The leader who has emerged in the months since the fall has been Ahmed al-Sharaa, a military commander who led the rebellion against Assad and former al-Qaeda member. His role in al-Qaeda is something that has raised concern on a global stage, though Sharaa cut ties with the group in 2016. The United States has designated Sharaa, previously known as Abu Mohammed al-Golani, as a terrorist when, in 2011, he established a new Syrian branch of al-Qaeda called the Nusra Front. Sharaa refused to bring the Nusra Front into ISIS in 2013 and, in 2016, the group was renamed to Jabhat Fateh al-Sham and broke off from al-Qaeda. Sharaa’s newest insurgent front is named Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and is ultimately the group that toppled the Assad regime.

In 2013, while still maintaining ties with al-Qaeda, Sharaa named his intent for Syria to exist as a fundamentalist Islamic state, stating that religious minorities would have no room in the country. Since then, however, Sharaa has appeared to pull back from this intent, announcing in 2015 that he does not wish to target religious minorities or to create conflict with Europe or the United States. In 2023 and 2024, Sharaa showed little understanding for dissenters and was not known to show mercy. Although this may bear similarity to the Assad regime, HTS has shown far less suppression of those with differing beliefs and Sharaa has since maintained his commitment to a freer Syria. With the signing of a new transitional Constitution, Sharaa remains committed to the freedoms of expression and media and remains steadfast in his commitment to a unified Syria.

In a 2021 interview with PBS, Sharaa spoke with a U.S. news outlet for the first time. Here, he re-emphasized that he does not wish to infringe upon the security of Europe and America and criticized his designation as a terrorist, asking, “Terrorism, how do you define it? Today, every country has a terrorism list. Any person or party that the country claims is opposing it is automatically added to the terrorism list.” Sharaa also urged people to ask the question of why people join al-Qaeda and to understand how U.S. policy has driven many to join al-Qaeda. Despite al-Qaeda’s attacks on civilians, such as those on 9/11, Sharaa claims that he does not, and never has, supported external attacks on civilians and that he has never killed an innocent person in one of his operations.

Regarding Sharaa’s plans for Syria’s future, he has highlighted the need for unity and democracy within the country. Sharaa has been named as Syria’s transitional president and HTS has also declared that the Constitution will be repealed and the army and parliament will both be terminated. HTS seems to be planning a complete upheaval of the existing Syrian government and Sharaa has announced his intention to create a constitution for this transition period and to hold a national dialogue conference to discuss the future of Syria. 

As a result of the Syrian civil war, which began in 2011, parts of Syria have been controlled by various militia groups. This civil war began with Assad’s crackdown on pro-democracy protests and did not end until the regime was overthrown. Sharaa has announced that all rebel militia groups will be absorbed into the government and that, to promote unity, all guns held by non-state actors should be surrendered to the new government. Regardless of whether Sharaa’s intentions are in earnest, this will likely be a difficult endeavor and possibly one that will never occur. After 53 years under the iron fist of the Assad regime, Syrians are their militia groups have faced constant terror and threat from their government and can be expected to be distrustful of a future government, especially one led by a former al-Qaeda member and a man who advocated for a fundamentalist Islamic rule. 

Due to the 14-year civil war, it has been incredibly difficult to obtain accurate data about Syria’s population statistics. The numbers vary by source, but it is estimated that Syria’s population is 70% Sunni Muslim, 10% Alawite and 3% Shi’a with a variety of other religious minorities, primarily Christian denominations.Sharaa is a Sunni Muslim, something that has worried many Syrians and even caused some Shi’a Muslims to flee the country for fear that Sharaa will lead religious persecution efforts. Conflicts between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims have defined much of the recent history of the Middle East and it remains to be seen how tensions between the two will play a role in Syria’s future.

Throughout early March 2025, the Alawites, a religious minority in Syria, have experienced a surge in violence against them. This has been a fear among Alawites since the overthrow of Assad as the Alawites have been politically dominant throughout the entirety of the Assad regime. Bashar al-Assad, along with his father, was an Alawate and installed Alawite leaders in his regime, suppressing other religious groups. Because of this, Alawites are often viewed as more sympathetic to the Assad regime. On Mar. 6, 2025, on the coast of Syria, a group of Assad loyalists attacked, killing hundreds of civilians and security forces. Security forces then provided a defense against these pro-Assad fighters. A number of unknown fighters then came in, killing Alawites in, presumably, a retaliatory action. As of Mar. 17, 2025, the Syrian Network for Human Rights (SNHR) has reported at least 639 deaths as a result of the fighting on the Syrian coast. Following these events, Sharaa has called for peace amongst Syrians and promises that those responsible for targeting civilians will be held responsible.

With the changing landscape of Syria and the chaos within the country, the future of Syria remains unclear. Many have hope for the rule of Sharaa and many others worry that this will only continue division within the country and that this new rule will be no better than that of Assad. Sharaa holds firm in his hope for a united Syria, however, and the future of Syria remains hopeful, though unknown.

The post Ahmed al-Sharaa and Hope for the Future of Syria appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Ukraine

After the election, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky congratulated Trump, saying he looks forward to a strong U.S. approach to global affairs. Trump has pledged to end the war in Ukraine but has revealed little plans on how he would do so. The United States provides the most aid to Ukraine out of any other country, and Trump, alongside his Vice President JD Vance have cast doubt on whether they would continue military aid to Ukraine. This would be devastating for the hopes of beating Russia, which is steadily advancing into Ukraine’s Donbas region. President Putin has not congratulated Trump, and re-iterated U.S. hostility towards Russia making them hesitant to make any statements on the future of the two countries’ relationship. However, given Trump and Putin’s friendly-ish relationship (possible collusion between Russian officials and Trump campaign members in 2016 and Trump calling Putin a “genius” for invading Ukraine), it would not be surprising for the Trump administration to reduce aid to Ukraine. Last week, President Biden sent Ukraine official approval to use American long-range missiles to strike deep within Russian territory, a move seen as Biden hedging against Trump’s future plans.

Hungary

Moving westward, another relationship that should be watched is that between Trump and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, a right-wing autocrat. Hungary and Russia are close, despite Hungary’s membership in the European Union and NATO. Hungary relies on Russia for gas and is refusing to let aid pass through Hungary into Ukraine. Additionally, Orbán was the only EU leader to endorse Trump for the U.S. presidency and flouted their close relationship. Therefore, under the new administration, Hungary might gain an influx of foreign investment from American companies or enjoy a closer economic relationship. These circumstances suggest there will be good relations between the United States and Hungary over the next four years. 

Poland

Another conservative leader, Poland’s President Andrzej Duda, congratulated Trump on his win. Duda wants to strengthen Poland’s relationship with the United States, but Poland is against Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, sending more than $3.5 billion to support Ukraine’s army. Duda’s main goal is to curry U.S. favor and keep the United States in NATO, so it’s no surprise that Duda has tried to become closer friends with Donald Trump. In April 2024, Duda and Trump met in New York City for dinner, and both shared positive sentiments, with Trump stating that he is “behind Poland all the way.” Thus, it would not be surprising to see Poland continue to schmooze up to the incoming president in the coming months. 

Czech Republic and Slovakia

The Prime Ministers of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, both populist conservatives, have welcomed Trump with open arms.

Petr Fiala, the Prime Minister of Slovakia, and President Biden have enjoyed positive relations, with the U.S. and Slovakia becoming closer over the past four years. The Czech Republic has continued sending military aid to Ukraine, but Fiala is growing weary as the war has surpassed its 1000th day. In September, he stated that Ukraine “will have to be realistic” about the growing possibility of ceding some territory to Russia, even if temporarily.

Fico has ended Slovakia’s military aid to Ukraine and opposes Ukraine’s bid to enter NATO. Slovakia is in the midst of a political crisis, with a sharp divide between Fico’s conservative government and the liberal opposition party. Fico has been consolidating power, undermining media independence, eliminating the office responsible for investigating political corruption and prohibiting protests. As such, expect to see Slovakia drifting towards an Orbán-style populist way of governing, to Trump’s delight.

The fate of Ukraine lies, in large part, in the hands of Trump and Vance. 

The post What a Second Trump Presidency Means for East-Central Europe appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As of late February, Palestinian deaths surpassed 30,000 and the devastation has only worsened as the war progresses. Coming from a generation that has never known a world with a weak Israel, it seems illogical and unfathomable to continue supporting Israel as the death tolls increase. Despite protests, pressure from leftist democratic colleagues and international efforts advocating for more severe policies toward Israel, President Biden has barely budged on his stance. Furthermore, all of his statements toward Israel have come in the form of a written statement, phone calls or a statement read by a member of his staff. The only exception was during his State of the Union address where he stated, “Israel also has a fundamental responsibility to protect innocent civilians in Gaza.” However, many are still pushing Biden to call for an immediate and permanent ceasefire and to stop sending military aid to Israel. In the eyes of many young democratic voters, President Biden is not doing nearly enough to stop Israel, and it’s difficult to understand why. 

While ending military aid to Israel and insisting on a permanent ceasefire may seem like a no-brainer for my generation, the reality is much more nuanced. Joe Biden’s stance toward Israel is not necessarily out of a lack of compassion or cowardice, but pure history and politics. Crediting his pro-Israel perspective to his father, Biden recalls that his father emphasized the undeniable justice of establishing Israel as a Jewish homeland in 1948 following the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust. His historic view of Israel is as a small country fighting for democracy in a region of instability, not the powerful, right-leaning and domineering country many people my age see today. Throughout his Senate career Biden also received $5 million from pro-Israeli groups, the chamber’s biggest recipient in history. This should not be surprising nor, arguably, worrying. For most of American history since the end of WWII, support for Israel has persisted, especially for democrats. Due to the historical context surrounding Biden’s tenure in the Senate, this is not abnormal. The United States was the first country to recognize Israel as an independent state in 1949 and the country has been, and remains, America’s greatest ally in the Middle East and is praised as a symbol of democracy in the region. 

However, it is not 1949 anymore, and the gravity of the situation is becoming increasingly apparent. If Joe Biden does not reassess his pattern of nonconfrontation and passive diplomacy with Netanyahu, it may be too late to help the situation in Gaza and protect his base. President Biden won Michigan in the 2020 election but the results of the February Michigan primary, with a substantial number of undecided votes, suggest that his unwavering support for Israel could potentially be a deciding factor against him in a close general election. Key swing states like Michigan and young voters won Biden the 2020 election, but his support for Israel may jeopardize his 2024 chances, as young voters are less likely to vote in 2024 than in 2020. With such a close race, Biden cannot afford a low young voter turnout. 

That all being said, there is also the very real possibility that if President Biden takes back his support for Israel, Republicans may be quick to portray the president as anti-Israel. Republicans on the House Armed Service Committee have criticized initiatives to direct more aid into the region. Missouri Congressman Mark Alford said, “90 percent of [humanitarian]funding” ends up in the hands of Hamas. While the social media and political circles of my peers and I are skewed in favor of Palestinians, it can be easy to forget that the general public lacks a consensus on the level of support the United States should provide to Israel. Joe Biden is not the only one whose historical and personal experience with Israel deeply influences their political views. Older generations tend to view Israel as a refuge for the Jews after the painful, visceral memories of the Holocaust. One report shows that less than half (48%) of Gen Z and millennials believe the United States should publicly voice support of Israel compared with 63% of Gen Xers and 83% of baby boomers. 30 years ago, support for Israel was more associated with Democrats than Republicans. Today, many democratic Gen Z voters find it very difficult to wrap their heads around a world that sees Israel’s actions as justified and fair. Recognizing these generational divides is essential for navigating the broader discourse surrounding Israeli-Palestinian relations.

It is also valuable for my age group to understand the historical relevance of congressional and presidential support for Israel. There has never been a U.S. president to actively oppose Israel. Throughout Joe Biden’s long career, it has never been an option to withdraw support for Israel. It is also important to note that Biden’s stance is not unique nor should it be surprising: the mainstream political discourse has always skewed in Israel’s favor. As Jimmy Carter once put it, “It’s absolutely crucial that no one in our country or around the world ever doubt that our number one commitment in the Middle East is to protect the right of Israel to exist, to exist permanently, and to exist in peace.” In summary, it is unrealistic to expect Joe Biden and other politicians to completely shift their worldview that has been shaped over decades of precedent. 

This does not mean that the American people should wait around for Joe Biden to change his mind while thousands of Palestinians die every day. The world is not the same as it was 80 years ago and neither are international dynamics. While these historical precedents should not be ignored, there needs to be some acknowledgment of the Israeli government’s role in Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. In a conflict that is so rooted in history, it is imperative to keep in mind the long history that the president and the country have had with Israel if there is any hope of ending the suffering, death and destruction in Gaza.

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe.

The post The Discussion on Biden’s Support for Israel Needs More Nuance appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Guatemala’s 36-year-long civil war ended with the singing of the 1996 Peace Accords. However, while the first two election cycles appeared like promising steps forwards, this did not mean that Guatemalan democracy would have an easy, perfect transition. The young democracy experienced several challenges, and today, corruption continues to deeply affect the Guatemalan government.

The most famous corruption scandal in Guatemala is known as “La Línea” or “the line.” The scandal involved the disgraceful resignation of President Otto Fernandez Perez Molina, a retired Army General who was elected in 2012 on a platform of fighting drug-related crime. La Línea was the name given to this scandal, which accused former President Molina of defrauding the state of millions of dollars and led to his eventual resignation in September 2015. The uncovered scheme allowed companies to evade import taxes entirely or at a reduced cost through bribes. The term “La Linea” was coined in reference to the telephone number that businesses could call in order to bribe the former President. Molina actively denied these charges, claiming them to be lies. He said “Nobody has ever said I gave an illegal order, and I never gave any. They never said I was given money.” However, despite his denials, in December 2022, Molina was found guilty of crimes associated with “La Linea” and was sentenced to 16 years in prison along with his Vice President Roxana Baldetti. 

Unfortunately, corruption has not only plagued the executive branch of Guatemala’s government, but the judicial branch as well. The Humans Rights Watch 2020 World Report states that Guatemala’s judiciary system “suffers from high levels of impunity,” along with long delays taken advantage of by defendants to escape justice.  A clear example of the effects of corruption on the judiciary system involved Judge Erika Aifan. Aifan served on Guatemala’s high risk court, which deals with high profile cases of corruption and criminal cases, sometimes involving politicians. Aifan was known as an anti-corruption judge, with The U.S. Department of State recognizing “Judge Aifan as a 2021 International Woman of Courage (IWOC) for her efforts to strengthen the rule of law in Guatemala.” Yet, after harassment and threats to judicial independence persisted, Judge Aifan felt threatened that she would be arrested by corrupt government officials trying to escape her convictions. This rising threat eventually led to her resigning and fleeing the country, citing “particular pressure from Guatemalan Attorney General Consuelo Porras.”. 

Fortunately for Guatemalan citizens, there have recently been calls for progress in ending widespread corruption. In 2017, Guatemala’s Attorney General, Thelma Aldana, and Ivan Velasquez, a human rights lawyer, made accusations against President Morales of stealing up to $800,000 of campaign funds. In response, Morales called for Velasquez’s resignation and gave a police memo stating that all previously approved leave for the country’s elite special forces had been canceled, essentially putting these special forces on high alert if push comes to shove, ready to use for his own protection from the law. Outraged, thousands of Guatemalan citizens rose up in protest against corruption in the government and the lack of action to combat this issue. From these protests, the Semilla or “seed” political party was born. The party’s name references seeds of change and anti-corruption. In its young history, the Semilla party has been very successful. In its first election in 2019, the party won seven seats in the Congress of the Republic, Guatemala’s unicameral legislative structure. In the most recent, 2023 presidential election, Bernardo Arévalo of the Semilla Party, campaigning on anti-corruption, won in a landslide victory receiving 58% of the votes. This trumped the 36 percent former first lady and establishment politician Sandra Torres received. Arévalo’s victory illustrates a clear call from Guatemalan voters for change as Arévalo campaigned on a strong anti-corruption platform. However, establishment politicians did not take this loss lying down. 

Guatemala’s Attorney General, Consuelo Porras, launched a campaign against Arévalo. This concentrated effort led by Porras, dubbed a ‘coup in slow motion’ by Arévalo, aimed to undermine the legitimacy of his election victory in order to prevent him from taking office. Porras first tried to call the election victory illegitimate, citing “ballot falsification [and]computer manipulation.” Following the court’s upholding of the election outcome, Porras had the Semilla party suspended due to unproven claims that the signatures necessary to the legality of the party were falsified at its conception. Prosecutors even went so far as to illegally seize documents from Semilla headquarters. Porras’s efforts to prevent an anti-corruption candidate from taking office led to widespread protests from Guatemalan citizens calling for his resignation. 
Due to his perseverance, public support and lack of base for claims against his party, Arévalo was formally sworn into office on the morning of Jan. 15, 2024. This marked a triumph for Arévalo and the Semilla party, but even more so for the citizens of Guatemala as their unity in support of Arévalo has persevered through multiple attempts of stopping his assumption of office. Arévalo, standing for anti-corruption, promising to strengthen democratic institutions and being another of few examples of a peaceful transition of power, all represent a glimpse of hope for the democracy of Central America’s largest country.

The post A Glimpse of Hope in Guatemalan Democracy appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Ukraine

Perhaps the most relevant ongoing matter in recent years is the war in Ukraine. Current President Joe Biden’s stance on Ukraine is favorable to the independent nation, as he wants to continue to supply them with weapons to fuel their fight against the Russians. In December, he gave a speech calling on Congress to pass an aid bill for Ukraine, but every Republican senator voted against it. In perhaps an effort to appeal to this opposition, Biden intends to shift to a more defensive outlook on the war, as restricting the Russians’ advancements requires fewer weapons than defeating them. This neutral stance helps to illustrate Biden’s position on the issue, in that he expresses the desire to help Ukraine’s endangered democracy but not far enough to risk his political standing. If Biden were to win re-election, perhaps his stance would become more firm without this looming jeopardy. 

Trump, on the other hand, seems to align more with the current Republican lawmakers in Congress. He has claimed that if he returns to the Oval Office he would “resolve the war in Ukraine within 24 hours.” He has not detailed how he intends to do so, but Putin has reportedly made it clear he is holding out for a Trump presidency to conduct talks, as Trump is expected to be more open to a favorable arrangement for Putin than other U.S. presidential candidates or the EU would be otherwise. Thus, a Trump win would probably result in talks with Putin and maybe an attempt at a peace agreement between the countries that favor Russian interests more heavily. 

Nikki Haley, the other Republican candidate, wholeheartedly stands with Ukraine and the ideal of democracy. In the (increasingly unlikely) case that she wins both the Republican primary and the presidential election, she has indicated she would move to provide large amounts of military aid to Ukraine. She has criticized Biden for not doing enough to support the cause and, like Trump, said the United States could give Ukraine the weapons necessary to beat Russia “tomorrow.” 

Israel-Hamas Conflict

In another pressing global conflict between Israel and Hamas, the candidates take on fairly consistent stances in contrast with their outlook on Ukraine. For Biden, this means striking a balance between two opposing political sides. At the start of the conflict, Biden backed Israeli retaliation and had the United States as only one of ten countries to vote “no” to a ceasefire in Dec 2023. However, left-leaning protesters have brought up issues of unnecessary violence against Palestinian citizens (who were not Hamas) by Israeli troops and called for Biden to change his position on the issue. In another effort to appease both sides, Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and urged him to revisit his strategy to limit the loss of innocent lives. Blinken said Netanyahu agreed to take steps to protect civilians, but the impact of this conversation on the fighting is yet to be seen. On Feb 4, Blinken returned again to the Middle East to push for a ceasefire deal and try to quell tensions in the region. Once again, Biden is trying to strike a balance between the two parties, respecting his relations with Israel and their right to supposedly defend themselves and the more left-leaning of his supporters who call for the protection of innocent Palestinian citizens. 

On this matter, Trump simply said, “Hamas would not have attacked Israel if [he]were president.” What this says of his political strategies toward the conflict is unclear, but he says he would “get it solved very fast” as president. He also pins the Hamas attack on Iran and says he would deal with Iran as the root of the issue. To extrapolate from his party and his comments, a Trump presidency would likely be more sympathetic to Israel’s cause than the current Biden administration and would likely exert less oversight on Israel’s operations.

Again, similarly to Ukraine, Haley has a strong stance on the Israel/Hamas conflict. She stands with Israel the same way she stands with Ukraine and has said both were attacked by outside forces and should use every means necessary — including U.S. aid — to defend themselves from their attackers. During her term as Ambassador to the UN, she made the defense of Israel one of her defining causes. It is almost certain, then, that a Haley presidency would result in a stronger backing of Israel and fewer verbal restrictions on whatever violence Israel deems necessary. 

Taiwan

Finally, a third relevant foreign policy issue is Taiwan and its relation to the Chinese mainland.  Taiwan is an island off the south coast of China that claims democratic independence whereas Beijing claims it as part of China. Lai Ching-te just won Taiwan’s presidential election and Beijing worries he will establish a Republic of Taiwan and declare clear independence, which Lai says he would not do. The official U.S. stance since 1979, when Jimmy Carter switched loyalties from Taipei to Beijing, is that Taiwan is a part of China and not independent. However, the United States still maintains unofficial relations with the self-governed island and is its biggest arms supplier.  

Biden stands with this official stance and recently reiterated it publicly after the Chinese government criticized him for making comments that suggested he would defend Taiwan if it were attacked. He has friendly relations with Lai and recently increased arms sales to Taipei but still doesn’t want to provoke Beijing by doing anything more extreme. Like many of his other stances discussed above, Biden strikes a balance between two opposing positions to maintain Washington’s friendly relations with both Taiwan and Beijing. 

Trump, again, does not present a clear stance on the issue. When asked, he said it is “stupid” to give away your opinions and refused to directly comment. However, his actions and other words have presented two different possibilities. During his presidential term, he spoke on the phone with then-President Tsai Ing-wen, the first contact a U.S. leader had with a Taiwanese one since Carter made the official switch in 1979. However, when asked about it recently in terms of his potential upcoming term, he deflected and accused Taiwan of taking the semiconductor business away from the United States. This could be read as an unfavorable outlook on Taiwan and perhaps an inclination to Beijing’s point of view. This conflict is at more of a stalemate and would likely only be ignited if the United States were to supply more arms to Taiwan or act too favorable to the island’s interests of independence. So as long as Trump doesn’t declare independence for Taiwan, an ambiguous or even Chinese-leaning stance would not likely spark a conflict. 

In terms of Haley, she wants to take a stronger stance against Beijing and accuses China of threatening American security and prosperity. She wants to protect Taiwan the same way she wants to protect Ukraine and shield it from the global superpower — China. Her stance has more to do with Beijing and limiting its influence and status in the United States and over Taiwan. 

In all three cases, the candidates display pretty strong trends. Biden wishes to strike a balance between two extremes, which gives both sides a little of what they want but also satisfies neither. If elected, Biden could solidify his stances without the threat of reelection hanging over him. However, this moderate stance could remain, as a lot of his presidency and platform has been about uniting the parties to work together. The trend of Trump’s stances is that he doesn’t really have a stated position on the issue, but it can be extrapolated pretty closely to the current Republican party’s stance on the issue. Haley, in contrast to her competitors, has strong points of view on these three issues, all of which side with the entity she perceives to be under threat from another. She defends Ukraine, Israel and Taiwan with the same vigor and almost ties the three together to be equivalent. 

Overall, each of these potential presidential outcomes will obviously have drastically different rippling impacts on global politics. From their platforms to their willingness and ability to make negotiations and legislation, each candidate would guide the United States down a different path.

The post The Impact of the 2024 Election on US Foreign Relations 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.

In order for governments to combat the blood shortage crisis, they are challenged by the voluntary condition of blood donation, due to civilians’ hold on body autonomy. Yet, according to the Lockian social contract, the government has the right to limit personal autonomy for the greater benefit of the public good. 

In terms of our world today, we have all entered different social contracts provided by the legitimate sovereign states we reside in. Everyone has given up some of their personal liberties and agency to the greater benefits of governance. Globally, many countries have common good laws such as driving restrictions, voting laws, property protections, and other laws that help sustain order. During the pandemic, governments limited some of our personal liberties, for example imposing a mask-wearing policy, for the greater good of everyone’s health. 

Blood donations have always been crucial to the healthcare system. It is a necessity to have access to this life-saving resource. During the pandemic in 2022, the American Red Cross declared a national blood shortage. There was a pivotal moment to unite when the government declared the pandemic a state of emergency comparable to the state of war. Healthcare professionals then faced the ethical dilemma of how to best allocate the supply of donated blood. It required physicians to assess which patient receives a life saving blood transfusion. 

A patient describes her trepidation during this crisis, “It’s very scary, especially if you don’t know if the blood is coming…this is something that you need to live”. The United States Red Cross exemplifies the reality of the shortage in this statement, saying they need “approximately 12,500 blood and nearly 3,000 platelet donations every day,” to fulfill the demand. The necessity of blood donation is constant. In the  U.S. someone needs blood or platelets every two seconds and with one donation three lives can be saved. 

As the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau describes, the general will of the people becomes more important than individual interest once we have entered a social contract. In this current state of blood shortage crisis, the general will of the people must be a priority; a governmental system that would call upon civilians to donate blood is an urgent necessity. In the United States, this system does not exist. Consequently, the government’s responsibility is to intervene and aid its population to access the proper healthcare—safe blood donations. 

The United States provides many policies and rules for the greater benefit of its civilians. However, historically when the United States is faced with a healthcare issue that revolves around access and body autonomy then there is divisive sentiment. Nevertheless, when the U.S government imposes new rules, its civilians have the choice to either submit or rise into protest. 

In 2020, many Americans proudly claimed that COVID-19 was a hoax and that they will not be forced by the government to wear a mask. The bumptious “don’t tread on me” slogan reigned again in the United States. This negative sentiment of government interference surrounding personal liberties is the exact opposite of why individuals enter the social contract. According to Locke, individuals have an obligation to obey the governing body created to have their natural rights protected in order to maintain a state of civil society. The social contract theory embodies the consent of the people for the government to protect their basic rights and promote a common good for all. Security and healthcare can be considered urgent priorities for civilian protection and welfare. 

Regardless of the degree of control a government has over its people, the question is asked, why do people rebel when the government imposes rules to protect them? The essence of this answer is people like to believe they still are a sovereign entity, but forget they have given up autonomy in order to enjoy the luxuries of security and order. The population would benefit from the privileges of possessing enough blood. Enough blood would give every patient in need of a transfusion an opportunity to survive, from cancer patients, to kidney disease patients, sickle cell anemia patients, and emergency department patients with severe trauma injuries. 

In a time of high stress and need, why can’t citizens be called upon to serve their country? To serve their community that has entered the same social contract as themselves?

In these situations, can a government impose a blood donation draft, where citizens are motivated to sign up for the commitment to saving lives? To call upon citizens to save lives through blood donation just as they can be called upon for war? 

This paternalistic control for the general will of society tests the social contract theory. This might be an idealistic desire but getting to a point where the government has the right to tell you to donate your blood to your neighbor, is not without the scope of realism. Donating blood could be a compulsory task for every human being that met the safety requirements needed to donate blood, through compelling and cogent policies. 

The United State government ensures its military strength, security, and size, by allocating an immense amount of money to the military budget and encouraging men to join their ranks. The United States Selective Service System requires men to sign up for the selective service within 30 days of their 18th birthday in an event where a draft is needed. Although it is not compulsory, the USA Selective Service governmental website states that “A man who fails to register with the Selective Service may be ineligible for opportunities that may be important to his future. He must register to be eligible for state-based student financial aid in many states, most federal employment, some state employment…” and the list continues. Failure to register also has consequences; it is considered a “felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or five years imprisonment”. In the United States, 40 states require Selective Service registration in order to receive a driver’s license and in eight states, men are not allowed to enroll in state universities without registering for Selective Service. The government does not force men to enlist into the Selective Service, but they are compelled by the benefits and avoidance of unfavorable outcomes. 

The unfavorable selective service policies ensure men sign up, therefore the government can provide security in a situation of war. Security is a governmental public good. 

The Selective Service’s effective and persuasive policies can be emulated to encourage blood donation. 

Blood shortage is a state of emergency like war, so the government should use its paternalistic jurisdiction to encourage civilian blood donations. Fundamentally, the government can combat the national blood shortage with a blood donation selective service draft. 

Most of the European Nation’s healthcare is free, where governments embody a greater social contract that controls the healthcare system benefiting the public good. In Europe, there are only four countries — Germany, Austria, Hungary, and the Czech Republic — that have private and public sector collection centers to combat the blood and plasma shortage. In these countries, plasma donors receive a “flat-fee” compensation. There have been new discussions regarding the efficacy of compensating volunteers that donate their blood or plasma. European policymakers are wrangling with ethical monetary compensation laws to fulfill the plasma-derived medicinal products demand for 300,000 people. These important debates highlight the government’s paternalistic jurisdiction that can be compared to imposing a blood donation draft system. The four countries that compensate volunteers were able to acquire, “58% of the plasma drawn in the EU needed to make medicines.”  However, compensating volunteers is not necessarily the simple fix to the shortage of donations. 

There are unintended consequences that can occur as a result of paying plasma donors. Regular blood donors who come on their own will end up donating plasma instead of blood causing another issue and shortage. Bernardo Rodrigues, an advocacy officer at the European Blood Alliance, believes, “You should not have a financial incentive to go out and donate.” He represents establishments in Europe that are not-for-profit blood donations and these institutions bolster plasma and blood collection through more holistic means such as opening new centers and educating the public about donation. 

One vital component of programs like these is calling upon existing donors to ask for their donations. Many citizens also commit themselves to an on-call list, if their blood is desperately needed. This is like a donation draft as they call up citizens who have registered to be a donor. Yes, they do have the agency to refuse or donate, however, the premise of a draft is established as a governmental system. 

New governmental policies that encourage blood donation, such as a blood donation selective service, is a necessary limitation of personal liberties to benefit the greater public good of healthcare. Human beings have entered social contracts to have their well-being protected, and governments are failing if they can not fulfill their responsibility to the people.

Theoretically, mankind could progress in medical advances if society could restrain the constant need for autonomy and submit to the hierarchical domestic order. At the end of the day, we do not have full body autonomy. The government limits our ability to put illicit drugs in our system by criminalizing substances: the government tells women whether they can terminate their child or not and the Selective Service sacrifices a man’s body in the case of war. 

Nevertheless, the social contract is supposed to limit our personal liberties for the amelioration of the human condition. Can this materialize for the benefit of increased blood supply? This dichotomy between the limitations of personal liberties and self-determination is a parallel between the general good and libertarianism. What balance can exist between these juxtapositions, the double-edged sword of a social contract? 

The post Blood Donation Draft: Escaping the State of Nature to a Social Contract appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

As a person hoping to immigrate to the United States, being selected means being able to set your roots for generations to come in the United States while being able to revisit your home country. Similar to any other lottery selection process, people who win will have their lives transformed, and the many who are not selected yearly prepare for the next application cycle. In Iran, there was always a dichotomy between the vocalized public outlook on American politics and immigration to the West, but nearly one million Iranians apply annually to the lottery regardless, and that number grows yearly. This is additionally surprising, as the lottery system is not discussed in the media, so it was either spread by word of mouth or informal communication methods such as social media platforms. This is the case for many of the nations that receive the largest numbers of winners, the majority being African nations such as Ghana, Nigeria and Somalia. 

However, the validity of the Diversity Visa has recently been heavily questioned by former U.S. President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump, as well as much of the Republican party. Many believe new immigrants with Diversity Visa take jobs away from American citizens. Similarly, Donald Trump and many other Republicans have been harsh towards illegal immigration and even the granting of visa or citizenship to people hoping to enter the United States. While the nation is tackling issues of mass illegal immigration and concerns over border safety, the United States is continuing to offer a gateway of legal immigration to citizens from many lesser developed countries who don’t necessarily possess a helpful skill such as H1-B visa holders, have the stable family structure of sponsored citizens, nor the ability to get a job and contribute to the nation’s economy. Donald Trump even made it clear he would not endorse any form of migration from many Middle Eastern countries during his often-referred to–“Muslim ban.” Trump also implemented and extended lesser-known policies, known as Presidential Proclamations 10014 and 10052, under the guise of protecting the U.S. labor market after COVID-19 broke out. These proclamations led to the further destruction of the American lottery system, and to this day, many people who were selected for the lottery during this time are still upended. They have no residency in the U.S. and are uncertain if they’ll ever be able to immigrate. President Joseph Biden has not taken the necessary steps to grant these people who have already selected their citizenship either.

Another point of criticism about the lottery visa selection is that it doesn’t allow for application from certain countries, which are Bangladesh, Brazil, Canada, China (including Hong Kong SAR), Colombia, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, United Kingdom (except Northern Ireland) and its territories, Haiti, Honduras, India, Jamaica, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, South Korea, Venezuela and Vietnam. This is mainly because those nations sent more than 50,000 immigrants to the US in the previous five years. So while many Mexican individuals wait their turn to be allowed into the country, people immigrating from global powers such as France can still apply for the Diversity Visa. Many believe this is rather unfair, as people hoping to immigrate cannot control their chances of selection or the overall number of immigrants from their country.

However, there is no question that the Diversity Visa allows the rest of the world to preserve their perspective of the United States as a global superpower. As people in many countries do not even have American embassies or regular access to the resources required to apply for a mere visa, people in nations such as Iran are capable of building a new life for themselves far away from home and securing a new form of citizenship. It continues the narrative of the United States being the “place to be” and a “land of opportunity,” and also allows the United States to benefit from the diversification of interested populaces. 

The validity of the Diversity Visa in this nation remains in limbo, but there is no question that this lesser-known method of immigration has transformed many lives, such as mine, and given hope to ordinary people that they have the opportunity to immigrate. As changes around national immigration policy continue and we examine the 2024 U.S. presidential election, it will become clear whether this nation is heading down a track to eliminating access to this pivotal resource.

The post Meeting the Diversity Quota: The Immigration Lottery Systems and Its Complicated History appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, the political marvel of Bukele’s success does not come without its drawbacks. Not only has his government committed a number of human rights violations under the consistently extended state of emergency/exception that has now lasted for a year and a half, but his recent push within the Salvadoran judicial system to allow his unconstitutional bid for reelection threatens the already weakened democracy in the country. 

So, who is Nayib Bukele? Why has he been able to systematically rid El Salvador’s democracy of checks and balances, and even go against the constitution with the support of his people? How does his casual dress and social media usage contribute to his success? 

Born in San Salvador in 1981, Bukele is amongst the oldest of the millennial generation, making him 42 years old as of 2023. He originally pursued a career in business but soon transitioned into politics, becoming the mayor of a small principality outside San Salvador called Nuevo Cuscatlán in 2012 on the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) ballot, the country’s main leftist party. However, during his time in this office, Bukele clashed with party leadership over policy disagreements. Despite their displeasure with his policy and conduct, the FMLN could not pass up on his popularity and put him up as their candidate for mayor of San Salvador, the country’s capital. Bukele was elected in 2015, but this position marked the end of his association with the FMLN. The party expelled him, citing their assertion that he sowed division within the party and, at some point, physically attacked another member of the party. 

This marked a change in the trajectory of his political career. Bukele soon began his campaign for president, running under the Grand Alliance of National Unity (GANA) because his new party, Nuevas Ideas, did not register in time to put up a candidate. 

His win in 2019 was historic. It was the first time in the near thirty years since the end of El Salvador’s brutal civil war that the country’s two main parties, the FMLN and Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA), were not in control of the presidency. Salvadorans saw this as a much-needed relief from the stifling two-party system that failed to address issues of corruption and violence.

In his first year in office, Bukele quickly began implementing his tough-on-crime policies. His “Territorial Control Plan” lacked support in the legislature, as the GANA party controlled only 10 of the 84 National Assembly seats, the rest of which were held primarily by the FMLN and ARENA. Bukele wasted no time in using his power as president to get his way, entering the National Assembly’s chamber surrounded by armed forces members, then sitting in the chair reserved for the president of the assembly and demanding they support his policy. This stunt was immediately criticized for intimidating the legislature, and El Salvador’s highest court told President Bukele to refrain from similar actions in the future. 

While the first few years of his presidency were hindered by an opposition-controlled legislature, El Salvador’s 2021 midterm legislative elections could not have gone better for Bukele and his Nuevas Ideas party. The party won 56 out of 84 seats in the National Assembly, giving Bukele an important majority. 

Bukele immediately began to dismantle important democratic checks and balances upon gaining legislative control. His party quickly replaced all judges of the country’s Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court and replaced the Attorney General, then unconstitutionally appointed 5 new judges to the supreme court, giving Nuevas Ideas control of 10 of the 15 seats. Other laws which undermined judicial power throughout the government followed suit, and the new legislature also shelved many progressive bills related to issues such as abortion and gender affirmative care. 

Nuevas Ideas posits that its ideology is neither right or left wing, and instead challenges the entire system developed after the 1992 peace accords. However, Bukele has failed to align himself with or agree with the narratives of leftist presidents in the region, such as Brazilian President Lula or Nicaraguan President Ortega. He has instead spoken and agreed with right wing world leaders including Donald Trump, Xi Jinping, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, and, as mentioned, pursued conservative social policies. 

As he nears the end of his five year term, Bukele is once again making the news due to his decision to run for reelection. Although the Salvadoran constitution outlaws reelection, the Bukele-controlled Supreme Court ruled that the President is allowed to run for reelection once. Soon after, Bukele announced his intent to run, and officially registered for the election in October. The decision has seen widespread disapproval amongst human rights groups, but Bukele maintains high domestic support for the decision. 

Aside from his authoritarian behavior regarding democratic institutions, the main critiques of Bukele and his government center on the anti-gang policies. As of September, over 72,000 Salvadorans have been arrested under the state of emergency, and the government continually failed to ensure protection of both civil and human rights for those arrested. Cases of foreign nationals being wrongfully arrested and the legislature’s decision to permit mass trials are concerning to human rights and pro-democracy groups. 

President Bukele has dramatically changed not only El Salvador, but the state of politics throughout Latin America. As other politicians aim to recreate Bukele’s security “success,” the entire region faces threats of democratic backsliding and humanitarian crises. Some leaders in the region have even begun to mimic Bukele’s style of dress and social media strategy, attempting to rile up the same levels of support.

All eyes are on El Salvador as it approaches the 2024 election. What the future is for Salvadorans if they cross this unconstitutional line is yet to be determined, and its ripple effect on the region as a whole may determine the future of democracy in the region.

The post Who is Nayib Bukele? The Millennial Authoritarian of El Salvador appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Since the breakup of Yugoslavia and the ensuing war, governance over Kosovo has remained a contentious topic in global affairs, with international oversight providing much of its legal infrastructure alongside local power brokers. Many of these local leaders have direct ties to the nominally dissolved Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), a group designated as a terrorist organization in multiple countries. Among these leaders is Kosovo’s first elected prime minister Hashim Thaçi, one of the founders of the KLA who is currently awaiting trial for war crimes in The Hague.

Cooperation between international actors and local leaders to orchestrate a peaceful transfer of power has required carefully redefining the relationship with the KLA “from ‘terrorists’ to ‘partners.’” As of now, the UN is gingerly withdrawing from Kosovo one agency at a time while balancing international and domestic issues. Establishing Kosovo’s legitimacy will require restructuring of economic and political institutions, international cooperation and long-term conflict mitigation plans. Through sustainable, mutually beneficial and calculated policy implementation that strengthens Kosovo internally, we will see an end to, in the words of international relations professor at the University of Southern California Dr. Douglas Becker, the “international presence [in Kosovo]no one wants.” 

The KLA is a nationalist Kosovar-Albanian militia founded in 1993 as a response to Serbian state-backed violence against students protesting for Kosovar independence. Starting as a small, disorganized group of around 150 men, the KLA quickly became “one of the most successful military organizations in history,” as well as one of the most brutal. As Kosovar nationalism rose, more and more people joined the KLA in taking up arms against Serbia. 

During the following years of conflict, the KLA were not only perpetrators of war crimes—including systemic torture, rape and forced expulsion—but also an organized crime ring. Much of the KLA’s funding came from human trafficking, organ trafficking, sex slavery, money laundering, illegal weapon smuggling, counterfeit currency, migrant smuggling, fraud and drug trade, with an estimated 80% of all heroin headed into Europe passing through the hands of the KLA in 1999. 

When the conflict between Kosovo and Serbia officially ended in June 1999, the KLA filled the subsequent power vacuum. However, they were quickly replaced after the 1999 Security Council resolution 1244 gave jurisdiction of Kosovo to the UN, creating the UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (UNMIK) and establishing United Nations Administered Kosovo, a time period in which the UN was essentially the Kosovar government. The UNMIK took charge of virtually all government functions in Kosovo, facilitating elections, issuing legal identification documents, adjudicating criminal cases, policing and overseeing immigration. 

By 2008, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence, developed a constitution and elected its first prime minister, Hashim Thaçi, ultimately ending UN Administered Kosovo and creating the Republic of Kosovo. As part of their agreement to recognize Kosovo’s independence, the U.S. and EU required oversight by international presences; thus, UNMIK remains a supportive actor in ensuring peace, normalcy and community-building in collaboration with 16 other UN agencies and partners. 

Locally, most political figures are former members of the disbanded KLA, including current prime minister Albin Kurti. Some claim to have abandoned their criminal past while others have faced charges of war crimes, such as Kosovar prime ministers Hashim Thaçi, Agim Çeku and Ramush Haradinaj. An investigation conducted by the Council of Europe found that even while acting as prime minister, Thaçi still controlled much of organized transnational crime, relying upon illegal activities for government expenditures. Although the KLA is officially dissolved, its members have reassembled in one of the main political parties, the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK). Prime Minister Kurti has openly declared that “the Kosovo Police is a continuation of the liberation army.” KLA dominance presents a massive issue for the prospect of complete UN withdrawal due to its unsustainable nature and criminal history. While decreasing, organized crime remains intertwined in Kosovar politics, with the U.S. Department of the Treasury blacklisting multiple Kosovar politicians and security officials linked to transnational organized crime as recently as 2021.

The UN, European Union and United States are desperate to withdraw: Kosovo presents a major liability for the international actors involved due to the criminal background of the local actors with whom they are collaborating. The United States views UNMIK as having fulfilled its purpose, and states that “a peacekeeping mission [is]no longer necessary.” International involvement is unfavorable for the people of Kosovo as well, inhibiting their desire for international recognition and sovereignty. Serbia also dislikes the international presence and does not recognize the majority of the agencies in Kosovo as legitimate, instead viewing them as an imposition upon their own sovereignty. Logistically, the oversight has simply drawn on much too long and cannot be maintained in the long term. 

Thus, the UN is working to strengthen local political, legal and economic institutions to wean Kosovo off international support. Additionally, efforts are underway to normalize relations between Kosovo and Serbia, including promoting Serbian and Albanian language learning, assisting families of missing persons and providing free legal aid and language interpretation to allow for a smoother transition of power and a peaceful future for the region. According to the UN, a facilitated, gradual withdrawal from Kosovo is the best approach to end this deeply undesired international presence. 

However, tensions have risen within the last few months, amounting to “the worst escalation of violence in years,” with Serbia deploying tanks and artillery to the Kosovar border, prompting the U.K. to send 200 troops to support the current NATO presence. This uptick is the result of a dispute over license plates, with Kosovo demanding Serbian license plates turned over in favor of Kosovar plates to demonstrate a sovereign, united Kosovar state. Ethnic Serb mayors in northern Kosovo resigned in protest of this demand, further contributing to unrest and lawlessness and reinvigorating Serbs’ desires to establish autonomous Serb-majority municipalities within Kosovo. This move and the reaction to it proves nationalism and ethnic identity disputes remain unresolved issues.   

Seeing as the status quo is undesired by all parties involved, any potential resolution would necessitate the complete withdrawal of international forces. However, given the recent developments in conflict, such a withdrawal must be orchestrated in a gradual and calculated manner. A sustainable, mutually beneficial plan should be executed through three main tenets: economic and institutional restructuring, international cooperation and long-term conflict management plans. 

A major hurdle to Kosovar legitimacy is government corruption. The UN must incentivize legal economic activities to dissuade organized criminal activity. Kosovo is well-endowed in natural resources including fertile farmland. The UN should provide agricultural training, subsidies and supplies to reinvigorate this sector and help establish multilateral trade agreements as well as a conducive market environment, which would allow Kosovar goods to be competitive on a global scale. Additionally, farming was a major part of Kosovo’s medieval identity and revitalizing this industry could appeal to Kosovar nationalists. Opportunities for professional development, such as job training, higher education and English lessons should also be installed. 

Politically, legal and lucrative economic opportunities should automatically lessen corruption. Through education, the general public should become more aware of their human rights and therefore more likely to elect transparent officials who better protect these rights. However, the UN should also lead crackdowns on political criminals and help restructure political institutions to eliminate opportunities for future corruption. 

International recognition could also be enhanced if Kosovo were to abandon transnational crime and join the global economy. Countries are more likely to support relationships from which they benefit economically, and if Kosovo can become an international bread basket, especially during a time when the agriculturally crucial country of Ukraine is under attack, they can establish themselves as a critical ally and trade partner. 

Additionally, the UN should advocate for Kosovar recognition within the general assembly. Although the chances of gaining Russian approval are extremely slim, other nations such as Argentina, India and Greece may be more likely to change their views. With increased recognition, Kosovo can operate as a strong de facto state or even an internationally recognized country—Taiwan, for instance, is unrecognized by UNSC member China, yet is still internationally recognized as a sovereign nation. 

A long-term conflict mitigation plan is crucial in preserving an auspicious future for Kosovo. In establishing political institutions, the UN should coordinate between Kosovar Serbs and Albanians to create a joint association to guarantee cooperation. If this matter is not addressed, Kosovo will remain vulnerable to issues like the license plate dispute, where something as seemingly mundane as license plates led to a violent conflict due to a lack of resolution regarding underlying disagreements regarding ethnic identity. The UN must work in conjunction with both ethnic communities to establish institutions and promote long-term collaboration. 

Rather than staying idle in the present, the UN must start actively pursuing a sustainable future by implementing mechanisms that will provide Kosovo strength for decades to come. By redirecting Kosovar interests towards lucrative economic pursuits, the Kosovar government can become more legitimate and capable, garner revenue to strengthen internal political institutions, secure trade partners to embed them into the global economy and establish international allies to validate their sovereignty. If the parties restructure economic and political institutions, pursue international recognition and set long-term conflict mitigation strategies in place, the international community can finally withdraw from Kosovo and put an end to an international presence no one wants.

The post Kosovo: The International Presence No One Wants appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.