This conversation has followed the proliferation of nuclear power plants as well as its disasters, with infamous ones such as Chernobyl sticking in the public’s mind. However, there is no clear answer in this debate. Rather, it is important to recognize the merits of both sides and make informed decisions on a case-by-case basis. 

CONS – Ivana Karastoeva

A major concern regarding nuclear energy usage is safety in regards to humans, animals, and the land and ecosystems around us. 

The immediate fallout from the 1986 nuclear meltdown catastrophe in Chernobyl, Ukraine included radiation sickness, which caused the death of 134 workers present on the site. Meanwhile, those who survived suffered from radiation-induced cataracts. Long term health effects were also observed. According to the Journal of Radiological Protection, higher incidence of thyroid cancer among children and adolescents who were exposed to radiation has been observed 20 years following the incident. 

Moreover, the surrounding landscape was also heavily impacted. According to the Nuclear Energy Agency, a dense cloud of radioactive dust containing cesium-137 and more than a dozen other radionuclides engulfed surrounding forests and fields. Since then, the migration of airborne radionuclides into the forest soil has led to many plants adopting them into their life cycle, prolonging contamination. 

Though it appears that Chernobyl has been a flourishing biodiversity hub for plants and animals since the absence of humans, studies have shown that the radiation this wildlife has been exposed to has had extreme biological effects. For example, bird species residing in areas of high radiation have experienced higher mortality rates, smaller brains and mutations, evidencing significant genetic damage. 

A more recent example of nuclear power plants harming ecosystems is the Indian Point Nuclear Plant. This plant was permanently shut down on April 30, 2021, for unrelated reasons, but during its 59-year operation, it was discovered that the plant’s cooling water intake system had killed billions of fish, eggs and fish larvae annually, contributing to the decline of fish species populations in the Hudson River. 

National security is also a matter of concern. In the case of a terrorist attack or a foreign occupation during wartime as seen with the Russian occupation of the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in southeastern Ukraine, nuclear power plants are vulnerable targets. 

Another concern that is brought up — if not the most important one — is the handling of nuclear waste. Nuclear fuel rods remain radioactive for about 10,000 years, and more than a quarter million metric tons of highly radioactive waste have been produced worldwide from nuclear plants and weapons production facilities. 

Despite this, there still exists no long-term solution to storing this waste safely and effectively. Currently, all nuclear waste produced by a plant is stored on-site in dry casks. In some cases, these temporary containers have outlived their design lives and leaked harmful radiation to their surrounding environment. One example is the Hanford Nuclear Waste Site in Washington state, where an estimated 3.5 gallons of radioactive waste were said to be leaking from the storage tanks per day, contaminating the soil and the Columbia River. 

Currently, Finland is creating the world’s first nuclear waste tomb meant to contain nuclear waste secured underground for 100,000 years. This, however, brings up a new concern regarding how to best communicate the dangers of these permanent disposal sites long after humanity goes extinct.

PROS – Samantha Chapman

While nuclear energy isn’t perfect, it is currently the best compromise between adequate energy to power modern energy needs and a low-carbon source that meets climate goals and reduces greenhouse gas emissions. 

It’s hard to be picky when there are so few options in a time of crisis. There are cleaner energy sources like wind and solar power, which are renewable and produce minimal to zero waste. However, as the technology stands, these sources are unreliable — solar energy can only be generated during the day, and even then only when the weather permits. Moreover, wind energy can only be generated when it’s windy, and the technology is not yet advanced enough to properly store any excess energy created at these times. 

As a result, this energy cannot be relied upon as any community’s main source of energy. It’s a useful supplement, but still necessitates another reliable energy source. 

On the other end of the spectrum, sources like coal or oil are extremely reliable and can be used on demand. However, they are a lot more harmful to the environment than nuclear energy. They pollute the air and oceans, and release greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, which are  major contributors to climate change. Meanwhile, nuclear energy is a carbon-free energy source and generates almost one third of the world’s carbon-free electricity. So at this crucial point in time, nuclear energy is the compromise we need. 

With the current rate of carbon emissions and rapidly mounting global temperature, we cannot afford to be selective with solutions. 

Nuclear energy is by no means perfect, but it is important to think about how any risks or by-products can be limited instead of dismissing the possibility as a whole. Nuclear reactors can be dangerous, but with proper management and safety culture, any associated risks can be significantly reduced. 

No alternative is going to be accident-proof — everything comes with its share of risks and potential problems. It’s a matter of managing the risks specific to nuclear energy. For instance, the disaster at Fukushima is considered a man-made incident which was triggered by natural hazards, one that could and should have been avoided. There was inadequate regulatory oversight in Japan and a sloppy safety culture at the plant. 

A similar plant, Onagawa, was also hit by the same earthquake and suffered from flooding; yet, it shut down effectively and avoided disaster. The difference between the two were the managing teams, meaning one that emphasized tight safety regulations and one that did not. Relative to the number of nuclear reactors operative in the past and currently operative, the number of disasters is extremely low. Just three major disasters (Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island) have occurred. This shows both how few and far between disasters are, and how essential safety culture at the plants is to their stability. 

The production and management of nuclear waste is a major consideration of nuclear energy, as it should be. It is important to have a comprehensive knowledge of any system, and waste by-products are an important aspect of nuclear energy. 

However, nuclear energy produces minimal amounts of waste relative to other energy sources, which is to say it is extremely energy-dense. For the equivalent of the energy extracted from a single one-inch pellet of Uranium, 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas, 120 gallons of oil or one ton of coal would have to be burned, Thus, producing the same amount of energy generates less comparative waste. 

It cannot be overlooked that this waste is toxic, and while it is not harmful in the same way as carbon emissions, it has issues of its own. However, it is better to recognize the problems that come with nuclear energy and ask how we can develop technology to neutralize them, rather than using them as reasons to abandon it entirely. 

For instance, new reactor designs have recently been developed that can operate on used fuel, which would cut down on waste. Whereas the issue with fossil fuels is unavoidable (as it will always involve releasing carbon into the atmosphere), the problems with nuclear energy can be solved with further development of technology. 

An example of a country that has embraced nuclear energy is France. Over 70 percent of the country’s energy comes from nuclear power and 17 percent comes from recycled nuclear fuel. As a result, France has relatively low carbon emissions at about 4.46 metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions per capita in 2019 compared to Germany’s 7.91, Russia’s 11.8 and the United States’ 14.67. After nuclear, France’s energy comes from hydro and wind power, with natural gas, coal and oil collectively only making up less than 9 percent of their energy. 

The proliferation of nuclear energy in France came about in 1974 after the first oil shock, when France decided to expand its nuclear power capacity. This decision stemmed from the fact that the country is advanced in engineering, but has limited natural resources. It is also the world’s largest net exporter of electricity due to the very low cost of energy generation in nuclear power plants, which brings in over $3 billion a year, an argument for the financial and economical aspect of nuclear energy. 

Because of the country’s reliance on nuclear energy, France is also a leader in nuclear technology and reactors. Since 1985, France has reduced its nuclear waste production by two thirds. Its waste is processed, sealed in specially designed containers and placed in temporary storage in a plant, where it is to be moved in 2035 to an underground secure storage facility for long-term residence. 

Conclusion

Nuclear energy is truly a topic of major contention in the sustainable energy debate. On the one hand, it produces zero carbon emissions and is the most reliable source of clean energy — but on the other, it produces radioactive waste that will surpass human existence. 

But all hope is not lost as scientists continue to work to find new, cleaner and more efficient energy sources that meet our energy without bringing harm to the environment. 

The post Is Nuclear Power a Sustainable Energy Alternative? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In Favor of The Line: Sari Goldberg

While doubts on the viability of such a futuristic concept like the Line are valid, its creation comes at a time when global society has reached a tipping point in the fight against climate change. The livability and environmental crisis currently facing cities around the world can no longer be ignored, especially as the air quality in cities is worsened as the population, traffic, industrialization and energy use increase. Drastic changes to our ways of living are necessary, and the Line is paving a new path for imaginative solutions.

On July 25, 2022, Royal Highness Mohammed bin Salman, Crown Prince and Chairman of the NEOM Board of Directors, announced the idea for the Line as a city that redefines the concept of urban development. Prince Mohammed said, “NEOM will be a place for all people from across the globe to make their mark on the world in creative and innovative ways. NEOM remains one of the most important projects of Saudi Vision 2030.” Vision 2030 is composed of Saudi policy and projects meant to transform the nation economically and socially. Building of the Line, a key aspect of these reforms, began in October of 2021 and primary residents are expected to move in during 2024. As of July 2022, the first phase is projected to be completed by 2030. 

The Line, while 110 miles long, will preserve 95% of the nature within Neom, the developing city in the Tabuk Province in northwestern Saudi Arabia. With 9 million residents, the Line will have a population density of 260,000 people per square kilometer. In comparison, the most densely populated city in 2020 had 44,000 per square kilometer. 

By compacting the city between the two 1,600 ft high mirrored buildings, separated by a 660 ft outdoor space, the city is directly combating negative impacts of urban sprawl. Urban sprawl is the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas, creating low-density communities. It increases the need for transportation and reduces the land available for agriculture, exacerbating air and water pollution and limiting the landscape available to capture carbon dioxide. The sustainable city’s design is composed of vertically layered communities, which will challenge the traditional horizontal city and preserve nature, as well as enhance human livability. 

Energy production is the leading cause of unsustainable living, accounting for two-thirds of total greenhouse gas emission. By 2030, the world will face economic losses of $2 billion a day from climate-related issues. In response, the city will run on 100% renewable energy, shifting the country away from its primarily oil-based economy. 

The development will be zero-carbon through the elimination of carbon-intensive infrastructure like cars and roads. Mobility will be accessible by a high-speed rail with an end-to-end transit time of just 20 minutes. Residents will have access to all necessary facilities within a five-minute walk. The accessibility and convenience will reduce commutes, creating more time for leisure. Reducing former expenses, like car insurance and fuel, will also give residents higher disposable income. 

According to press releases, the Line will have the most food autonomy in the world. Currently, Saudi Arabia imports around 80% of its food, but the city plans to include greenhouses and vertical farming to reduce its external reliance drastically. 

While construction of the Line has just begun, it brings a new wave of ideas to the table. Addressing climate change will require large-scale actions taken by the most prominent actors on the world stage. According to an annual ranking by the CEOWORLD magazine, Saudi Arabia was named the 11th most powerful country in the world and first in the Islamic and Arab world for 2021. As the world’s second largest oil producer and largest exporter of oil, Saudi Arabia will be a key player as the global community is forced to address climate change. Even if the Line is the most dramatic solution seen by the international community, Saudi ambitions should inspire others to incorporate some of its goals and aspirations. The planet is changing, so the world must be prepared to change alongside it. 

Against The Line: Jasmijn Teunissen

Construction of the seemingly utopian city proposed in Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s promotional video should not continue as it is financially and environmentally unsustainable. The design of the Line goes against traditional urban sprawl, as cities tend to expand outward as they grow. “Hub-and-spoke” transit systems tend to work best; where arms of transit are connected to avoid individuals having to travel back to a central transit station. The unique composition of the Line would thus require advanced transit technology to be efficient and achieve the promised travel time of 20 minutes across 160 miles. Transit technology required to reach the speed of 318 mph (512 km/h), does not currently exist as it outpaces current high-speed-rail technology. 

Despite marketing for the Line emphasizing sustainability and ‘zero-carbon emissions’ expert urban planners are skeptical of the embodied carbon impact of building the Line and all associated infrastructure. The massive height of the Line would require strength to withstand wind. Professor Philip Oldfield of UNSW claims “You cannot build a 500-meter-tall building out of low-carbon materials,” as it would need a “phenomenal quantity of steel, glass and concrete.” He estimates that construction of the Line would produce upwards of 1.8 billion tons of embodied carbon dioxide, equivalent more than four years of the UK’s entire emissions.

The Line’s design might disrupt biodiversity due to a greater edge effect impacting animal crossing. For migrating birds, for example, the large mirrored structures are highly dangerous. Others accuse the Prince of greenwashing, by making elaborate proposals for the city to distract from reality. The accusations of greenwashing are not the first the Prince has faced, as critics have noted the hard contrast between the nation’s unwavering dependency on oil and extensive environmental commitments such as promises to plant 450 million trees across the country. Saudi Arabia remains a top oil producer and has promised to increase production, despite the fact that to limit warming to 1.5 Celsius global oil production needs to fall by roughly 5% a year between now and 2030.

Construction of the Line threatens human rights, as it would forcibly displace thousands, including the Howeitat tribe which has lived peacefully in the area for generations. On Oct. 7, a Saudi court sentenced three Howeitat members to death for opposing the eviction. The Howeitat tribe sent an urgent request for a UN investigation into allegations of forced displacement and abuse by Saudi authorities.

Doubt of the project’s viability has also resonated amongst Neom employees, evident by the recent wave of resignations. Realization of the Prince’s overly ambitious plan has spread, as dozens of employees have resigned, some senior employees walking out on salaries of up to $1 million a year. The Prince’s initial goal to attract foreign investment through the futuristic project has fallen short, except for discussions with some foreign companies, including Russian ones. The intended completion of the Line is 2030 with an allotted $500 billion, however, some reports contend that the city will likely not be completed until 2050, upping costs significantly to an estimated $1 trillion. The project is funded by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), the kingdom’s sovereign wealth private investment fund. The viability of the PIF relies heavily on oil exports, a market characterized by volatility. Many Saudis, unsatisfied with the tax pressure and the belief that the projects are unlikely to yield a substantial return over the short run have expressed dissatisfaction with heavy spending on high-profile projects such as the Line. 

Construction of the Line should not advance. The project goes against successful urban planning models, it threatens biodiversity in the region and continuation of it violates human rights due to forced eviction. 

Conclusion: 

Any unprecedented innovations come with uncertainties. The construction of the Line brings  concerns of adverse environmental impacts, questions of the viability of the architecture, and controversy surrounding forced evictions at the construction site. However, this revolutionized civilization may also usher in a new wave of innovative approaches to tackling pressing contemporary issues in climate justice, renewable energy, and sustainability. As developments in Saudi Arabia continue to progress led by crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman Al Saud, the global community will be watching and anticipating if this radical approach can succeed and thrive.    

The post Saudi Arabia: Is “The Line” a Viable Solution to Climate Change? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

LOS ANGELES — Though there is no universally accepted definition of a political prisoner, the most widely accepted one is that of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). PACE states that if certain freedoms are violated, and someone’s imprisonment or its length and conditions are politically motivated, that person would be considered a political prisoner. 

Amnesty International, one of the world’s largest and most powerful human rights-focused non-governmental organizations, takes this one step further with its “prisoner of conscience” designation. The label is for a subset of political prisoners who have “not used or advocated violence or hatred but [are]imprisoned because of who they are (sexual orientation, ethnic, national or social origin, language, birth, colour, sex or economic status) or what they believe (religious, political or other conscientiously held beliefs).”

In 2020, 148 people from 28 countries were considered prisoners of conscience, including Iranian human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh, Venezuelan trade unionist Rúben González and Crimean rights activist Emir-Usein Kuku. There are also numerous others who were at one point recognized as prisoners of conscience but were later stripped of the title — a list that includes human rights icons Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi and most recently, Alexei Navalny (though he was soon reinstated as one).

As a major player in international human rights, Amnesty International’s statements can have monumental impact — especially when the organization revokes prisoner of conscience status. With this in mind, the question arises whether this label is more helpful to human rights efforts than it is harmful.

Anya: A Harmful Label and the Case of Alexei Navalny

Apart from being a flashy buzzword, the term “prisoner of conscience” adds nothing the designation “political prisoner” cannot convey, all while having the demonstrated downside of making the conversation around these people more about their classification rather than the human rights violations they experience.

Alexei Navalny was deemed a prisoner of conscience by Amnesty International in January 2021, after he was arrested in Moscow and later sentenced to over two years in prison on unwarranted and politically motivated charges. He was delisted one month later after an investigation by Amnesty verified claims that he had previously made derogatory comments about refugees, migrants and various ethnic minority groups in Russia.

After Navalny was stripped of the title while he was still imprisoned in Russia, all news surrounding his case immediately switched from talking about the bogus charges to discussing the delistment, pulling people’s focus away from the most important part of the issue: freeing him. Days after Amnesty International’s decision was made public, Julie Verhaar, acting Secretary General for the organization, herself noted that “the speculation around Amnesty International’s use of the term ‘prisoner of conscience’ is detracting attention from our core demand that [Navalny] be freed immediately.”

In Amnesty’s official statement revoking the label, it said that this would not affect its advocacy on Navalny’s behalf, and that it would “continue calling for his immediate release” and “do everything [it]can to reach that goal.” 

Since Amnesty does not do anything differently for those it considers prisoners of conscience versus your run-of-the-mill political prisoner, and, as seen from Navalny’s case, the label can cause harm to those who desperately need help, there is no reason for its continued usage. 

Lauren: A Helpful Label and the Case of Aung San Suu Kyi

While Moturi argues that the term “prisoner of conscience” is just a flashy term, she couldn’t be further from the truth. This term provides a distinction between prisoners that have committed wrongdoings and those who have taken great risks for either bettering their country or simply just being themselves. I think we can all agree that the latter should receive greater support. 

Aung San Suu Kyi, former State Counselor of Myanmar and Minister of Foreign Affairs and de facto leader, was a political prisoner of conscience, having spent nearly 15 years in detention from 1989 to 2010. Suu Kyi led non-violent campaigns that demanded democratic reforms and free elections. The demonstrations she helped organize were suppressed by the army of Myanmar, and when a coup gained power in 1988, Suu Kyi was placed under house arrest. Suu Kyi came to be known as a powerful representation of peaceful resistance against oppression and adversity. In 1991, she was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize and in 2009, Amnesty International gave her the Ambassador of Conscience Award, their top prize. 

However, Suu Kyi’s image has suffered greatly due to her government’s poor response to the Muslim Rohingya crisis in Myanmar. The international community has claimed that there was a genocide brought about by the Myanmar government against the Rohingya minority group. In December of 2019, Suu Kyi denied these claims, stating that there had been no orchestrated campaigns against the Rohingya. She would not even refer to the minority group by their name as her government continues to deny the existence of the Rohingya ethnic group. 

As a result of these dangerous political views, despite Suu Kyi not being a prisoner anymore, she was stripped of her designation as an Ambassador Conscience, which was a title given to her due to her previous status as a prisoner that promoted human rights.

Dangerous rhetoric and an inability to act in the face of extreme inhumanity should not be accepted and most certainly not rewarded. If we help and praise prisoners that bring harm upon others, we will be complicit in inflicting pain for various groups in the future. Moreover, if Amnesty International actively campaigns for prisoners that are spreading hate and causing violence, it will lose its credibility as an institution, which will affect their ability to help other prisoners who genuinely are heroes. 

Without a doubt, I understand the arguments posed by Moturi. The term “prisoner of conscience” may be showy, even pretentious. And I do believe that Amnesty International should allow Nelson Mandela to be considered a “prisoner of conscience.” In 1962, Mandela was arrested for inciting strikes and for traveling without valid documents, and at the time, he was given the title of “prisoner of conscience.” When Mandela was in prison, he faced new charges, such as being a participant in an armed struggle against the government. As a result, Amnesty International revoked his status as a “prisoner of conscience.” As Mandela was committing these alleged crimes in his quest to fight for human rights in South Africa, to me, it is clear that he should’ve been a “prisoner of conscience,” and to correct this mistake, Amnesty International should award him by giving him the title Ambassador of Conscience — the same title they revoked from Suu Kyi with good reason. I could see why Moturi would think these terms can be problematic though, and truthfully, I don’t completely disagree.

Nevertheless, in practice, grouping all prisoners together would be difficult for Amnesty International as they have a limited amount of resources, and must find a way to differentiate which prisoners they are willing to help. These distinctions help Amnesty International retain credibility as they will only fight for prisoners that are not promoting violence in their country. We must keep these distinctions to protect people that could be affected by more dangerous political prisoners, such as Suu Kyi, by not giving them sympathy and legitimacy. 

Anya: Concluding Remarks

I understand where Lauren is coming from regarding her statement that Amnesty International cannot be seen campaigning for those inciting violence or supporting discrimination and hate, but Amnesty supports the freeing of prisoners wrongfully jailed on political charges regardless of whether they are deemed prisoners of conscience or not. 

Recognizing this, it seems unnecessary to continue using the term. Nevertheless, a potential compromise could be stricter criteria and increased stringency on the background verification done before someone is elevated to a prisoner of conscience — doing so could prevent a situation like Navalny’s from happening once more.

Lauren: Concluding Remarks

This compromise seems favorable.

The post Rights Around the World: Is “Prisoner of Conscience” a Helpful or Harmful Label? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

LOS ANGELES — On Oct. 31, the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference officially began. This conference, also known as COP 26, revisited the Paris Agreement to evaluate the progress countries have made towards meeting their climate targets and forecast what measures should be implemented to combat the threat of climate change and increases in global temperatures. 

Conversations at COP 26 gave special attention to the carbon emissions question: Who is to blame for greenhouse gas emissions? The debate was a major point of contention at the conference, as developing nations such as China and India continue to argue against rapid emission reductions that are championed by developed countries such as the United States and the European bloc. 

As delegates work towards finding solutions to the pressing climate problems facing the global population, many will be curious whether a compromise will be struck between the two sides — or if the blame game will continue. 

Molly Miller: The UK Is To Blame for Global Emissions

Certainly, international cooperation is needed to combat climate change. Climate change is the very definition of a transnational issue. No single country can achieve meaningful results unilaterally. Nevertheless, the question of who is responsible remains pressing. 

The costs of responding to climate change are large: estimates put the total cost at up to $50 trillion. Considering the magnitude of these costs and the fact that less-developed countries are disproportionately impacted by the effects of climate change, assigning responsibility is necessary to ensure that the burdens of responding to climate change are equitably shared.

Looking at historical carbon dioxide emissions, it is clear that Europe, particularly the United Kingdom, is responsible for far more cumulative carbon dioxide emissions than China. For example, the UK has generated 7 times more carbon dioxide emissions per capita from 1750 to 2018 than China. Furthermore, the rate of the UK’s declining share of cumulative carbon emissions has flattened out in recent years. Clearly, the UK has had an outsize impact on the carbon content of our atmosphere historically.

The UK’s substantial historical carbon emissions stem from one key source: the UK is the home of the industrial revolution. Certainly, industrialization has done well in raising standards of living worldwide. However, it is also the start of the explosion in carbon emissions which have been the root cause of climate change. The UK’s industrialization projects led to a massive increase in coal mining, kickstarting not only the release of carbon from the Earth’s crust but also large-scale habitat destruction. Even conservative elements of the UK have admitted that the UK needs to lead in climate policy.

The UK’s outsized impact on the climate extends even beyond industrialization on the European continent. For about 500 years, from 1450 to 1950, colonialism brought about British rule across large swathes of the world. The UK distributed its ecological practices throughout its colonial empire, displacing local methods of building and agriculture. This practice has hurt the ability of many colonized countries to adapt to changes in climate. 

For example, in the Sundarbans, British colonizers cut down mangrove forests for timber and land clearing. The destruction of these forests eliminated the sources of construction materials and food for local communities. It has further left the coasts of this region vulnerable to erosion, magnifying the impacts of sea-level rise.

The legacy of colonial exploitation on the climate goes beyond the displacement of local best practices: it has also contributed greatly to environmental degradation and the loss of carbon sinks. The Amazon rainforest exemplifies colonialism’s exploitative, extractive legacy. The deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, which started during Portuguese colonization, continues under Jair Bolsonaro’s Brazil. This massive deforestation process has had dire consequences for the climate as a whole — including cutting down large swathes of forested land — leading to decreased rainfall, higher temperatures, a reduction in carbon drawdown and a potential feedback cascade which causes other climate “tipping points” to be crossed.

Clearly, the entire institution of European colonialism may be to blame for large portions of global carbon emissions. However, as the largest colonizer and most blatant industrialist, the UK shoulders the vast majority of this blame. Moreover, their ongoing lack of meaningful action only emphasizes the UK’s long term impact.

Ultimately, the “blame” for the atmosphere’s growing carbon content lies on the UK. The UK’s past emissions set the trajectory for today’s carbon emission rates. This does not mean that international cooperation in addressing climate change is unnecessary: far from it. Rather, it simply ought to inform our pursuit of equity in pursuing international climate policy. Europe must pay its fair share in addressing the harmful effects of climate change.

Ruhi Ramesh: Hold China Accountable

Although Europe, particularly the UK, has historically contributed the most to climate change, international environmental policy will be more effective with an inclusive “all in this together” strategy than a divisive and backward-facing “you broke it, you fix it” approach. As the current largest emission producer and investor in fossil fuels both domestically and abroad, China must take significant steps toward emissions reduction and climate change mitigation strategies.

In preparation for COP26, Europe’s climate chief said, “we need to talk to China,” pointing to the country’s immense contribution to global carbon emissions and relatively minor commitment to carbon reduction efforts. China has thus far resisted international pressure to revise its carbon reduction timeline, placing the onus instead on more developed countries. 

China quickly emerges as the primary culprit when determining which country is responsible for the most carbon emissions. In 2019, China’s carbon emissions amounted to 14.09 billion tons of greenhouse gases, equating to 27% of carbon emissions globally. Although the United States’ per capita emissions still outpace China’s, the developing country’s rapid economic growth in the early 2000s caused the country to overtake the U.S. in terms of carbon emissions in 2006 and remain the leader today. China unequivocally surpassed the United States (the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases) by almost double. 

With 1,058 coal plants currently in operation in the country — forming half of the world’s coal capacity — there is no doubt that China disproportionately contributes to climate change and has thus far failed to sufficiently mitigate their emissions and fossil fuel production. Therefore, the onus falls on China to take substantial steps in order to combat the consequences of climate change in the future. 

Last year, President Xi Jinping announced China’s plans “to have CO2 emissions peak by 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality by 2060.” China’s commitments to reduce its climate impact strongly parallel European goals, but its concrete actions fall short of meaningful change. For example, China has committed to producing 25% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030 and to reach carbon neutrality by 2060, which parallels EU’s goal of a 32% share of energy produced by renewables and carbon neutrality by 2050. Similarly, the 14th Five Year Plan lays out concrete mechanisms and strategies to attain China’s climate targets, indicating China acknowledges its responsibility to reduce emissions but continually procrastinates implementing sustainable development. 

It is evident that the Chinese government is attempting to make good on its promise of hitting its carbon peak. Still, a significant issue with this climate pledge is the vague language surrounding the numerical amount of when this “peak” would be met. 

In 2015, the Chinese government banned the construction of new coal-fired power plants to honor its pledge towards its carbon-neutral goal. However, in 2018, this ban expired, and in 2020, China ramped up its coal production again, creating three times as much coal-generating power capacity as all other countries in the world combined. This sudden surge in coal production capacity is due primarily to the desire of provincial governments around the country to stimulate economic growth in light of the slowdown caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. To facilitate this growth, Chinese governments have relaxed permit regulations and restrictions on coal-powered “megaprojects.” 

As China looks to increase its production capacity within the manufactured goods market, electricity demands across the country have skyrocketed. To keep up with this demand, the government stated the country would increase its production capacity by 220 million metric tons of coal per year. 

China has historically been against phasing out coal as a fuel source largely because, as a rapidly developing nation, the Chinese government believes it should receive the same opportunity to achieve industrialization that Western countries capitalized on in the previous century.  Although China’s leadership argues that its people deserve the chance to achieve the same level of development and standard of living as Western countries already enjoy, if China waits until it has fully developed to implement sustainable technologies and practices, it will be too late to save the Earth from disaster.

Furthermore, China has exported this tension between development and sustainability to developing countries worldwide. For example, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), launched in 2013, is a massive initiative designed to spur economic growth by constructing highways, ports, railways, telecommunication towers and fiber optic cable routes. As a part of this initiative, Chinese banks and companies have played a crucial role in financing this infrastructure. Studies predict this development could, in fact, lead to a 2.7 C increase in global temperature — from the emissions of the countries involved in BRI alone. 

During a six-month period during 2019, China invested $1 billion in coal-powered initiatives. The costs of constructing non-renewable infrastructure are twofold. First, the immediate consequences of BRI projects are increasing emissions and ignoring environmental costs, including declining biodiversity, deforestation and exacerbated air quality. Second, investing in fossil fuels now increases the future costs of switching to renewable energy. Each oil pipeline and coal-powered railroad that China bankrolls further entrenches developing countries on the path to ‘dirty’ development and adds to the burden of climate action for future generations. When promoting industrialization and development in less developed countries, China must prioritize renewable energy infrastructure over fossil fuel extraction.

The debate between industrialization and environmental protection excludes developing countries, such as the Maldives and Costa Rica, that are not positioned to benefit from industrialization yet will inevitably face the worst of industry-induced climate disasters. In fact, as preliminary climate agreements are drawn up in Glasgow, it appears as if India and China have attempted to water down the climate pledge to give themselves more time to take advantage of the industrialization benefits of using coal as a fuel source. 

As the chief promoter and investor of industrialization directly impacting these smaller countries and vulnerable islands, China must adopt emission reduction strategies, green technology and other sustainable development strategies. If they fail to deliver on their promises — or continue pushing back the deadlines for action — the smaller countries caught in the crossfire between China and European countries like the UK will disappear.

Unfortunately, governments have been late realizing the harmful effects of climate change and even later implementing effective measures to combat its consequences. Moreover, as countries like China seek to take advantage of rapid growth in the shortest time possible, they are reluctant to give up the means to their ends. 

While China may not be solely responsible for the current impending environmental disaster, there is no doubt that China is the number one player today. In addition to its large-scale emissions at home, China also has a strong influence on fossil fuel infrastructure internationally, further amplifying China’s blame for current global emissions rates. And in a world where China wants to win by industrializing quickly, the Chinese government and the international community must identify China’s critical role in helping the world avoid total disaster. 

Conclusion

Although both China and the UK presented their respective arguments at COP26 discussions, which concluded Nov. 12, leaders from both countries ultimately reasserted their commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and doubling down on climate change efforts. 

In a joint statement with the United States, China agreed to step up its efforts to close the “significant gap” between previous climate promises and the reality of ongoing environmental conditions. The UK also doubled down on its efforts to eliminate fossil fuel production, surging toward the overdue elimination of the coal industry that launched the British economy into industrialization over a century ago.

Despite commitments from both countries to reduce emissions, most parties walked away from COP 26 negotiations with the knowledge that pledges fall short of necessary action. China signed on to climate agreements, but many onlookers doubt the prospects that China will willingly adhere to its commitments, considering the treaty is not legally binding and the language of the agreement now demands the “phase down” rather than phasing out of fossil fuels. UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson expressed disappointment at the diluted language of fossil fuel pledges and concern about forcing private coal producers to comply with the country’s shift toward renewable energy. 

Regardless of the debate between British versus Chinese responsibility for carbon emissions, international experts, politicians and activists agree current efforts are not enough. All parties must take action to combat climate change, not just those who are the largest contributors.

The post Historical Versus Contemporary Polluters: Who’s Responsible? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

LOS ANGELES — In April 2020, the International Olympics Committee decided to uphold Rule 50, which states that “no kind of demonstration or political, religious or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas.” 

This decision came after an eleven-month consideration period in which the IOC consulted over 3,500 athletes, including 185 National Olympic Committees and athletes from all 41 Olympic sports. According to the IOC’s surveys, 70% of athletes said they did not want protests to be carried out in the Olympic Games. The countries with the highest approval rating for allowing protests were Canada (51%), South Korea (51%) and the United States (47%).

“The podium and field of play and ceremonies were very specific and hold very specific memories in my heart,” Kirsty Coventry, chair of the IOC Athletes’ Commission and former Zimbabwe Olympic Swimmer, told The Washington Post. “So if I think about when I was competing, I wouldn’t want something to distract and take away from that. That’s how I still feel today.”

Based on the information gathered, the IOC developed a policy for the Olympic Games in Tokyo. Actions that are prohibited include “displaying any political messaging, including signs or armbands; gestures of a political nature, like a hand gesture or kneeling; and refusal to follow the Ceremonies protocol.”

The question of Rule 50’s legitimacy, considering the particular social context of the 2021 Olympic Games as athletes around the globe push for greater racial, socioeconomic and gender equality, among other causes, is one that forces a conversation on free speech considerations, the role of sports in politics and social justice.

Kennedy Zak: Abolish Rule 50, It Violates International Law

Rule 50 blatantly violates international law, undermines the severity of discrimination throughout the world and ignores the newfound status quo of letting athletes and observers express their concerns regarding injustice during the games.  

Rule 50’s overt disregard for international norms is evident when examining Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, a treaty adopted by the United Nations. Article 19 makes clear the right to freedom of expression across all frontiers. Restrictions on this article are permitted but only if they “are provided by law and are necessary.” While the IOC is privately owned, they should still adhere to widely accepted and practiced international policies in order to best represent the wishes of the general public. 

In the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the same freedom is expressed in Article 10. This convention more clearly outlines instances in which restrictions of this freedom may apply: “in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”

The IOC’s policy against allowing any form of protest or expression of political ideologies does not merit an exception to these highly regarded international policies. While suppressing the public’s ability to engage in boisterous, disruptive, or even violent acts of protest is understandable, the IOC has gone too far in banning simple gestures, such as kneeling and other harmless acts of peaceful expression. 

Aside from a clear violation of personal freedoms, the IOC is also treating grave instances of discrimination as though they are a burden to and distraction from the games. Chalking acts of protest down to “grievances” and “divisive disruption” patronizes those affected by systemic injustice and sends the message that their struggles are not important. 

The Olympics provide a unique opportunity for the world to come together on a highly televised international platform, offering a vast forum for social issues to be discussed and publicized. This occasion should not be dismissed to appease those who wish to stay silent on these issues.

The Olympic Games are no stranger to protest. 

In 1968, two Black American athletes held their fists in the air to symbolize Black power and to show support for the human rights movement. “We had to be seen because we couldn’t be heard,” one of the athletes said in an interview about the protest. An Australian athlete that stood by them was, essentially, boycotted by the Australian Olympic team for the rest of his career. While there were consequences for the American athletes too, they were eventually allowed to rejoin the team.

By staying stagnant on anti-protest policies, the IOC is hindering progress in human rights and self expression, and falsely assumes that sports and the Olympics are apolitical. 

USA Today Columnist Nancy Armour notes that IOC officials have frequently weighed in on political matters in the past. For example, IOC President Thomas Bach previously commented on having a unified Olympic team for North Korea and South Korea, saying that “sport can once more make a contribution to peace.”

“The International Olympic Committee gets a gold medal in hypocrisy,” Armour wrote. “The truth is, it’s not the mixing of politics and sports that Bach and the IOC don’t like. It’s the mixing of politics they don’t like with sports.”

Furthermore, many other sports organizations have condemned their previous bans on acts of peaceful protests, such as kneeling during the national anthem. For example, in the United States, the National Football League formerly did not allow kneeling, only allowing those who wanted to kneel to simply stay in the locker room during the anthem. Following the swarm of protests and political outrage in the wake of George Floyd’s death, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell issued a statement of regret for this rule and encouraged all players “to speak out and peacefully protest.” 

Likewise, FIFA, Major League Soccer and the National Collegiate Athletic Association all have either directly spoken in support of protests or made no restrictions for athletes to express their beliefs. Clearly, the IOC is falling behind on an issue that is largely supported throughout other athletic organizations. 

While many athletes do not want protests at the 2021 Olympic Games, as long as the protests are peaceful and non-disruptive, people should still have the right to express their political beliefs in whatever realm they deem necessary. On July 2, the IOC responded to this criticism by amending Rule 50 to allow peaceful protests on the field of play before events begin, while still upholding the podium ban.

Over the course of the Tokyo Olympics, athletes and observers have stayed relatively in line with the IOC’s Rule 50, with a few small exceptions. For example, a gymnast from Costa Rica ended her routine by kneeling and raising a fist to show her support for equal rights. Similarly, a group of American fencers wore pink masks in protest of Alen Hadzic, a teammate who had been accused of sexual misconduct by several women.

These acts have not caused enough of a stir to warrant penalties or disqualification, but athletes should not have to live in fear of repercussions for expressing their beliefs. If “the goal of the Olympic Movement is to contribute to building a peaceful and better world,” according to the IOC, how can peace prevail without giving people the unrestricted right to protest the issues that directly impede peaceful coexistence? 

The simple answer is that it can’t.

Aidan Martin: Majority Rules: Rule 50 Respects Athletes and Subcommittees

While American sports leagues, such as the NBA and the NFL, have increasingly allowed athletes to speak out on political issues and engage in peaceful protest, this change cannot be extended to the Tokyo Olympics. The extensive eleven-month survey from the International Olympics Committee shows that athletes around the globe simply do not have the same opinions on the presence of protest in sports as their American counterparts. 

While I would agree that the IOC has liberally and detrimentally extended its interpretation of the infamous Rule 50 in recent years, if it is truly committed to listening to all of its athletes and making the 2021 Games about them, it should uphold Rule 50 and continue the ban on political protesting in Tokyo this summer.

The importance of free speech and the normalization of harmless political gestures in sports in the United States has convinced many Americans that athletes around the globe value the same right to protest freely on the podium. While social justice protest in the sports world is not merely an American phenomenon, U.S. athletes have been particularly vocal since June 2020. After all, only 53% of American athletes did not support protests at the Games compared to 70% of all athletes surveyed. While U.S. sports leagues and athletes may currently value the right to protest on the podium more than others, the reality is that the Olympics should and will honor the interests of the collective global sports community. 

If a country’s National Olympic Committee doesn’t feel inclined to punish its respective athletes this summer, it shouldn’t have to. By delegating the responsibility of disciplining to these subcommittees, the IOC has placed an important check on its power and has given more agency to individual countries. To say that Rule 50 should be abolished unilaterally because of the demands of the minority, however, is blasphemously undemocratic.

Take the NFL, for example. While there wasn’t an official investigation by the league into athletes’ interests, as in the case of the IOC, there was a productive, albeit long overdue, dialogue between athletes and league officials. After listening to countless players condemn the league’s strict kneeling policies, the league took those opinions to heart and made a change in its rules to reflect player interests. 

As NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said in September 2020, in response to backlash to the onfield protests, “We’re going to stand behind our players.”

Similarly, the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC), which reprimanded two athletes for kneeling and raising fists during a medal ceremony at the Pan-Am Games in August 2019, also made a change to reflect changing social and athlete attitudes. After receiving heavy criticism for its historically low tolerance of podium protest, USOPC announced in December 2020 — months before the IOC decision — that it would not punish American athletes who protest for social justice in Tokyo.

Shifting attitudes of the USOPC for Tokyo is a testament to the new status quo of protesting in U.S. sports and, more importantly, to the ability of sports leagues to listen to the interests of their athletes and adapt accordingly. The IOC, with its extensive consultation of athletes, has matched and even surpassed the same commitment to meet the demands of its athletes and to tailor the Tokyo 2021 Olympic experience to them.

Currently, there are still sanctioned alternatives to onfield or podium protests for athletes who wish to openly express their beliefs, including media outlets and press conferences. Perhaps though, the most effective method of protest at the Olympic Games remains the punishable one. 

The post Playing Games and Playing Politics: Should Olympians Be Allowed to Protest? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

LOS ANGELES — With each passing day, climate change becomes an increasingly dangerous crisis. Last May, carbon dioxide levels hit 417 parts per million, a concentration not seen on Earth in nearly 4 million years. In 2020, global temperatures were 2.16ºF (1.2ºC) hotter than the average year 200 years ago. The world is witnessing natural disasters exacerbated by climate change, from catastrophic and record-setting fires, devastating storms and floods and drastic ice and forest cover loss. And the symptoms of climate change are only expected to become more severe.

With the reality of climate change settling in for more people than ever before, the conversation is shifting to one of mitigation and resilience. Essentially, what can be done to prevent the worst? 

Multinational oil and gas company ExxonMobil first noticed the potential dangers of rising CO2 in the 1950s and 1960s and chose to cover up their findings. Over 70 years later, the world is more temporally strapped than ever —  drastic action is required to meet the Paris Agreement’s goal of limiting warming to less than 2ºC. Efficiency is now an utmost priority. 

This article will discuss and review two different approaches to mitigation, examining the merits and downsides of advocating for institutional change or for widespread individual action. We ultimately leave the decision on which approach is most effective up to you, the reader, but hope that you see the advantages to both.

Kirian Mischke-Reeds: The World Needs to Prioritize Institutional Change 

If the world can shift its global financial and political systems to prioritize dealing with the climate crisis and successfully get enough momentum behind change, mitigation efforts and resilience building will be more effective than any changes in consumer behavior could accomplish. 

Before I begin my argument, I believe it is important to define what I mean by “institutions” and “institutional change.”. The word “institutions, as I’m using the term in this article, is used as a blanket placeholder term for large corporations, governments, and international organizations. While it might seem strange to lump these entities together, they are the predominant power brokers in the world, with the largest influence and impact.

Climate change has already become too large a problem for individuals to comprehend, let alone solve. The changes necessary to meet RCP2.6, the pathway compliant with the Paris Agreement, are drastic, to say the least. RCP2.6 refers to Representative Concentration Pathway 2.6, the level of warming consistent with a 2.6 W/m² increase in radiative forcing by 2100. Simply put, this means that, as a result of anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, there will be more 2.6 watts of energy per square meter for the whole Earth. There’s significantly more heat getting trapped in the atmosphere than is leaving the planet and as a result, things are getting hotter and climates are shifting. RCP2.6 is the current goal of global climate mitigation, to restrict radiative forcing to only 2.6 watts per square meter and not the 8.5 watts per square meter we’re currently on a trajectory to achieve, which will bring about catastrophic and irreversible effects.  

Achieving RCP2.6, which still entails warming of 0.9 to 2.3ºC, will require steep and immediate decreases in GHG emissions and is likely already unfeasible. Achieving the Paris target of limiting warming to 1.5ºC would require reducing global GHGs by half by 2030, with net-zero being achieved by 2050. Notwithstanding the artificial COVID-induced dip in 2020, global emissions have only increased since the Paris Agreement was signed. We need to focus our efforts on the world’s top emitters. According to the 2017 Carbon Majors report, over half of global industrial emissions since 1988 are the result of 25 corporations and states. This infamous list includes state-owned fossil fuel companies like Saudi Aramco (2), Gazprom (3), and National Iranian Oil (4), as well as companies like ExxonMobil (5) and BP (11). 

Institutions are to blame. It was their actions and behavior that allowed the current crisis to fester in the first place. It’s disingenuous and dangerous to place the responsibility of tackling climate change on individuals when it has largely been the result of decisions made by governments and corporate leaders. An emphasis on profit over humanity for the last several centuries has resulted in an extractionist, increasingly global economy that exploits natural resources for economic growth. 

But an institution’s weaknesses can also be its strengths. Traditionally, it has been difficult to change the behavior of notoriously bureaucratic and slow to act international organizations such as the United Nations, the International Fund, the World Bank, or the European Union. However, with enough momentum and pressure, these institutions act with the advantage of resources and global clout. Formal structures governed by charters, constitutions and laws outlast individual leaders and can carry momentum and international weight longer. If we focus our efforts on forcing institutions to change their behavior, we can harness institutional rigidity for good. 

By advocating for this, however, I am by no means trying to ignore the lifestyle changes that will be necessary to accomplish effective mitigation efforts, nor do I wish to discredit individual efforts to reduce emissions and build resilience. I am, however, skeptical that a critical mass of consumers would be willing, despite increased awareness of climate change, to change their behavior in a meaningful and timely fashion. If previous examples of human behavior are anything to go by, people are serial procrastinators, even in the face of crises. The world did not care about pollution in the Cuyahoga River, until it caught fire and photos documenting the blaze were published around the world. Eliminating plastic straws gained popularity in 2018, if only because it became trendy. Essentially, people have not yet proven that they are  capable of addressing environmental issues through our capitalistic framework in a rapid enough time frame.

I’m not against individual change because it is ineffective; in fact, quite the opposite, we will need mass mobilization and consumer pressure to force institutions to change their behavior. But, relying on individuals to make alterations to their lifestyle, when doing so is economically inefficient currently, is risky at best and dangerous at worst. Climate change is an existential issue, but only a third of consumers surveyed by grocery giant Unilever said they were choosing to buy from brands that they believed were more environmentally friendly. While people are aware of the threat the climate crisis poses, not enough are willing or able to make the changes necessary to drive shifts in institutional behavior. 

Changes in individual purchasing behavior will reduce individuals’  own carbon footprint while, at scale, pushing corporations to adapt to a new, more environmentally conscious consumer demand for products, thus changing their behavior. The same kinds of changes could be accomplished more efficiently and effectively the other way around: institutions change their behavior, thus pushing individuals to change their consumption habits as well. 

Collective action to pressure governments and corporations to take more ambitious steps towards mitigation is the best way forward. These changes will be as expansive as they are expeditious. And we will need to focus our attention and efforts on achieving institutional change as the most efficient, just, and achievable strategy towards combating the climate crisis. 

Carmen Santiago-Ubauer: Individuals Must Take Responsibility for the Climate Crisis 

The focus on institutional change has allowed individuals to opt out of their personal responsibility to protect the planet. The idea that governments should do the work for us, or that public and private sector innovation will find a way to “save us” from climate change, discourages the average global citizen from making sustainable lifestyle changes. 

Individual change is especially important considering that governments are not the main cause of climate change ‒ people are.Governments did not create the majority of the destructive industries that contribute to climate change (though, they have admittedly supported them and allowed them to continue to wreak havoc), individuals did. Individuals support these exploitative industries every day when they choose to eat animal products, buy fast fashion, use copious amounts of plastics and disposable materials, waste clean water and electricity, travel excessively and more. Individual behavior is critical in understanding the drivers of climate change. 

It feels counterintuitive to blame the average person for global climate change, a problem Kirian aptly contextualizes above, but we must recognize that every individual has a carbon footprint. Those individuals with the privileges of choice, education and relative wealth, should do everything in their power to reduce their carbon footprint and positively impact the environment. 

There is no denying that some individuals deserve more blame than others. Those individuals that drive the corporations that exploit the environment and produce copious amounts of greenhouse gases contribute to climate change far more than the average person. These are the individuals we need to change the most, but they have no current incentive to do so. They continue to make money and collect wealth, because average citizens pay for their products and services, like water, gas, electricity, oil and more — which are necessary goods in many economies. But consumers with the privilege to choose among companies can opt against giving destructive corporations their dollars, and thus, can diminish their negative impact on the environment in the long run.

Consumers too often underestimate the power they have to shift the national and global economy toward greater sustainability and, in doing so, combat climate change. In fact, according to a University of Oxford study, if the world were to go vegan by 2050 ‒ meaning everyone would adhere to a plant-based diet ‒ food-related emissions would decrease by nearly 70%, 8.1 million health-related deaths would be avoided, and the world could save up to $31 trillion in GDP. This is especially significant considering the fact that food-related emissions account for more than a third of greenhouse gas emissions. 

Naturally, a scenario in which the entire human population adopts a predominantly plant-based diet seems highly unlikely. But, it may not be as far-fetched as you think. Gradually, more and more people are reducing their animal product consumption as they become more conscious of the agricultural industry’s environmental impacts. In fact, some estimates show that up to a third of the human population currently follows a diet based on the moderation or elimination of animal products. As a result of the flourishing plant-based movement, the popularity and profitability of plant-based products has skyrocketed, and companies such as Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat have grown exponentially. In response to these trends, Big Meat companies, such as Tyson, Smithfield, Perdue and Homel, have begun to produce meat alternatives as well. This demonstrates just how much power consumers hold ‒ even the largest corporations will adapt to meet their desires. 

Consequently, individuals should view everything they consume as an investment, and change their consumer behavior accordingly. Do not buy red meat if you do not want to invest in animal agriculture, which is responsible for 14.5% of anthropogenic greenhouse gases and rampant deforestation. Do not buy fast fashion if you do not want to invest in an industry that produces up to 10% of global emissions and massive landfills of textile waste. Do not buy single-use plastics if you do not want to invest in the fossil fuels and petrochemicals industry and the 8 million tons of plastic polluting our oceans. Instead, invest in local farms, local artisans and creators, and innovative and sustainable companies, by purchasing and promoting their products. Naturally, no one can be the perfect consumer, but everyone can try, and keep trying harder every single day. 

Why rely on slow-moving institutional change, when so much change can be motivated by individuals?

This argument is often met with the rebuttal, “but, one person can’t make a difference.” This feeling that we’re too small in the grand scheme of things to truly have an impact is a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

If the world does not believe in the collective power of individuals, then it cannot harness this power to defeat climate change. 

The post Individual or Institutional Change in Tackling the Climate Crisis: Which Is More Effective? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As foreign missions, Chinese media outlets would be subjected to strict regulations that apply to foreign consulates — such as reporting any real estate holdings — as the United States view these outlets as part of China’s “propaganda apparatus”. Just one day later, China expelled three American Wall Street Journal journalists for a WSJ opinion piece headlined “China Is the Real Sick Man of Asia,” which Chinese officials deemed racist. 

A cascade of tit-for-tat retaliation followed. In March, the United States capped the number of Chinese citizens allowed to work for certain Chinese news outlets in the country. China responded by expelling more American journalists from China who work for The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and The New York Times. Things continued to drag on over the summer, where the U.S. imposed 90-day visa limits for Chinese journalists and labeled more Chinese media outlets as “foreign missions;” China hit back by requiring American news media organizations in their country to submit extensive information about their operations. 

Although China has never had an easy relationship with foreign journalists, rescinding reporters’ visas outright and canceling multiple visas from the same outlet is a largely unprecedented move. This deterioration of media relations comes at a critical time, too. In a rare joint open letter by WSJ, The Post and Times, the trio of print media giants labeled China’s move as “uniquely damaging and reckless” as the world struggles with COVID-19, a struggle that they wrote requires the free flow of trustworthy news and information. For example, during the first outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic that originated in Wuhan, China reporting by American and foreign correspondents helped the world know what was going on at ground zero, even in the face of China’s lack of transparency. 

Of course, the escalation is not only about journalism; affected journalists in both countries have often been dubbed as “diplomatic pawns.” By imposing regulations on Chinese media outlets, Washington displays its firm stance against China’s perceived intelligence operations in the United States, brushing aside its earlier hesitations over meddling with the freedom of the press. To show an international and domestic audience that it can’t be bullied, China retaliated swiftly. What has followed is a classic scenario of the security dilemma, mirroring both countries’ aggression throughout their ongoing trade dispute.

There is no winner in this media stand-off, only who stands to lose more. Before the normalization of U.S.-China relations just four decades ago, limited contact and propaganda spawned cultural misunderstandings on both sides. Even after that initial introduction period, the magnitude of a free press and internet censorship in China has made it difficult to gain insight into the country. Though essential for their domestic policy of social control, China’s censorship makes it harder for the country to open up to a world that, at times, struggles to understand it. 

On the other hand, while reciprocity is a hallmark of the Trump administration’s “America First” foreign policy, it’s important to consider the long-term damage of this media war. America’s visa restrictions hurt Chinese journalists working for credible international media outlets, whose insights lend nuance in reporting on China that Americans might not be capable of providing — in the grand scheme of world politics, individual Chinese voices often go unheard. A lack of cultural understanding on both sides would only accelerate this great decoupling. 

The United States’ national security concerns regarding “propaganda outlets disguised as news agencies” are understandable, especially in the wider context of dismal U.S.-China relations and heightened competition. But what about China’s other channels of influence, such as social media? Most Americans recognize that state media is backed by China, but it’s harder to trace the tens of thousands of fake Twitter accounts hacked or created to spread Chinese propaganda. Instead, the United States’ foray into the press arena gave China grounds to mock the apparent hypocrisy: the U.S. cares about freedom of the press, yet its move seems contradictory. It’s also the perfect excuse for China to tighten its control on the foreign press, re-shaping an international narrative that it has long viewed as anti-China. 

Over the past month, China has shifted its focus to another Western country, harassing journalists in an all-too-similar scenario. After Australia called for an investigation into the origins of the coronavirus, relations between the two countries have deteriorated. China arrested an Australian citizen who worked as a high-profile anchor at Chinese state television and then forced out the last journalists working for Australian media in the country. Australia hasn’t been passive either, as Beijing accused it of raiding the homes of Chinese journalists in the country in June. 

In the West, journalism is regarded as an independent fourth estate to hold the government accountable, while in China it’s often manipulated as a mouthpiece for the government. But, despite the different understanding, only in recent times has China made such moves on journalists from multiple media outlets, and now multiple countries. The Australian episode shows that it’s no longer just a U.S.-China issue. China is shifting to an unusually hardline diplomatic stance as it strives to project an image of strength. 

On November 6, the Trump administration will have to decide whether or not it would renew visas for many Chinese journalists in the United States. The date coincides with the expiry date for the residence permits of a number of foreign journalists in China. It should be painfully clear by now that expelling journalists does nobody any good, given how essential information and news is: thus, let’s hope that both China and the United States can work together to form a more productive media relationship. The two can negotiate journalist visa quotas, for instance, setting an example of an easing of hostilities for the rest of the world. 

If the United States and China truly want to avoid escalating conflict, they ought not burn these critical bridges.

The post Implications of the U.S.-China Media Standoff appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Though the Vice President of the United States may appear to have little power, the President’s second-in-command plays a larger role than assumed, especially in matters of foreign policy. Up until the late 1970s, vice presidents were largely figureheads, but President Jimmy Carter changed this at the beginning of his term by expanding the role of Vice President Walter Mondale, giving him the authority to affect policy and moving his office into the White House. Since then, successors to the vice-presidential office have continued to take on responsibility and expand the role’s importance.

The exact tasks of a vice president are dependent on the wishes of the president they serve, but recent vice presidents have become more hands-on in foreign affairs, traveling the world as representatives of the United States and advising the president on foreign policy. Because of their proximity to the president and their ability to influence foreign affairs, a vice-presidential candidate’s opinions on world politics should not be overlooked. As voters prepare to head to voting booths in November and as others begin sending in their mail-in ballots, they should consider the foreign policy agendas of each vice presidential candidate. Glimpse from the Globe will break down the foreign policy positions of the 2020 vice-presidential candidates, Vice President Mike Pence and California Senator Kamala Harris.

China

Over the last decade, China has rapidly expanded its economic power and global influence to become one of the world’s superpowers, arguably on the same level as the United States. China’s status, combined with its communist, one-party political system, has long worried U.S. leaders, who fear the country is getting too aggressive and powerful. With the steady breakdown of relationships between China and the United States ‒ the trade war started by President Trump and rising anti-China sentiments since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic ‒  the United States’ dealings with China moving forward will greatly differ depending on which party wins the presidential election. 

Pence has long been critical of China, accusing the country of meddling in U.S. elections in 2018 and denouncing its economic aggression, human rights violations, and intellectual property theft in a speech in late 2019. In this same speech, he also declared his support for the Hong Kong protestors. China is not too fond of Pence either, as they responded to Pence’s denouncements by stating that the Vice President lied and needed to focus on fixing issues within the United States. As vice president, he has been supportive of sanctions against Chinese companies and high-ranking government officials, and would likely maintain this hardline stance should he keep his position. 

Senator Harris has similarly expressed that U.S. foreign policy toward China should consider its human rights record. According to Harris, the surveillance and repression of Chinese citizens as well as the reeducation camps for the Uighur Muslims were abysmal infringements on human rights. Further, she explained that the United States should stand with the people of Hong Kong, following China’s disrespect of Hong Kong’s autonomy and democracy. While Harris agrees with Pence on the human rights issues, they differ in regard to the trade war. In 2018 she wrote a letter urging the Trump administration to reconsider increasing tariffs and reiterated this view in the vice presidential debate, where she noted that the trade war has cost the U.S. economy hundreds of thousands of jobs and raised the prices of consumer goods in the United States.

North Korea

U.S. relations with North Korea have remained largely static over the past decades, with the U.S. failing to curb North Korean nuclear proliferation. As time passes and North Korea’s stockpile of missiles and nuclear weapons grows, the regime is likely to grow more emboldened, and the influence the United States has on the country will decrease. Both U.S. political parties have made several attempts to negotiate with North Korea and promote its denuclearization, yet have so far been unsuccessful, making this a notable issue in U.S. foreign policy.

Pence has an unyielding attitude towards North Korea, differing from President Trump’s repeated attempts at establishing a friendly relationship with Kim Jong Un. After stating in 2018 that North Korea had not made any concrete steps toward ending its nuclear weapons program, he warned that the situation could “only end like the Libyan model if Kim Jong Un doesn’t make a deal.” In the early 2000s, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi gave up his nuclear arms program for sanctions relief but was later killed and overthrown by U.S.-supported rebels. North Korea has repeatedly cited Libya as an example of why it needs nuclear weapons, and took Pence’s words as a threat, to which he responded with: “It’s more of a fact.” Pence believes that continuing to pressure North Korea through sanctions will eventually force them to back down and lead to total denuclearization.

Harris also believes in a more firm stance towards North Korea and has openly criticized Trump’s engagement with North Korea, explaining that by prioritizing photo opportunities with Kim Jong Un and ending military operations with South Korea, he has compromised the ability of the United States to keep tabs on North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Unlike Pence, she has conceded that appealing for complete denuclearization is unlikely to end in success but believes that a strategy aimed at cooperation with North Korea, such as by maintaining friendly relations and offering targeted sanctions relief for verifiable actions to scale back the nuclear program, is the best way forward.

Israel and Palestine

The territorial dispute that Israel and Palestine have been engaged in since the mid-20th century has continued to be violent. Israel in particular has grown more aggressive over the past few years, and though President Trump drafted a new plan for a two-state solution, he did so without input from Palestinian leaders and has been vocal about his support for Israel. Tensions in the region continue to rise.

Pence has always been open about his pro-Israel views, which stem from his religious beliefs as an evangelical Christian. The Vice President was a key supporter of President Trump’s controversial decision in 2017 to reverse almost 70 years of foreign policy and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, an action that triggered criticism from around the world. Pence has also publicly backed Trump’s decision to cut funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA) by over 50%, causing the organization to scramble for funds to continue providing its vital services.

Despite Senator Harris claiming she would offer a two-state solution and work toward repairing U.S. relationships with Palestine, her past suggests that her involvement would also lead to pro-Israel outcomes. Her very first foreign policy vote in the Senate in 2017 was to condemn a United Nations resolution that called for Israel to stop expanding its illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Speaking for a lobbying group that pushes for better U.S.-Israel relations, she endorsed Israel’s right to defend itself in 2019. Furthermore, she has been a fond supporter of the Jewish National Fund since her childhood, an organization that is known to have helped push out Palestinians in the 1940s, also ensuring 750,000 of the refugees could not return. This is very different from presidential candidate Biden, who opposes Israel’s plans to continue annexing Palestinian territory.

Iran

President Trump started off U.S.-Iran relations in 2020 with a bang by ordering the successful execution of Iranian general Qasem Soleimani. This move resulted in retaliation in the form of missiles fired at bases housing U.S. troops, but there were no casualties and the situation did not escalate further. Nevertheless, dealings between the two countries remain strained, and the United States remains committed to ensuring that Iran does not develop nuclear capabilities.

In terms of U.S. foreign policy with Iran, Pence believes in a policy of deterrent aggressiveness towards Iran and was very vocal about his approval of President Trump’s decision to launch the airstrike that killed Iran’s top military general, Qassam Soleimani, in early January. Following the airstrike, Pence stated that, though he wants to end conflict in the region, he has no desire to remove the U.S.’s military presence from the area in case they are needed to settle other disputes in the future. The U.S. pulled out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) deal in 2018 under the Trump Administration. The JCPOA was an agreement to lift sanctions on Iran, should they comply with international nuclear standards. Pence has urged European nations to pull out of the deal too, describing Iran as a ‘murderous revolutionary regime’.

Harris has also outlined that she does not condone Iran’s nuclear weapons program. On the other hand, she has made clear that the Biden administration would rejoin the (JCPOA) deal that Trump withdrew from, so long as Iran verifiably complied. She is a firm believer that an allied approach through the UN Security Council is the right plan of action, both to strengthen the nuclear deal and to push back against Iran’s destabilizing actions in the region. In response to airstrikes, Harris asserted that Trump’s reckless approach has caused nothing but further escalation over the past two years. 

Climate Change

As a world leader and the second largest contributor to climate change, any action (or inaction) by the United States can influence the effectiveness of efforts to counter climate change. As the time the world has to reverse global warming passes by, the winner of the presidential election will determine whether or not the United States leads, or refutes, the fight against climate change.

Pence has been a climate change denialist long before becoming Trump’s running mate. As the host of his own radio show in the early 2000’s, Pence claimed that global warming was a ‘myth,’ and that temperatures were warmer 50 years ago. As an Indiana congressman, Pence supported President George W. Bush’s abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol, a pledge by nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. He also voted against limiting those emissions twice. As the governor of Indiana, he refused to implement Obama’s Clean Power Plan in 2015. During his time as vice president, Pence worked with Trump to reverse environmental protection rules put in place by the Obama administration, including the hydraulic fracking rule, the methane rule, the stream buffer rule, the Clean Power Plan, and the Paris Climate Accord. While CO2 emissions fell 11% during the Obama Administration, they fell about 0.5% during Trump’s first three years in office. In this way, Pence’s actions have benefitted companies involved in the non-renewable energy sector such as coal, oil, and gas, therefore receiving political support from those tied to the sector.

There is no doubt that Kamala Harris has been a vigorous advocate for the fight against climate change. She has frequently confronted the fossil fuel industry on fracking as California Attorney General, and is vocal about holding polluters accountable. She created an environmental justice unit as San Francisco District Attorney. During her presidential campaign, she pledged not to accept any fossil fuel money, to rejoin the Paris Climate Agreement, and to invest $10 trillion in public and private funding to save the worst climate impacts, through her drafting of the Climate Plan. More importantly, Harris drafted the Climate Equity Act with Rep. Ocasio Cortez, as part of the Green New Deal. This bill aims for environmental legislation to be judged by the impact on minority communities. Harris strongly supports the Green New Deal but has had to compromise her position on it due to her partnership with Biden. The need to appeal to voters in swing states where environmentally damaging fracking takes place has meant that both Harris and Biden have backtracked on their outright calls to ban the fracking industry. 

To Conclude

Interestingly, the foreign policy goals of the two vice presidential candidates do not stray too far away from each other, disregarding climate change. However, Harris’ approach starkly contrasts to the rash and whimsical Trump administration. Harris has placed a much greater emphasis on internationalism, outlining the U.S.’ need for dependable relationships to restore its lost credibility and the liberal world order. She seeks a more comprehensive and allied approach on issues of global security, as seen through her aims to rejoin the JCPOA and the Paris Climate Agreement. Pence’s arguments on foreign policy during the vice presidential debate were that Trump had successfully limited ISIS and carried out air raids in Iran, as well as helped move the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. While Pence has been essential in buoying relationships with allies through a less erratic approach than his President, he was a key driver of the criticism and indictment of China and Venezuela.

Without a doubt, the role of the vice president has grown in importance in recent presidential terms, with the nominations of running mates having the power to swing elections or appeal to a key demographic. The efforts of both candidates at the debate stage having a tangible effect on the ballot box remain to be seen, although polls following the debate indicate that Harris’s favorability ratings increased by 7%, while Pence’s stayed the same. 

With Pence being the more composed counterpart to Trump, Harris widening Biden’s target demographic massively, and both Trump and Biden being of higher risk groups for COVID, it is undoubtable that the elected vice president will carry a dominant role in determining foreign policies.

The post U.S. Foreign Policy: Pence vs. Harris appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

When scholars talk about political revolutions happening overnight, they usually speak figuratively. And yet, at 3am on May 22^nd, Thailand suddenly became a military dictatorship.

Yingluck Shinawatra, who was elected Prime Minister of Thailand in 2011, had been removed days earlier by court order. The Thai military, led by Gen. Prayuth Chan-Ocha, took over on May 22^nd and created a junta, the National Council for Peace and Order (NCPO), to rule the country. Thai citizens awoke to tanks on street corners.

The most recent takeover is the 18^th successful coup since 1932, when Thailand became a Constitutional Monarchy. This is largely a result of the military’s large role in the political sphere combined with the constant failure of democracy to flourish in a meaningful capacity.

The United States should maintain aggressive responses to dictatorships like the NCPO in Thailand. The dictatorship in Thailand might not be incredibly violent or pose a large threat to the United States, but as a matter of principle and establishing credibility to deal with actors that are violent and threatening, the dictatorship in Thailand should be opposed with equal force.

One of the first things Congress should do upon their return is to revoke all military aid unless things change for the better. Each year, Thailand receives $10.5 million in “security-based” foreign aid, an umbrella term that includes military and direct economic aid. Thus far, the strongest signal the US has sent the new dictatorship is cutting only $3.5 million in “Foreign Military Financing (FMF) and International Military Education and Training (IMET) funds.” Cutting health, counterterrorism and nonproliferation aid, which the country also receives, is less important. North Korea, for example, receives food aid from the United States for fear that its people will starve otherwise. But strong reasons remain for the continued suspension of military exercises and aid: it is ethical, required by law and proven to be effective at deposing the military dictatorship.

The ruling military government has shown a complete disregard for democratic freedoms. They engaged in a full-scale censorship campaign that includes removing former leaders’ names from new editions of history books. Additionally, The official in charge says the removal is an unexplained mistake. The country now joins China and North Korea in the circle of Asian countries who have vied to erase past leaders from the historical record.

Additionally, the NCPO upheld a prohibition on all forms of government criticism. In the months since, organizations like Human Rights Watch have detailed the detention of over 300 opposition party leaders and activists and the massive censorship over the media. Those detained included Kritsuda Khunasen, an opposition leader who described being beaten until she lost consciousness during her one-month detention at a military camp. Actions punishable under lèse-majesté (a French term that refers to violating the dignity of the sovereign) law by a two-year prison term include playing the French national anthem, covering one’s mouth with duct tape and reading 1984 in public.

How can the United States consistently and credibly oppose human rights violations at the hands of actors such as IS, North Korea and Syria (none of which receive security-based aid), if we continue to prop up Thailand? Not only will the countries we do decide to forcefully oppose take our actions and threats less seriously, but we will also be unable to convince allies and international partners to join us in that opposition if we selectively ignore the actions of small nations like Thailand. Though small, the effectiveness of United States diplomacy and soft power will be particularly reduced in the ASEAN region, a critical area for US geostrategy.

Irrespective of the treatment of Thai citizens and ethical questions, the Congressional 1961 Foreign Assistance Act requires the suspension of aid. In section 508, in no uncertain terms, the law mandates that the US cut aid to any nation where a “duly elected head of government is deposed by military coup,” pending the return of civilian rule. This policy was strengthened to include countries that commit human rights violations by the Leahy Amendments, which were passed in 2008. In the past, the US has evaded the law’s mandate by refusing to dub certain overthrows as “coups,” most recently in the case of Egypt. But even Egypt eventually saw its entire security aid budget disappear as the nation descended further into chaos, and so too should it be in the case of Thailand.

Proponents of maintaining some aid cite diplomacy as a more credible approach than sanctions, especially with a nation like Thailand, which remains a military partner in Asia for huge naval exercises like Cobra Gold, which plays a large role in East Asian readiness. However, this is a feckless strategy that ignores recent history: the total suspension ($29 million worth, compared to the $3 million that’s been suspended since May) of development and military aid in 2006 (health and counterterrorism aid were some of the few projects that were understandably maintained) led to the end of military rule in just 18 months, and even some scholars say that action wasn’t harsh enough.

The central tension at home seems to be between think tanks and the State Department on one side – who, today as in 2006, favor further aid restrictions and the cessation of military exercises – and the military, which has historically been vulnerable to threats from the Thai military to move closer to China in the event of an aid cutoff, and thus more willing to support continued military engagement. Those defense officials, and, to some extent, high-level government officials like Secretary of State John Kerry, fear China will exert more influence over Thailand in the event of a suspension of ties. But the US can’t have its cake and eat it too. As long as the historical record shows that the suspension of aid has been successful in restoring civilian rule in Thailand, that is the policy that should be maintained: supporting a military dictatorship and clinging to an outdated, Cold War-era military posturing strategy should not.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff, editors, or governors.

The post Face Off: For Cutting Aid to Thailand appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Mousa: “This is Afghanistan…Alexander the Great try to conquer this country… then Genghis Khan, then the British. Now Russia. But Afghan people fight hard, they never be defeated. Ancient enemy make prayer about these people… you wish to hear?

Rambo: “Um-hum.”

Mousa: “Very good. It says, ‘May God deliver us from the venom of the Cobra, teeth of the tiger, and the vengeance of the Afghan.’”

-Rambo III, 1988

American engagement began with airstrikes in October 2001. By May 2003, President Bush declared the end of major combat and NATO assumed the responsibility of managing the transition to a civilian Afghan government. In 2004, for the first time, Afghanistan democratically elected Hamid Karzai, who subsequently announced a partnership with President Bush on the War on Terror. He opened bases in Afghanistan to US soldiers in exchange for training the Afghan national army.

In 2006, violence erupted again. In December 2009, Obama announced a troop surge, which sent 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan and officially stamped his application to the graveyard of empires club.

13,000 Afghan soldiers, 3,440 coalition soldiers and almost 20,000 civilians have died to date in Afghanistan. Accounting for the future cost of medical care and fighting, a Harvard Kennedy School of Government study estimated the cost of Iraq and Afghanistan combined at $4-6 trillion.

Less quantifiable in terms of dollars and body counts, but equally as significant is the cost of the war on the United States’ image in the world. The Karzai regime’s refusal to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement, which would allow continued US presence in the country after 2014, speaks to the lack of credibility in the American war machine, namely due to the use of drones and night raids that have a dismal history of civilian casualties. These problems make it not only impossible to negotiate with Afghanistan, but will also directly hamper allied cooperation in the future.

The United States should also commit to end the indefinite detention of detainees at Guantanamo Bay and abroad, which was established during the first months of the War in Afghanistan. Guantanamo Bay and covert rendition programs have come to be seen by Americans and our allies as the most egregious manifestation of America’s post-9/11 foreign policy. The Germans may have raised a diplomatic fuss over the tapping of Chancellor Merkel’s cell phone, but I would bet her data plan that they took much more seriously the unlawful detention and alleged torture of Turkish citizen Murat Kurnaz, a German resident who was captured in Kabul by US forces.

The kicker is that for all of the aforementioned costs, we have gained almost nothing.

As the Taliban launches its spring offensive and begins to control larger territories, the thousands of Afghani citizens who have been displaced over the past ten years say little progress has been made. Gaetan Drossart, the chief of the Kabul branch of Medecins sans Frontieres, has treated such refugees for years and observed the violence that has gripped the country. “The truth is there is no such success story at all,” Drossart told RT. “The international forces are leaving the country so they need a reason and they need also a rationale to explain to their population why now they can leave.”

Beyond the Taliban, Afghanistan will continue to suffer from the potent attacks of the Pakistan-based Haqqani Network. In a book out this year, Anand Gopal, who covered the war for the Wall Street Journal, recently wrote in her book, No Good Men Among the Living: America the Taliban, and the War Through Afghan Eyes, that the War in Afghanistan was misguided from the start. Though almost no insurgencies existed in mid-2002, the war, through faulty alliances with Afghani drug lords and power brokers, created the very enemies it sought to eradicate. Haqqani and his network were two of them. “By classifying certain groups as terrorists, and then acting upon those classifications, the U.S. had inadvertently brought about the very conditions it had set out to fight,” Gopal commented.

When this counter-terrorism evolved into a full-fledged counterinsurgency and nation building, the war efforts in Afghanistan fell prey to the concept known as mission creep – the phenomenon where a mission of limited scope morphs into one much more complex. Though the most tangible accomplishment of the war is the establishment of the Afghan National Security Forces and the success of a democratic election that will be completed by the end of the year, proponents of the war should ask themselves: couldn’t we have done that in the first 6 months of conflict? Did it really take 12 years (the longest war in American history), a few trillion dollars and over 2,000 soldier lives to train 350,000 Afghani soldiers and hold an election? We aren’t even out of the woods – the instability and accusations of corruption in the election to select President Karzai’s successor demonstrates it has come at too high a price.

Three-star Army lieutenant general Daniel Bolger, whose 35 years of experience culminated in extensive work in Afghanistan and Iraq, is publishing the first after-action report on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. In the book, aptly titled “Why We Lost,” Bolger argues that the mission creep described above sacrificed the key gains made within the first six months of each war. Like the Gulf War, Bolger argues that after the removal of the hostile government (in Afghanistan’s case, the Taliban), the United States should have packed up and gone home. Instead, perpetual war and nation building that will take decades longer than the US (and the public) is willing to commit to have created more enemies than friends.

The failure in Afghanistan certainly won’t kill the American empire, but like Rambo, America hasn’t escaped Afghanistan unscathed. Afghanistan, like Vietnam, has exposed the limitations of the US war machine for all to see, and made the leaders and nation behind it less credible in the process. That doesn’t bode well going forward—just ask Colonel Trautman, Rambo’s mentee: “You expect sympathy? You started this damn war, now you’ll have to deal with it.”

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The post No, America’s War in Afghanistan Was Not Worth It appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.