Category: Global Politics

Several sanctions have been imposed upon Russia due to the unprovoked and unjustified invasion of Ukraine a year ago, on the 24^th of February 2022, which initiated the ongoing war that is estimated to have killed so far over 7,100 civilians and 200,000 soldiers. As a consequence, Russia has been the target of sanctions aimed at weakening its economy, such as the European Union’s ban on imports of oil and coal, on the export of ammunition and military vehicles, and on the SWIFT ban for 10 Russian banks, among others.  

With little over a year before the Paris Summer Olympics, a political question looms over the event: will Russian athletes be able to compete? At the beginning of the war, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) encouraged their ban from international competitions. However, more recently, this decision appeared to be partially reversed.  The IOC did in fact impose sporting sanctions on both Russia and Belarus, which included the prohibition of athletes of both nations to represent their countries – a decision deemed to be “non-negotiable” – but they would still be allowed to participate in the diverse competitions and events as “neutral athletes” – as justified through the following phrase: “No athlete should be prevented from competing just because of their passport”. As a response, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky stated that the terrorism could not be “covered up with some pretended neutrality or white flag”. 

On the one hand, 40 countries, including Ukraine, Poland and the United States, have adhered to the boycott of the Games if Russian athletes are allowed to participate. On the other hand, the IOC states that this action would be a violation of the Olympic charter, as it mandates the countries to send athletes and that “As history has shown, previous boycotts did not achieve their political ends and served only to punish the athletes of the boycotting countries”. A fact to remember is that the 2024 Olympics, under normal circumstances, would see the return of Russian athletes competing under the Russian flag, after their 2-year ban due to doping. 

The Olympic Games go all the way back to Ancient Greece, with the first written evidence being from 776 BC, showing the measurement of time in Olympiads – equivalent to the duration between each edition of the Games. Back then, they were held every 4 years to honour the god Zeus through various activities ranging from music and singing to the discus throw. However, they were eventually banned by Roman Emperor Theodosius I and were not revived until the 19^th century. After several attempts due to the lack of coordination between countries, the first Olympic Games of the modern era, in 1896, would revisit its originating country, having been held in Athens. Through the link of sport and culture, the Olympic Games have as principle the construction of a better world through sport without discrimination, leading to the development of physical and mental qualities. 

Going back in time 

Since then, the Games have developed throughout the years with women starting to compete in the 1900’s Paris Games. Yet, only in the London 2012 Games would women be able to compete in all sports of the programme. The 1904’s St. Louis Games saw the first known disabled person to compete, with the 1912 Games being the first to have competitors from all 5 continents. 1936 saw the Games being broadcasted for the first time, but, as a result of being held in Berlin at such a turning point in history, they ended up serving as a way to disseminate propaganda of the Nazi regime. Having been cancelled in the meantime due to two World Wars and postponed because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the upcoming Games are expected to take the stage in Paris next year. 

Politics & The Olympics 

Although the Olympic Games have been widely viewed as a success, uniting people from diverse nations to celebrate various sporting events, they have not been immune to controversies. Some critics have accused the Olympics of allowing politics to infiltrate what was intended to be a neutral environment, with territories such as China, Brazil and Russia leveraging the event’s favourable image to boost their own international image whilst often engaging in questionable human rights and environmental practices. More crucially, however, the Games have also had a long history of politically charged boycotts. 

Following the World Wars, the 1956 Melbourne Summer Olympics marked the first great challenge to the modern Olympics, as the first attempts to boycott began to rise, with states from Europe, Africa and Asia choosing not to send their athletes to the event. Protesting the Soviet Union’s quash of Hungarian attempts of independence, Spain, The Netherlands, and Switzerland skipped the event, eventually joined by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon. At the same time, Cambodia was protesting the Israeli invasion of the Sinai Peninsula and the People’s Republic of China the participation of Taiwan in the global event as an independent country.  

Tensions remained high in the lead up to the 1964 Tokyo edition, as Indonesia mounted a competing sports competition for the emerging economies, GANEFO, calling the Olympics and the International Olympic Committee “an imperialist tool”. In response, Indonesia was temporarily banned from the IOC and GANEFO participants were barred from attending the Olympics. The Tokyo edition also marked the start of South Africa’s 28-year ban, following the country’s segregation policies and refusal to send multiracial teams to the event. The Cold War incited yet another wave of boycotts, as the opposing superpowers avoided each other’s Games, with a record 65 nations refusing to participate in the 1980 Moscow Summer Olympics, leaving it with the lowest number of participating federations in almost 30 years.  

Despite the numerous attempts, many still question the point of political challenges to Olympic participation as there has rarely, if ever, been a significant political shift as a result. Hungary only gained independence more than 30 years after the first boycott in their support, the Suez Canal crisis still happened, emerging nations eventually all embraced the “imperialist” Games and South Africa´s Apartheid still lasted for almost 3 decades in spite of their ban.  

Conclusion 

While many can agree that a protest in one of the biggest stages in the world can certainly bring awareness to these issues, most had already been widely covered by the media by the time the issue reached the sporting world. The efforts’ lasting impact, sadly, has only been leaving national athletes to wait for 4 more years to follow their dreams, and a permanent dent on the Olympic legacy. With the Russian-Ukrainian conflict on its first-year anniversary, and with the Paris 2024 Olympic preparations well underway, calls for boycotts have been rising once again. The question now raised is whether in an effort to show solidarity for the Ukrainian people we are letting history repeat itself by penalizing Russian athletes for the ongoing war their president has started.  

---

Sources: Statista, BBC News, Radio Free Europe/ Radio Liberty, International Olympic Committee, RTP, BBC Sport, NPR, Paris 2024, HISTORY, The New York Times, Britannica 

In 2017, satellite images captured strange looking buildings in Xingjian, China, quite unlike any other typical infrastructure in the region. At first glance, they resemble schools or hospitals, but once we zoom in these images, high walls and watch towers are visible as well, exposing a much darker truth. Deemed by the Chinese government “re-education camps”, – after multiple attempts of trying to deny their existence – these more than 380 detention camps in Xingjian are estimated to be holding prisoner more than 1 million people.

Who are the 1 million people detained?     

The Xingjian region has been under China´s control since 1949, after being independent twice for a short time. For centuries, it was known for its strong agricultural activities and trade, having been part of the silk road. Today, this region is responsible for the largest natural gas production in the country. 

In Xingjian live more than 11 million Uyghurs, a minority ethnic group of Muslims that have their own language and tradition and that culturally identify themselves with the surrounding countries of central Asia. 

China views the religious beliefs of Uyghurs as extremist and separatist, using as an argument the terrorist attacks that occurred in 2013 and 2014, planed by extremist Uyghurs. For this reason, and rooted on a fear of losing the Xingjian territory to separatist Uyghurs, the Chinese authorities defend that the camps are a necessary tool to stop the terrorism and the separatist movements in the area. These assumptions are considered by the rest of the world as an unfair generalization that revolves on the denomination of all the Uyghur people as extremists. 

NYTimes reveled, in 2019, documents that exposed military orders coming from the Chinese government that incentivize Xingjian´s troops to act without mercy: “We must be as harsh as them”, “and show absolutely no mercy”, “Freedom is only possible when this “virus” in their thinking is eradicated, and they are in good health”. 

What is happening to the Uyghur community?

From Xingjian come all sort of accounts from the community, disclosing religious-motivated detentions, assaults, interrogations, and torture. Those who are sent to the camps are admitted and not just re-educated as claimed.

In social media, requests to find missing family members are multiplying and sometimes, when clamors become too loud to be silenced, the answer arrives in the form of a phone call from said missing family members, nervously asking to never being contacted again, fearing the repercussions.

Even outside the camps, the Uyghurs that are still free are yet being constantly monitored by security cameras in the streets with facial recognition and with QR codes in the entry of buildings and police stops being put in place applying to just this minority. 

In 2017, men were forbidden from using long beards and women from using the hijab, being also prohibited to teach their religion to children or give them names of Islamic origin. 

In 2021, Uyghur women revealed that they are forced to use birth control as an attempt to decrease the numbers of the Uyghur population. Indeed, according to Association Press, the government subjects hundreds of thousands of Uyghur women to pregnancy tests, sterilizations and abortions. 

Restrictions on this minority´s freedom also include trips inside and out of Xingjian. Moreover, reports from civil servants and university students claim that they are forbidden from conducting many religious practices, such as fasting during Ramadan or going to mosques – which are being gradually destroyed in the region.

Having come across reports of ex-detainees, western social media channels have been exposing the practices used in the re-education camps, especially BBC. This in turn has gathered the attention of the Chinese government, which promptly accused the news channel of spreading fake news, blocking their broadcasts in the country, with the justification that they need to stop with their occidental propaganda.

Images of these camps that are shared inside the country are strictly controlled by the government. In the official government records the Uyghur minority appear happy, followed by the statement that the Uyghurs come to the camps by free choice, because they want to learn and work to achieve better economic status – a very different story from the one that reaches us from international media of the likes of BBC…

What is really happening inside these camps?

Firstly, Uyghurs are forced to learn mandarin – which is the least of their concerns. Among some witnesses that BBC gathered, one of them said: “After almost five months in the Karamay police cells, between interrogations and random acts of cruelty – at one stage I was chained to my bed for 20 days as punishment, though I never knew what for – I was told I would be going to “school””. 

Between these statements of ex-detainees, some of them reported having been victims or having witnessed systematic episodes of rape, sexual abuse, and torture. According to BBC, “An ex-detainee, Tursunay Ziyawudun, said she received injections until she stopped menstruating and was repeatedly beaten on her lower stomach during interrogations”. 

            Furthermore, an investigation of NYtimes revealed the existence of Uyghur workers being exposed to forced labor practices in some factories, such as in solar companies and in the production of face masks (“Chinese solar companies tied to use of forced labor”, “China is using Uyghur labor to produce face masks”).  

            All in all, the majority of ex-detainees is unanimous in their assessment and retelling of China´s approach to the Uyghur minority: “their goal is to destroy everyone”. 

Ripples in the rest of the world

According to a coalition of organizations for Uyghurs rights, one in each 5 items of clothing that we wear has its origin in forced Uyghur work. Besides, 20% of the cotton produced in the world comes from Xingjian, and 17 brands – amongst which we have Nike, Apple, Adidas, Coca Cola and Amazon – were accused of using this cotton on their products. 

 On the other hand, H&M showed some displeasure about the treatment that the Uyghurs are receiving, and the possibility of forced work being used in the cotton fields did not please the brand. China reacted to H&M immediately: a lot of Chinese websites have stopped showing the brand´s products, resulting in a loss of around 135 million euros for the company, just in the first semester of 2021.

China is not without allies, however, as 37 other countries postulated in a written letter their support in favor of China, vouching for the important role China plays in the international cause of human rights. On the other hand, a different position in regards to China´s treatment of human rights is expressed by the UK and Europe, that together with other 27 ONU member states, including the US and Canada, have taken a stand accusing China of genocide and promising not to stop fighting for this minority´s freedom. 

This conflict has resulted in sanctions from both sides. From China´s side, five European MPs were forbidden from entering Chinese territory. In response, Canada, the US and the UK have joined forces with the EU to apply sanctions against China and its allies.

The story of the youngest person arrested

Rahile Omer was only 15 years old when she was arrested by the Chinese authorities. The accusation process began when she was just 14, in Xingjian. Having been identified and classified by the security cameras in the streets as a “type 12 person” – someone connected to an existing police case – a target was set on the girl. According to police records, they found out that Rahile´s mother was serving six years in prison for disturbing the “social order”, after being accused of following extremist religion practices. By attachment, her father was deemed a “type 12 person” too, leading to his detention and subsequent admittance in one of the re-education camps in 2017. Assuming Rahile to be a dangerous person due to her connection to her parents, she was sent to a detention camp as well, at the mere age of 15. 

Conclusion

Last century, during World War II, the world watched as numerous atrocities were committed against a community because of their religious beliefs, different customs and appearance, and how they were imprisoned in camps where the majority would meet their end. Now, albeit in a different context, a similar pattern of discrimination against a minority is happening again in concealment, with mistakes from history being repeated. 

Unfortunately, this is far from the only case of discrimination of minorities and violation of human rights that is happening right now all over the world. In a way, globalization has brought about new challenges and setbacks, where global powerful brands and consumers are willing to close their eyes to various violations of human rights if it benefits them.

Can we call this evolution if there are still people being harmed because of their religious beliefs, way of living and exaggerated generalizations of the actions of a few to a whole community?

---

Sources: Observador, BBC, New York Times

Introduction

From Paris to Rome, Alexandria to Benghazi, and Tokyo to Beijing, cities tend to be perceived as old creations, with hundreds if not thousands of years of age, that grew naturally throughout the course of history. Usually built with military purposes in mind, or taking advantage of natural geographical conditions, a significant number of today’s major metropolises have followed this pattern, showing their evolution through their centuries-old buildings, monuments, and traditions. 

Nevertheless, a not so insignificant number of recent populational centers have been built following detailed masterplans with years of planning and significant financial commitment.  While some have arguably successfully transitioned into well-established cities, others may have been left abandoned as a reminder that a successful urban center is much more than just a cluster of buildings. These initiatives can broadly be categorized depending on the issue they intended to address – Politics, Environment and Economic development – and the motive for their success or failure most often results from how relevant this issue was and how well it was tackled.

Politics

One of the most common reasonings for planning a new city has to do with the need for the creation of a neutral capital city that has a more central position to the country’s population distribution. 

Washington DC, established in 1790 by the Residence Act, had its location defined as a compromise between the opposing forces of the expanding United States at the time. In what came to be known as the Compromise of 1790, Alexander Hamilton, aligned with the northerner states, agreed to move the capital to the states of Maryland and Virginia in an exchange with Thomas Jefferson, aligned with the southerner states. The deal paved the way for the establishment of the 100 square mile (256 square kilometers) new capital. While having its size diminished (following the decision of the area formerly belonging to Virginia to rejoin the state), with a population greater than 700 thousand, a strong economy, and continuing to serve its original purpose of capital of the United States, Washington DC is certainly a success story. 

Washington’s original design

Other planned capital cities that stood the test of times include Canberra – created in the middle of the two largest and rivaling Australian cities of Sydney and Melbourne – and Brasilia – in a push to develop Brazil’s interior region.

However, Egypt’s successive failed attempts to move its capital away from Cairo – to Nasr city, New Cairo, and even the 10^th of Ramadan, a city shaped and sized similarly to the original DC – show that there is room to fail. The country is now planning yet another capital move, to the still-in-construction “New Administrative Capital”. Situated roughly 45km east of Cairo, this new multi-billion-dollar project has officially been initiated to alleviate congestion in the current capital, currently boasting a population of 22 million people. Nevertheless, some have pointed out that the significant potential financial gains by the military and construction industries may be the true motive behind the move. By planning to increase the distance between government buildings and the masses at Cairo, the move has also given rise to allegations that, in truth, this is an attempt by President Al-Sisi to hold on to power, attempting to prevent a repetition of the events of the Arab Spring. 

Environment 

A protection from environmental issues in an existing important city, or simply a need to experiment with innovative sustainable ideas, have also fueled the creation of new urban areas across the globe.

Jakarta, Southeast Asia´s most populous city, is currently facing severe flooding problems, with the coastal city sinking as much as 25cm per year in some districts. This is far from a recent issue, however, going way back and beginning with the arrival of the Dutch in the XVII century. As an attempt to emulate the urban planning found in the Netherlands at the time, the existing settlements were torn down and a new one was built with a heavy use of canals. These canals, however, due to lack of upkeep, eventually clogged up and turned out to be a channel of disease-spreading, forcing the Europeans to relocate further south, where a system of pipes to distribute clean water was introduced. These pipes, nevertheless, took decades to reach the canal region, and even today don’t reach more than half of the city’s population. This particular circumstance left many with no option but to pump water directly from subterranean aquifers, ultimately sinking the city in the process. 

Furthermore, the city has consistently ranked among the worst polluted areas worldwide. Heavy traffic due to high population density and low public transport use, as well as the existence of several coal fired plants in the city outskirts, have all contributed for the city to register “unhealthy air” days for more than half of the 2019 calendar year. A move to the brand-new Nusantara, more than 1000km away from Jakarta, powered by renewable energies, plans to fix most of these issues.

Map of Batavia (current Jakarta)

Across the continent, in the Middle East, the EAU have been building the city of Masdar, aimed to be the first zero emissions city, in an effort to test the limits of urban sustainability. The green efforts started right in the construction phase, through the reuse and recycling of waste material. The city is also striving to be completely powered by renewable energy. The urban space was designed with buildings close together, providing protection from the desert heath. Additionally, The Masdar City wind tower, a modern spin on the traditional Arabic “barjeet”, is expected to reduce electricity needs throughout the whole city.  

While effectively an experiment in urban sustainability, having Siemens and the International Renewable Energy Agency relocating their Middle East headquarters to the city are certainly important anchors for Masdar to achieve its goals of housing 50 thousand people and succeed as not just a test-trial, but as an overall functioning city. 

Economics 

Oftentimes, the urban landscape is shaped purely by economic efforts to develop a region and guarantee better living standards. 

One such case is Malaysia’s Cyberjaya, aiming to emulate Silicon Valley’s success. Launched in 1997, the city was envisioned as “a space for startups to create and innovate; for students to pursue dreams of changing lives with technology; for tech giants to make new discoveries; for small businesses to conquer the world one market at a time”. Flexible repayment schemes and competitive rental rates were among the vast number of incentives offered to attract talent. More than 20 years onwards, having attracted the likes of Shell, DHL, Dell and HP, and with a population of 85 thousand people, some have called the initiative a success. Critics, however, point out the dominance of low-level employment, with the city’s residents mostly employed in call centers for global firms as opposed to the promised innovative and highly specialized tech outlook.

On another spectrum, pure financial motives can lead to vanity projects, as exemplified by Azerbaijan’s Khazar Islands. As the brainchild of billionaire Ibrahim Ibrahimov, it was projected to include luxury apartments and villas, a yacht club, a Formula One track, and even what was to be the tallest building in the world – the Azerbaijan Tower. In a country where GDP per capita is barely above the 5000 US$ mark, with a project such as this one accounting for a price tag of 100 billion US$, many have criticized the endeavor due to its lack of meaningful contribution for the development of the country. The lavish undertaking ultimately failed due to lack of funding, with construction coming to a stop in 2015 just four years after work had begun, a striking reminder that an ambitious plan and piles of cash may not be enough to support the creation of a brand-new metropolis.

Conclusion 

Moving away from the historical trends of organic development, there has been a growing trend of planning cities from scratch, with politics, the environment and economics coming up as the top motivators for such blueprints. These fresh creations, with varying degrees of success, come to show that planned projects of huge scale are in fact possible. Nevertheless, in many occasions, pure financial availability or political power are not sufficient to sustain them. Besides needing to address a real issue, these projects, like any urban area, need to create the right set of conditions to attract people and businesses, in order to successfully make the transition from just an idealized setting into an actual living space.  

---

Sources: Washington DC, Britannica, Ellis, Joseph J. (2000). “Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation”, Statista, Davison, G. (2001). “Canberra” From “The Oxford Companion to Australian History”. In Oxford University Press., Cairo Observer, Aljazeera, Channel News Asia, Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air, Arab News, Masdar, Diário de Notícias, World Bank, IDEAS (Institute for Democracy and Economic Affairs), Wired, Plaza London, Harris-Brandts, Suzanne; Gogishvili, David. (2018). “Architectural rumors: unrealized megaprojects in Baku, Azerbaijan and their politico-economic uses. In Eurasian Geography and Economics, Armenian Weekly, Azer News.

The decision is not official yet but according to an unprecedented leak of the Supreme Court of the United States, the 1973 decision on the Roe v. Wade judicial case that gave the right to women in America to have an abortion is about to be overturned. The overturn of the decision on this landmark case does not mean women will lose the right to have an abortion everywhere; it instead means that the Federal States will be free to set their abortion laws. However, it is estimated that half the women of reproductive-age live in US states that will further restrict or outright ban abortions if the Roe v. Wade decision is overturned. 

Before we dive into the consequences of what the end of the Roe v. Wade decision will mean for the United States, let us quickly look at the history of abortion in America and explain what exactly was the Roe v. Wade decision.

History of abortion in the United States

For much of American history, states did not regulate abortion before something called “fetal quickening”, the point in the pregnancy where the movement of the fetus can be detected in the womb. Well into the 19th century, abortions were widely practiced in the United States. Before the American Civil later in the second half of the 19th century, nearly 100% of women’s reproductive healthcare was done by women (midwives). This meant popular ethics regarding abortion and common law was grounded in the female experience of their own bodies.

The creation of the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1847 started the push to outlaw abortion. The AMA argued that abortion was immoral and that “quickening” was irrelevant because, after fertilization, a new human life would take place if no one interrupted its development. Many also argued that abortions lead to a declining birthrate of white protestant women, meaning it had to be outlawed to prevent the “browning” of America. The AMA was eventually successful, and by 1880, every US state had introduced criminal abortion laws.

Despite the criminalization of abortion, women continued to have them. It is estimated that there were up to 1.2 million abortions each year after 1880. Practitioners did their work behind closed doors or in private homes. The procedure became unsafe, and it was responsible for one-fifth of all recorded maternal deaths in 1930.

Attitudes towards abortion began to shift in the 1960s as people started to push for the liberalization of reproductive laws. In 1970, Hawaii, New York, Alaska, and Washington State were the first states to legalize abortion. However, the biggest shock came in January 1973 when the Supreme Court announced its landmark decision in Roe v. Wade, in which it decided that the restrictive states’ regulations on abortion were unconstitutional.

Roe v. Wade explained

The Roe v. Wade Supreme Court case started when a young Texan woman named “Jane Roe” (her real name was Norma McCorvey)  wanted to have an abortion in 1969. At the time, abortion was illegal in Texas except to save the woman’s life. Since Jane Roe was not a risk, she tried unsuccessfully to get an illegal abortion and was approached by two attorneys that wanted to challenge anti-abortion laws. On the other side was the district attorney of Dallas, Henry Wade,  who enforced the Texas abortion law and was later sued by Roe. The case eventually went all the way up to the Supreme Court, and on January the 22nd of 1973, the court struck down the Texas’ law. The court ruled that a woman’s right to privacy in the 14th amendment superseded a state’s right to ban abortion. Abortion was now legal everywhere in the United States.

What happened after 1973?

In 1973, the majority of the population supported the legalization of abortion; however, the Supreme Court Decision fueled a movement against abortion within the more religious and conservative electorate. While initially anti-abortion Americans were evenly divided between the two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, over the years, the Republican party adopted the overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision as one of its biggest political platforms. Their plan was simple, the party had to nominate enough conservative judges to the Supreme Court until there was a majority to overturn the 1973’s decision. Although it was simple, the plan was not easy to accomplish; Judges on the Supreme Court serve for life, and replacements have to be nominated by the President and approved by the Senate. However, between 2016 and 2020, the Republicans managed to nominate three conservative judges to the Supreme Court (out of a total of nine), which added to the three conservative judges already on the court. Although it is not yet officially known, it is expected that at least five of these six conservative judges have decided to overturn Roe v. Wade on their decision in the current case on abortion “Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization”.

The consequences of overruling Roe v. Wade

If the rumors are true and the Supreme Court decision is indeed overruled, it is expected that over half the states will prohibit all or virtually all abortions. Twelve states have “trigger laws” that have been designed to automatically ban abortion in the event Roe v. Wade is overruled. The likelihood of Congress passing federal laws to protect abortion access is very low since it would the support of ten Republican Senators to pass. Wealthier women will be able to travel to states where abortion is legal but poor women and teenagers will likely face the choice between an unsafe abortion or an unwanted child. The New York Times estimates that 34 million women of reproductive age live in states at risk of losing access to abortion.

Conclusion

It is impossible to predict the social and political consequences the overruling of the 1973 landmark decision will have on America. According to recent polls, a large majority of the US population does not support overturning Roe v. Wade, and with the midterms around the corner, the Republican party is expected to face some backlash from voters for its role in ending the nationwide right of abortion. However, it is unlikely that the backlash will be large enough for Democrats to gain ten Senate seats from the Republicans needed to establish a Federal law on abortion. So if Roe v. Wade is indeed overruled, the landscape of abortion rights in America will change for decades to come.

---

Sources: PBS Newshour, New York Times, Times, Fortune, Washington Post, Healthline, CNN, The Guardian, The New Yorker

The Russian offensive in Ukraine is posing detrimental consequences to many of its stakeholders. While media coverage has initially largely focused on the daily unfolding of the events directly related to the war, attention has increasingly been drawn to another subject for concern: individuals from around the globe with far-right ideals are leveraging the war to join militia groups that are in alignment with their political views, increasing their social and political influence. With the increase of far-right thinking and the support these political ideologies have received over the last decade across Europe and beyond, it is particularly important to be aware of the movements that are currently happening, what their consequences could be, and if, as well as how, the institutions are proceeding against them.

What is happening?

What we are currently seeing is an inflow of far-right groups into Ukraine and increased support for those that are there for positioning themselves as major protagonists on the stage of the war. Here, the Ukrainian military unit Azov, which holds a central role in an extensive global network of extremist groups, appears to be the most influential. The group was formed in 2014 out of volunteers from the ultra-nationalist Patriot of Ukraine gang and the neo-Nazi Social-National Assembly. Both of these had xenophobic and neo-Nazi ideologies which were evidenced in reports of physical assaults on migrants and people who were opposed to their views. Azov’s volunteers act as fighters in their “National Militia“ vigilante force which has its own military training bases and access to a wide array of weaponry. They are now receiving extensive transnational support which is transforming Ukraine into a hub for the global far-right-oriented minds. Azov has been attracting young men from anywhere in their global network who want to join their training units to gain in-combat fighting experience and engage in their ideology. While the FBI estimates a total of 17,000 foreign individuals to have come to Ukraine in the last six years with these motivations, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister claims another 20,000 fighters to have arrived in Ukraine since the outbreak of the war with a large proportion of them joining for related purposes.

Ever since the group was born out of an interest to defend Ukraine against Russia, it has been accused internationally of fostering neo-Nazi and white supremacist ideology. In 2019, voices from US congress members have called for the US State Department to classify the group as a foreign terrorist organisation for “recruiting, radicalising, and training American citizens”. Despite lawmakers noting that “the link between Azov and acts of terror in America is clear“, this has never happened. Facebook’s ban of users in support of or representing the group in 2016 was lifted the day Russia launched its invasion to allow praise for Azov concerning its contribution to defending Ukraine. This reflects the shift in perception of Azov as it is taking on a definitive role in the war against Russia.

The implications and dangers

With this overview of the situation at hand, it becomes clear that there are certain risks implicated as these far-right groups gain traction. Mainly, foreign fighters may become radicalised by groups like Azov and return home with weapons, and military and tactical combat experience. Some of the Western neo-Nazis and white nationalists that are going to fight in the war want to turn the country into an ultra-nationalist ethno-state and use it as a role model to expand their ideas across the world. Their objective is not focused on defending Ukraine but rather on spreading their own ideology. Just like in the Syrian conflict, the fragile situation Ukraine could be exploited as an opportunity for extremists to become trained for launching terrorist attacks in the West upon returning. Lessons from the past show that the West has provided military assistance that unintentionally landed in the wrong hands: In the 1980s, the US supported the Islamist guerrilla fighting the Soviets in the Soviet-Afghan War during which Afghanistan became the plotting and training ground for future radical Islamic terrorist attacks on the West. While NATO is equipping Ukraine with weapons and ammunition, there is a risk of a similar chain of events unfolding uncontrollably. It is unlikely that all of the foreign volunteers arriving in Ukraine have such political motivations, but there is clear evidence for extremists being attracted due to viewing the war as an ideal training ground to wage race or guerrilla wars back in their home countries.

International responses

Some efforts to address this problem have been launched in the countries from where fighters are coming. Germany has seen a sharp rise in neo-Nazism over the last years and the ongoing war has become a highly discussed topic on far-right channels. However, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution takes the stance that while many young men are active on related social media channels, very few have left for Ukraine. Yet, passports of extremists who have been identified with intentions to fight in the war are being seized to prevent them from leaving the country. The UK has implemented measures to position Counter-terrorism police at major airports for identity checks and to question travellers about their reasons for travel. Similarly, American Counter-terrorism officials are paying more attention to travellers after reports of at least half a dozen known neo-Nazis having gone to Ukraine in early February and even more since the invasion began. Overall, there are some government responses to the threat but effective solutions by the EU, NATO, or ONU are yet to be implemented. In an age where democratic values are being challenged by the rise of right-wing parties and extremist thinking, these international organisations must show a strong hand to stop radicalisation and extremist behaviour in its’ tracks.

---

Sources: Time, Aljazeera, MSNBC, Washington Post, World Politics Review, DW

Being one of the few countries which have originally never been colonised by Europeans, Ethiopia has a rich history, one where many ethnic groups have coexisted for centuries together. This coexistence, however, has not always been peaceful. With over 80 different ethnicities living in Ethiopia today, the cultural differences within the country have caused a war in its northern regions which where historically inhabited by one of its many peoples: the Tigrayans. This war has a complex background which one must be familiar with in order to better understand the motivations that have led to its offset.

Recent History of Ethiopia and Tigray

The group at the heart of the struggle in Ethiopia is called the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, or simply the TPLF. It was founded by a dozen young men from Tigray, a mountainous northern region of Ethiopia, under the principles of Marxism-Leninism and national liberation and particularly as a force of rebellion against the Ethiopian state. Within 5 years, the TPLF grew steadily, aided by its ability to nullify other Tigrayan opposition and by the increasing dissatisfaction against the Derg, the military Junta that ruled Ethiopia at the time.

By the late 1980’s, the TPLF emerged as the leader of a political coalition formed by other dissident armed rebel factions called the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and, on the 28^th of May 1991, the TPLF troops, with the support of Eritrea, seized the Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital. Thus, the Derg was overthrown and the 36-year-old Meles Zenawi, the TPLF and EPRDF president, became the leader of the country. This allowed the Tigrayans, a minority that today constitutes 6% of the Ethiopian population, to dominate its intelligence services and military forces.

This new coalition government reformed the country by introducing an ethnicity-based federal state which saw the country develop rapidly with massive infrastructure investment and stable economic growth. In addition, the old Marxist-Leninist line was abandoned by the TPLF, as with the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991 the new government pivoted towards closer cooperation with the US. Nonetheless, there was still active suppression of dissident groups, which due to the state’s closeness to the US and the EU as an ally tended to be ignored by western institutions.

After Meles’ death in 2012, however, general dissatisfaction with the government progressively grew, especially among the two largest ethnic groups – the Oromo and the Amhara, comprising around 35% and 27% of the current Ethiopian population. Eventually, after years of protests, representatives of the two communities joined forces to remove the TPLF from power: their goal was to get Abiy Ahmed, of mixed Oromo-Amharic parentage, appointed as prime minister, which happened in April 2018. With his victory, the goal became clear: to drain the TPLF’s power and influence in Ethiopia.

In a short period of time TPLF officials were sacked from key security posts and generals were arrested with important changes being introduced to counter the Tigrayan dominance of the armed forces. Furthermore, old political prisoners who opposed the TPLF were freed from the secret prisons, exiled dissidents were welcomed home, many public enterprises were privatised and restrictions on the media were reduced.

In July 2018, Abiy Ahmed signed a peace deal with Eritrea, which was an important blow to the TPLF’s ambitions, as the old Meres government had previously engaged in conflict with the Eritreans. This deal won Abiy the Nobel Peace Prize since it not only ended the ongoing border-conflict between the nations but also allowed for the restoration of diplomatic ties and movement of goods and people between the two countries.

However, in the summer of 2020 tensions between the current government and TPLF had exponentially risen after their refusal to hand over wanted fugitives as well as to join the new political party set up to replace the old ruling coalition – the Prosperity Party. Furthermore, with the removal of Tigrayan military leaders from the federal army of Ethiopia many TPLF-influenced military battalions retreated to Tigray.

War Breakout

The increase in hostilities between the TPLF and the Federal Government lead to the war-offsetting events that occurred during the night of the 3^rd of November 2020: the TPLF-lead militias launched a pre-emptive attack against multiple military bases of the Federal Government in Tigray, notably against the Northern Command Units of the Ethiopian army. The national officers and soldiers that were captured were assassinated by the TPLF militias, with the remaining troops fleeing to Eritrea causing enormous outrage across Ethiopia. It was this act of aggression that officially marked the beginning of the Tigray War.

Consequently, Abiy Ahmed’s government mobilized the Federal Army towards Tigray to try and pacify the region as soon as possible. However, less than five days into the war there were already multiple reports of ethnic killings: the Tigrayans claimed that they were being attacked by the Amhara military and the Amharas asserted that they were being targeted by the Tigrayan militias. Furthermore, on the 14^th of November the TPLF fired rockets at different airports in Eritrea, bringing them into the conflict, causing more military forces to be involved in it.

Initially, it seemed that the Federal Government’s offensive had succeeded: they managed to capture Mekelle, Tigray’s capital, on the 28^th of November 2020, along with the Eastern part of Tigray. However, the TPLF was able to recapture the capital on the 29^th of June 2021 and they launched a vast offensive which saw them recapture most of Tigray and pushing south, seizing various Amharic cities in July.

In October 2021, the Ethiopian government launched a new offensive against the advances of the TPLF, managing to recapture the Amharic cities that had been occupied and leaving the TPLF controlled territories to almost exclusively the Tigray region. As of March 2022, this is believed to be the current state of territorial distribution.

It is also important to mention the humanitarian consequences of this conflict: over 400,000 people were thrown into famine, with approximately 2.5 million people, both Tigrayans and Amharas, being displaced of their homes in the first year alone. In Tigray, currently over 83% of the population has no food security, with many services, such as the banking and communication zones, being unavailable. Overall, it is believed that over 9.4 million people have been negatively affected by this conflict.

A peaceful resolution?

It remains unclear whether a peaceful resolution is possible: the fierce fighting between both forces indicates that the cost of one force capitulating to another is great expenditure of military lives. However, the distrust that has been built over this year and a half regarding the accusations of atrocities and war crimes from both sides has resulted in calls for peace being barely acknowledged by the leaders of both parties.

Additionally, the introduction of a third-party mediator seems unlikely: whilst the TPLF lead-government used to be an important regional ally of the United States, Ethiopia’s recent integration into the Belt-and-Road initiative means that external geopolitical forces might already be influencing this conflict, preventing them from making an impartial assessment of it. Meanwhile, millions of lives will remain affected by this war, a war whose humanitarian impact cannot and must not be ignored. 

---

Sources: The Guardian, BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian, DW, Foreign Policy Magazine

As of November 2021, the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred over 250 million cases and taken the lives of over 5 million worldwide. Though it has been two years since the first reported case of this new strand of the SARS‑CoV‑2 virus, its impacts have not stopped leaving their mark: countries are reporting or anticipating a fifth wave of infection; others are on the verge of a renewed national lockdown, and others, still, are urging towards a third dose of the vaccine for risk groups.

It seems the world might yet need to adapt to this ever-evolving health crisis. The glimmer of hope in recent times has come in the form of a Digital COVID Certificate, which indicates either full vaccination, immunisation (due to recent recovery), or negative test result. It provides support in ensuring restrictions can be lifted in a coordinated manner. Among other scenarios, it exempts the holder from free movement restrictions and enables larger capacity inside closed venues. As of late, countries have considered and begun to impose vaccination mandates as a labour requirement, which is being met with mixed responses.

In the United States, where an average of about 1,100 – mostly unvaccinated – Americans are dying daily from COVID-19, President Joe Biden has declared such a mandate. It states workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees must be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested weekly starting the 4^th of January 2022 – affecting around 84 million workers. Workers in healthcare facilities and nursing homes, participating in the Medicare and Medicaid government healthcare programs, are also required to get their shots. Failure to comply is expected to trigger fines of about $14,000 per violation, with a chance to increase. Washington’s declaration was met almost immediately with opposition from Florida, Iowa, and Indiana governors, who argued infringement on individual freedom. Lawyers and companies, opposing the federal vaccination mandate, have been successful in interrupting its implementation, following an Appeal’s Court ruling. Nonetheless, there seems to be majority support of the vaccine mandates among citizens, with only about 1% of the total workforce refusing to comply with these measures.

In Europe, however a similar majority public support, these mandates have been met by a larger labour force and populace opposition.

Italy, the first European country to make the Covid-19 vaccine mandatory for healthcare workers and where vaccination rates stand at around 85%, has seen an increase in the periodicity, size and hostility of protests. The country’s Green Pass, compulsory for all employees as well as customers at all public or private sector workplaces, has been accused of undermining individual freedoms and of damaging the economy by the centre-right block. This sentiment seems to be growing among the general populace since Italy’s health ministry extended the use of the Covid-19 health pass system until March of 2022, led by a significant increase in positive cases week-on-week.

Similarly, attempts to mandate vaccination in France have been met with public backlash. In July of 2021, President Emmanuel Macron issued an ultimatum for public and private healthcare workers to be vaccinated. In September, still, tens of thousands remained unvaccinated and about 3000 workers were suspended without pay. Correspondingly, the immunity passport requirement was met with protests in Paris, Marseille, and other cities: some citing anti-vax sentiments; others pro-liberty; and others, still fed up with Macron. Nevertheless, the administration has not backed down from its efforts. Unlike the US, French courts say the “health pass” is constitutional, showing less judicial system resistance.

In contrast, the UK has not yet issued a mandate, requiring health workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 only by April of 2022. Though it might still be early to measure its impact, the high NHS staff vaccination rate – at around 90% – and the majority of public support in both Tory and Labour voters, would indicate low resignation from workers in protests.

Thus, the question arises as to the legitimacy of said mandates. The large debate centres around the right to freedom of choice. The majority advocates a utilitarian approach, claiming personal choice should not interfere with the wellbeing of the collective. Few preach freedom, equating vaccine mandates to a form of tyranny and oppression and evoking the Human Rights Act, which states any individual has the right to body autonomy and to refuse any medical treatment.

The latter holds that – though not a direct match to forced vaccination – the resulting social and economic conditions are indirect coercion mechanisms. The prohibition from entry into establishments and weakened job positions impairs return to normality.

Additionally, recent studies by Goldman economists estimate vaccination mandates may result in lower employment in the short run, resulting in refusal to comply.

Many argue, however, that this argument is used to mask the true driver of vaccine resistance: politics. One example can be found in US politics, where a successful vaccination campaign could mean a successful Biden administration, spurring the desire for agitation.

The utilitarian school of thought stands on the benefits of vaccination, defending vaccination compulsion against many diseases has been taking place for generations now and that the upsides outweigh any freedom of choice objection. Scientific testing and recent developments have provided evidence that (1) unvaccinated people are in higher risk of contraction, (2) are more infectious, and (3) are more likely to require hospitalisation, placing additional stress on the health care system. Mandates would, therefore, be expected to improve public health, decrease total infections and diminish contagion rates.

Furthermore, supporters are of the opinion that the predicted short-run unemployment will be more than offset by economic recovery and relaunching. During periods of high infection and death rates, consumption and spending fall, resulting in output contraction and lower employment rates. Thus, long-run recovery is possible only after the resolution of the public health crisis.

Though possibly not ideal, vaccination mandates have emerged as the contemporary solution to the two-year-long public health crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. While some view these measures as an attack on freedom of choice, the majority acceptance and support has driven its implementation from political debate to reality. It remains only to be seen if these mandates will enable the return to normality.

---

Sources: New York Times, Reuters, The Guardian, France24, BBC, ABC News, NPR, CNBC, Politico

It has been almost 11 months since Joe Biden took the oath of office and replaced Donald Trump as President of the United States. The early success of the coronavirus vaccination process and a rapid economic recovery from the sharp decline in GDP experienced in 2020 due to the government-imposed lockdowns, made most political commentators think the new President was on his away to an easy political year. So why has Biden’s popularity plummeted over the last few months and why did his party loose the gubernatorial election in Virginia, a state governed by the Democrats for the last 12 years and on which Biden beat Trump by more than 10 percentage points?

Anus horribilis?

Contrary to what was initially predicted, Joe Biden’s first year in office has been marked by a number of serious setbacks. Over the rest of the article, I will focus on 3 that are believed to be causing the increase in discontent with the new President and his party.

Vaccination hesitancy

On April 30th, the President’s promise to deliver 100 million vaccines on his first 100 days was met two times over and around 46% of the population had already received at least one dose of the vaccine, a percentage twice as high as that of the EU and six times that of the rest of the world. Daily new Covid cases and deaths were on a decline and a return to normal was on the horizon.

The early success of the vaccination process was, however, hiding the effect of the large vaccination hesitance in the country. According to a poll conducted for The Economist, around 30% of the population does not want to be vaccinated or is unsure, the highest rate in the developed world. Once those willing to get the jab received their doses, the US vaccination rates plummeted, creating the perfect ground for the new Delta Variant to hit the US in a dramatic way. Daily covid cases and deaths increased tenfold and new poorly communicated restrictions had to be imposed to halt the spread of the virus. For someone who had ran on a platform of bringing the coronavirus pandemic “under control”, this return to restrictions and rise in deaths was seen as failure by the President, and has resulted on sharp decline of his approval on handling covid from 63% to 49% in just six months.   

Evacuation of Afghanistan

When Biden became President the war in Afghanistan was already the longest conflict in US history. After 2448 US servicemen deaths, a cost of $2.3 trillion (around $7000 per American), and 19 years of conflict, the Taliban maintained a significant and growing presence in Afghanistan. The war had become very unpopular among voters, and both 2020 candidates ran on ending the war. In February of 2020, Trump stroke a deal with the Taliban to leave Afghanistan, and on April the 14^th, despite a strong push from the Pentagon to remain until the Afghan security forces could assert themselves against the Taliban, Biden delivered on the deal and announced the US would pull all troops out of the country by September 11^th.

As the American troops began to be pulled out, the Taliban went on the offensive and made rapid gains on the country. As the world saw the Afghan struggling to push back on the Taliban offensive, Biden defended his decision by saying it was “highly unlikely” the Taliban would ever take control, but a little over a month later the Afghan government fled the country and the Taliban were entering Kabul virtually unopposed.

Once the government fell, the NATO forces organized a massive airlift of nationals, embassy staff, and Afghan citizens who worked with coalition forces. The chaos and panic that ensued at the Hamid Karzai international airport following weeks was broadcasted all around the globe, with heartbreaking pictures of desperate people hanging on to wheels of planes and falling to their deaths as they took off.

Although these awful images were already a stain on Biden’s Afghan policy of redrawing all troops, the worse episode came on August 26^th when a suicide bomber and gunmen from ISIS targeted a gate at the airport where thousands of people were crowing trying to find a way out of the country. A total of 182 people lost their lives, 13 of them being US servicemen. Despite the chaos of the evacuation, by August 30^th the US last military airplane took off with the last remaining troops, officially ending the 19^th year military intervention. Over the 17 days that followed the fall of Kabul, the US and its allies evacuated over 120 thousand people out of the country. This success was not, however, enough to offset the horrifying scenes broadcasted from the airport over the next few days, with a poll by ABC News showing that 60% of Americans disapproved Biden’s handling of Afghanistan.  

Gridlock in Biden’s agenda

On the 2020 elections, Biden’s Democratic party not only won the Presidency but also won a majority in the Senate and maintained their majority in the lower house, the House of Representatives. It is although important to note that the majority held in the House of Representatives, also known as just the House, was cut down to just 9 seats, the lowest majority held by any party since 2000. In the Senate, the Democrats are tied with the Republicans with 50 seats each, but Vice President Kamala Harris can also vote in the Senate which gives the party control of this chamber as well. Although a bill needs 60 votes to be passed by the Senate, the Democrats can use a special rule to avoid this called “Reconciliation” and approve certain legislations with just 51 votes.

These two razor thin majorities in congress have made it very hard for the President to move forward with his legislative agenda without having every single senator and all but 4 congressmen on board. The long and complicated negations have severely delayed two important bills, a $1.2 trillion bill that aims at modernizing the country’s infrastructure and a social spending $3.5 trillion social spending bill combines major initiatives on the economy, education, social welfare, climate change and foreign policy. These two bills are highly popular among voters, with a Quinnipiac poll giving them a 60% approval, however, the party infighting between moderate and progressive Democrats has delayed the passage of this bills for months.

This deadlock in congress and failure to deliver on electoral promises has created an image of an incompetent party and President, and according to a Emerson College poll, a plurality of voters now want Republicans to regain control of both the Senate and the House in next year’s midterm elections. If this were to happen, Biden would have little to no chance of moving forward with any of his legislative agenda as Republicans would try to block any Democratic bills.

Troubling times

There are several other reasons for Biden’s fall in popularity among the American public: the slower than expected economic recovery, the fears of inflation or maybe it is just normal for Presidents to see their approval rates decrease as their “honeymoon” period wears off. Whatever the reason is, it seems to be a big problem for Democrats even though the 2024 elections are still three years away. One should note, however, that even despite the fall in support, Biden’s most likely opponent, Trump, is even more unpopular than the current President. This was seen in Virginia, a state Biden won easily in 2020, where the Republican Glenn Youngkin won the state’s gubernatorial election, but he did so by distancing himself from Trump and focusing on local issues. Also, Afghanistan will most likely not be on people’s minds by then, and the current gridlock in congress seems to be coming to an end, as congress has finally passed the infrastructure bill and is moving closer to find a consensus on the 3.5 trillion social spending one. The signs are not good for Democrats coming into next year’s midterm elections, and current projections show they will lose the majority they currently hold in both chambers of congress, but a lot can still happen in one year, and especially in three.

---

Sources: The Atlantic, Our World in Data, NPR, 538, Daily Beast, New York Times.

The retreat of NATO forces from Afghanistan in late August 2021 was no surprise by any means: the Doha Agreement that had been signed in early 2020, between the US and Taliban, had long foresighted this event. Nonetheless, the quickness with which the Taliban managed to seize the territories of the former Islamic Republic of Afghanistan left much of the world in awe. Who was this new political force, one that in days could defeat an entire nation?

History of the Taliban

The Taliban, meaning a group of students in Pashto, one of the many languages of Afghanistan, emerged as a political identity out of the englobing Mujahideen warriors who, with the financial backing of the US, China, Pakistan and others opposed the soviet aligned Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. With the Soviet retreat in the Soviet-Afghan war in 1989, followed by the DRA collapse in 1992, the path was clear for the Mujahideen to take control of the nation.

Unfortunately for them, the different political movements who fought under their banner failed to settle their differences and, without the existence of their common foe, the DRA, a new civil war erupted. It was amidst this chaos, in late 1994, that the Taliban emerged, as a new group mainly encompassed by students from different madrasas, schools focused on the teaching of Islam, of the region. With their conquest of Kabul in 1996, they became the de facto rulers of the country, forming the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

This dominance lasted until 2001, when the American-led NATO forces invaded the country under the pretext of the Taliban government allowing the creation of terrorist training camps, led by Osama Bin-Laden’s AL-Qaeda, in their nation. After being ousted out of power, it was only now, in August of 2021, that the group has managed to reclaim political power over the region.

Political Structure  

As one can imagine, this series of conflicts and civil wars severely impacted the country, with much of it needing reconstruction. As such, it is not surprising that in the first conference after the reconquest of Kabul the Taliban spokesperson, Zabihullah Mujahid, said that there would be no purges of supporters of the old regime, to guarantee stability to the local population. Nonetheless, NATO-aligned intelligence servers have warned about the risk of collaborators of the previous government being persecuted by the Taliban.

Furthermore, the Taliban quickly announced the creation and dissolution of new ministries for the nation. Headed by Mohammad Akhund, who had previously worked as the Foreign Minister of the country in the ‘90s, 11 men have been appointed to guide the nation within the framework of Sharia law. One of these men, however, has particularly raised concerns among western nations: Sirajuddin Haqqani.

Having been appointed as the new interior minister, who is responsible for the organization of the police and internal security, Haqqani is the leader of the Haqqani network, an organization that has been accused to have had links with al-Qaeda in the past, according to American sources. He is also on the FBI’s most-wanted list, leading to increased concerns regarding the maintenance of human rights in the country. 

Human Rights Concerns

Having already ruled the nation in the 1990s, many analysts have already drawn attention to the previously alleged violation of human rights by this group: in 1996, the Islamic group had prohibited women from studying or working due to concerns over their security. This ban lasted until the administration was toppled in 2001.

Furthermore, the EU and the US have criticized the lack of representation of women in the new Afghani government, claiming that this new institution ought to preserve the rights of existing minorities. Likewise, the former leader of the Afghan Ministry of Women Affairs, which was dissolved by the Taliban, Hasina Safi, has requested international donors to only provide foreign aid to the country on its commitments to respect women’s rights.

As a response, the spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid has asserted that there was still the possibility of having women appointed to the new cabinet and that “women will be afforded all their rights, whether it is at work or other activities, as they’re a key part of society. We are guaranteeing all their rights within the limits of Islam”.

In addition, the new higher-education minister has said women will be allowed to get an education, but women and men had to attend different universities. Likewise, female students would only be taught by female teachers, with the same teachers not being allowed to teach male students. While this would be an improvement over the previous state of affairs, it is unclear whether in the eyes of international entities this would be enough.

External Relations

The opinion of foreign entities might prove to be crucial to the development of the Afghani society, as the Taliban have inherited a country whose economy is overwhelmingly dependent on foreign aid, therefore keeping positive relations with their neighbours will be a must. To the northeast, the winds seem to have been favourable to the Taliban, as the People’s Republic of China has announced a 31 million dollars’ worth foreign aid donation, including 3 million Covid vaccines to the Afghan people.

Likewise, Vladimir Putin proclaimed his willingness to cooperate with the new Afghan administration, as “Russia is not interested in the disintegration of Afghanistan. If this happens, then there will be no one to talk to”. In a joint meeting with his Chinese counterpart, Putin echoed Xi’s call for all regional capitals to increase their cooperation on sharing information on potential terrorist organizations. Finally, the fact that Pakistan was one of the only countries that formally recognized the Taliban government in the ‘90s indicates that both countries will continue their long history of cooperation.

There will be many challenges for the Afghan people in the nearby future, as their country is in dire need of political stability and reconstruction. With a median age of 18, one can only hope that the newer generations can guide the country to a sustainable future. It’s time that the Graveyard of empires stops being the graveyard of its people and becomes a blossoming and prosperous sovereign society.

---

Sources: Stanford, Human Rights Watch, New Cabinet, Chinese Aid, Putin Cooperation

The US has the largest prison population in the world, as well as the largest prison population per capita. The incarceration rate in the US is six times higher than the EU average, while the sentence times are on average three times longer than in the EU.

These statistics came as a consequence of decades of policies and has increased the disparities between the United States and other economically developed countries. According to academic and activist Angela Davis, as mass incarceration has increased, the prison system has shifted from being about criminality towards economic factors.

US’s mass incarceration problem

In June 1971, President Nixon declared officially a “War on Drugs”, stating that drug abuse was the US’ “public enemy number one”. This followed a sharp increase in recreational drug use in the 1960s and marked a key moment in the development of the US Prison System.  Nixon increased the funding of drug-control agencies and proposed strict sentances for drug crimes.

The critical moment, however, came during Reagan’s second term, where a bi-partisan Congress approved the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986. This law substantially increased the number of drug offenses with mandatory minimum sentences. It also penalized disproportionately drugs that were typically associated with the black community, such as crack cocaine, as compared to drugs that were typically associated with white communities such as powder cocaine. The act, for example, mandated a minimum sentence of 5 years without parole for the possession of 5 grams of crack, while the same sentence would only be applied for 500 grams of powdered cocaine.

As expected, following the approval of this Act, there was a sharp increase in drug offense imprisonment, as well as an increase in the racial disproportion of said arrestees. The number of incarcerations for nonviolent drug offenses increased from approximately 50.000 in 1980, to 400.000 in 1997.

Comparison between systems

The European Prison rules are a set of legally non-binding standards drawn up by the Council of Europe. The members of the Council include all countries in continental Europe, except Belarus and Kosovo, and countries are expected to comply with its rules.

The main difference between the American Prison System and the largest European Prison Systems is their general goal. Germany’s Prison Act states, for example, that “the sole aim of incarceration is to enable prisoners to lead a life of social responsibility free of crime upon release”, while the American Prison System focuses on punishing inmates. According to a report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Justice, the prison system has responded to escalating crime rates by enacting highly punitive policies and laws. This has led to great disparity in incarceration rates, the European average in 2018 was 103,2 prisoners per 100.000 people, whereas in the US this number reached 655 prisoners per 100.000 in 2019.

In Europe, prisoners keep their right to vote, are allowed to receive welfare benefits and in some instances get the chance to spend some time away from prison (not uncommon in the Netherlands for prisoners to go home for the weekends). Family visits in the US happen in guarded visiting rooms, the prisoners generally forfeit their right to vote and (in some states) are not allowed to serve as juries.

In the US, little consideration is given to minor offenders, with some States trialling teenagers as young as 16 as adults. In some European countries, those under 21 are trialed in youth courts as to consider developing morals and psychologically or if crimes are considered “typically juvenile”.

The Economics of the American Prison System

The total annual expenditure of the US government on prisons and jails amounts to $84.6 billion, and, after adjusting for inflation, has quadrupled since 1982. There are therefore people with significant economic interests in maintaining mass incarceration. CoreCivic, the US’ second largest private corrections company, is traded at the NYSE and is a component of the S&P600. From 1999 to 2010, CoreCivic spent on average $1.4 million per year on lobbying on a federal and state level. An August 2016 report by the U.S. Department of Justice asserts that privately operated federal facilities are less safe and more punitive than other federal prisons.

Recently, these companies have come under fire and are even facing lawsuits as allegations of forced and underpaid labor came to light. These reports allege that these companies are exploiting people who are in vulnerable situations to reap profits. The hourly pay for inmates working in the US can vary anywhere from $0.09 to $4.90, depending on the State, while four States do not pay inmates any form of salary. This only decreases their chances of success once they are released, as they have little to no savings, and oftentimes are ineligible for government benefit programs like welfare and food stamps.

Former inmates also face significant difficulties when trying to reenter the job market, as they face unemployment rates approximately five times higher than the general US population. This employer discrimination also affects disproportionately people of color and women. Formerly incarcerated black women face hardships finding employment, as their unemployment rate is almost seven times higher, at 43,6%, than the unemployment rate of their general population peers. The racial disproportionality regarding the incarcerated population, as well as the disadvantages they face once out of the Prison System will perpetuates racial inequalities, affecting particularly minority communities.

The consequences of mass incarceration

The consequences of mass incarceration go far beyond the financial impact, they affect individuals and communities all over the US. A prison sentence oftentimes has the opposite effect of what it is intended to achieve. Instead of being rehabilitated and ready to integrate society, many former prisoners fall into a cycle of crime after their release, due to either being pulled into gang activity within the prison walls, or turning to illegal activities due to financial need. Mandatory sentencing has doomed the lives of people charged with low-level offenses, punishing them for the rest of their lives.

According to a research conducted by the Congressional Research Service, on average, over a five-year period, 76,6% of released inmates will return to prison.

The effect on communities is also extensive, affecting primarily minority communities as these are the ones with the highest incarceration rates, even though they have similar drug usage and drug trafficking rates as white communities. Residents of neighborhoods with high incarceration rates face a disproportionate level of stress, due to a combination of disrupted family and social networks, as well as increased rates of crime and infectious diseases such as HIV. Furthermore, studies have shown that this also takes a toll on mental health, as one study concluded that “The effect of neighborhood-level incarceration on mental health is similar for individuals with and without a history of incarceration.”.

Mass incarceration has had a negative impact on individuals and society, the policy choices of the last 50 years have helped perpetuate racial inequalities in minority communities. One possible way to overcome this issue, would be to transform the American Prison System from a punitive one, into a rehabilitative Prison System, as seen throughout the EU. The question that remains is, when will American lawmakers tackle this issue, ensuring the American Prison System becomes an efficient tool for rehabilitating felons, making them ready to integrate society.

---

Sources: American Civil Liberties Union, History Channel, Reuters, NPR, sentencingproject.org