Lebanese citizens’ opinions on Hezbollah are varied and many are quite critical of the organization. Throughout Lebanon, Shia Muslims look at the group relatively favorably while Sunni Muslims and Christians have a much more negative opinion of Hezbollah. However, despite disagreements on the stances and actions of the group, 99% of Arabs agree that all Arab countries must cease contact with Israel in response to Israeli military action in Gaza. Hezbollah as an ideological entity is not necessarily well-loved, but it is also one of few groups committed to resisting the Israeli occupation. This then becomes a difficult issue for many Lebanese civilians as Israel continues its attempt to expand into southern Lebanon, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. It seems that the only solution is the creation of an organization that will both have higher approval from Lebanese citizens and protect the country from Israeli occupation.

In this conversation of Lebanese support for Hezbollah, it is important to understand the religious makeup of Lebanon. While Lebanon recognizes 18 religious sects, there are three major factions, with 31.9% of Lebanese citizens identifying as Sunni Muslims, 31.2% as Shia Muslims and 32.4% as Christians. While all three groups are very close in size, it is interesting to note that Hezbollah is a Shiite group despite Shia Muslims being the smallest of the three largest religious groups. Shia Muslims are the largest group in Iran, however, which is the country responsible for the funding of Hezbollah.

Conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims has been a cause of division throughout the Middle East, with major clashes in both Syria and Iraq. Despite 85% of Muslims identifying as Sunni and 15% as Shia, Sunnis have not dominated militarily and there remains a great sectarian divide in countries like Lebanon. Fear of conflict is not limited to one group, though, with 67% of Lebanese Muslims believing that Shia-Sunni tensions are a big issue. The emergence of Hezbollah has certainly not aided this and, despite having governmental representation, Sunnis and Christians alike feel as though Hezbollah as a governing entity does not represent them.

Notably, in September 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah founder who led the group for over 30 years. Despite disagreements over Hezbollah’s existence, Nasrallah was relatively well-liked due to his resistance to Israel, including overseeing the end of Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

During an interview in September 1992, Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah is a resistance party that opposes the creation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Additionally, in their 1998 Statement of Purpose, Hezbollah says, “It should be clear that the kind of Islam we want is a civilized endeavor that rejects injustice, humiliation, slavery, subjugation, colonialism and blackmail while we stretch out our arms for communication among nations on the basis of mutual respect.” 

In the U.S. Counterterrorism Guide, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist group since 1997, a designation shared by the Arab League and the EU, among others. Since the group’s inception, it has been responsible for several terrorist attacks around the world. Hezbollah has bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut both in 1983 and 1984, with a total of 101 killed and at least 120 injured.

While Hezbollah was created to force Israel to cede its occupied Lebanese territory, the group has now morphed into a different sort of entity. Now, Hezbollah has transitioned from a military wing to a group with heavy influence in both Lebanese military action and politics. In addition, Hezbollah no longer solely targets the Israeli occupation. A prime example of this is the 1994 operation targeting a Jewish community center and killing 94 people in Buenos Aires. 
Since its inception, the United States has given Israel a total of $310 billion in aid, a vast majority of such being military. While the United States views the Hezbollah attacks as unprecedented, Hezbollah sees the United States as a proxy for Israel, funding the occupation of Palestine as well as southern Lebanon. As the United States continues to fund Israel’s attacks on Gazan civilians, a direct opposition to the goals of Hezbollah, it is difficult to see a future where Hezbollah’s terrorist designation is removed.

The post Formation and Impact of Hezbollah appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

For decades, Indian Americans from diverse religious backgrounds have peacefully coexisted in the United States. However recent occurrences, like the divergent responses to Prime Minister Modi’s visit, serve as a microcosm of the deep-seated division within the Indian community and raise concerns that the extreme political and religious division in India is slowly seeping into diaspora communities. 

Hindu nationalism, in India, surged under Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party, which rose to power in 2014 and was empowered by their landslide election win in 2019. 

The ruling party faced significant criticism for the increasing attacks on Muslims and other religious minorities, as well as from some Hindus who argue that Modi’s lack of action empowers right-wing groups and puts national unity at risk. Such conversations are also occurring in the United States but to a different tune.

“All of the mainstream Hindu American organizations were either very vocal and openly supportive of this political ideology and its vision of Hindu identity, ” said Nikhil Mandalaparthy, deputy executive director of the Hindus for Human Rights. “Or they were just silent about what was happening in the name of the Hindu tradition and Hindu community.”

It was under this period of rising tensions that Hindus for Human Rights, a non-profit organization based in Washington D.C., was formed to counteract what Mandalaparthy calls “the American monopoly on the Hindu voice.” 

The goal was to inject an inclusive, progressive Hindu voice in policy and advocacy spaces and to establish connections within the Hindu American diaspora in the United States, which wields substantial influence on Indian politics. 

“Diaspora money funds a lot of the work of groups like the RSS or the BJP that have a very clear ideological agenda and is really key to a lot of their operations in India,” Mandalaparthy explains. “There’s a very long documented history of money going from Hindu Americans to nonprofits, charities and different organizations that are connected to networks of the Hindu right in India.”

In early 2023, South Asia Citizens Web released a report exposing 24 U.S.-based organizations with links to the Sangh Parivar, an India-based global network of Hindu nationalist organizations. 

The report implicates that Sewa International and India Development and Relief Fund, among seven other groups, funded Sangh Parivar-associated initiatives with tens of millions of dollars. The report also names two sponsors, the HSS and VHPA, as having documented ties to extremist Hindu organizations in India. 

Despite these links, both the HSS and VHPA are deeply embedded in Hindu American cultural life and “present themselves as authorities on Hinduism” through “identity-based youth programs, cultural events and disseminating Sangh-approved forms of Hindu culture to the diaspora.”

Redefining Hinduism 

Hindus for Human Rights seeks to challenge the influence of organizations like HSS and VHPA on how Hinduism is perceived in the diaspora community. 

“We have to start by recognizing that today the dominant expression of Hindu identity, whether you’re in India or the diaspora, has really been taken over by Hindu nationalism” explained Nikhil. “There are other ways to be Hindu in a more progressive and inclusive way”. 

As an advocate for pluralism, civil and human rights in South Asia and North America, Hindu for Human Rights’ work is rooted in the values of the Hindu faith: shanti (peace), nyaya (justice) and satya (truth). Their vision is a world defined by lokasangraha (the universal common good) — where there is peace among all people. 

The organization is committed to the elimination of caste and achieving the right to equality for all the communities that have been marginalized in the name of Hinduism by providing a Hindu voice of resistance. 

Their work is infused with these values, spanning from advocacy and community building to countering the disinformation that fuels the propagation of Hindu nationalism in the United States.

Combating Disinformation Campaigns

The digital epidemic that’s taken root in India and the diaspora community is the rapid spread of misinformation and fake news through messaging platforms, particularly WhatsApp. 

WhatsApp chat groups are a breeding ground for misinformation, which is particularly damaging during periods of communal tension and violence. They pose a threat to diaspora communities, which have turned to WhatsApp and other messaging apps for the trust and intimacy they afford.

“In Modi’s India, educated young individuals are so polarized and are spreading [false information]on social media against Muslims,” said Ishani Dutta Roy, an editor at ABP News in Kolkata. 

Government data show a nearly threefold rise in India of instances of “fake news” and “rumors” from 2019 to 2020, even as social media companies take steps to curb the spread of misinformation. 

In a survey conducted in the report Experiences of Muslims in India on Digital Platforms With Anti-Muslim Hate, at least 60% of participants in a survey said they had come across content on digital platforms that incited violence against Muslims. 

Because these platforms have shrunk the distance between South Asia and the United States, they are contributing to the spread and amplification of anti-Muslim sentiments between the two communities.

Anti-Muslim disinformation has become even more readily available and persuasive, especially for anyone seeking confirmation of their hatred and deep-seated prejudice.

“The rise of Hindu nationalism has been accompanied by a really strong effort on the part of Hindu nationalist organizations and political parties to dominate the media landscape, particularly social media,” explained Nikhil while describing the type of content they are finding on platforms like WhatsApp, Instagram or Facebook. “In many cases, the messages that are sent on these platforms can sometimes be the trigger for actual on the ground violence.”

In response, the organization launched Voices of Peace and Ulti Pulti Baat — programs that aim at the influence of religious extremism and hate speech on vulnerable communities and seek to debunk misinformation. 

Activists, scholars and community leaders come together through webinars, panel discussions and other events to discuss issues related to human rights and social justice. They promote dialogue as a method to foster a culture of peace and nonviolence in South Asia and beyond. 

The goal of these initiatives is to target everyday Hindus through WhatsApp groups and the social media ecosystem to inject a different perspective. 

“It’s all about getting into the same places where right now, the only Hindu voices are from the Hindu right and offering an inclusive, progressive alternative,” said Nikhil.

Speaking Across the Divide

Although countering disinformation can be a useful approach to reducing communal tensions in the United States and abroad, it is equally important to engage in on-the-ground efforts to facilitate civil dialogue on challenging issues that impact the Indian community. 

Hindus for Human Rights is doing exactly that through their Desh Videsh series. 

“We go into communities where there [are]high concentrations of South Asians and create opportunities for Hindus and Muslims to be able to talk about issues that are dividing the community, that are leading to more and more polarization,” explained Nikhil. 

The debut event took place in Jan 2023 at the Indian Community Center in Milpitas, California — the heart of the Bay Area and home to a large Indian population. The conversation delved into the history and severe clauses of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, along with the persecution of minority groups in India. 

By facilitating dialogue and featuring expert opinions, the initiative aims to bridge gaps between people with differing perspectives. 

While these dialogues often include both civil and uncivil disagreements, progress stems from the exposure and willingness to have these conversations. Hindus for Human Rights’ attempts at outreach and bridge-building are one-of-a-kind and happen in collaboration with many other forces. 

“All of our work is done in coalition, in partnership with Muslim groups and secular organizations. We’re coming in as a united front representing the whole diversity of the Indian diaspora” said Nikhil. The Desh Videsh series is the beginning of bridges being built between these two communities and creating a safe space for individuals to interact with those across the aisle. 

It also provides Hindus for Human Rights an opportunity to show members of the diaspora community the literal consequences of nationalism and anti-muslim sentiment, focusing specifically on cases of persecuted individuals in India.

Advocacy 

The National Crime Records Bureau in 2021 reported that over 30% of all detainees in Indian prisons were Muslims, despite the community only making up 14.2% of the total population. 

A combination of factors has kept the statistic consistent, including police bias resulting in baseless charges, inadequate representation of Muslims in law enforcement and insufficient or non-existent legal assistance. 

Faisal Khan, a victim of the Indian justice system, was associated with both Khudai Kidmatgar, a non-violent freedom movement, and the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) for the past 15 years. As an activist, he pushed for communal harmony between Hindus and Muslims. 

Khan and his group Khudai Khidmatgar conducted a journey in Brij, Uttar Pradesh, where they visited the Nand Baba Temple and were invited to pray by the priest. 

Four days later, Khan was arrested and charged with conducting Muslim prayers in a Hindu temple without permission and creating disharmony, as well as using Khudai Kidmatgar to raise funds for malicious purposes from foreign sources. The charges were filed by the same priest who had invited Faisal to pray.

Hindus for Human Rights organized numerous press conferences and met with US House of Representative officials and individuals in the State Department to voice their apprehensions regarding the events taking place in India.

“For the last several years, whenever [government agencies]have been looking for the Hindu community perspective, the only groups that are out there responding or reaching out to them are coming from the Hindu right, from the Hindu nationalist perspective,” stated Nikhil. 

The organization summoned human rights defenders and interfaith activists to speak up on Khan’s behalf. Eventually, Khan was released. 

Media coverage and international attention can be crucial in cases like these. Authoritarian governments are particularly sensitive about being publicly shamed on the global platform and don’t want these issues to be discussed beyond its borders. 

Hindus for Human Rights takes advantage of this and utilizes its influence and scope to raise awareness regarding instances such as Kahn’s and the numerous others in India who are being unjustly persecuted.

By advocating for persecuted individuals in India, spearheading campaigns against the dissemination of misinformation among the diaspora, and fostering a sense of a unified community, Hindus for Human Rights hopes to change the political climate.

“If we win the culture and politics in the states, if we increase our voice here, then our political influence becomes stronger in India,” said David Kalal, communications director for the organization, “That’s the vision, that’s what we are working towards and why I joined this organization. ”

The post Challenging Hindu Nationalism: The Work of Indian Americans for Human Rights appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In his eight years in power, Modi has been widely successful in his promotion of a Hindu nationalist agenda, threatening the secular fabric of the nation. His party’s blatant and open expression of Islamophobia is extremely alarming.

“There is [definitely]anti-Muslim sentiment from the BJP, there has to be,” claimed Mohit Roy, a local BJP leader. “We are seeing the demographic and cultural infiltration of Muslims in India. If I was to say I don’t have [anti-Muslim sentiment], I would be lying.”

Mohit Roy’s statements are deeply troubling and indicative of where Muslims in India stand: as scapegoats for the country’s troubles. The prime minister and his party exploit anxieties related to the perceived Muslim takeover of the Hindu population, facilitated through acts like ‘love jihad,’ to advance their agenda.

‘Love jihad,’ a term coined by the political and religious right, describes a phenomenon in which Muslim men forcefully convert and marry Hindu women. Nationalist groups claim that these conversions have become a tool utilized by Muslims to alter the demographics of the country and to establish an Islamic state. 

Kolkata native Shan Ghoshal owns ProjectHinduKush, a website that propagates the idea of an ongoing genocide of Hindus both in India and overseas. He considers involuntary religious conversions to be one of the most widespread instances of violence in the nation.

According to individuals like Shan Ghoshal, monetary incentives are provided by religious leaders in the Muslim community to their adherents who successfully commit acts of ‘love jihad.’  

“There’s a price tag for it,” said Ghoshal, explaining the motives behind ‘love jihad.’ “The cash reward is better for victims of higher caste and [Muslims] believe that if they convert Hindu women, they’ll go to heaven.” 

However, despite assertions like these, India’s National Investigation Agency has found no proof to support the existence of such a phenomenon. The Minister of State for Home Affairs, G. Krishna Reddy, told the Parliament in February 2020 that “no case of ‘love jihad’ has been reported by any of the central agencies.” 

Furthermore, documents provided in response to an Rights to Information request by Article 14 show that the Kerala Police too found no evidence of ‘love jihad’ when asked to investigate complaints by the National Commission for Minorities. 

According to police, sporadic cases of deceitful behavior by unscrupulous men are not evidence of a broader conspiracy or a larger plot. It seems that accounts of ‘love jihad’ are merely misrepresentations of regular consensual relationships.

For example, Muskan, a 22-year-old who was born into a Hindu family, and her Muslim husband Rashid went to register their marriage in the Uttar Pradesh town of Moradabad in December 2021. 

Her husband was accused of violating the Uttar Pradesh Prohibition of Unlawful Religious Conversion Ordinance, better known as the ‘love jihad’ law that outlaws conversions and calls into question inter-religious marriages. He was subsequently thrown in jail and the young woman was put in a state-run shelter home. 

“In most cases we found that a Hindu girl and Muslim boy were in love and had married against their parents’ will,” said state police chief A.L. Banerjee. “These are cases of love marriages and not ‘love jihad.’”

Even though there is substantial evidence refuting the existence of ‘love jihad,’ this “fringe extremist theory” has been brought into the political mainstream by far-right Hindutva groups in India. 

‘Love jihad’ is an example of disinformation slowly and steadily spreading hate against Muslims, tainting the Hindu majority’s perceptions. Anti-Muslim disinformation is persuasive, especially for anyone seeking confirmation of their hatred and deep-seated prejudice. 

The implementation of these laws encroaches upon an individual’s freedom of religion and right to interreligious marriage. It serves as a blatant example of government overreach driven by the administration’s prejudices and animosity towards a marginalized population. This law is motivated by the notion that through conversions, Muslims will gradually overpower the Hindu population in India.

However, the plausibility of this occurring is unclear, as Hindus have consistently accounted for 85% of the population over the past 40 years. The BJP under Modi’s leadership has cultivated a deep sense of Hindu victimhood by taking advantage of apprehensions surrounding ‘love jihad’ and the growing presence of Muslims in the nation.  

The propagation of baseless beliefs and unfounded fears by Hindu nationalist organizations reduces any likelihood of peaceful coexistence between the two faiths. 

But perhaps that’s the point. That there is no desire or intent to coexist. 

“[Hindus and Muslims] have been trying for 1,400 years and it hasn’t worked,” said Ghoshal. “India becoming a Hindu Rashtra guarantees peace for everyone and the right to practice religion [as one]sees it.”

This raises concerns about the fate of the more than 172 million Muslims currently residing in India and their ability to freely exercise their religion. Due to accusations of ‘love jihad’ and the fabricated fear of Muslims overpowering the Hindu population, Muslims are encountering significant challenges.

Since the Modi government came into power, there has been a significant surge in hate crimes motivated by religion, measured by an overall increase of 30%. The situation is even more alarming when observing that Muslims have been the main target in over 78% of these incidents, according to India Spend Initiative’s Hate Crime Tracker. 

Although the Indian Constitution enshrines principles of secularism and religious freedom, it seems that they are not being implemented fairly in the case of the Muslim population. 

But singing to the tune of the BJP, Shane Ghoshal explains that the current government’s actions are very much intentional and thought through. 

“A state can never be secular. In the preamble of our constitution, the secular word was added in a non-democratic manner by [previous prime minister]Indira Gandhi. It was a dark day for Indian democracy,” says Ghoshal. “Secularism just isn’t the flavor of India.” 

Shan Ghoshal’s perspective on the subject sheds light on the delicate state of India’s secular fabric. In the face of rising Islamophobia and divisive narratives like ‘love jihad,’ the future of religious freedom and co-existence in the nation hangs in the balance. 

The post Unraveling Secularism: The Rise of Islamophobia and ‘Love Jihad’ in Modi’s India appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Regarding the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), a set of 17 goals intended to provide quantitative data on each country’s development progress, Syria ranks 130th of 166 countries and territories. Syria particularly lags behind its regional counterparts in SDG 9 — “Industry, innovation and infrastructure” — and SDG 11 — “Sustainable cities and communities.” Overall, Syria’s progress is stagnant or worsening, with only 28.3% of the goals achieved or on track — however, even this figure is misleadingly positive, as the only improving indicators are misrepresentative of the country’s development as a whole.

Indicators dependent on economic prosperity inappropriately paint a success story; while decreases in import-related water consumption, fatalities and environmental hazards seem like progress, they are results of economic hardship. According to the WTO, Syria exported $12.2 billion a year before the war; in 2021, exports amounted to $739 million.

The only goals considered “achieved” or “on track” are SDGs 12 and 13, which relate to climate change. In 2021, Syria emitted carbon dioxide at a rate less than half of pre-war rates. Solid waste, sulfur dioxide emissions and nitrogen emissions have also decreased. While the UN describes SDG 13 as taking “​​urgent action to combat climate change,” this decrease is due to the war’s hindrance of industrial production rather than progressive policymaking. 

The most critical areas for Syrian development are SDG 8, “Decent work and economic growth;” SDG 9, “Industry, innovation and infrastructure;” and SDG 17, “Partnerships for the goals.” While other SDGs remain important, SDGs 8, 9 and 17 are more feasible to achieve while the war is still ongoing and develop symbiotically to achieve economic revitalization via regional reintegration – renormalizing relations with other Arab nations.  

While many indicators of SDG 8 lack data, it is noted that less than a fourth of Syrians have a bank account and unemployment has risen to 13.8%. Syria has yet to achieve any progress with SDG 9, with only 36% of the population accessing the internet and a mere 0.02% of GDP spent on research and development. Quality of transport and trade-related infrastructure is slightly better, ranking 2.51 on a scale of one to five, yet still behind the UN’s goal of 3.8. SDG 17 lacks data, with the only reported indicator being government spending on health and education which was 6.5% of GDP as of 2012, significantly lower than the UN’s goal of 15%.

Syria Today: Conflict, Weak Institutions and Economic Decline

The situation in Syria has been deteriorating, with the UN special envoy for Syria stating that the “needs of the Syrian people have reached the worst levels since the conflict began” due to sanctions, COVID-19, the Ukraine-Russia war, destroyed infrastructure, earthquakes and losing control of oil fields. 

Syria remains engrossed in a war of attrition amongst over a dozen militant groups and international actors. While violence has considerably reduced, a formal conclusion has yet to be reached and sporadic fighting remains. The government is highly fragmented as the official Syrian government only controls 70% of Syrian territory, with extremist groups commanding regions in the northwestern region of Idlib.

The war has destroyed nearly all of Syria’s infrastructure — roughly 90%. Since the beginning of the Assad regime, Syria has been dependent on oil, relying upon the state-owned Syrian Petroleum Company for much of its revenue. Because of the civil war, Syria has lost its oil fields to U.S.-backed Kurdish militants and now must import oil from Iran, imposing an extreme financial burden. 

While technically a presidential republic, the Syrian government operates as a highly authoritarian regime. The single ruling party, the Ba’ath Party, dominates Syrian politics with President Bashar al-Assad as chief of state and Prime Minister Hussein Arnous as head of government. According to Transparency International, Syria is the second most corrupt nation in the world. The civil war has presented opportunities for low-level corruption, as humanitarian aid is often misappropriated or used as leverage to manipulate recipients. 

Freedom House considers Syria “not free” and “one of the world’s most repressive regimes” due to corruption, forced disappearances, torture, arbitrary detainment and a near complete lack of civil society. There are neither fair elections nor legitimate opposition parties, and the government maintains a strong surveillance apparatus to punish dissenters. 

Syrian political institutions are weak, corrupt and secretive, neither conducive to democracy nor development and reflect a low quality of government that deploys systemic deprivation of human rights. The national legislative branch, the People’s Council, consists only of Ba’ath Party members. Legally, women hold the same political rights as men; however, they only fill 11.2% of the People’s Council seats and are excluded from actual decision-making. 

The judicial system is not impartial as both judges and prosecutors are required to belong to the Ba’ath Party. There is no due process, as military officers can try citizens in field courts outside the realm of legal standards, and many men, women and children are detained arbitrarily and in secrecy. There is no enforcement of equal treatment under the law as party members and affiliates receive preferential treatment.

The government maintains a centrally-planned economy, controlling key sectors such as energy, telecommunications and transportation. The banking system consists of state-owned and private banks led by the Central Bank of Syria, currently sanctioned by the United States. In July 2023, the central bank devalued the Syrian pound from 4,522 pounds to the dollar at the beginning of the year to 9,900. On the black market, the rate is now 15,000 pounds to the dollar, an acute increase from the pre-war rate of 47 pounds to the dollar. 

Syria’s currency has completely collapsed with inflation reaching 800% since the beginning of the war, leading many regions to use the Turkish lira instead. Because there are no minting facilities in rebel-controlled regions of Syria, the bills in circulation are physically falling apart and each merchant decides their value based on how intact they are.

In 2018, the World Bank (WB) reclassified Syria as a low-income country as its GDP shrunk to only 4.4% of its pre-war figures. Before the war, extreme poverty was “virtually nonexistent.” Now, 90% of Syrians live below the poverty line. The WB attributes this decline to mass deaths, destruction of physical capital, sanctions, the dissolution of economic networks and the rise of a black market – Syria exports illegal weapons and drugs, which have reportedly become Syria’s most valuable products. 

The International Community’s Response

The UN demands the Assad regime take accountability for its war crimes, allow humanitarian aid to reach vulnerable populations and institute reforms in the criminal justice system. This includes releasing unlawfully detained individuals, implementing due process, disclosing information on forcibly disappeared persons, holding those responsible for abuses accountable, ensuring legal protections for the internally displaced and halting the use of lethal force on dissenters. The ICC recommends other nations continue suspending relations with Syria until these requirements are met, while HRW calls on the UNSC to investigate and prosecute those responsible for war crimes and to sanction high-level Syrian officials. 

Syria addressed these recommendations at the 2020 UN High-Level Political Forum with a series of demands, most significantly the lifting of all economic and diplomatic sanctions, which, according to Syria, obstruct its legal “right to choose development paths” and are “preventing Syrian institutions from fulfilling its [sic] role in providing citizens with the necessities of living.” In response to its lagging SDG progress, Syria blamed “terrorism and external military interventions.” In return, Syria promised to uphold international law and encourage private sector, academic, civil society and media freedom. However, the OHCHR’s July 2023 findings of systemic rape, torture and forced disappearances discredit Syria’s pledged commitment, with the Human Rights Council declaring there is “no end in sight” to Syria’s international law violations.

At its core, the crisis in Syria is so deeply connected to systemic corruption, international meddling and a flawed economic system that approaches such as naming and shaming, financial aid and international ostracization do not address the systemic nature of the issue at hand. While violence has drastically decreased, the situation has worsened, which substantiates the idea that the war has revealed and exacerbated pre-existing structural issues, not created them. 

Echoing the UN, “the only sustainable solution” is a regime change. However, it is unlikely the Assads’ dynastic rule will be challenged anytime soon due to financial support from powerful nations like Russia and Iran, concession-free reentry into the Arab League and a lack of any political opposition.   

The post Examining Syrian Human Development 13 Years After the Start of the War appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In the simplest use of the phrase, a “stateless person” is someone who is not recognized as a citizen by any country; however, the ways in which a person can become stateless are varied. One method is based on the legal principles of birth; some countries are based on jus soli, the right to citizenship when born in the country, while other countries are jus sanguinis, based on bloodline. As such, if a child comes from a country without jus sanguinis and is born in a country without jus soli, they would be stateless. While this principle causes people to be legally fully stateless (de jure), some people can also become effectively stateless despite having a claim to citizenship (de facto) as a result of discrimination or war. The de facto stateless people would normally have a right to citizenship, however, their government treats them as if they do not have the right or valid paperwork. As such, governments that actively deny their citizens citizenship render them stateless despite them potentially having proof of the contrary.

Stateless people face many issues as a result of their lack of official nationality. Arguably the biggest of the problems is a lack of legal documents. Without official papers and records, certain freedoms and rights are limited or even unobtainable, such as public education, healthcare, employment, marriage and many other rights. By not having access to those rights, stateless people are pushed into worse living conditions. This can lead to governments abusing their power over their stateless populations, causing or continuing the oppression of those people and trapping them in an inescapable loop of statelessness. 

One of the most prominent examples of widespread statelessness can be seen among the people of Kurdistan, an unofficial nation split across Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria. Some Kurds, like the ones in Syria, are de jure stateless and possess no citizenship in the country despite being born within its borders. In comparison, Kurds in Turkey are more often de facto stateless – in other words, they have Turkish citizenship but are still treated as if they do not. In stark contrast to Syria and Turkey, the Kurdish people in Iran and Iraq are typically treated as Iranian and Iraqi citizens and therefore have access to state privileges like international travel and are not considered stateless. Another important thing to note about the issue of statelessness is that although being stateless and being undocumented are technically different things, they present similar challenges. As such, solving just one of these two global issues could lead to breakthroughs in the other. 

Statelessness is a massive problem with no clear solution. In 2014, the UNHCR announced its #IBelong campaign, setting the goal to eradicate statelessness by 2024. Despite this sounding like a nearly impossible task, given that 3.5 million people out of an estimated 10 million stateless people were actually recorded stateless at the beginning of the initiative, the UNHCR established smaller, more tangible and realistic goals to see the initiative through. These goals, or “actions” (as titled by the UNHRC), mainly focused on taking steps to stabilize at-risk populations, such as women and minority ethnic groups, as well as lowering the risk associated with adopting or changing nationalities through obtaining legal documents. The #IBelong campaign also tackles some of the Sustainable Development Goals, specifically numbers five, ten, 16 and 17, which span issues from gender equality to strong institutions, further demonstrating how multifaceted the issue of statelessness really is.  

The #IBelong campaign is also unique in that it complements the work of other UN bodies and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), leading to greater international collaboration. The United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has been one of the strongest contributors to the campaign, working specifically to resolve the issue of statelessness due to its impact on children. One key example of UNHCR/UNICEF collaboration on the project involved the Royal Thai Government. In its direct endorsement of the #IBelong campaign, Thailand has vouched to establish jus soli for babies while also creating new pathways to grant both stateless adults and children citizenship. Through gaining Thai citizenship, formerly stateless people will gain the ability to access education, national protection and other services offered by the government. In the nine years that Thailand has been committed to the campaign, over 63,000 registered stateless people have obtained citizenship. In addition, the UNHCR, alongside the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA), helped over 50,000 stateless people gain assistance in Thailand. The original relationship established between the UNHCR and UNICEF through the #IBelong campaign has led to a more permanent partnership via the UNICEF-UNHCR Strategic Collaboration Framework, a framework to eliminate childhood statelessness by 2030. 

Despite over 66 countries and 32 international organizations pledging their dedication to make statelessness a problem of the past, the UNHCR has yet to reach its 2024 goal for the #IBelong campaign. The responsibility for this failure rests not only with the UNHCR but also with the states whose genuine participation in the program could have made the #IBelong campaign more successful. Currently, only 34% of all UN-recognized states have made pledges to participate in the #IBelong campaign; however, with greater international support, more people could potentially obtain official citizenship, or at least be officially recorded as stateless. 

Although this decade-long promise has yet to fully come to fruition, massive progress has already been made toward eliminating statelessness for good. Aside from the direct progress made by working with states and NGOs, other more subtle improvements have been made to reduce and reverse aspects of statelessness. Improved data regarding stateless people has become available during the past decade, allowing for more accurate statistics and planning. A greater number of campaign partners within the UN bodies has also helped bolster the project, as resources can be more easily pooled between a greater number of members, which, in turn, helps to increase global awareness about the issue at a faster pace. Additionally, one of the most important successes of the #IBelong campaign has arguably been the outreach generated by the project, which has helped to ensure that more people are even aware of the problem. Individual actions can help generate policy changes in more resistant countries, such as China and Brazil, from the bottom up, thereby further helping the UNHCR to gather more resources via an expanded support network. 

Through the work of the #IBelong campaign, the UNHCR established a foundation for resolving statelessness, allowing for the creation of additional campaigns, projects and laws to further the cause. UNICEF-UNHCR Strategic Collaboration Framework and other partnerships represent an important step towards a more permanent effort to resolve statelessness, working in tandem with the UN Sustainable Development Goals to create that future. Although it did not fully accomplish its goals by 2024, hopefully, the spirit of the #IBelong campaign will continue to live on so that someday statelessness will be permanently eradicated.

The post #IBelong: The Decade Long Battle Against Statelessness appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The challenge in question? China. 

Although the United States maintains global dominance, the rise of China as an economic and military superpower is quickly creeping up on the rules-based world order the West so meticulously constructed after World War II. Regarding a 2022 report that characterized China as “the most consequential and systemic challenge to our national security and to a free and open international system,” a senior U.S. Defense Department official confirmed that “Xi Jinping and the PRC leadership are determined that the armed forces should take a more active role in advancing the PRC’s foreign policy goals globally.” As such, China has been able to channel its economic prowess into military spending. In 2023, for instance, Beijing marked a 7.2% increase in planned defense spending.

However, it is not only China’s hard power that should concern the United States and its allies — for China’s investments in global soft power have come to rival, and in some ways supersede, that of the United States. With the Chinese threat looming on the horizon, Beijing’s increasingly ambitious use of soft power to achieve global hegemony poses a greater threat to U.S. interests than ever before. 

Nowhere is this more apparent than in the case of China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Of all of China’s economic undertakings — with diplomatic undertones — abroad, the BRI is perhaps the largest, most comprehensive and most ambitious. 

Launched in 2013, the BRI is a massive global infrastructure project led by China aiming to connect East Asia with Europe through physical infrastructure, through development and investment initiatives in 149 countries (accounting for two-thirds of the world’s population and 40 percent of global GDP). The initiative could entail up to $1 trillion in Chinese investments globally — seven times more than what the United States spent under the Marshall plan. Since its original conception, it has expanded to involve Africa, Oceania and Latin America, where China is increasingly upping its global presence through soft power engagement. 

On the one hand, the BRI offers economic benefits to China, including the expansion of international use of the Chinese renminbi currency, increased economic development of its neglected westernmost regions (e.g. finding energy routes through the Xinjiang province that the United States cannot disrupt) and a restructuring of the Chinese economy to avoid the middle-income trap. More importantly, however, the BRI is an effective ploy to increase Chinese influence globally through economic soft power. The Council of Foreign Affairs, for instance, describes China’s global ambitions with BRI as “staggering,” adding that “for Xi, the BRI serves as pushback against the much-touted U.S. ‘pivot to Asia.’” 

Critics say the BRI is a Trojan horse to give China a physical foothold in key regions, creating a “debt trap” for the developing world and thereby increasing China’s diplomatic leverage. 

And the critics are probably right.

Since BRI’s launch in 2013, overall debt to China has skyrocketed, exceeding 20% of some countries’ GDP. To date, BRI accounts for 37% of low income countries’ debt at a whopping $13.1 billion and over 50% of all debt owed by poor countries to official creditors. 

Moreover, lack of transparency and China’s requirement that participating countries use Chinese firms paint the red flag a deeper shade of crimson than it initially appeared. For instance, in Ghana and Zambia, Chinese BRI loans led to sovereign default, and in Malaysia, suspicions around former Prime Minister Mahathir bin Mohamad’s sudden shift from being expressly opposed to the BRI toward later announcing his “full support” add to suspicions around Beijing’s true motives. To this point, China refused an invitation to join the Paris Club countries, which promote transparency about foreign debt owed to them. 

The bottom line is that for China, the BRI is inherently political — and many countries in the developing world are now paying the price. For some, that price has been paid in installments of their sovereignty, slowly chipped away by Beijing. 

Arguably, the United States has made rivaling, and in many cases, exceeding, economic investments in regions where China’s BRI has penetrated. However, U.S. economic aid often comes in the form of grants and humanitarian aid — i.e. with strings attached. Many countries, especially those ruled by authoritarian regimes, prefer incurring debt to China, which has an explicit policy of non-intervention in other countries’ domestic affairs, rather than meeting U.S. criteria (such as enforcing free and fair elections, anti-corruption measures, human rights promotion, etc.) to accept U.S. aid. 

China also exclusively recognizes states as the only beneficiary of its aid, while the United States works with NGOs, institutions and governments that share its values — making China’s offer much more attractive to authoritarian regimes unwilling to cede power to democracy.

Moreover, many of China’s other efforts to exert soft power globally are in the same vein as the BRI. For instance, in 2022 China proposed the Global Development Initiative and the Global Security Initiative, relatively vague international proposals that were joined by 60 partners and endorsed by 80 countries, respectively. Others include the Security Framework Agreement with the Solomon Islands, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership comprising of 15 Asia-Pacific country members and the Shanghai Economic Cooperation Organisation (SCO) comprising of 24 member states and affiliates, including major rivals like India and Pakistan and Armenia and Azerbaijan — paving the way for future potential diplomatic mediation leverage for Beijing.

All of these initiatives seem to share a common goal: to build a post-Western international order where Chinese hegemony reigns supreme. However, many of their successes seem surface-level, at best. Some might argue that considering its massive scale and budget, the BRI has fallen short of its expectations when it comes to tangible outcomes. Since 2013, many of the BRI’s targets have not come to fruition and Beijing’s plan stands to crumble entirely if not properly executed. 

If this is the case, why should the BRI pose any real threat to U.S. hegemony?

In truth, it does not. No amount of soft power in the short-run can propel China to the heights the United States has achieved through decades of diplomacy, forged alliances and established global legitimacy.

What does matter here is Beijing’s ambition — and more specifically, the sheer gall and scale of it. The BRI is not a threat because of what it is, but rather what it represents: a Chinese commitment to laying the foundations for an international world order post-U.S. hegemony. 

While China prepares for the day after (U.S. hegemony falls, that is), the United States must remain proactive in its efforts to prevent such a day from coming. Whether that means strengthening its ties with key allies like South Korea and Japan, or finally crafting a more precise East Asian economic policy, one thing is clear: the status quo spells danger for Washington. 

And unless the United States can meet China’s soft power challenge with exponential ferocity, the roots that take hold will be much harder to weed out in the future.

The post The Threat of China’s Belt and Road Initiative Isn’t What We Think It Is appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

In May 2023, Turkey began a large-scale humanitarian project in the Idlib and Aleppo governorates of Syria pledging the construction of about a quarter million housing units, commercial facilities, industrial areas, farming plots, schools and hospitals, spearheaded by President Recep Erdoğan and supported by the Qatar Fund for Development. The housing project pushed refugees displaced into Turkey to begin relocating back to their motherland, specifically to the 30km swathe of land along the northern Syrian–Turkish border created by Turkey to function as a demilitarized area known as the “safe zone.” The target amount of 240,000 permanent housing units is set to be finished by 2025, with 1 million refugees expected to be repatriated into Syria. In addition to this new program, Turkey has already built 75,000 25-square-meter briquette homes in Idlib and 107,000 in Aleppo within the past two years, housing over 6 million Syrians.

The new project is operating under the slogan “safe, voluntary and [honorable]returns,” and is most likely a result of the “temporary protected” status for Syrians which grants refuge that is temporary and thus volatile. According to Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu, “there is a serious demand for a voluntary and dignified return to this safe area.”

While Soylu has labeled this repatriation scheme “the most honorable project the human history will talk about” and “an exemplary step for the whole world, showing how humanitarian aid transforms into development in a region,” many have been skeptical of Turkey’s true intentions. 

The validity of this “serious demand” expressed by Soylu has been contested by a myriad of international sources including the UNHCR, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (HRW). The UNHCR reported in 2023 that although over half of Syrian refugees hope to return one day, a mere 1.1% planned to do so within the next year. 

In 2019, the Turkish government began forcibly deporting refugees back to Idlib, an area marred with violence. Police scoured public areas and raided apartments, searching for Syrians with and without temporary protection cards. While Turkey insisted its actions were legal, Turkish and international law — under the principle of non-refoulement — prohibit forced deportation to active war zones under any circumstances “irrespective of migration status.” 

While in custody, Turkish officials coerced detained Syrian refugees to sign statements expressing their desire to repatriate, under the threat of imprisonment. If able to re-enter Turkey, deported refugees who did have Turkish identification documents found their validity had been canceled. Whether or not the zone is actually safe is also a matter of contention, with major international organizations including HRW condemning the Turkish safe zone as “anything but,” describing it as “woefully misguided,” “dangerous” and “bound to fail.”

Many are concerned that the safe zone simply is not safe, as it is rife with violence. With 12,000 ISIS fighters imprisoned in the safe zone’s easternmost governorate of Al-Hasakah, the area is a prime target for rebel groups and armed uprisings — such as the 2022 ISIS prison break, the “most significant” assault since its inception. 

Additionally, safe zones as a concept have been notoriously counterintuitive. According to HRW, militants are known to take advantage of safe zones, intermingling with civilians to attempt to avoid retaliation, turning the area into a “valid military target.” Additionally, safe zones are lucrative sources of humanitarian aid, which combatants can easily steal. They also serve as ripe recruiting grounds for extremist organizations.  

President Erdoğan is managing a two-level political game, juggling both domestic and international concerns. Regardless of these criticisms, free housing and resources are not entirely negative endeavors. Erdoğan is incentivizing Syrians to act in a way beneficial to their long-term development — taking advantage of resources that will ultimately lead to a sense of stability and safety —– and furthering his domestic and international agendas. 

Regarding Turkish domestic politics, Erdoğan established this plan in the midst of the country’s 2023 presidential elections. His opponent Kemal Kilicdaroglu campaigned on a platform of sending “all the refugees home,” reflecting popular anti-refugee sentiment, so a similar message was necessary on Erdoğan’s behalf if he wanted to compete with Kilicdaroglu. Instead of publicly forcing refugees to return home, he attempted to bolster both his domestic image as a stern advocate for Turkish nationalism and international image as a humanitarian by proposing the free housing solution instead. 

In addition to improving his international reputation, his building schemes solidified the establishment of the “safe zone,” as Turkish building projects bolster Turkish influence in the region. This move also supports Turkish imperial interests and the rise in pan-Turkism, a growing nationalist ideology that “emphasizes the common ethnic, cultural, and linguistic roots of Turkic peoples living across Eurasia,” regardless of Turkish nationality. 

Before the inception of the new project, the Syrian government issued a statement in 2022 “[rejecting]these plans” and labeling them as “criminal projects.” Although the Syrian government is viewed as highly corrupt and not necessarily concerned with the best interests of the Syrian people, it is worth noting their stern opposition to the plan. Echoing concerns from the international community, Syria declared, in relation to the housing project, that “the main objective is colonialism.” Considering that Turkey has maintained a violent occupation of northern Syria since 2016, fears of continued land-grabs are not unfounded.  

Whether or not Syrians would repatriate into Syria without the force of the Turkish government or the incentive of free housing is unclear, but it is safe to say that the temporary safe place provides respite for the refugees, especially since the Syrian war persists, with rebel group strongholds as prevalent as ever. Thus, while the housing project is a potential positive step in Syrian repatriation, it is not unreasonable to scrutinize Turkey’s questionable underlying motives and reexamine the actual benefits of safe zones. 

The post Turkey’s Humanitarian Project in Syria Raises Questions of Ulterior Imperialistic Motives appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, it is not an isolated event. Over the past twenty years, Russia has participated in what has become known as passportization platforms in Georgia and Ukraine, fast-tracking or issuing Russian passports to breakaway regions to increase presence and political pull in areas of interest. In fact, on April 24, 2019, just four years before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Putin signed a decree expediting Russian passport citizenship procedures for Ukrainians living in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions.

What Russia’s actions demonstrate on a broader scale is that passports have become powerful tools in international relations, thereby influencing not only the movement but also the benefits, identities and rights of individuals. Sometimes, passports have even demarcated who is allowed to leave active warzones, with early evacuation out of the Gaza Strip into Egypt segmented by citizenship, and only foreign or dual passport holders allowed to make the Rafah crossing. How society has gotten to this point, and the mechanisms in which passport and citizenship processes have been abused and complicated over the past decades, open conversation regarding the history and present status of these travel documents. 

A Brief History of the Passport

The creation of the contemporary passport system is often attributed to the aftermath of World War I, where after mass refugee displacements, an international effort by the League of Nations began implementing protocols for organized state recognition and travel.

Yet, there is evidence that nations have been trying to classify and control individuals’ movements for much longer. Reports have been discovered of ancient China as early as the 3rd century BCE employing a check-point system of wood-written documents called zhuan to determine who was allowed in or out of the country’s borders. Early attempts illustrate that the policy of inclusion and exclusion regarding citizenship and the state has proved pivotal to the creation of travel documents, in whichever form, to confirm ones belonging to a particular political entity. 

Golden Passport and Visa Programs

Since then, exactly who is allowed to receive documentation has become an extremely contentious topic. Over the past three years, Europe in particular has been cracking down on what are known as “golden passports” or “golden visas,” investment programs providing official documents to foreigners who invest a set amount into a country’s economy. These programs were created to ease national financial burdens and promote foreign contributions to housing, cultural or scientific exploits and financial funds. 

However, several programs were critiqued and shut down after claims of corruption and security concerns. For instance, Cyprus ended its golden passport program after an investigation accused several government officials of approving passports to ineligible applicants with prior criminal records. Furthermore, earlier this year in Jan 2024, Portugal also announced it would be revising the rules for its golden visas after pressure from the European Commission to shut down financial investment document programs altogether. 

The aim of many of these initiatives was to incentivize foreign direct investment in domestic economic sectors, and according to the London School of Economics, they have, in part, been successful, with the predominant market for the programs coming from China, the Middle East and Russia. Nevertheless, what makes these programs controversial is their inherent access inequality, allowing wealthy individuals greater possibilities and loopholes to earn citizenship benefits.

Freedom of movement has long dictated and been a prominent discussion regarding migration practices, and golden visas create a fast track for the wealthy to gain an ulterior advantage. Furthermore, without proper bureaucratic and accountability measures, abuse of golden passport and visa programs remains a prominent concern regardless of the economic benefit. 

Citizenship Requirements and “Birth-Tourism”

In addition to golden passport programs, arguments over how citizenship is granted in the first place returned to the domestic mainstream after presidential candidate Donald Trump recently re-proposed revising the United States’ birthright citizenship structure, which, under the Constitution, grants everyone born on U.S. soil automatic national citizenship. Trump’s suggestions came after a conservative push to deny children of immigrants entering the United States illegally American citizenship. 

The United States’ current birthright citizenship structure retains much of its history in the aftermath of the Civil War, where, to prevent the creation of citizenship classes following the abolition of slavery, the 14th Amendment ensured that anyone born on U.S. territory would be entitled to citizenship benefits. From that point on, challenges to this system have often been presented in relation to immigration practices. Yet, the 1898 Supreme Court Case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark protected and upheld that children of immigrants born on U.S. soil are entitled to American citizenship under the 14th Amendment. Wong Kim Ark was brought before the Supreme Court during the period when the Chinese Exclusion Act denied citizenship to Chinese immigrants to the United States, illustrating the ways the United States’ own naturalization platforms over citizenship have historically been racially motivated and restrictive.

Now, the United States is not alone in granting birthright citizenship. However, countries around the world differ in their primary citizenship requirements. For instance, many European countries operate under the “right of the blood,” with citizenship tied to that of the parent, regardless of where somebody is initially born. 

In December 2020, the Trump administration also passed new visa rules to target the practice of what has become referred to as “birth tourism,” or pregnant women giving birth abroad to provide their children additional citizenship. The new visa rules limit the granting of B-non-immigrant visas unless the applicant in question proves medical reasons for the visit and reports proof of payment, a policy that has remained under the Biden administration. 

Passport Fees and Economic Barriers

Globalization and increased mechanisms for transportation and travel have also led to what has been characterized as the “commodification” of passports. In the 2010s, during the Syrian refugee crisis, the underground economy for passports soared, and the Syrian government faced backlash for increasing passport prices to over $400 in 2014 with the aim of increasing government income. 

Syria’s policy illustrates how passports are used as money-making schemes, both through legal and illegal channels. In the modern era, passports are the cornerstone dictating movement between states, which has opened the door for individuals to take advantage of those in need of travel documentation to immigrate or leave their country of origin. Passport fees have become tools for governments to restrict emigration. For instance, in 2022, it was reported that a Lebanese passport valid for 10 years cost approximately 10,000,000 L.L., or $663. 

The nature of the passport system is inherently hierarchical, and provides citizens of developed nations clear mobility privileges, giving them access to most countries Visa-free. Despite being initially created as a standardized identification system, passports, and their subsequent citizenship promises, have become political and economic leverage tools for countries and groups around the globe. Policy debates over citizenship requirements, Russia’s passportization and golden visa programs highlight the need for caution when looking at passports’ evolution in domestic and international relations. 

Following 9/11, travel, visa and passport processes have become more stringent to prioritize national security. However, recent global developments evidence discussions of passport arrangements that must balance security concerns while keeping in mind the ways passports are equipped as dividers and captors of movement. 

The post The Passport Dilemma: How Citizenship and Travel Documents Have Re-Structured International Affairs appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

With housing prices continuing to climb, fewer people can and will have access to affordable housing. This spurs a snowball effect—forcing individuals to be evicted or unable to become homeowners in the first place. The latest update at the end of 2022 has shown that more than 1.8 billion people do not have a permanent home. The United States is short of 6.5 million homes that are necessary to solve its homelessness crisis. In comparison, the United Kingdom needs 4.3 million homes to recoup the backlog of people living in public housing facilities.

There are multiple variables that affect the fluctuation of prices of the housing markets in the United Kingdom, United States and Europe. However, the most critical factor is the demand for homes on the market today. With there being a surplus of buyers and shortage of houses, this triggers house prices to become and remain high. However, this fact is much more complex than it appears. It is a toxic combination of high mortgages, high interest rates, shortage of skillful construction workers, and in some cases, poor investment decisions. High housing prices have been evident since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now future homeowners are facing a taxing increase in the popular 30-year fixed or amortized mortgage rate, which sits at 8% – the highest in decades.

Sheila Bair, who served as a federal regulator in the mid-2000’s during the 2008 housing crisis, claims that current housing prices seem to be “bubbly,”as the rise in prices reaches unsustainable levels. A housing bubble occurs when prices of homes reach unsustainable (high) levels,  often caused due to speculative buying. This buying frenzy, or irrational buying habit of homeowners, leads to a surge in prices that increases the chance of owners defaulting on their mortgages. Which is when homeowners are unable to pay their monthly house payments. When the bubble has “popped,”  housing prices drop to a point where many people owe more to their home than what it is actually worth. Bair is confident that although housing prices need to be corrected downward, it will not happen anytime soon. The shortage of homes will likely keep housing prices at their current price or potentially higher for the next 10 years.

In China, however, compared to the United States and Europe, it is somewhat of the opposite. Its largest property developer, Country Garden, is undergoing difficult times as they have difficulty selling their housing to investors and homebuyers. Years of overbuilding in China’s rural cities such as Shaoguan, have caused an oversupply of homes that Country Garden is unable to sell. Involved in 3000 property projects, the company faces approximately $186 billion USD in liabilities, most of which are due in one to two years. As news unfolded that the company was having trouble repaying its debt, people started to lose confidence in viewing houses as a safe investment. Chinese authorities are now attempting to boost housing sales by making it easier for people to buy homes, including first-time homeowners, and lowering down payment ratios. This may be a concern to real estate professionals as it shows a repeat of what first triggered the 2008 financial crisis in the United States. With growing fears about China’s troubled real estate market, this is a significant concern as foreign investments from East Asia, Southeast Asia and the United States may face the repercussions and losses if China’s real estate market continues to go downhill. While we might see a slowdown in the housing market, analysts and professionals suggest no housing crash in the next 10 years. Instead, a potential rise in prices is what we are expecting to see. As economic uncertainty and troubled assets are a concern for the health of the global economy, the solution to this housing crisis is ambiguous. Whether we should soften interest rates and down payments for homes in China or rely on Gen Z workers to develop construction skills in the United States and the United Kingdom, the future remains unpredictable.

The post Global Housing Crisis: A Closer Look at the US, China and UK appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

At present, journalists’ protection is categorized under the safeguarding of civilians and their assets under humanitarian law. The media is not viewed as a military entity unless specific situations arise. Essentially, no unique statutes are set for journalists or their equipment. However, they receive general protection intended for civilians and their belongings. Humanitarian law differentiates between two categories of journalists in war zones: “independent journalists” and those affiliated with armed forces. As defined by the Dictionnaire de droit international public, war correspondents are “specialized media professionals who, under the authorization and protection of a warring party’s military, report from conflict regions to relay information about the ongoing hostilities.” 

Regrettably, war correspondents are ambiguously classified as “persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof.” Since they aren’t directly affiliated with the armed forces, they receive general protections as civilians. But due to their association with the military endeavors, they are accorded prisoner-of-war status if captured by the opposition, provided they had proper authorization to be with the armed forces.

Participants of the Diplomatic Conference held in Geneva from 1974 to 1977 felt that they had to include a special provision on the “measures of protection for journalists” in Protocol I to supplement Article 4 (A) (4) of the Third Geneva Convention. Article 79 was the resulting provision, and it didn’t change the regime applicable to war correspondents. Article 79 formally states that journalists who are engaged in dangerous professional missions in zones of armed conflict fall into the category of civilians within the meaning of Article 50 (1). In times of being arrested or captured, journalists are automatically granted the full scope of protection under humanitarian law. The truth of the matter is that the framers of protocol I did not wish to create a special status for journalists, because “any increase in the number of persons with a special status, necessarily accompanied by an increase in protective signs, tends to weaken the protective value of each protected status already accepted.” The identity card of Article 79 (3) does not form a new status for media personnel but rather “attests to his status as a journalist.” 

There’s a lot of ambiguity surrounding the status of “embedded” journalists, those who accompany military troops during wartime. It is important to note that embedment is not a new phenomenon — what’s new is that it has been increasingly popular in practice since the 2003 conflict in Iraq. Journalists were assigned to British and American combat units, and they would agree on a set of conditions which obliged them to stick with these units. This ultimately ensured their protection, and they’d fall under the category of war correspondents mentioned in the Third Geneva Convention. 

Furthermore, the way bodyguards surround “unilateral” journalists can have dangerous consequences for all in the profession. On April 13, 2003, in Tikrit in northern Iraq, the private security escort of a CNN crew responded with an automatic weapon after the convoy was faced with fire at the entrance of the town. 

This type of behavior concerns many journalists who believe it is contrary to rules and beliefs of the profession. Reporters without Borders (RSF) secretary-general, Robert Menard, said “Such a practice sets a dangerous precedent that could jeopardize all other journalists covering this war as well as others in the future.” 

“There is a real risk that combatants will henceforth assume that all press vehicles are armed,” he added. “Journalists can and must try to protect themselves by such methods as traveling in bulletproof vehicles and wearing bulletproof vests but employing private security firms that do not hesitate to use their firearms just increases the confusion between reporters and combatants.”

When a journalist takes direct part in the hostilities, they become a legitimate target during combat and loses their immunity. They recover their right to protection against the consequences of hostilities only if they ceases to do so. Under articles 51.3 and 79.2 of protocol I, media personnel are guaranteed protection provided they do not take direct part of the hostilities. 

Television and radio facilities enjoy general protection since they are civilian objects. Attacking civilian objects was prohibited in the beginning of the twentieth century and was reaffirmed in the statute of the international criminal court and Protocol I of 1977. Article 48 of Protocol I follows the twofold obligation where there must be a clear distinction made between military objectives and civilian objects. Nonetheless, it is a war crime to attack certain objects to which special protection is afforded, i.e., places of worship, works of art, historic monuments, demilitarized zones, non-defended localities, installations and works containing dangerous forces, etc. Furthermore, Protocol II grants only certain objects protection – not general protection to civilian objects. These are objects of specific importance to civilians and under its provisions, are entitled to special protection, like cultural objects, objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, transports and medical units, etc.

The immunity enjoyed by civilian objects and protected objects thereof are not absolute and such immunity is lost if they’re used for hostile purposes. Civilian objects such as buildings, vehicles, aircrafts or ships that contain military supplies, equipment or personnel or that in any way make a major contribution to the war effort constitute to be legitimate targets – incompatible with their status. For example, if the facilities of the RTS building in Belgrade were really being used as transmitters by the military and radio relay stations by the special forces and military of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, the review committee set up by the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) had probable cause to conclude that they constituted legitimate military targets for NATO.

Belligerents must take greater precaution when an object is used for dual purposes. International law requires that attacks be strictly limited to “military objectives” but there are loopholes one might take during formal discussions. The doctrine has now replaced “total war” with “limited war” which has paved the path for greatly reducing the category of “military objectives” which are still extremely numerous. According to the ICRC, the 1954 Hague Convention for the protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict and the above-mentioned doctrine, television and radio facilities may, under certain conditions, be permitted to be included amongst them. In today’s digitized culture, dual military and civilian use is often made of resources and goods which are not without consequences in terms of protection. On November 12, 2002, if the building of the Al-Jazeera television network in Kabul really did shelter offices belonging to Al Qaeda operatives and Taliban forces, then it was a legitimate target for bombing. It is fair to conclude that the spirit of Protocol I is reflected in this instance: it is lawful to attack objects which might be put to dual use if the conditions of Article 5 (2) of protocol I are met.

There are various obligations one must take, according to international humanitarian law, when launching attacks that could affect news media and journalists. The lawfulness of an attack depends not only on the circumstances and nature of the target, but also whether the required precautions to minimize civilian loss have been taken, especially regarding respect for the principle of proportionality and the responsibility to give warning beforehand. In this regard, news media and journalists do not enjoy special statues but benefit from the general protection civilians have according to Protocol I during times of hostilities.

It was in 1977 that the principle of proportionality was enshrined upon, particularly in Articles 51 (5) (b) and 57 (2) (a) (iii) of Protocol I. The objective of this principle is to reduce as much “collateral damage” caused by military operations as possible. It provides us with a criterion on which to look back to when determining to what degree such damage can be justified under international humanitarian law: there must be a reasonable correlation between undesirable collateral effects and legitimate destruction. According to the principle of proportionality, the accidental collateral effects of the attack – the accidental harm done to protected property and persons, must be proportionate with the anticipated military advantage.

Article 57 (2) (c) of Protocol I stipulates that “effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit”. The key words here are “effective advance warning.” Doswald-Beck, deputy head of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Legal Division, suggests that “common sense must be used in deciding whether and how to give warning, and the safety of the attacker will inevitably be taken into account”. In 1987, lieutenant colonel Burrus M. Carnaham, voiced his opinion that the duty to give a warning was customary in character. This opinio juris is confirmed by its implementation by several states in internal and international armed conflicts. Even if NATO argued that it had “made every possible effort to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage” when bombing the RTS building, there were doubts about whether it had fulfilled its obligation to warn the civilians beforehand. In a similar light, when the United States bombed the Al-Jazeera and Abu Dhabi television networks in Baghdad on April 8, 2003, it seemed that there were no advance warnings given ahead of the attacks to the journalists. That day, one journalist died and another was wounded.

One of the many flaws current instruments have is the laws and statutes regarding the protection of journalists which are scattered everywhere ranging from the Geneva Convention to UN declarations. We need to set a sturdy declaration specifically dedicated to journalists- with the hazards they face, they deserve this privilege. The International Declaration on the Protection of Journalists has become an instrument uniting journalists and organizations from around the world with the sole purpose of protecting media personnel and their equipment. 

Empirical findings reveal that threats are a commonplace amongst the media personnel community around the world. Many of these threats, particularly in South America and Africa, end up fatal. For example, in January 2022, a well-known reporter Maria de Lourdes Maldonado Lopez knew people wanted her dead. So, she applied for the $23 million a year government-funded program where well-known journalists with probable cause receive full-time bodyguards, at-home panic buttons, anti ballistic gear and surveillance cameras. In some cases, the government relocates the journalists. However, it is not always enough. Lopez was killed in front of her home. Another journalist, Martinez Esquivel, was killed outside his residence that same month. These journalists work with whatever faulty aid they can receive by their national government and still end up dying. This is when we as the international community should come in and serve as a beacon of hope. The IDPJ should stress the importance of avoiding threats as that’s the first step to avoiding fatality. A separate provision should be added specifically dedicated to threats and intimidation; the deed itself, whether done by technology, a third person, or confrontation, should be outlawed and severe repercussions should be taken place. 

Item (8) of the IDPJ states that media institutions “should allocate an appropriate portion of their budget to…each according to its resources”. A revision should be done on this vague provision where media organizations are requested to set aside a minimum of five percent of their revenue from wartime journalism only to invest in media personnel protection. This provision should specifically mention revenue from wartime journalism and not general because different organizations divide up their wartime journalism according to their preferences.Companies like CNN or BBC should allocate more money to international wartime journalism compared to ABC or Fox news who generally focus on domestic issues.

Shield laws are legislations which have been created to protect reporters’ privilege. This privilege gives reporters the right to refuse to testify during compelled disclosure of any confidential information. Currently, the United States, Australia, New Zealand and a handful of European countries i.e., U.K, France, Belgium, Norway, Germany and Austria, are active in protecting reporter privilege. However, there are no U.S. federal shield law statutes. Mississippi, for example, does not hold any shield laws. The IDPJ should implement a new segment where shield laws are reinforced on an international level. There are no borders when it comes to  kidnapping and murdering journalists for information extraction. There have also been many hostages by terrorist organizations where journalists were thought to be “western spies” or were held as subjects of blackmail. 

The IDPJ should also specify what type of media personnel can claim protection under its provisions. The more precise the declaration is, the less leeway there will be for bellicosity. Independent journalists and freelancers are undoubtedly to be included since they are the main feeders of information to our newspapers, internet-based publications, television, and any media thereof. The same cannot be ruled for war correspondents. Although their jobs bring them to the most war-ridden places of the world and is believed to be the most dangerous form of journalism, “embedded journalists” do not get to collectively claim protection under this provision unless the state they signed with is a signatory of the IDPJ. Only 70 countries are signatories of this declaration. The same provision applies to any other document constructed by other entities. Because their contract is between the state and them as private individuals, nobody can hold the state liable – unless they publicly recognize and ratify the declaration. 

The proposed declaration should be signed through multilateral efforts. It would be rational to get superpowers on the wagon first and then strategically invite others with questionable history in war time conduct.

The biggest deficiency is not the lack of rules available, but a failure to implement them and systematically punish, prosecute and investigate violations.

To conclude, journalists and their equipment both enjoy immunity, the former as civilians, and the latter because of the general protection international law grants civilian objects during wartime. Unfortunately, this immunity is not absolute. Journalists are protected so long they don’t take direct part in the hostilities. News media personnel, even when partaking in propaganda efforts, enjoy immunity, unless they are employed for military purposes or to incite war crimes, acts of violence, or genocide. As a result of the many flaws current instruments retain, I’ve proposed alterations to the IDPJ. Changes include, but are not limited to, the explicit insertion of reporter’s privilege, appropriate budgeting towards journalists’ protection and the definite prohibition of threats. Regardless of who you are or where you come from, the protection of journalists is in everyone’s best interest as they are the embodiment of truth and transparency in an everlasting world of constant dissension.

The post Protecting the Fourth Estate: Enhancing Security Measures for Journalists During International Armed Conflict appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.