Conflict and Intervention in the Region of Nagorno-Karabakh

There seems to be no end to the conflict in the region of Nagorno-Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan; however, to understand the conflict, its origin should be considered. Post the Soviet Union's dismantling is when this conflict truly began as there was a debate between Armenia and Azerbaijan as to who would take control of this region. The reason for the debate is that despite the area in question being under Azerbaijan territory, it was home to a vast majority of native Armenians who did not want to become a part of Azerbaijan.


(https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/19/is-russia-reduced-to-a-secondary-role-in-nagorno-karabakh)

However, over the years, Azerbaijan has grown its military power and strength to the point where it may have a “comparative advantage in relation to Armenia”. This is important because it shows Azerbaijan’s willingness to have a full-scale war with Armenia and since there has been a cutting of negotiations, it is wondered when this conflict may end. Though in previous stir-ups in the region Russia has been that intermediary due to an alliance it has with Armenia. However, this time Russia has not requested the fighting to cease.

Furthermore, new information is turning other heads around the world for possible intervention as humanitarian law is being violated within the conflict. Innocent civilians are being killed, and illegal ‘Cluster Bombs’ have been used in cities on civilians. Human rights violations show again how necessary it may be for other nationals to involve themselves in this conflict so peace can prevail. It is no longer just a dispute over a region between two governments but a conflict that has affected the lives of the innocent civilians living within the regions.


(https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/19/is-russia-reduced-to-a-secondary-role-in-nagorno-karabakh)

The only foreign power evident in the conflict is Turkey. They have been directly involved but also have begun to bring in mercenaries from outside the region to aid Azerbaijan in fighting the conflict. Despite it being clear that there are direct violations of human rights in the region, if more foreign powers become militarily involved, another endless proxy war could begin. This is why foreign interference should be more so focused on a diplomatic solution to this issue as opposed to military interference. While there is scheduled to be a meeting in Washington today between the foreign diplomats it is still unclear as to what may bring these two conflicting sides to peace, but the foreign powers avoiding interference has clearly not helped it end or brought resolution to the question of the region's sovereignty.




Armenia/Azerbaijan: Civilians must be protected from use of banned cluster bombs. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2020/10/armenia-azerbaijan-civilians-must-be-protected-from-use-of-banned-cluster-bombs/

Mirovalev, M. (2020, October 19). What role is Russia playing in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict? Retrieved from https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/19/is-russia-reduced-to-a-secondary-role-in-nagorno-karabakh

Nagorno-Karabakh: What's at Stake in the Conflict Between Armenia & Azerbaijan? (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.democracynow.org/2020/10/22/nagorno_karabakh_conflict_armenia_azerbaijan

Tom O'Connor On 10/20/20 at 6:22 PM EDT. (2020, October 20). Armenia wants Iran's help, Azerbaijan says US, Russia, France not doing enough to end conflict. Retrieved from https://www.newsweek.com/armenia-iran-help-azerbaijan-us-russia-france-not-doing-enough-1540734

Stateness and Democracy in East Asia

There are many studies focusing on the relationship between culture, class, and economy and democracy in East Asia. However, most of them neglect to evaluate the significance of stateness in democratization. A strong stateness includes effective, non-corrupt administration, legitimate law enforcement, and a sense of attachment among citizens. Recent scholars on stateness and democracy are divided into two groups. Some believe that a strong existing state is the prerequisite of democratization. On the other hand, some disagree by claiming that “positive political development is more likely when effective state institutions have been put in place prior to democratization,” but democratization can be achieved without a well functioning state. As the argument continues, attention has been drawn to several demoratic states in East Asia.

The stronger states facilitate democratization argument collapses when we examine the democratization in East Timor, one of the most fragile states in East Asia. East Timor  experienced one of the most extensive processes of post-conflict peacebuilding undertaken by the United Nations since 1999. One of the aims of post-conflict peacebuilding was to establish democracy and a market economy. When the UN started rebuilding the country, there were no state or previous regimes. The weak bureaucracy led to ineffective rule of law, making East Timor extremely fragile. However, with the assistance of the UN, East Timor became one of the most democratic states in East Asia with multi-party politics and public elections. Scholars even observed high voter turnouts and a degree of political competition between parties in this unstable state.

The case of Indonesia, however, shows that democratization could be challenging in a weak state. Indonesia attempted to democratize after the Second World War but failed to become one until 1999. Power sharing and democratic elections enabled Indonesia’s elites to cooperate to avoid potential violence after gaining independence from the Dutch. Nevertheless, the new established country faced many problems. Without an effective core of state institutions, democracy in Indonesia eventually became not sustainable. Although Indonesia was politically inclusive, democratization in the case of a fragile state hindered the creation of an effective bureaucracy and contributed to the breakdown of order. 

The case of East Timor shows that a fragile state is still able to achieve democratization. In contrast, the failure of democracy in Indonesia during the 1950s reminded us of the challenge democratization faced in an unstable state. Although a strong stateness is not essential to democracy, it eliminates threats to democratization, thus fostering political development. 

Bibliography

Croissant, Aurel, and Olli Hellmann. Stateness and Democracy in East Asia. New York, 

New York: Cambridge University Press, 2020. 

Ludvigsson , Karin. “Democracy in Timor-Leste,” August 2008. 

The Indonesian LGBT+ Community's Struggle for Basic Human Rights

The LGBT+ community in Indonesia has recently faced a plethora of discriminatory problems.  Though homosexuality is not illegal under Indonesian law, authorities have done much more to hinder the advancement of LGBT human rights than to help.  To make matters worse, Indonesia is facing the possibility of new legislation that would further inhibit the rights of the LGBT+ community.  The government has faced a large amount of backlash in the form of protests, however, the Muslim-majority country does not look as if it is ready for change.  

There have been numerous threats against the LGBT community that are deserving of an investigation by the Indonesian government.  Recently, in the capital city Jakarta, a police raid on a private gathering of 56 men led to the arrest of 9 people.  According to Human Rights Watch, police forcibly broke up a party at a hotel, accusing people of the crime of "facilitating obscene acts".  Jakarta has been the setting for the increasing number of unlawful apprehension of LGBT people.  Authorities have been using a 2008 pornography law in order to convict people on the basis of their sexual orientation, relating same-sex relations to the distribution of acts of obscenity.  Likewise, in the Indonesian military, security forces have vowed to purge LGBT people from their ranks.  Major General Burhan Dahlan has admitted to filing 20 reports to the court regarding same-sex relations between soldiers.  Additionally, this outing of members of the LGBT+ community has spread to the Indonesian police force.  Government officials have not done anything in response to the removal of LGBT officers from the police or military.

Men sit in the back of a vehicle in at Jakarta police headquarters after a police raid

The current criminal code in Indonesia is called the KUHP, an outdated code put into place during the Dutch colonial era in 1918. To this day, the country has not implemented any changes to the law.  Late last year, amendments to the KUHP were proposed, however, these proposed amendments don't do much to help.  The proposed legislation, or the RKUHP, was met by widespread protests.  Though the intention of the changes in the criminal code is unclear, the new law would criminalize more conduct than the existing KUPH.  The new legislation raises concerns about many issues such as adultery, blasphemy, abortion, and the rights of women, people of the LGBT+ community, and religious minorities. In response to the protest, Indonesian President Joko Windodo postponed the implementation of the new provisions.

Anti-LGBT protesters march in support of new legislation in Banda Aceh

Earlier this year, lawmakers in Indonesia introduced a bill known as the "Family Resistance Bill".  According to ABC News, this bill would establish government-sanctioned rehabilitation centers with the purpose of curing LGBT people of their gender identities or sexual orientations.  Furthermore, family members would be encouraged to report those who refused to enter the rehabilitation centers.  Organizations such as the human rights group OutRight Action International have formed in opposition to the bill, seeing it as another attempt by Indonesian lawmakers to criminalize homosexuality.  For now, advocates of the LGBT+ community are doing whatever they can to combat the recent push for anti-LGBT legislation.

Students protest against revisions of the criminal code in front of the Indonesian House of Representatives

The current situation for members of the LGBT+ community in Indonesia is far from ideal, but the increasing number of protest throughout the country, as well as the increasing opposition to new discriminatory legislation reveals a glimps of hope for some.  For a country that possesses a grade of only 19% on the F&M Global Barometers scale for gay rights, there seems to be a lot of support for the LGBT+ community.  Protest have been widespread since the end of 2019 and have continued to raise support and awareness of the lack of basic rights for LGBT people, prohibiting President Joko Windodo from supporting any new legislation.  Though the implementation of the RKUHP is still likely, officials hope to change many revisions of the bill before it becomes law.  The young Indonesian community continues to stand up to outdated laws and resists the push for further discrimination of LGBT people.

Sources:

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/09/07/indonesia-investigate-police-raid-gay-party

https://www.vice.com/en/article/wx8e94/indonesian-security-forces-vow-to-purge-lgbt-people-from-their-ranks

https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/indonesia-proposes-bill-force-lgbtq-people-rehabilitation-n1146861

https://www.mondaq.com/white-collar-crime-anti-corruption-fraud/901430/rkuhp-what-it-means-for-criminal-justice-in-indonesia

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/1/27/its-dangerous-sinaga-case-fuels-lgbt-backlash-in-indonesia

https://sea.mashable.com/social-good/6419/heres-the-rundown-on-whats-really-going-on-with-the-protests-in-indonesia

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/thousands-rally-in-indonesia-amid-controversial-criminal-code-changes

Happiness of Canada's Asymmetric Federalism Government

 

Many countries today use a type of federalism as their democracy in order to govern their countries and create new legislation. However, their are different types of federalism that people have argued over which type is better. The first type is Asymmetric federalism where different regions in the country have different powers. States such as India and Canada use this type of federalism. The other is systematic federalism where all regions of the state hold the same amount of powers. The United States is the most known country that practices this kind. What is kind of federalism is better though, and which states people are more satisfied with how they are being ruled. First, lets look at Canada's overall happiness with their asymmetric system.

https://theconversation.com/satisfaction-with-canadas-democracy-declines-significantly-in-alberta-130185

The graph shows us that the satisfaction with democracy in Canada has grown a decent amount over the last decade. But it is important to look at the different regions to get the true story. In Quebec the ratings have steadily grown and it looks like people are growing increasingly happy with their government. However, in Alberta the ratings dropped drastically in 2019. Why is this? “Quebecs status as a minority nation within the larger Canadian federal state — and one whos political leaders frequently contest the extent of the autonomy afforded to the province under the current federal arrangement” (The Conversation). This is a great example of how the asymmetric system can benefit certain regions that may hold certain powers that make their citizens more satisfied. In Alberta the numbers drastically began to drop after 2015 when new leadership was elected to the region. Since then, citizens have felt more at risk with their new leader and less satisfied with the government. So the asymmetric system can be beneficial but it depends on what powers your regions hold and who is in leadership. 

Comparing this to the Symmetric system in the United States where all regions have the same powers their is a drastic difference. In these graphs is shows how the satisfaction of the symmetric system in American has dropped drastically since the 1990s to today. We also see how Canada's satisfaction has stayed the same after two decades. Americans believe not enough legislation is being passed and the division of powers may be preventing this from happening. Especially in a two party system where ideologies can be so divided. So comparing the tow types of federalism it seems to show that asymmetric federalism leads to more happy citizens and a state that is generally more satisfied with their government. 

https://theconversation.com/satisfaction-with-canadas-democracy-declines-significantly-in-alberta-130185

https://www.bennettinstitute.cam.ac.uk/media/uploads/files/DemocracyReport2020.pdf

https://blogs.voanews.com/all-about-america/2018/03/07/americans-increasingly-unhappy-with-government-gallup/

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/poll-majority-of-americans-dissatisfied-with-u-s-politics-doubt-divisons-will-improve-soon

What is the National Security Law in Hong Kong? And what makes it so important.

 

Since the China's National People's Congress has decision to create a new national security for Hong Kong, it has received innumerous criticisms both locally by Hong Kong and by international politics. By saying Hong Kong is no longer an “autonomous” state, many countries have expressed their concern, arguing that Hong Kong's legislative council should also be involved in this law-making process.

 

The new National Security Law just passed a few months ago was described to be an "invasive declaration of PRC's dominance over Hong Kong's semi-autonomous territory." What is interesting about the text of this new law is it did not made public until it had already been passed. And by the end of June 30, the Hong Kong government has announced that they formally adopted the law. 

What is the new National Security Law in Hong Kong about?

It is officially known as the Law of the PRC on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special AdministrativeRegion. Basically, what does this law does is that all "secession", "subversion", "terrorism" and "collusion with foreign forces" will be banned in the name of China's national security. And the maximum penalty for each crime can be up to life imprisonment. In addition, this law also grant the mainland national security agencies the right to establish a formal presence in the city for the first time. 

Riot Police in front of a luxury goods store in Hong Kong

Why is the National Security Law being Criticized?

In the article 23 of Hong Kong’s Basic Law, it has clearly stated that Hong Kong’s specialty as a self-administrative region that will “enact laws on its own” for the Region’s security and to protect its sovereignty:

“The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organisations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organisations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organisations or bodies.”

However, the introduce of the new National Security Law has clearly threatened the freedom of expression in Hong Kong. In fact, as soon as the law was implicated, a chilling effect has been seen. Anti-establishment leaders have deleted their social media account and in some cases, they fled. Public education system has been reformed, specific curriculum in schools have been instructed to revise. Particular books were being censored due to their content.

In addition, Beijing now has the riht to vet police and prosecutorial appointments and tell how the money will need to be spent to Hong Kong government. And what's the most important thing is, for any future jury trials, Mainland Chinese courts will have to right to take charge over it, potentially ended up within Beijing.  

HKPF recived the order to arrest people who were involved in HK Independence Movement

What are the potential influence to Hong Konger and foreign enterprise?

Any inappropriate comments on social media can lead to individual be charged for crime. Director of Office for Safeguarding National Security of the Central People’s Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Zheng Yanxiong will be the sole authority to define where exactly those lines were drawn. Consequently, foreign companies operating in Hong Kong have also taken actions in respond to National Security Law. Some technology companies have announced that they are considering migrating data storage outside of Hong Kong to secure customer’s personal information.

Conclusion

Effectively, the National Security Law has imposed PRC's cirminal system directly onto Hong Kong's common law system. As a result, Hong Kong has lost its One Country, Two Systems' superioty on international trading. In response to these actions, "Trump administration  announced on May 27 that Hong Kong's autonomy had been undermined to the point where it does not continue to warrant treatment under United States laws in the same amnner as U.S. laws were applied to Hong Kong before July 1997." And not long after it was announced, President Trump removed some of Hong Kong's privileges including its speical customs status. 

Work Cited:

1. "Basic Law - Chapter 2". Hong Kong government. Archivedfrom the original on 29 July 2010. Retrieved 20 March 2018.

2. "Anger as China approves Hong Kong security law". BBC News. 30 June 2020. Retrieved 30 June 2020.

3. Davidson, Helen (18 June 2020). "China tables draft Hong Kong security law in sign it intends to rush legislation". The Guardian. Retrieved 19 June 2020.

4. Ho, Kelly; Grundy, Tom (30 June 2020). "Joshua Wong's pro-democracy group Demosisto disbands hours after Hong Kong security law passed". Hong Kong Free Press. Retrieved 18 October 2020.

5. ^ Jump up to:a b C. George Kleeman (2005). "The Proposal to Implement Article 23 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong: A Missed Opportunity for Reconciliation and Reunification Between China and Taiwan". The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law. 23 (3). Retrieved 30 June 2020.

6. ^ Gupta, Sourabh (17 June 2020). "Hong Kong National Security Law". Institute for China-America Studies. Retrieved 2 July 2020.

7. ^ Wong, Yiu-chung (2008). One Country, Two Systems in Crisis: Hong Kong's Transformation since the Handover. Lexington Books. pp. 69–70.

8. 【國安法】調查指66%受訪者支持中央立法 比上次增近1成". 頭條日報. 8 July 2020.

9. "香港市民の保護目指す 超党派の議員連盟が発足へ". NHK. 19 July 2020. Archived from the original on 23 July 2020. Retrieved 28 July 2020.

The East Mediterranean Crisis and the Potential of a Proxy War

The ongoing Greek-Turkish rivalry over who gains control of the Aegean continental shelf has recently inflamed tensions in the East Mediterranean. This enduring animosity between the two NATO allies dates back to the four-century occupation of Greece by the Ottomans but—in its contemporary phase—is rooted in the Cyprus question and its outbreak in the 1950s.

All perspectives are valid, and the current situation is only the tip of an ever-growing iceberg. It is not about a bilateral conflict escalating into a local emergency, but rather, a larger international crisis that threatens to transform old differences between Greece and Turkey into a proxy war.

Root Cause of Instability

The long-standing division between the West and Turkey’s President, Tayyip Erdogan, is where this international crisis arises. His Middle East agenda has sparked major irritation among the international community (including the US, France, Israel, and many Arab states). Erdogan’s objection to sanctions against Iran in 2010 provoked the first split between the US and Turkey since World War II. He also jeopardized his relationship with Israel over Gaza and supported Arab Spring-related Islamist movements. As a result, the US imposed sanctions against Turkey in 2018 in an attempt to isolate Erdogan.

In the meantime, Turkey has expanded its reach to levels that mirror the Ottoman era. In 2017, Erdogan stationed troops in Qatar, put up a military base in Somalia, and expanded his influence in Sudan. He also intervened in the Syrian and Libyan civil wars, and after the 2016 failed Turkish coup, he built an alliance with Russia, while also maintaining a neutral relationship with Donald Trump (Kazamias). This modern Greek-Turkish conflict is attached to Turkey’s new (attempted) regional grip as it has its eye on the 1,200-mile underwater pipeline, the “East Med," which exports Israeli natural gas to Europe. However, when in 2013 Washington and Tel Aviv deserted Turkey and chose Cyprus and Greece as an alternative route for the pipeline, bilateral relations between Athens and Ankara fell apart.

The “East Med” pipeline

Ignoring International Law

SYRIZA’s Alexis Tsipras (belongs to the Greek political opposition and is the previous prime minister) might have called the East-Med “a source of stability” for the region in the past, but it is now obvious that the pipeline is nothing more than a source of profound uncertainty. Crafting the pipeline through the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of Cyprus and Greece is the main reason why the situation has reached this level of escalation. The two countries ought to have established their boundaries through treaties in order to legally avoid Turkey’s unlawful, but popular claims. Another decisive reason has been the 2016 EU-Turkey Refugee Deal, which allows the return of Syrian refugees from Greece to Turkey. Being a self-contradictory EU policy, this agreement provided Erdogan with control over 3.5 million Syrian refugees whom he can push to Greece at any moment. Last February, he sparked another refugee crisis by forcing thousands of refugees along the northern Greek border of Evros until his demands in Idlib were met by EU forces (Kazamias).

Turkish foreign policy has historically disregarded International Law. Two glorious examples are its defiance of the 1982 UN Convention for the Law of the Sea and its most provocative action to this day; its occupation of Cyprus. Turkey’s decision to reopen the “ghost town” of Varosha is further proof of its provocative stance. Turkish military forces were instructed to reopen the district (forty-six years after the invasion of Cyprus) violating, once more, UN Resolutions 550/1984 and 789/1992 (United Nations Security Council resolutions 550 (1984) "Considers attempts to settle any part of Varosha by people other than its inhabitants as inadmissible and calls for the transfer of this area to the administration of the United Nations")

The “Ghost Town” of Varosha

We come to conclude that the West has to choose between maintaining its tactic of isolating Erdogan or starting to re-engage Turkey (now that the implications of not doing so have become apparent). French President Macron, who has previously stated his support for Greece, upholds an anti-Islamist sentiment and calls for EU sanctions against Turkey as well as for a united West beside Greece. Other leaders, however, have unsuccessfully advocated for Turkey and Greece’s bilateral talks. Since the Greek-Turkish wrangle is no longer bilateral, the two governments are unable to make such talks work. It is essential that Greece’s allies also intervene and set adequate conditions for such discussions to prove successful.

The international community needs to address the increasing demand for a moratorium on the exploitation of natural resources in the region, stand united instead of picking sides, and issue an agenda through which both Greece and Turkey can appeal to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in order to establish their individual continental shelves and EEZs (Kazamias). 

Any other approach will lead us to the verge of a proxy war. 

Main Source: Alexander Kazamias

All other sources can be found above in the form of an attachment.

Socialism in Bolivia: Potential Backlash or Fresh Start?

Bolivia is a landlocked country in the center of South America with a history of political turmoil. The country, a former Spanish colony, has endured long periods of political and economic instability. However, many Bolivians today feel that socialism may be the answer to their problems. This sentiment is reflected in the recent victory of Luis Arce, a symbol of the socialist party in Bolivia, in the 2020 presidential election. Sadly, Bolivians must be aware of the international response. Given the history of United States intervention in Latin America, the international repercussions of a socialist party victory in Bolivia may be damaging.

The path towards this socialist victory in Bolivia is most recently influenced by the former president, Evo Morales. Although a highly controversial figure, Morales was the first indigenous president and delivered on many promises to provide greater equality with socialist policies. He represents a reassertion of indigenous political power that was historically dominated by wealthy, white elites. Morales is largely responsible for the development of the MAS, or “Movimiento al Socialismo,” in Bolivia. With the support of the MAS party, Morales slashed poverty levels, nationalized oil and gas industries, and expanded transportation infrastructure. These actions raised the GDP and improved treatment of indigenous people. However, the circumstances of Morales’ decline from power are not entirely clear. During Morales' run for a fourth term, major protests broke out across the country as accusations of election fraud spread. 

Even though Morales fled the country, the policies of the socialist party remain popular, especially among marginalized families. It is the hope associated with these policies and the opportunities for widespread economic equality that have driven many people to the polls in support of Luis Arce, the candidate approved by Morales. While the election has not been officially called yet, exit polls on Sunday reveal that Arce has at least a 20-point lead over his centrist opponent, Carlos Mesa. In a demonstration of respect and rational-legal legitimacy, Mesa already conceded the election on Monday stating, “It is up to us, those who believe in democracy... to recognize that there is a victor in this election.” People are desperate for stability following the chaotic transition of power from the socialist policies of Morales to the conservative interim president, Jeanine Áñez. Many feel eager about the potential for a fresh start under Arce. 

Indigenous women casting their votes for Morales’ chosen successor, Arce. The pollera, or traditional skirt, shown here is symbolic of the party’s indigenous base. (Common Dreams)

While this optimism feels refreshing, it may be somewhat blind. The reality of a socialist party victory in Bolivia may have negative economic repercussions based on reactions from the international community. Especially in the United States, there are continuous, active efforts to prevent the spread of socialist or communist ideals viewed as a threat to American democracy. In the 2002 election, prior to Morales’ eventual victory in 2005, the United States ambassador to Bolivia warned citizens that voting for Morales would lead the United States to cut off foreign aid and close its markets to the country. This distrust of socialism has not disappeared since 2002 and will likely lead to similar consequences under Arce. Some Morales supporters even view his ungraceful removal from the presidential office as the result of a United States backed coup; although, it is important to note that this theory is not confirmed. Furthermore, Arce inherits a country divided by protests, battered by the coronavirus and lacking the commodities boom that supported success for Morales’ socialist policies. This - along with international intervention - may cause stagnation in the economy. 

Consequently, it is clear that while working class Bolivian people see the continuation of socialist policy through Arce as a chance to achieve new levels of equality, the success of their economy and reforms may be largely restricted by international hostility to socialism. Bolivians should follow their dream of socialism, but they need to be vigilant and alert to the potential of international interference. 

Luis Arce at his final rally before the election. (The Guardian)

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/world/americas/morales-arce-bolivia-election.html   

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/19/bolivia-election-exit-polls-suggest-thumping-win-evo-morales-party-luis-arce  

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/17/bolivia-election-socialism-luis-arce-evo-morales 

https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2020/10/15/fresh-elections-and-perhaps-a-fresh-start-for-bolivia

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/10/18/nearly-one-year-after-2019-right-wing-coup-bolivians-head-polls-national-elections 

On January 21, 2020, as a result of massive and months-long anti-government protests, Lebanese officials announced the formation of a new cabinet and transitional government. At the time, this radical move was seen as “critical to getting the country on track to” recover from severe economic and political crisis. Unfortunately for the struggling nation, the new system and cabinet was attacked from all sides and was short lived, throwing the country back into mayhem and worsening the day-to-day existence for most Lebanese.

The cabinet assembled in January was touted as the most progressive and diverse in the Country's history. Led by non-partisan Prime Minister Hassan Diab, the cabinet contained a number of newcomers to politics and the highest number of women in Lebanon's history.


https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/middleeast/lebanon-100-days-new-government-intl/index.html


The newly-formed government was quickly attacked on all sides. Protesters continued their protests claiming the new cabinet was "simply another set of politically connected figures beholden to the parties and institutions" protesters had been trying to expel. Externally, many nations, including the United States expressed concern regarding the pro-Iran tilt of the new regime, as Islamic Militant group Hezbollah had significant input in the cabinet's selection. One protester, expressing ongoing discontent noted, "This government is all theater. There's no way we're going to give it a chance or our trust. We're going to keep rioting until our demands are met."

True to their word, the protests continued as the new government struggled to gain its footing. The system came crashing down following a devastating explosion on August 4, 2020 in Lebanon's capital city, Beirut. The blast, which was a result of the detonation of 2000 tons of ammonium nitrate stored illegally in a port warehouse, killed at least 63 people, injured more than 6,000 and caused massive and widespread destruction.





https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/04/middleeast/gallery/beirut-explosion/index.


For the average Lebanese citizen, the explosion was the last straw in the long-term crisis including the "collapse of the economy, corruption, waste and dysfunctional governance." Protests ramped up in the days following the explosion culminating in the resignation of the Prime Minister and the resignation of cabinet members, leaving Lebanon once again without a functioning government. In an attempt to quickly quell the chaos, the Lebanese parliament quickly installed career-diplomat Mustafa Adib as its new prime minister. Mr. Adib lasted approximately one month before he too resigned in late September after failing to form a cabinet. Now, Lebanon remains at a crossroads, with Western nations, led by France, threatening to withdraw further assistance unless the Lebanese can form a cohesive, functional government whose primary goal would be to resume financial bailout talks with the international community and create a "roadmap for reform." Unfortunately, it has become increasingly apparent to the international community that Lebanese state is in the total control of Hezbollah, making real reform and cooperation with the West unlikely.


Sources:


https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/24/middleeast/lebanon-100-days-new-government-intl/index.
https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2020-08-10/lebanons-cabinet-under-pressure-as-ministers-quit-and-anger-grows-over-beirut-blast
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/31/world/middleeast/lebanon-prime-minister-mustafa-adib.html
https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29109/without-defanging-hezbollah-lebanon-can-have-little-hope-for-the-future

A Glimpse of Globalism During a Worldwide Pandemic

Globalization is a force in the world that's been around since 1492, ever since Christopher Columbus happened upon the Americas and opened up the brave new world of colonization, exploitation, and long distance trade. Granted, globalization as we know it today didn't really get it's start until the 1990s, when the rise of the internet and the prevalence of telecommunications and the opening up of commercial air travel to the general public allowed the countries of the world to really start to become more interconnected - economically, socially, and culturally. The advance of globalization has only sped up in recent years with economies of global superpowers like the US, China, Russia, and the EU becoming more and more reliant on one another an, in turn, weaving the rest of the worlds nations into this new "global economy". This dense web of economic ties is at the core of globalization, and is what drives its other aspects.



Ever since it first started, and especially once it really took off in recent years, the debate has been raging between those in favor of globalization - aptly named globalists - and those against it, the populists. For years the populists have been on the losing side of the debate, watching as globalization soared rapidly with the worlds powers becoming more and more intertwined in almost every way. But now, the rise of more and more "global pandemics" in recent years have led to more and more people shifting to the side of populism, advocating for more national self-reliance in the form of stricter immigration control, bringing jobs back from overseers, and the like. With the worlds newest global pandemic, COVID-19, populist sentiment has soared, leading many to declare that the "death of globalism" is near. To look at why people are saying this, we first need to understand how globalism and pandemics are tied together. We already know that with the rise of globalism countries became more intertwined both socially, economically, and culturally - what this also means is that industries like tourism exploded in scope and scale as countries made it easier for foreigners to visit, work, or become citizens. This boom in tourism and the general number of people passing through both physical and political borders meant an increase in the economic prosperity of many countries - but it also massively increased the danger posed by diseases that once would have stayed locked in one area. Enter SARS, Swine flu, and COVID-19; scary diseases with high infection rates that allowed them to easily spread from person to person and, with the rise of globalization, country to country. COVID-19 especially has lead many to point to globalization as the reason the disease has ravaged the world the way it has. Without it, they say, COVID-19 would never have spread too far out of China, nor would it have had such a disastrous effect on the global economy.


https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-daily-vs-total-cases?time=2020-01-22..latest&country=~NZLWorse, the pandemic comes at a time of heightened political tension in the world. It has wreaked havoc on the United States and its presidential election, with president Donald Trump fanning the flames of populist sentiment by pushing for more closed borders and a crack down on immigration. This sentiment has been echoed in places like South America, where Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro has parroted much of Trump's policy on the virus. Across the world this sudden pushback on globalization has lead to a rise in xenophobia and racism as people push back against the notion of an interconnected world out of fear.



However, while things may look bleak it is unlikely that globalization while suffer any serious setbacks. The worlds largest economies - the US, Russia, the EU, and China - all continue to increase their investments in foreign markets and the global economy. The world has profited from, and grown comfortable with, the effects of globalization - while the COVID-19 pandemic has and will continue to rock the boat, all the signs suggest it's not going to sink any time soon.




https://time.com/5838751/globalization-coronavirus/

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/05/23/861577367/messaging-from-leaders-who-have-tamed-their-countrys-coronavirus-outbreaks

https://cdnuploads.aa.com.tr/uploads/Contents/2020/03/31/thumbs_b_c_7eec27ea6028f3f10aa8b8681617c027.jpg?v=155610

A Deadlier Pandemic: Mental Health in Europe

It is no secret that mental health has been on the decline for years now across all continents. We have seen this trend in multiple studies that have been conducted across the world. In particular, the World Health Organization (WHO) has found a direct correlation between the start of the coronavirus pandemic shutdown and declining mental health. Most people report feeling depressed or anxious and many families are stressed about the financial impact that the pandemic has had on them or their loved ones. Others are lonely in isolation as they are quarantined for contact tracing or have the actual virus. Due to the fact that mental health is a relatively new topic to the media and conversations are just now becoming less taboo, countries around the world are now recognizing the importance of maintaining good mental health; especially at a time when everyone is wrapped up in another health crisis.

One country in particular that has realized the importance of mental health at a time when physical health is poor is Malta. This small country is a southern European island country with a population estimated to be around 514,560. Despite their physical size and their population size, Malta has recognized the importance of mental health and has used their Office of the Commissioner for Mental Health to make the 10th of October every year World Mental Health Day. Malta has started a campaign that is called “Move for mental health: let’s invest.” This campaign was started in 2020 based on studies across Europe that found that nearly 120,000 people in Malta are living with a mental disorder. This initiative shows Malta’s governmental commitment to their citizens and their willingness to make mental health a priority in the midst of a global pandemic. This declaration of a mental health day and campaign is also a push for other European governments to follow Malta’s lead.

While there is still much work to be done as far as mental health being treated as seriously as physical health, the 42 Member States in the WHO European Region have started to move in the direction of making mental health care more accessible. Based on the table, we see that most countries in Europe are making efforts governmentally, financially, and socially to make mental health more available for their citizens. By writing policies and documents that help European citizens with their mental health, Europe will be better prepared to handle the aftermath of the mental health decline that comes from the pandemic. The shift seen in European countries to address mental health is comparative to that of the United States’ shift in some aspects. The U.S. has (relatively) recently recognized the negative effects that school stress and bullying can have on students and has implemented some laws and policies to improve mental health. The shift to improve mental health measures across the world correlates to the current coronavirus pandemic as mental health itself is a pandemic.








https://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/96450/E91732.pdf

https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/noncommunicable-diseases/mental-health/news/news/2020/10/world-mental-health-day-2020-malta-launches-campaign-move-for-mental-health-lets-invest!

Why has South Korea been more successful in combating the spread of COVID-19 than the United States?

Figure 1: Total number of confirmed COVID-19 cases 45 days after 100th confirmed case

Schneider, M., Thornell, C., Parvaneh, D., & Chakraborty, R. (2020, August 06). The big lesson from South Korea's coronavirus response. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/videos/2020/8/6/21356265/south-korea-coronavirus-response-testing

Although both South Korea and the United States reported their first case of COVID-19 on January 20, 2020, the two countries have had substantially different outcomes in their COVID-19 mitigation efforts. The United States currently has the most cases of COVID-19 in the world with 8.17 million infected and 211 thousand deaths, whereas South Korea has only 25,199 cases and 444 deaths (Google 2020). Despite both being democratic institutions, South Korea’s COVID-19 strategy has been more successful in combating COVID-19 than the United States because of its use of robust mitigation strategies and the cultural values of its citizens.

Back in 2015, South Korea combatted the 2nd largest outbreak of the Middle Eastern Respiratory Disease (MERS), caused by a similar Coronavirus (Schneider et al. 2020). The outbreak taught the South Korean government and health officials several lessons on how to handle a future outbreak. The first of these lessons was the importance of taking immediate precautionary measures against threatening diseases. Right after China reported its first case of COVID-19, South Korea began developing a diagnostic test for the virus. They developed thousands of test kits which were then distributed to every hospital in the country (Schneider et al. 2020). Additionally, the federal government placed the country on red alert after just its fifth confirmed death from the virus, on February 28, maximizing government oversight of COVID-19 (Oh 2020). In sharp contrast, the United States government heavily downplayed the initial threat of the virus. According to Schnieder et al. (Schneider et al. 2020), in their article “The big lesson from South Korea’s coronavirus response” the Trump “administration publicly treated the virus as a minor threat that was under control, at least domestically, and repeatedly assured the public that the risk to Americans was very low” (Schneider et al. 2020). Furthermore, President Trump would not officially declare the pandemic to be a national emergency until March 13 (Oh 2020).

The 2015 MERS outbreak also taught South Korea the importance of large-scale testing. In addition to the prompt creation and distribution of thousands of diagnostic tests, the country also had “national and private health care providers set up a mostly free testing effort across Korea that includes more than 600 locations that screen up to 20,000 people a day,” by early February (Oh 2020). These wide-scale tests have allowed South Korea to quickly isolate and treat infected individuals. Meanwhile, the United States struggled to create adequate tests to distribute to its residents. Despite the World Health Organization (WHO) distributing hundreds of thousands of tests to laboratories around the world, both the Trump “administration and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention decided to rely exclusively on domestically developed tests” to align with their ideas of American exceptionalism and traditional pandemic protocol (Rabin et al. 2020). However, these tests proved to be faulty just after one week of their distribution to labs across the nation (Wallach and Myers 2020). By March 15, the country was only able to conduct 28,000 tests. Later tests that were distributed within the month revealed that COVID-19 had spread to more than 100,000 people (Wallach and Myers 2020). Therefore, the United States’ inability to provide sufficient testing, during the early stages of the pandemic, exponentially increased the nation’s case and death toll.

Additionally, South Korea’s struggle to keep track of individuals who were exposed to MERS, in 2015, also taught health authorities of the importance of contact tracing. Their realization led to the implementation of a new law that allows the federal government to collect and log a patient’s whereabouts from security footage and then distribute that information via smartphone notification, during an outbreak, to notify people of their need to be tested. The creation of additional websites and private apps further informs the public of locations they should avoid (Schneider et al. 2020). The effectiveness of these contact tracing efforts can be exemplified when South Korea traced and tested over 9,000 individuals that were exposed to one of the 3,000 patients the country had accumulated by February 14 (Schneider et al. 2020). Overall, it has been South Korea’s implementation of wide-scale testing services coupled with its use of rigorous contact-tracing, both in the early and present stages of the pandemic, that has both allowed it to quickly isolate and treat the sick, test those have been exposed, and prevent future exposure to the virus. The United States, on the other hand, has no national contact-tracing program. Only seven states have a sufficient amount of contact tracers to meet the estimated demand and the contact tracers that are available have only been able to trace and contact a fraction of the individuals who have been exposed (Simmons-Duffin 2020) (Terhune et al. 2020). Reportedly, “only around half of people in New Jersey, Houston, and California’s inland empire do not cooperate to contact tracing efforts” (Khazan 2020). Therefore, the United States’ lack of a robust and rigorous contact tracing system has further contributed to the unregulated spread of COVID-19 across the country.

Figure 2: States with sufficient amounts of contact tracers

Simmons-Duffin, S. (2020, August 07). Coronavirus Cases Are Surging. The Contact Tracing Workforce Is Not. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/08/07/899954832/coronavirus-cases-are-surging-the-contact-tracing-workforce-is-not

Of course, the success of any democratic country's national strategy cannot be accomplished without the cooperation of its citizens. According to the commissioner of the Korea Disease Prevention and Control Agency, the majority of South Koreans “prioritize public health over privacy” (Schneider et al. 2020). In fact, in regards to the government's publication of tracing data, “nearly half of Koreans [have] called for more information disclosure, while only 6 percent wanted less” (Oh 2020). Meanwhile, one of the primary reasons the United States’ contact tracing has failed is because Americans have a deep distrust of their government and in the sudden implementation of new stricter regulations. Only 32% of Americans trust the federal government (Wallach and Myers 2020). Another reason for Americans' lack of adherence to stricter COVID-19 guidelines is due to their heightened value of liberty. Around 58% of Americans believe that “it is most important for people to be free to pursue their life’s goals without interference from the state” (Fitzpatrick 2020). This is likely why less than 51% of Americans stated that they would be willing to participate in a cell-phone based tracing system (Jackson and Newall 2020). Lastly, President Trump’s downplaying of the pandemic and refusal to follow initial health protocols have politicized the following of recommended COVID-19 guidelines (Fitzpatrick 2020). For example, according to a recent Pew Survey, “63% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said masks should always be worn, compared to only 29% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents'' (Wallach and Myers 2020). Overall, the lessons that South Korea learned from the 2015 MERS outbreak and the cultural values of its citizens have allowed it to be more successful in combating the spread of the virus than the United States.

Figure 3: American responses on how often masks should be worn in public places

Pew Research. (2020, August 28). Republicans, Democrats Move Even Further Apart in Coronavirus Concerns. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/25/republicans-democrats-move-even-further-apart-in-coronavirus-concerns/

Works Cited:

1. Schneider, M., Thornell, C., Parvaneh, D., & Chakraborty, R. (2020, August 06). The big lesson from South Korea's coronavirus response. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.vox.com/videos/2020/8/6/21356265/south-korea-coronavirus-response-testing

2. Oh, S. (2020, June 04). South Korea's Success Against COVID-19. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.theregreview.org/2020/05/14/oh-south-korea-success-against-covid-19/

3. Wallach, P. A., & Myers, J. (2020, April 01). The federal government's coronavirus actions and failures. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.brookings.edu/research/the-federal-governments-coronavirus-actions-and-failures-timeline-and-themes/

4. Rabin, R., Sheikh, K., & Thomas, K. (2020, March 02). As Coronavirus Numbers Rise, C.D.C. Testing Comes Under Fire. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/02/health/coronavirus-testing-cdc.html

5. Jackson, C., & Newall, M. (2020, October 06). Trump COVID diagnosis does little to change Americans' behavior around the virus. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/axios-ipsos-coronavirus-index

6. Terhune, C., Levine, D., Jin, H., & Lee, J. L. (2020, March 18). Special Report: How Korea trounced U.S. in race to test people for coronavirus. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-testing-specialrep/special-report-how-korea-trounced-u-s-in-race-to-test-people-for-coronavirus-idUSKBN2153BW

7. Fitzpatrick, A. (2020, August 13). Why the U.S. Is Losing the War On COVID-19. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://time.com/5879086/us-covid-19/

8. Khazan, O. (2020, September 18). The Most American COVID-19 Failure Yet. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/08/contact-tracing-hr-6666-working-us/615637/

9. Simmons-Duffin, S. (2020, August 07). Coronavirus Cases Are Surging. The Contact Tracing Workforce Is Not. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/08/07/899954832/coronavirus-cases-are-surging-the-contact-tracing-workforce-is-not

10. Pew Research. (2020, August 28). Republicans, Democrats Move Even Further Apart in Coronavirus Concerns. Retrieved October 19, 2020, from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/06/25/republicans-democrats-move-even-further-apart-in-coronavirus-concerns/