen/.

January 14, 2022 0 comment
0 Facebook Twitter Google + Pinterest
Newer Posts
Older Posts