Healthcare workers were covered in Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) and wore double N95 masks cutting into the back of their ears. Some nurses and doctors shared their frustrations and grief but, for many, emotions could be seen solely in their eyes. Eyes became the only windows into seeing each other’s emotional spirit, and it was dwindling. The COVID-19 pandemic pushed healthcare workers to the breaking point, contributing to a healthcare provider shortage that is still vastly impacting medical institutions today. Although many people have moved on, choosing to forget COVID-19, its consequences are still reverberating. COVID-19’s impact did not just linearly diminish as the number of cases decreased. Therefore, the world cannot just ignore the statistically significant possibility of a future pandemic. 

The memories of COVID-19 cannot be shoved under the carpet; living in a false safety that this circumstance will not happen again is an extreme collective denial. Rather, it is vital that the world rebuilds with a new approach to protecting the global population from the next possible source of a global pandemic, what has become more commonly referred to as Disease X. 

Disease “X” is the World Health Organization’s (WHO) coined term for an unknown pandemic pathogen. This is a placeholder concept the organization has created for a pathogen that has not yet mutated into a global outbreak but could do so in the near future. Disease X was first introduced in the WHO 2018 Annual Review of diseases prioritized under the Research and Development Blueprint. The Disease X term was needed to discuss the threat of a hypothetical pathogen that is not known or exists yet. It is still largely debated whether COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) should be considered the first pathogen given Disease X classification. In fact, experts are also discussing whether COVID-19 is just a small taste of what is to come with a far more fatal Disease X. Ultimately, the Disease X concept is considered a pathogen which will hold the right characteristics and ingredients to create another global pandemic. Recognizing the growing threat, the scientific community has turned its attention to defining which types of pathogens the international community should be urgently monitoring. 

For instance, there is specialized focus on zoonotic diseases as the next possible source of Disease X. It takes what is known as a zoonotic jump for an animal virus to become transferable and infectious in human beings. The Center of Disease Control states that an estimate of  “more than 6 out of every 10 known infectious diseases in people can be spread from animals” whilst “3 out of every 4 new or emerging infectious diseases in people come from animals.” These statistics highlight that, in most cases, zoonotic spillover is an inevitability not an anomaly. 

This is especially the case since the boundaries between species have become increasingly  entangled because of deforestation, industrial agriculture, the wildlife trade and climate change. Environmental pressures and human behavior should not be overlooked when addressing zoonotic disease solutions. Notable origins of diseases from animals include Ebola virus, where bats are the suspected virus reservoir; Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the human form of the prion disease Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (mad cow disease); Zika virus, which is transmitted by mosquitoes; and Avian influenza (bird flu), which originates in birds. These examples illustrate a disease landscape that could serve as the origin of Disease X and has well-established precedent.

Another potential source of Disease X that needs to be scrutinized is an engineered pandemic pathogen. Carl Jung, an influential Swiss psychiatrist and psychotherapist, warns that the “only real danger that exists is man himself.” Bioterrorism is a threat to humans created by humans. Alongside nuclear weapons, bioterrorism has become a new missile in the self-destruction toolbox. The development of biotechnology has allowed for advancements in many health sectors such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines. However, it has also made engineering pandemic pathogens that can be customized to have high virulence and fatality rates possible. During the cold war, viral agents were stockpiled as militarized weapons in the US and the Soviet Union. Viral bioterrorism puts everyone at risk and, whether the release of a bioengineered Disease X could be intentional or accidental, the impact would be globally devastating. 

All these factors suggest that Disease X is not a question of if it will cause the next global pandemic — it is a question of when.

Given this, organizations like The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) have identified 25 different virus families that can serve as the host to the next deadly virus. CEPI hypothesizes that Disease X will come from one of these twenty-five different virus families. CEPI’s “100 Days Mission” aims to achieve the ability to respond to the next Disease X pandemic in just under three months by preparing globally accessible vaccines.  The 100 Day Mission is centered around swift and equitable vaccine deployment that will defend those at highest risk in order to stop the spread of an outbreak. Their research on “the most wanted viruses” provides a library of prototype vaccines to preempt the need for the next crucial vaccine by ideally supplying the world with an expedited prophylactic vaccine to contain the spread of the next pandemic. CEPI’s current diversification into the unknown of the 25 families is reimagining pandemic prevention in research. 

The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations was born after the Ebola outbreak highlighted just how ill-equipped state and non-state actors are at containing epidemics. The WHO is often criticized for their inefficient reaction and response to the 2014 Ebola outbreak. The WHO did not have efficient intergovernmental cooperation nor the proper funding needed to execute a cohesive effective response. The Ebola outbreak sheds light on the significant gaps in the global health system, harkening the need for an innovative multifaceted approach to respond to epidemics and pandemics. Ebola should have been the wake-up call. Now, the COVID-19 pandemic is the writing on the wall. 

The COVID-19 Pandemic exposed global governments to a new crisis, a war against a common enemy — a virus. 

Sovereign states have the responsibility to protect and provide for the population in crisis. During the COVID-19 pandemic global health security was threatened. However, instead of nations banding together to contain COVID-19, there was global division and politicization of healthcare. The pandemic introduced two predominating questions: who was responsible for COVID-19 and what international actors were going to contain it? 

There needs to be a new framework to instill global cooperation, one that begins with framing viruses as a shared enemy rather than a localized problem. This reframing shifts responsibility not only to individual nations or institutions, but to collective action by changing the narrative to global commitment and shared responsibility. COVID-19 could have been a moment of unification, but it became a moment of polarization. This was not just seen on a global scale. Personally, many people in my own community that didn’t have immunocompromised family members decided it was not their responsibility to protect people from the spread of the virus. This is why framing the virus as a shared enemy and responsibility could create a stronger collective action against the next pandemic. 

 After World War II, global cooperation created the United Nations to prevent future conflict and another devastating world war. The U.N. served as a preemptive measure to ideally maintain peace and established a permanent institution for conflict resolution. Over time, the U.N. has become a platform for diplomacy and has helped shape postwar international order. In addition, the U.N. launched specialized agencies such as the World Health Organization (WHO), founded in 1948 to address global health issues. The WHO was established from the premise that health is inseparable from peace and security. Ten years after the WHO’s Constitution was created, the Soviet Union (USSR) proposed a WHO-led smallpox eradication program that would become a profound example of global health governance. In 1977, the last confirmed case of smallpox was identified and, by 1980, the WHO declared smallpox eradicated. This success was attributed to a moment of unprecedented global political commitment, even during the height of the Cold War, where the US and the USSR both agreed upon this shared goal of eradication. The program’s strength lay in its measurable objective for complete eradication thus countries systematically reported case detection and worked with the WHO. Nations shared the responsibility by sharing resources. The program had political backing and funding for over a decade. The WHO had a Smallpox Eradication Unit that was led by experts in the field like Donald Henderson, who later founded the Center of Civilian Biodefense Studies at Johns Hopkins. The smallpox eradication campaign can serve as a powerful model for international cooperation. Smallpox remains “the only infectious disease to achieve this distinction.”

The evolution of the WHO and the International Health Regulations (IHR) have made expansive strides in global healthcare. However, the accelerating pace of globalization and the changing global health landscape have revealed critical limitations. The WHO struggled to enforce effective governance during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was unable to coordinate an international response, delayed declaring COVID-19 as an international emergency and was not able to hold nations accountable for disease surveillance and timely reporting. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed domestic political agendas which led to a fragmented response and its politicization fueled skepticism on scientific advice globally. What this highlighted is that the WHO has arrived at a critical inflection point where the future of successful pandemic response must be able to transcend political pressures. 

Although the WHO has had a historical commitment to global health, another moment of international solidarity is needed — one where a global crisis becomes the catalyst for cooperation just as World War II served as the platform for creating the U.N. A virus may not be treated as a world war, yet its global consequences and strains are not unlike the destructive impacts of warfare. There are extensive fatalities, governmental instability, economic implications and a shared sense of fear and crisis. So, why isn’t there an international institution or organization solely dedicated and committed to preventing the next global pandemic? 

In 2015, Bill Gates performed a TED Talk where he outlined that the world is not prepared for a pandemic. Fast forward 10 years to today in 2025 the global health system is still not prepared for a pandemic. 

Bill Gates has now proposed a systematic multifaceted solution to prevent the next global pandemic. This solution is the Global Epidemic Response and Mobilization (GERM) team. 

The GERM team would be a permanent institution and organization that can combat and coordinate rapid responses to new potential infectious outbreaks. Ultimately the GERM team could be seen as another functional unit of global cooperation and governance. Additionally, they would be coordinated with the WHO. The GERM team would become a multinational unit that comprises over 3,000 full time specialists in epidemiology, vaccine development, genetic engineering, data science, computer simulation, emergency medicine, communications and diplomacy. The GERM team would be actively monitoring and researching threatening outbreaks. Disease X would be contained before it becomes a global health threat. Bill Gates states in his TED talk that if COVID-19 was caught in the first 100 days it would have saved over 98% of the lives lost. The first 100 days are crucial to stop the spread of an epidemic and the GERM team would be equipped to do so. 

The GERM team is an exemplary theoretical model solution that can transition into becoming a groundbreaking reality. For the GERM team to come into fruition it needs funding. Governments spent an immense amount of funds during COVID-19. Money was poured into economic relief programs, healthcare infrastructure and other aid response measures. The U.S government spent 4.6 trillion dollars and created the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act during the pandemic. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), a major U.N. financial agency, estimates that COVID-19 has cost the world around 14 trillion dollars. To put the GERM team’s funding into perspective, spending money on the GERM team now would save nations from spending trillions of dollars later. The GERM team will cost the world 1 billion dollars annually to maintain all the resources and on-the-ground manpower. This is a worthy investment for the survivability of our future. To apply Bill Gates’ motto here — “This is the billions we need to spend in order to save millions of lives and trillions of dollars.”

The funding needed for the GERM team would have an expansive impact beyond stopping Disease X. It could provide another opportunity to advance medical tools for efficiency in many different specialties. To prepare to prevent a pandemic there needs to be investment in diagnostic tools, vaccines and deliverance which will subsequently address health disparities and global accessibility. A case study on microneedle patch vaccines exemplifies the reach the GERM team could have on closing the health security gap. 

The GERM team would fund new research in vaccine deliverance such as microneedle patches. Microneedle patch vaccines provide an efficient delivery system to the dermis and epidermis layers of the skin. Research on this deliverance method has shown higher immunogenicity for some vaccines than the traditional intramuscular needle route. Microneedle patch vaccines could revolutionize immunization strategies because it allows fast global vaccine deployment and mass production. More importantly, this vaccine method does not need large infrastructure or manpower to distribute. The vaccine patches do not require refrigeration, making delivering vaccines in remote areas and rural regions easier, thus improving accessibility. As illustrated, the GERM team’s impact on healthcare development could provide more than just pandemic prevention but could also help remedy the gaps in global health security that disproportionately devastate populations that do not have access to proper healthcare infrastructure. New diagnostic tools and therapeutics, disease surveillance, strengthening existing healthcare infrastructure in low-income countries and pathogen genomic data sharing are just a few more examples of how the GERM team’s impact addresses narrowing the health gap. 

In this era of increasing interdependence between nations, international institutions play a critical role in global governance and are vital forums to address global crises. The United Nations, the World Health Organization and the World Trade Organization are international institutions that are fundamental to global stability in governance, economy and health security. Yet the capacity to respond through these institutions has been undercut by political resistance. The Trump administration, for example, has demonstrated a strong aversion towards global multilateral commitments and institutions. Recently, the administration has cut thousands of programs under the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has long supported global health, education, humanitarian relief and economic development for nations recovering from conflict or disaster. Increased efforts to defund and discredit governmental agencies and organizations such as the WHO have further politized healthcare and weakened international cooperation. The GERM team could have direct funding that could be insulated from shifting political pressures which would bypass bureaucratic delays and geopolitical conflicts. Detailed frameworks for pandemic response are still under development, but the most important promenet is addressing the governance and enforcement gaps by embedding pandemic preparedness into the core agendas of nations. 

The current geopolitical climate has revealed the fragility of global health governance within the hands of today’s leaders. The tension underscores the relevance of Complex Interdependence Theory, founded by Keohane and Nye, which establishes a framework where states are not solely driven by military power or security concerns. Instead, nations are deeply interconnected through shared economies, trade networks, security interests, technological advancements, international institutions, shared health dependencies and environment (Keohane and Nye). States do not operate in isolation. While interdependence is a defining feature of global order, many states perceive it as a liability during global crises, precisely when collective action is most critical. Disease X will not happen in isolation either, it will thread itself through the web of international interdependence. 

 Globalization has fueled more interconnectedness among states, making global cooperation the cornerstone for global stability. A global pandemic is a wicked problem characterized by its complexity. It requires a multifaceted approach that necessitates international cooperation and robust global governance. A single nation is not able to stop a global pandemic alone, yet a single nation’s outbreak can trigger a chain reaction sending the world into crisis. The GERM team is strategically and uniquely positioned to interrupt the chain reaction. However, the question still remains: Who is responsible for Disease X? The answer is everyone — Disease X is our shared global foreign enemy, and it is our collective responsibility to confront it.

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

The post Disease X: The Next Global Foreign Enemy — Are We Ready? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Antibiotics are particularly powerful because the medication targets and restricts bacterial cell functions, either immobilizing their spread or killing them completely. The first antibiotic created was Penicillin, invented by physician and microbiologist, Alexander Flemming, in 1928. 

Dr. Mukherjee, the author of the Pulitzer Prize winner, The Emperor of All Maladies, concludes that, “Penicillin kills the bacterial enzymes that synthesize the cell wall, resulting in bacteria with ‘holes,’ in their walls. Human cells don’t possess these particular kinds of cells, thereby making penicillin a magic bullet”. Penicillin was revolutionary because it was the first time in history that there was a cure for infectious bacterial diseases. The efficacy of this new antibiotic had a monumental impact on World War II by controlling bacterial infections. During war, infectious diseases were often referred to as the “third army” because disease was a primary threat to soldiers. The unsanitary conditions, nutrition, overcrowding and open wounds created an ideal environment for bacterial diseases to thrive. “In World War I the death rate for bacterial pneumonia was 18% and in World War II it was less than 1%.” After World War II penicillin was being manufactured by the billions every month. 

Ever since its introduction, penicillin has become the “magic bullet” in medicine. However, the medical world realized it would not last forever. Alexander Flemming accepted the Nobel prize warning generations to come that the overuse of penicillin will cause bacterial resistance. The magic bullet, antibiotics, would become an old-fashioned bayonet against modern nuclear weapons – resistant bacteria.  

Bacterial infections can become resistant to antibiotics. Essentially, the process begins with antibiotics killing the microbes that are causing the infection. Then, the fraction of those microbes that survive the antibiotic treatment are naturally selected for the genes that make them resistant. As such, the presence of antibiotics increases the propagation of the surviving microbe, creating generations of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. 

The new generation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria essentially outsmarts the drug through the process of evolution. Therefore, the increasing usage of antibiotics generates new strains of antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections. Many bacterial strains have not only become resistant to one antibiotic but have become multidrug-resistant.  

Consequently, the world has moved into an era of pan-resistant infections, where microbes are no longer just multidrug-resistant, they are resistant to all available antibiotics. The drug that once protected and saved millions of lives has become a threat due to its overuse and misuse. 

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and Antibiotic resistance (AR) is the global silent pandemic. 

Antimicrobial resistance is a term that captures a broader range of infections caused by other microbes and is used in conjunction to antibiotic resistance. Millions of people die from antimicrobial resistance annually. The World Health Organization (WHO) published in 2019 that AMR contributed to 4.95 million deaths, including 1.27 million deaths where AMR was the direct cause of death. The WHO has declared AMR as “one of the top 10 global public health threats facing humanity.” 

Antibiotics are notoriously inappropriately prescribed. C. Lee Ventola, a highly cited researcher on drug response, has uncovered that “treatment indication, choice of agent, or duration of antibiotic therapy is incorrect in 30% to 50% of cases” in the United States. He also highlights that 30% to 60% of antibiotics prescribed in intensive care units (ICUs) follow suit. 

Antibiotic prescriptions and over-the-counter antibiotics are unregulated in many countries. Antibiotic resistance is largely attributed to the overuse and misuse of antibiotics. Antibiotics have become a convenient catch-all drug that is commonly prescribed for unnecessary treatments. Antibiotics accessibility, economic costs and lack of new advancing antibiotic research in the medical and pharmaceutical sectors contribute to its misuse. 

The antibiotic resistance issue is defined by its complexity and is in need of progressive, multifaceted solutions that will require the cooperation of many international actors. 

The fight against antibiotic resistance needs new global economic incentives for drug development, a reimagined advocacy viewpoint and an approach to stimulate awareness and cooperation. 

Modern medicine has created some of the most revolutionary achievements of mankind. The twentieth century has ushered in futuristic genetic engineering, novel immunotherapies, RNA vaccines and numerous developments in all medical specialties — antibiotic resistance is threatening these achievements.

The WHO states that organ transplantations, chemotherapy and surgeries such as caesarean sections become much more risky and dangerous without effective antibiotics for the prevention and treatment of infections that arise from such procedures.

Re-imagined Awareness Platform 

People from all walks of life are affected by antibiotic resistance but cancer patients are on the frontlines and are one of the most vulnerable populations.

Bacterial infections are the second leading cause of death in cancer patients. Unfortunately, many people are not strangers to the painful treatments and strenuous fights against cancer. Globally, it was estimated by the Worldwide Cancer Research Fund in 2020 that there are 18.1 million cancer patients. Cancer patients endure treatments that kill both cancerous cells and healthy cells, compromising their immune system. Furthermore, much of their care is provided in hospitals, where hospital-acquired infections (HAI’s) are a significant concern. Constant invasive visits that require puncturing skin for IV lines or the use of IV ports, surgery recovery, wound redressing and being present in an environment that treats some of the harshest multi-drug resistant infections makes cancer patients highly susceptible to HAIs. 

Kevin Outterson is the Executive Director at CARB-X, Combating Antibiotic Resistant Bacteria Biopharmaceutical Accelerator, a global nonprofit partnership and his research focuses on global antibacterial innovation. He is also a professor of Health and Disability Law at Boston University. He published a review with other scientists that addressed the issue of HAIs and antibiotic resistance in the Clinical Journal of the American Cancer Society. In a podcast interview with the Union for International Cancer Control, Outterson discussed the increased dangers of AMR to cancer patients. 

“Data shows that while antimicrobial resistant superbugs are a problem for everyone, for people with cancer, the risks are really three times higher that they’ll get a fatal infection from these superbugs,” Outterson said. He highlights that innovative cancer treatments have advanced so far that we can’t have the progress “undermined by the old foe of infection. ”

This point can be extended to how society has come so far in medical science that there is no time to be defeated by pan-resistant superbugs. 

Cancer patient communities have developed many awareness groups that have contributed to the demand for new treatments. Money is being pipelined into research funds and cancer institutes. There is a lot of awareness surrounding the cancer community, which is why there is a demand for new drugs. 

Cancer patient communities and advocacy groups work hard to spread awareness. Every month on the calendar is attributed to the awareness of different cancer types. The assortment of colorful ribbons divides cancers by where it was initially localized. However, that very ribbon no matter what color, symbolizes a plethora of support and unity for cancer patients.

There isn’t the same caliber of support and awareness for antibiotic resistance. The silent pandemic cannot remain quiet. 

AMR poses a threat to cancer treatments and many people are unaware of this. The Union for International Cancer Control is striving to “sensitize” and educate the cancer community to the AMR threat. Cancer patients and supporters could become the global ambassadors for antibiotic resistance advocacy. They have a strong base to instill action and awareness for antibiotic resistance. 

If health advocacy groups could implement AMR awareness in their programs and platforms, the impact would be monumental. Currently, there are some movements to spread awareness such as the global campaign, such as World AMR Awareness Week. However, AMR awareness requires a larger approach because it affects everyone. Imagine if every medical condition organization embedded AMR awareness in its mission. Kevin Outterson comments that not many patients identify as “I’m a survivor from a drug-resistant infection,” however, a wide range of patients would fall under this category. Countless patient groups rely on antibiotics, to unite those groups with the cancer community could change the fate of antibiotic resistance through awareness. 

There needs to be a public outcry, just as the cancer community has fought for preventative measures to ensure others avoid cancer, such as HPV vaccinations, wearing sunscreen and laws surrounding cigarette usage. The mobilization of these patient groups that already have an established platform could make a significant difference in both raising awareness and mobilizing funding for antibiotic research and solutions. 

Antibiotic Resistance Research Pipeline and Economy 

The antibiotic research communities are described by Outterson as looking “over longingly at the pipeline and the money going into cancer, ” Outterson said. Compared to the revolutionary research being done in the cancer industry, the antibiotic industry has fallen short. The predominant cause for this discrepancy is lack of funding. 

The science behind both cancer research and antibiotic research is remarkable. Science is not a limiting factor for research in the antibiotic field, it is that society does not expend money or resources for antibiotic development as if they are valuable. 

Antibiotics are relatively cheap in comparison to cancer treatments as common antibiotics are mass-produced. However, the WHO states that, “just 27 new antibiotics for the most threatening infections are in the clinical trial stage of drug development. In contrast, there were more than 1,300 cancer drug trials in 2020.” To further extend this alarming condition, the WHO only recognized two antibiotics to be effective for surviving antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. 

The underlying issue is that there is not enough research going into the solution for antibiotic resistance. Internationally, there was only one antibiotic, “cefiderocol, that was approved to treat the superbugs on WHO’s most critical list.” The recently published urgent threat multi-resistant bacteria and fungi include Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, Candida auris, Clostridioides difficile, Carbapenem-resistant Enterobacteriaceae and Drug-resistant Neisseria gonorrhoeae. Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter, which cause pneumonia, bloodstream infections, urinary tract infections and wound infections, especially in patients receiving care in intensive care units. It is also one of the many resistant strains cancer patients are susceptible to. The Carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter carries “mobile genetic material” that can produce enzymes that inhibit the effect of antibiotics.

There are limited incentives to produce new innovative antibiotic drugs to combat these threats. The cancer research industry has fantastic reimbursement through selling cancer treatment drugs. The economic model for pharmaceutical companies is to invest upfront and reap the rewards from sales once approved. This model is not applicable for antibiotics and it stems from its market nature. Negative externalities arise as the production of new antibiotics results in a cost to a third party. Antibiotics may help a group of patients but then create resistant bacteria for the rest of the population.

It is an unusual market condition because companies invest time and money to produce antibiotics that are then used sparingly to reduce antibiotic resistance. 

Antimicrobial resistance escalates when there is an increased use of antibiotics; it creates a cycle of developing smarter microbial infections. That is atypical for the general medicines used today. For example, anticoagulants, antihistamines and antiepileptics will not lose their efficacy over time and only affect the individual patient prescribed. 

According to Doctor Venkatasubramanian Ramasubramanian, president of the Clinical Infectious Diseases Society of India,  “with a new antibiotic, we say, ‘don’t use it,’ or ‘use it sparingly so it lasts longer… It is not an attractive proposition for anyone in the industry,” Ramasubramanian said. 

Antibiotics need to be conserved to prevent the evolution of more antibiotic resistant bacteria. This is why newly developed antibiotics are typically used sparingly for five to fifteen years to ensure its efficacy. 

The flipside to this situation is that companies “developing one new antibiotic can take up to two decades and usually costs $568 million to $700,” according to Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s, Medicines in Development for Antimicrobial Resistance 2021 report. After all, the resources and money is put into approving a new antibiotic drug; it is then not used for as long as possible until necessary. Therefore, a large majority of antibiotic companies have gone bankrupt or abandoned the antibiotic field. Big Pharmaceutical companies are fleeing, such as Melinta Therapeutics, a large antibiotic developer warned the regulators they were running short of funds. Achaogen, a biotech company, went bankrupt after dedicating 15 years to develop a new antibiotic that was then added to the WHOs list of essential new medications. This market exit is a terrible trend as antibiotic resistance becomes more exacerbated.

Antibiotic resistance is a massive global financial burden worldwide and the highest burden is for low-resource countries. The United Kingdom’s AMR policy paper mentions that the World Bank predicts that “28 million people will be forced into extreme poverty by 2050 unless AMR is contained.” The World Bank also highlighted that there will be a global cumulative cost of $100 trillion by 2050 if the issue of antibiotic resistance remains under the radar for most people. 

There is a need for new global initiatives to stimulate more money into researching not only new antibiotics, but innovative solutions targeting antimicrobial resistance. 

The United Kingdom has pioneered an incentive payment model that could be emulated globally. In 2019, the United Kingdom’s Department of Health and Social Care launched an AMR project titled “UK 5-year action plan for antimicrobial resistance 2019-2024” that aims to contain AMR in the UK by 2024. 

The UK is the first country to create a subscription-based payment model for antimicrobial pharmaceutical companies where the government pays a fixed fee upfront to companies developing new antibiotic drugs. Since this model makes profits independent of prescription volume, it could dis-incentivise part of the reasons for antibiotics overuse . 

In 2022, Shiongi, a Japanese discovery-based pharmaceutical company signed an agreement with the National Health Service to begin a “subscription payment model for reimbursement of cefiderocol in England,” and Shionogi commented the company welcomed the “introduction of pull incentives to help bring urgently needed new antibiotics to market.” Although the UK’s initiatives have been attracting international pharmaceutical companies, they recognize that their actions to combat AMR need to be coupled with a global response where countries implement this model or their own variation of incentives into their domestic markets.

In the United States, the Pioneering Antimicrobial Subscriptions To End Upsurging Resistance (PASTEUR) Act introduced in 2023 follows a similar suit where companies would be paid contractually. The PASTEUR Act begins to address the broken marketplace for developing antibiotics and would authorize the Department of Health and Human Services to “enter into subscription contracts for critical-need antimicrobial drugs, providing $6 billion in appropriations for activities under the bill”. 

The PASTEUR Act is being debated, and if passed, it would fund vital antimicrobial stewardship programs as well. The UK serves as a role model for the rest of the world by taking a step in the right direction to solving the interdisciplinary issue of antimicrobial resistance. 

COVID 19’s Impact on Antimicrobial Resistance 

In the CDC’s 2022 Special Report on COVID-19’s impact on antimicrobial resistance, they state that Antimicrobial resistance was the “greatest public health concern prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, and it remains so.” The CDC also released that antimicrobial resistance is a leading cause of death globally. 

COVID-19 taught the world that viruses are a threat to human vitality, and preventative measures were crucial to combat the contagious spread of COVID-19 as it continued to mutate and create new strains. Even countries with strong healthcare infrastructures suffered from the fatal virus. 

The pandemic overshadowed the antimicrobial resistance pandemic. During COVID-19, patients upon admittance to the hospital would be prescribed antibiotics. This was an overuse of antibiotics when patients frequently did not have bacterial infections. This was due to the fact that healthcare professionals did not have any cure for COVID-19 and had to be greatly cautious. Patients that had weakened immune systems from COVID-19 were more susceptible to bacterial infections. In the US, “from March 2020 to October 2020, almost 80% of patients hospitalized with COVID-19 received an antibiotic.” 

COVID-19 should serve as a lesson that the international community must invest in the preparedness to fight the next pandemic. Antimicrobial-resistant will have severe, long-term consequences and it is our “silent” pandemic. The best way to fight this pandemic is to be preventative. This is why funding in antimicrobial resistance research is crucial and should be at the forefront for the scientific community. For example, there is a need for specialized laboratory tests to efficiently identify bacterial infections and new effective stewardship programs for infection prevention measures. 

The COVID-19 pandemic created a race to find curative measures against the virus. The novel vaccine restored the world. However, it is important to note that antibiotics are a “shared resource” drug, one person’s use of antibiotics impacts the efficacy of the drug. This is why global cooperation is so important to combat AMR. The WHO created the Global Antimicrobial Resistance and Use Surveillance System (GLASS) to inform, collect data and connect global actors on solution strategies. This is a representation of global cooperative measures that are needed. 

Vaccine development is at the forefront of antibiotic resistance research fields and serves as a new hope to decrease antibiotic use. Drug-resistant S. pneumoniae is the only bacterial pathogen that has an effective vaccine, pneumococcal conjugate vaccines (PCVs) listed in the CDC’s special report. This vaccine “prevented more than 30,000 cases of invasive pneumococcal disease and 3,000 deaths from 2010 to 2013 alone.” Vaccines such as this help safeguard antibiotics from overuse that creates resistance. 

COVID-19 required an international response, and collective action was taken to combat it. COVID-19 taught the world that we are not immune to viruses or infections. The virus evolved into new strains which required global action to combat its rapid evolution into more contagious strains, such as Omicron.

 The CDC’s 2022 report stated that much of the progress was lost in regard to antimicrobial resistance in the US due to the impacts of COVID-19. They stated that the “pandemic pushed healthcare facilities, health departments, and communities near their breaking points in 2020, making it very hard to maintain the progress in combating antimicrobial resistance.” Now that the COVID-19 pandemic is more controlled, the world must face and focus on the pandemic of antimicrobial resistance here and on the horizon. 

Valeria Gigante, a member of the WHO’s antimicrobial resistance division states that people who die from antibiotic resistance outnumber the deaths from HIV, tuberculosis and malaria combined. There has been great mobilization for all three and similar mobilization occurred during COVID-19. 

It is time to see the same call for action for antibiotic resistance because we live in an age with an upsurge of pandemics and superbugs. 

We are no longer strangers to superbugs; we must reimagine a world where our priority is to combat antibiotic-resistant microbes because if we don’t they will always be evolving one step ahead of us. 

The post A Pathogen’s Plight: The International Lethal Pandemic of Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Originally thought as a uniquely Japanese phenomenon, hikikomori has become global as these shut-ins have increased in number in countries other than Japan, a trend that can be attributed to the pandemic. Why do hikikomori exist in the first place? And why has the global pandemic set the foundation for the hikikomori lifestyle to develop?

Definition-wise, hikikomori are generally translated as shut-ins. However, the phenomenon goes beyond simply a desire to stay inside. The condition has multiple parts, where psychiatric states like PTSD or depression and non-psychiatric states like loneliness or chronic internet usage combine. 

As such, each person’s hikikomori state would be unique within the definition’s flexibility and wide scope, but all are united by physical and social isolation for an extended period of time, roughly over six months. In addition, a hikikomori is generally considered to be from 20 to 30 years old, as younger people often are diagnosed with internet addiction or some other mental issue.

To understand the way a hikikomori functions, the best place to look is the originator of the condition, Japan. According to a 2010 survey, around 1.2% of the Japanese population are hikikomori, with the number increasing due to social trends. 

Due to many parents being absent due to the intense work culture and the lack of strong relationships, some people fall into overly dependent mindsets. These mindsets prime them to become hikikomori. Also, hikikomori live with their families, but sometimes live alone. However, both kinds effectively function the same, living a life of isolation.

Those traits of people with the hikikomori condition have left the cultural sphere of Japan and permeated the world. The way that it has done this is through loneliness. 

The COVID-19 pandemic generated that period of loneliness with countries around the world implementing their own versions of quarantines, preventing in-person socializing and interaction. From the beginnings of the pandemic to sometime during the midst, around a 5% increase in loneliness was recorded. Although individuals who had people in the residence or often spoke with others online had less of a likelihood to develop loneliness, they had the potential to experience negative mental states. 

An important note is that the people surveyed were primarily from North America and Europe, showing how COVID-19 created loneliness similar to the levels found within Japanese society. Despite this, the hikikomori condition is both a mental and social illness, so other mental issues need to be present to fully develop into a hikikomori.

As a connecting point for individuals across the world experiencing this issue, the internet remains as one of the focal points for the hikikomori condition. It can become a substitute for social interaction for many hikikomori, where they spend time surfing the web or playing video games by themselves. Due to the lack of face-to-face interaction, the feeling of loneliness can creep in, which perpetuates the hikikomori status. 

Despite many studies showing the internet to be harmful, other studies have been pointing towards the opposite. Hikikomori are able to socialize via text or multiplayer games which can revitalize their social abilities. These are, in fact, many of the same methods that teens used to continue socializing despite the pandemic removing in-person communication. 

Through the process of socializing, hikikomori are able to slowly reverse their condition and enter back into society. There are several strategies recommended for this. The first step is always to identify the problem, as many can write off the hikikomori phenomenon as a phase. Once the problem is fully recognized, family support is an effective way to start, as the hikikomori themselves don’t often initiate themselves on the path back into society. 

In a similar vein, getting a licensed professional to schedule a home visit could help, allowing the individual to walk through the problem. With those tools and more used together, the hikikomori condition can soon be a remnant of the past.

With Japan being the main country forced to confront this issue, it is easy for other countries to dismiss this as a problem that does not concern them. However, countries already studied, like the United States, and those not yet researched for the seeds of loneliness, like China, need to learn from Japan or else deal with the consequences of this development.

Within the United States alone, there are an estimated 10 million NEETs (Not in Employment, Education, or Training) which function quite similarly to hikikomori and many might suffer from being a hikikomori at the same time. A lot of American sites like Reddit perpetuate hikikomori behaviors within these NEETs, but not many resources are available to help. This is in comparison to Japan, where 50 support centers were established.

While these statistics for the United States were before the pandemic, the pandemic permitted more people the lifestyle of a hikikomori, as the main requirement of staying inside constantly was fulfilled. As such, by taking some inspiration from the studies done and actions that Japan has put into place to help hikikomori, the United States, amongst the other countries growing in hikikomori, can work to prevent individuals from shutting themselves out from the world. With the pandemic restrictions coming to a close, hikikomori should slowly leave their homes for their own mental wellbeing. By taking a walk or meeting with friends again, hikikomori may realize that there is much more out there in the world than what is in their own rooms.

The story of the hikikomori is a modern one, brought on by society and current events, yet with those same resources, can be resolved. As countries begin to see an increase in hikikomori, looking back on Japan and the research done is a step necessary to solve this important, yet often inconspicuous issue. Through the collective effort of all countries with hikikomoris present, these individuals will be able to step outside and have a community again.

The post Hikikomori: The Growth of Shut-Ins in the Modern Age appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

On Aug. 1, 2022, New Zealand officially reopened its border to visitors from all over the world for the first time since March 2020, when the country was placed on lockdown and non-residents were denied entry.

I landed at Auckland International Airport on Aug. 5, 2022, as one of the first non-Australian foreign visitors (New Zealand lifted border restrictions for travelers from non-visa countries, including Australia, in April). My parents’ friends J and A, who had worked in the tourism industry for the past ten years, picked me up from the airport and decided to give me their “final tour” of the country. Both of them became realtors in 2021, one year after COVID-19.

COVID-19 has undoubtedly impacted major industries in every country, and New Zealand is no exception. Tourism made up 5.8% of New Zealand’s GDP in 2019, with an added indirect contribution of 3.8%.  

The highlight of my stay in New Zealand would be our trip to Queenstown, the renowned tourist spot for adventurers. We visited “Cody’s,” a Chinese restaurant owned by a Chinese couple who migrated to New Zealand 20 years ago. They took over the restaurant in 2017 and made a great profit thanks to a large number of Chinese tourists. 

After COVID-19 hit, the restaurant struggled — revenue could not even cover monthly rent. In the past three years, they used up savings from the past years to keep the business afloat. At one point, the couple let all the staff go and did everything themselves. 

These measures have allowed the restaurant to survive the pandemic. Though after the border reopened, the restaurant is now facing a new challenge: they are understaffed and are having trouble hiring people. Similarly, many businesses struggled to stay open since the pandemic, and most of the owners’ friends left the hospitality industry, some even returning to China.

“All of our coworkers and friends had to change professions. Many of our previous employees now work as couriers for Amazon or cashiers at grocery stores. There is nothing you can do; it’s the biggest economic shock in my living memory,” said J. In fact, in the first year of the pandemic, 33.1% of tourism workers lost their jobs in the country.

Industries are changing fast and closely connected to one another. Once you leave an industry, it is extremely difficult to go back. In order to provide the best experiences, tourist agents need connections in the hospitality and transport industries. Once their old connections were lost due to Covid, they needed to build new ones to maintain business, which requires years of hard work. 

“I can’t go back even if I wanted to. After [COVID-19], we are all like the Wanaka tree”, said J. The Wanaka tree is a willow tree located on the edge of lake Wanaka on New Zealand’s south island. Ironically, as a major tourist attraction and symbol of “hope,” the tree was vandalized (several branches were taken off with a saw) in March 2020, after the first covid case was discovered in the country.

New Zealand has also witnessed a rising crime rate due to Covid-related inflation and unemployment. Violent activities have become commonplace, especially in downtown Auckland and central Wellington. 

Compared to pre-pandemic levels, New Zealand’s crime rate has risen by 30%. More than 1000 people were assaulted in Auckland’s Central Business District in the first five months of 2021, a 63% increase compared to crime rate levels in 2019. A has lived close to Auckland’s Central Business District for the past 30 years. 

“I’ve never felt this unsafe,” said A.

Despite current hardship, the border reopening policy presents much-needed hope and opportunities. The inflow of tourists has in turn generated economic productivity.

During my two weeks of stay, I ran into a perceivable number of travelers from Korea, Taiwan and South America. The number is expected to rise by the day as the skiing season beginning in August attracts enthusiasts. As tourism is a crucial factor for economic revitalization, New Zealand is witnessing a positive economic trend.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances and challenges still remain. International students have contributed immensely to New Zealand’s economy and development. Chinese students comprise 26.5 % of the total international student population. 

Chinese visitors also dominate New Zealand’s overseas travels. In 2019 alone, 407,100 visitors arrived from China. However, China has not shown signs of loosening restrictions on Chinese citizens’ traveling abroad. There is no prediction on when these restrictions will be lifted since the Chinese government remains ambiguous about its border policy.

For New Zealand’s future, there is still a long way to go. People lost not only their jobs but also their friends, connections, or even families. Border reopening may not mean “going back to normal.” The old normal disappeared, and it is the new normal we should be getting used to.

The post New Zealand Fully Reopens Its Border: Opportunities & Challenges appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

HONG KONG — While many countries have been devastated by the pandemic, Hong Kong has done fairly well in containing the spread of the virus. In total, the country has only accumulated approximately 12,000 cases within a population of 7.5 million. 

However, the vaccination program that began in late February has been underwhelming, despite an abundance of supply, with merely 10.7% of the population receiving the first jab as of April 23. Efficacy issues associated with the Sinovac vaccine and general distrust toward the local and Chinese government has led to the poor vaccination rate.

Hong Kong is not known as an anti-vaccine city. Citizens are generally aware of public health issues and willing to participate in mass vaccination programs, especially after the SARS outbreak in 2003 took almost 300 Hongkongers’ lives and dampened the city’s economy. Between late 2019 and mid 2020, an estimated number of 1.2 million Hong Kong residents received flu vaccinations under government programs. 

Since February, Hong Kongers have been able to choose between two COVID-19 vaccines: Sinovac, developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech and endorsed by the Hong Kong government, and BioNTech, jointly developed by American company Pfizer and German company BioNTech. However, efficacy issues with Sinovac has made the vaccine-accepting public more resistant toward taking the Chinese vaccine.

Sinovac, a COVID-19 vaccine candidate developed by Chinese biopharmaceutical company Sinovac Biotech, began its Phase III clinical trial in July 2020. However, the company has not made its development process transparent. Normally, vaccine companies publish data from their Phase III clinical trial in peer-reviewed journals before obtaining approval from authorities. Sinovac has not published details on its vaccine in a journal. In contrast, Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna released their Phase III trial data in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2020.

In January, before the vaccine was rolled out in Hong Kong and other countries, Sinovac was reported to have an efficacy rate of about 50%, according to Butantan Institute, a Brazilian medical research center. Chile’s recent vaccination program with Sinovac boosted the estimated rate to 56.5%, raising it slightly above WHO’s efficacy requirement of 50%. In comparison, BioNTech is reported to have about 90% efficacy rate, while AstraZeneca’s vaccine is estimated at approximately 75%.

Another concern with Sinovac is its efficacy within elderly populations. During its Phase III trial in Brazil, Sinovac did not gather enough data for its effect on individuals over the age of 60. Only 413 participants over 60 completed two doses in the clinical trial, not enough to have statistical implication.

The company has even released a disclaimer about the lack of data on elderly individuals. According to Pak-leung Ho, leading microbiologist at the University of Hong Kong, the Chinese government does not recommend the Sinovac vaccine for individuals over 60. He suggests that Hong Kong can learn from Macau’s vaccination policy, where individuals over 60 will need to consult medical professionals before taking the vaccine.

Currently, Sinovac is being distributed in countries across all continents, including Brazil, Turkey and Indonesia. Many government officials from these countries have reassured their public about the Sinovac’s effectiveness, including Khairy Jamaluddin, Malaysia’s science minister who posted on Twitter after taking the first shot of the vaccine. Singapore, however, has let its Sinovac supply sit in storage after receiving them in February, citing the lack of data as the reason the government has not approved the vaccine yet.

Despite all this, regulators approved the vaccine for use in Hong Kong in February of this year. Local media outlets cast doubt over the rushed approval process, though the government defended its decision and dismissed doubts as a “misunderstanding of the mechanism for authorising vaccines for emergency use.” 

Many citizens in Hong Kong remained wary of Sinovac. In a survey conducted by the University of Hong Kong in January, fewer than 30% of respondents considered Sinovac an acceptable vaccine, compared to a 56.5% acceptance rate for the BioNTech vaccine, the other vaccine option in Hong Kong.  

Another major reason behind Hong Kong’s low vaccination rate is the public’s deep distrust of government. Since the city’s Chief Executive Carrie Lam instigated mass protests over an extradition bill two years ago, her approval ratings have plummeted to historical lows. Her government is also widely regarded as pro-Beijing, especially amid recent electoral reforms where only “patriots” are permitted to run for office.

Residents are particularly skeptical about Lam’s enthusiastic endorsement of the Chinese manufactured Sinovac. When an alliance of hospital employees warned older residents about Sinovac’s lack of sufficient trial data, Lam slammed the group for spreading misinformation. In another case, a private clinic was dropped from the government inoculation programme after it promoted BioNTech over Sinovac and cited their efficacy rates as evidence. 

So far, 15 people have died after receiving vaccines in Hong Kong, 12 of whom received Sinovac jabs. Health officials have repeatedly stressed that the deaths are not linked to the vaccines, though the public remains highly skeptical.

“According to the government, none of the deaths are related to the vaccine,” Hong Kong resident Belinda Lin told the Associated Press. “Most of the patients had cardiovascular conditions, so there must be some association, but the government seems to be trying to dissociate it.”

In March, the government suspended BioNTech shots for two weeks after a batch was discovered to have defective packaging. Authorities threw away the batch, a decision that several medical professionals questioned and likened to destroying evidence.

“I am quite surprised that the Hong Kong authorities said that they had already discarded all the problematic bottles,” said Alvin Chan, a co-chairman of the advisory committee on communicable diseases and a council member of the Medical Association. “To investigate the problem, at least these faulty bottles need to be examined meticulously by the company.”

These incidents have all raised concerns about a political agenda not just behind the vaccination drive, but the government’s endorsement of the Sinovac vaccine. 

As Ramon Yuen, a district councilor from the city’s pro-democracy opposition, told Bloomberg Quint, “many people are saying the government has its own agenda, and this will impact the effectiveness of public health policy.” 

By the end of March, the number of people who scheduled, but skipped, their Sinovac appointments stood at around 20%, compared with a 5% no-show rate for BioNTech appointments.

Recently, the vaccination drive has seen a big boost as the government said it would ease social-distancing restrictions for inoculated people. Bookings on the day of the announcement jumped up to nearly double the number on the previous day. Around 13,500 people made online reservations for the BioNTech vaccine on the first day of the announcement, compared with 3,300 who signed up for Sinovac.

Nonetheless, no matter the incentives offered, as long a lack of public confidence in not just the vaccines, but the government, remains high, the vaccination drive in Hong Kong will stay sluggish.

The post Vaccination Campaigns in Hong Kong Struggle to Gain Public Trust appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

When President Joe Biden took office in January, the United States’ global reputation and global partnerships were falling into disarray. The Trump administration aggravated tensions with numerous countries around the world — both allies and adversaries. But, in particular, the relationship between the U.S. and China suffered greatly, with the economic, trade, and diplomatic relations turning sour and geopolitical tensions increasing.

Biden’s leadership in the White House comes at a pivotal time for the world. When COVID-19 continues to ravage the world; and the development of competing vaccines, the creation of vaccine passports and the race to distribute them to countries in need are fueling U.S.-China tensions. Foreign policy leadership under the new administration undoubtedly has a different outlook on foreign affairs than the previous administration — with engagement, global cooperation and multilateralism at the forefront of decision making. 

The relationship between China and the United States is a nuanced one; the two countries are both rivals and partners in different sectors. And the integrated and globalized economy means that the decisions of one great power undoubtedly impact the fate of the other — and vice versa. This article will provide a brief overview of what those main issue areas are, and how the Biden administration is expected to approach each area in light of U.S.-China relations. 

Navigating Trade and the Global Economy

An increasingly confrontational relationship between the United States and China continues to test global diplomacy and international trade, as the two countries struggle for economic and political power. 

In 2016, former President Donald Trump accused China of being one of the primary reasons for losses in U.S. manufacturing jobs, igniting a complex U.S.-China trade war. In 2018, the United States imposed tariffs on more than $360 billion worth of Chinese goods, causing China to retaliate by imposing tariffs on U.S. products. As tensions grew, the January 2020 $200 billion trade deal between China and the United States failed to solve economic hardship stemming from the multi-year trade war. 

But this tension is built on complex cooperation. China is the United States’ largest supplier of imported goods. Trump’s tariffs policy encouraged U.S. consumers to buy national products, making imported goods rise in prices. This strained the U.S.-China relationship, increasing tensions and making international trade more expensive. 

And currently, large disruptions in global trade resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic has provoked executive action in an attempt to reduce U.S. dependence on internationally sourced materials. On February 24, Biden signed a new Executive Order on U.S. a supply chain, requiring his administration to review supply chains and bolster American manufacturing output, beginning long-term efforts to insulate the U.S. economy from future shortages of critical manufacturing goods. The order calls for a yearlong review of six sectors and a 100-day review of four critical manufactured imports: high-capacity batteries, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, and critical minerals. Early on in the pandemic, China diverted protective equipment against COVID-19 to local hospitals and proposed bans on critical minerals, leaving international buyers, including the United States, empty handed. Biden’s new executive order began an important step for creating jobs and making the U.S. economy more resilient in the face of ever growing global threats.

On March 1, the Biden administration released the 2021 Trade Policy Agenda and 2020 Annual Report. The document specifies that the United States will use “all available tools” to address “China’s unfair trade practices that continue to harm U.S. workers and businesses.” The report  reinforces statements previously by the Biden administration in their strategy towards China on trade policy. 

“Addressing the China challenge will require a comprehensive strategy and more systematic approach than the piecemeal approach of the recent past,” the report read. 

Furthermore, the report outlines that it will be a top priority of the Biden administration to work with allies to ensure China fulfills its trade obligations. Although this report does not outline specific steps for trade policy moving forward, it solidifies Biden’s trade stance with China. 

Trump’s U.S.-China trade relationship left the Biden administration with several other economic complications. A December 2020 report from the Center for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) in the United Kingdom indicates that early lockdowns and stability from the COVID-19 pandemic has tipped economic recovery in China’s favor. The report predicts that after a strong economic recovery in 2021, the U.S. economy will grow about 1.9% annually from 2022-2024, and slow to 1.6% in the following years. By contrast, China’s economy is expected to grow 5.7% annually through 2025. 

Although China was the first country hit by COVID-19, aggressive action prevented the country from being affected by the same economic hardship as many others. By contrast, the U.S. economy has been hit hard by COVID-19, as the nation struggles to recover from over 30 million cumulative cases nationwide. The national economic damage has been cushioned by fiscal stimulus, but disagreements and prolonged passage of the $900 billion Consolidated Appropriations Act left millions of Americans struggling into the new year. 

On January 20, the Biden administration announced the American Rescue Plan, which intends to provide immediate economic relief to communities struggling from the effects of COVID-19, send grants and funding to struggling businesses, and assist state and local economies. Signed March 11, this plan will bolster U.S. economic growth and send much-needed relief to Americans and their families. This bill, combined with the American Jobs Plan — which aims to create millions of jobs to rebuild U.S. infrastructure and “position the United States to out-compete China” — will serve as major steps towards repairing the U.S. economy. 

As the United States recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic and begins to determine its trade policies with China moving forward, it will continue to test and enforce trade relations with China. 

The Growing Challenge of Cyber Security

In May 2020, the Trump administration attempted to block American telecommunications firms from installing foreign made equipment that could pose a threat to national security. This included an attempt to restrict the sales of Huawei computer chips within the United States and restrict Huawei from building its 5G wireless networks for fear of global spying. 

Further, hacking concerns in May 2020 caused the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to issue warnings of an imminent threat to U.S. based healthcare, pharmaceutical and research sectors working on COVID-19 response. However, this strategy failed to dissuade further cybertheft. 

In July 2020, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Justice issued charges to Chinese hackers after an attempt to gain intelligence on U.S. intellectual property, including COVID-19 research. In September 2020, the Center for Strategic and International Studies revealed that Chinese hackers had been monitoring U.S. government and private networks for over a year in search of vulnerabilities. 

Following incidents of intellectual theft from U.S.-based companies and despite U.S. efforts to prevent major companies such as Huawei from dominating the field of telecommunications, China continues to grow as a limitless threat in the cybersphere. The United States’ vulnerability to China’s international cyber reach leaves the Biden administration with several immediate online threats to combat and weaknesses to secure. 

The Trump administration challenged China’s technology industry through sanctions and executive orders. Early actions from the Biden administration indicate Biden will maintain a similar approach. 

In the 2021 Virtual Munich Security Conference, Biden said that “we must shape the rules that will govern the advance of technology and the norms of behavior in cyberspace, artificial intelligence, biotechnology so that they are used to lift people up, not used to pin them down.” Statements like this display the administration’s tough stance on proliferating technology concerns. 

Biden may potentially continue the Trump administration’s efforts to exclude Chinese companies from next-generation 5G mobile networks. Trump’s executive order gives the U.S. government the power to block technology transactions that pose “an unacceptable risk to the national security of the United States.” 

Only time will tell what the Biden administration will do to tackle cyber security on a global scale. However, one thing is certain: the conversation of technology, global security, and cyber dominance will continue under the Biden administration. 

Emerging Technology and Media Concerns

The technology standoff between the U.S. and Chinese administrations was one item in the laundry list of tensions between the two countries that dominated headlines over the past year. As a staunch proponent of American superiority, Trump seemed determined to undercut any sort of relationship with China that was perceived as a security threat. In February 2020, officials discussed placing restrictions on export licenses of goods from American companies in order to restrict sales to China and reduce their technological advantage. 

American technology companies voiced strong concerns and opposition to any sort of embargo. They insisted that these restrictions would actually undercut American business abroad, as many foreign and American companies were locked into symbiotic business relationships. While these specific restrictions were never enacted, the threat of implementation was enough for some foreign companies to begin cutting ties with American tech corporations. In particular, the semiconductor industry was among one of the most affected industries as the Trump administration placed strict limitations on sales of sensitive microchip technologies to China in January 2020. 

The U.S.-China technology war goes beyond the trade of technological raw materials. In September 2020, as the Chinese app TikTok gained massive global traction, Trump signed an executive order that demanded Bytedance, the app’s parent company, to sell TikTok’s American operations to a U.S.-based company. Trump also banned WeChat, the popular Chinese messaging and communications app, from app stores on Android and iOS platforms. These restrictions were the culmination of U.S. suspicions regarding how these apps utilized personal user information; many in the administration believed the apps were delivering sensitive information directly to Chinese intelligence. As the Trump administration exited the White House, the New York Stock Exchange was ordered to delist the stocks of three Chinese telecommunications companies.

Many believe that the strict hardline stance against Chinese technologies will continue under the Biden administration. The U.S. continues to state that Chinese technologies pose an economic and national security threat to American interests. While many American companies attempted to block such acts from being implemented, the Biden administration is reportedly allowing a Trump-era sanction against Chinese technologies to come into effect later this year. This rule would allow the U.S. Department of Commerce to unilaterally ban any Chinese technologies that it perceives as a threat to national security, paving the way for a great deal of uncertainty among CEOs of American technology giants. However, the Biden administration has taken a step back from Trump’s bans on WeChat and TikTok, allowing the Commerce Department to review these sanctions and determine whether they are necessary. 

Looking Forward

China poses one of the largest long-term threats to U.S. national security. As a growing global influence, China will continue to shape the international sphere through free speech and censorship methods, economic trade policies, and cyber domination.

Tensions regarding trade tariffs and economic recovery will continue as the globe recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. As China and the United States recover from economic hardship, both countries may aim to improve trade relations. However, this seems increasingly unlikely, as recently passed U.S. legislation aims to outcompete Chinese manufacturing and economic prosperity. 

Cyber security and growing concerns over censorship will continue throughout 2021. Following cases of lapses in cyber security, the U.S. will need to bolster its stability in the cybersphere. The U.S.-China technology war will likely continue under the Biden administration — as the U.S. looks to secure its position as a global hegemonic power. Over the course of the trade war with China, the U.S. administration seeks to also become less reliant on Chinese manufacturing and more self-sufficient. 

Another point of contention that gained international traction last year is the treatment of the Muslim Uighur population in China. The issue attracted massive media coverage when reports of camps filled with Uighurs in the north-western Xinjiang region of China were leaked to international media. While the Chinese government was openly criticized for its actions, President Trump supposedly voiced approval of the treatment — news that became public following the release of former National Security Advisor John Bolton’s memoir. President Trump also delayed sanctions against China’s treatment of the Uighurs in order to facilitate a trade deal. Shortly before leaving the White House, the Trump administration changed course and publicly denounced the treatment of the Uighurs. The Biden campaign was vehemently opposed to the issue but it remains to be seen whether the administration will pursue a more hardline stance against this particular humanitarian issue.

The U.S.-China relationship will continue to evolve over the next four years under the Biden administration. As tensions continue to rise, only time will tell if the United States and China will be able to resolve hegemonic conflicts and improve diplomatic relations. 

The post The Struggle of Hegemony: The Future of the U.S.-China Relationship appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

For example, in Eritrea, a country in East Africa, over 80% of the population lacks access to drinking water. Other countries with similarly staggering numbers include Uganda, Ethiopia and Somalia. Essentially, the world is suffering from a global water crisis. 

People around the world are not able to access both the quantity and quality of water necessary to carry out basic human needs, such as cleaning, bathing, drinking and growing food. This crisis has been recognized by the United Nations and was made a Sustainable Development Goal in 2015. The SDGs serve as a “shared blueprint for peace and prosperity for people and the planet.” As SDG 6, the UN hopes to provide clean water and sanitation to all by 2030. Off track to hit this goal, the UN introduced the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework last year to speed up action.

According to USAID, women and children in developing countries walk an average of 3.5 miles a day to fetch potable water. This accessibility challenge exacerbates water vulnerability for millions of people, especially considering that most of the water gathered in developing countries comes from a polluted source, contaminated with raw sewage, surface run-off, industrial effluents, and feces. The surface water contains disease-causing pathogens, such as cholera, typhoid fever and diarrhoea, as well as dangerous toxins like arsenic and lead. Children are particularly vulnerable, considering that 5,000 children die daily from waterborne illness and issues of sanitation. Many of these children already suffer from malnutrition and other diseases. 

The situation is expected to worsen as the global population rises and the water supply falls. According to the World Health Organization, by 2025, half of the world’s population is expected to be in regions labeled “water-stressed.” This is detrimental, due to the impact of water scarcity and water stress on basic sanitation and public health. As demonstrated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, access to safe and clean water is critical because “handwashing with soap is one of the most effective ways to limit the spread” according to the UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

Additionally, water stress impacts different vulnerable groups to varying extents. This crisis will undoubtedly heighten issues of gender inequality, as many risks fall disproportionately on women. Due to cultural expectations, women and girls are responsible for fetching water in  80% of households with off water premises. As a result, women and girls walk an average of four miles with a 44 pound jerry can to their nearest water source. For parts of the world that suffer from water scarcity, particularly in urban areas, common water sources include surface water along riverbeds, hand-pump boreholes that extract water from the ground, and kiosks at the water source where water is bought from informal vendors. This necessary, yet brutal, walk to retrieve water occurs daily, despite health or weather conditions. 

This daily task is time consuming, limiting the ability of women and girls to do other work or tend to their families. The journey also poses a physical challenge; girls as young as 10-years-old and pregnant women often complete this arduous task. Around the world, women walk a combined 200 million hours daily. 

Women are subject to safety hazards when they collect water. According to a study led by Northwestern University, at least 13% of women reported physical injuries while collecting water, due to falls, traffic accidents, animal attacks and violence. While hauling water, women were twice as likely to get hurt than men. They are also at risk of sexual and physical assault during their trips. 

In Science Daily, journalist Vanessa Offiong reported on the story of Hasiya, a 16-year-old girl from Nasarawa, Nigeria, who left one evening on her 40-minute route to retrieve water. On her return, she noticed a group of boys shouting at her, and because speeding up was nearly impossible given the weight of her filled bucket, The boys circled and kicked Hasiya to the ground, with no one around to help.

Offiong shares another woman’s story of rape while fetching water from the Uke River. The shame surrounding the rape forced to leave the community because she was married. She says the community has stopped reporting rapes to the police, and women walk in groups during the morning. In other cases of assault in areas with sources of groundwater and informal vendors, it has been reported that men operating the pumps have demanded more than payment, abusing their powers to force women into sex to access water.

As UNICEF notes, women and children are paying with lost time and lost opportunities, such as an education. The Council on Foreign Relations reports that, “a one hour reduction in the time spent to walk to the water source increases girls’ school enrollment rates by about 10 percentage points in Yemen, and by about 12 percentage points in Pakistan.” Schooling is critical for development and future economic and social mobility; for each additional year in primary school can increase girls’ future wages by 20%. Girls’ schooling can also help the global economy, for it is predicted that if India increased its enrollment for girls in primary school by one percent, gross domestic product would rise by around $5 billion.

Women are also disproportionately affected by sanitation issues. Over two billion people lack access to improved sanitation, such as proper toilets and handwashing, due to a deficiency of clean water. Globally, two out of five people lack handwashing facilities. Many are forced to practice open defecation, use unimproved facilities or forced to share sanitation facilities. Womens’ increased hygienic needs due to menstruation, pregnancy and childbirth are not met. One out of 10 girls in Africa drops out of school by 8th grade due to menstruation challenges, resulting from a lack of bathrooms and proper sanitation. A study conducted in Bangladesh, where only around 35% of the population has access to safe, uncontaminated drinking water, showed a separate toilet could increase girl enrolment in school by 15%. This is a global issue; a survey done by the government of India found that only 53% of government schools had a separate and functioning toilet for girls. 

A lack of water to properly sanitize also spreads disease, which disproportionately affects women, who have higher exposure to waterborne illnesses through domestic work, such as collecting water, washing clothes and cooking. Women who are pregnant are at increased risk, for over 44 million pregnant women have sanitation-related hookworm, which causes maternal anemia and leads to preterm births. This contributes to the yearly death toll of around one million women yearly due to unclean childbirth. 

As the global water crisis disproportionately affects women, they are still responsible for the collection and resource management of water within the household, in addition to the removal of wastewater. However, on a larger scale, men typically make decisions over water management and lead communities. Male leadership prevents women from making more educated decisions, as they are frontline water managers who have a unique understanding of current systems, approaches and the effect on the community. 

Clean water has the power to transform communities, reduce rates of disease, help equalize genders and create a more efficient economy. The development of proper infrastructure to collect clean water can be used to benefit communities, allowing for more jobs and less time lost fetching surface water.  

Working toward its goal to provide clean water and sanitation, the UN aims to protect ground water resources such as rivers, eliminate water pollution and increase international cooperation around the issue. Non-profit organizations have focused on building community wells, whether shallow wells that are hand dug or deep wells that are drilled. These wells provide clean groundwater that is closer to home. A World Research Institute study proposed that it would only take 1% of global GDP to give global access to water and reach a state of sustainable water management, which would lead to net benefit, as one dollar invested yields a 6.8 dollar return. 

UN General Assembly President Volkan Bozir emphasized the importance of this goal and the imperative all countries and organizations have to act quickly. 

“It is a moral failure that we live in a world with such high levels of technical innovation and success, but we continue to allow billions of people to exist without clean drinking water or the basic tools to wash their hands,” Bokzir said. 

Without equitable access to clean water, entire regions risk further development. And for the women and girls who are most vulnerable, clean water is imperative to securing basic rights.

The post The Global Water Crisis Heightens Issues of Gender Inequality appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, with the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic disrupting international travel and tourism, these remote countries have suffered greatly from the repercussions of a lack of tourism dollars being injected into their economies. 

According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the usual percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP,  from tourism for developing countries is 5%; however, for SIDS, the average share stands at over 20%. This over-reliance on the tourism industry has proven to be a highly fragile aspect of the SIDS economy, as tourism numbers decreased drastically during the pandemic, and so did the revenue. 

The Maldives is an illustrative example of this phenomenon. According to the World Bank, the tourism industry accounts for about 25% of the small Indian Ocean country’s GDP. Combining this factor with the steep decline in tourism due to the pandemic — from around 1.7 million visitors in 2019 to approximately 560,000 in 2020, or about a 66% decline — the country’s GDP contracted an estimated 28% by the end of 2020. 

“As an economy heavily dependent on international tourism, the restrictions on global travel and other protective measures against the Covid-19 pandemic have had a significant impact on the Maldives,” President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih told CNBC in a March 2021 interview. 

The Maldives had to close its borders to foreign tourists from March to July of last year. Not only did this trigger the firing of thousands of workers, as tourism revenue quickly declined , but it also directly affected the cash flow of foreign currency that helped the Maldivian Government pay for imports.

According to the Michigan State University, around 60% of the Maldives’ foreign exchange receipts are acquired through foreign tourism spending. These funds are used to buy imports such as petroleum, building materials and around 90% of the country’s food supplies.

According to a recent United Nations Development Program report on the Maldives’ state during the pandemic cited that these imports were drastically affected by the decline in tourism and foreign money being exchanged and used in the country. The same report highlights how the country went from importing around $45 million worth of petroleum in January 2020 to only about less than $10 million by May of the same year. 

This drastic fall in imports, economic activity, employment and overall quality of life in the Maldives highlights how fragile the tourism industry can be if a country is overly reliant on it. As the industry depends on several foreign factors that SIDS, like the Maldives, have virtually no control over, they have found this pandemic to be a “wake up” call to start looking into economic and industry diversification efforts. 

In the Maldives, this led the government to develop diversification plans for investing more in education and youth programs, as well as investment in foreign markets and better worker preparation for Maldivian citizens to incorporate them into the workforce outside of tourism. 

Luckily for the Maldives, its government has managed to keep a steady path towards recovery. The Maldivian authorities managed to cut down on their government spending and swap their monetary arrangements with foreign government banks like the Reserve Bank of India for a value of $400 million. Although tourist numbers are still below average – with around 200,000 foreign visitors arriving at the small nation between January and February 2021, which only accounts for 42% of last year’s numbers during the same period – the country expects to have about 1,000,000 tourist arrivals in 2021, which would lead to an approximate 17% rise in GDP by the end of the year. 

Nonetheless, this ideal scenario that the Maldives has managed to achieve is not the de facto outcome for every SIDS county. Other small island nations around the world have not been as fortunate to have a big enough monetary reserve and quick tourism recovery, such as the Maldives. 

This is the case of Fiji. This Pacific island country depends heavily on the tourism industry, accounting for 40% of its GDP and being directly responsible for employing 150,000 people, or 17% of the population of 880 thousand people. 

According to the Reserve Bank of Fiji, the country’s GDP shrunk by about 21.7% by the end of 2020, highlighting the worst contraction in the nation’s history. This is mostly because the number of tourists who visited the country in 2020 was 75% lower than in 2019. Fijian Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama said that this also led to 115,000 Fijians, or one-third of the Fijian workforce to be laid off from jobs or have hour cuts due to the failing tourism industry. 

“You can’t suddenly work from home when you earn your paycheck as a scuba instructor, or as a handicraft maker who usually sells to tourists,” said Bainimarama in a press conference in July 2020. “With borders shut around the world, Fijian tourism has come to a halt. Many jobs have still not returned; some may never.”

However, he has a different approach regarding future recovery for his country’s economy. Based on a survey and report by the IFC, diversification might still be in the picture, with efforts to improve education and workforce training programs in sight. However, plans like these are yet to be made official. Ultimately, Bainimarama still sees the tourism industry as Fiji’s main, and arguably, only choice for total recovery. 

“When it comes to COVID, SIDS need resources, not regulations better suited to larger level markets,”  Bainimarama said. “Let’s find opportunity in this crisis, by recognizing how the international community can better support employers and employees who rely on the stewards of small island economies, like tourism, and target support accordingly.”

His primary approach is to increase resources for the country’s development and its tourism industry, rather than veer towards more globalized forms of growth such as the Maldives plans to do with foreign investments. With this current strategy, the Reserve Bank of Fiji estimates that the Fijian economy might return to  pre-pandemic levels until 2023 with a GDP increase of around 14% in 2021, as long as tourism starts to increase steadily to 2019 levels. 

The IFC survey report also highlights that regardless of some financial intervention from the Fijian government, around 74% of businesses surveyed expected to close within five months. This emphasizes how the government’s strategy, although reliable in the long term, has not provided much relief to the Fijian people. Moreover, the report also shows that if no diversification efforts are promptly implemented, the Fijian economy will remain vulnerable to other external factors such as climate change or other financial crashes.

Overall, these two countries pose two fairly different approaches towards economic recovery. While the Maldives has taken a more immediate diversification approach, Fiji — although potentially aiming to diversify, bets more on revitalizing- its tourism sector to regain economic normality. 

In this comparative analysis, it is important to highlight that although Fiji has 360,000 more people than the Maldives, both countries have comparable GDPs of around $5.5 billion each. This gives the Maldives the comparative advantage in GDP per capita, having around $10,600 per person, while Fiji has $6,200. 

This GDP to population ratio is one of the factors that has allowed the Maldives to have a smoother path to recovery, aided by the fact that they have taken more active monetary and fiscal policies to stabilize the economy. 

However, the long-term recovery effects are yet to be seen entering the second quarter and the summer. This will be one of the main challenges for all the SIDS worldwide as they scramble to return to their pre-pandemic tourism levels.

Although a major part of the success of each country’s recovery will ultimately depend on the state of Covid restrictions within it as well as within its main tourism providing countries, the influence of fiscal and monetary policy as well as leadership in creating a sustainable strategy for recovery cannot be ignored. 

Tourism is a very fragile industry, and through these two examples, it is clear that there can be different approaches to addressing its fragility. With very different kinds of SIDS around the world, from the very rich like Singapore to the small and humble like Tuvalu, each country will have to develop their own personalized approach to recovery. 

Nonetheless, the fact that diversification is one of the main goals for SIDS still remains, as they look to make their economy more resilient to possible threats such as global warming and tourism crashes like the one that the pandemic originated. 

The post The True Cost of COVID-19 on Tourism for Small Island Developing States appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Over the last few years however, one facet of Thai society, the monarchy, has increasingly come into question. A USC student from Thailand, speaking anonymously for safety concerns and hereafter referred to as TS, said that “people are taking examples from Hong Kong and protests elsewhere” to determine what place, if any, the monarchy has in a modern Thailand.

The anti-monarchy movement began to take hold following the death of King Rama IX in 2016 and the subsequent appointment of his son, King Rama X. The new king, who spends most of his time in Europe and is notorious for his playboy attitude, is not nearly as popular among the people as his father was. His ascension to the throne coincided with political turbulence that had been present and ongoing since 2014, when a successful military coup took over the government and installed Prayuth Chan-ocha as the prime minister of Thailand. The coup occurred after months of protests and conflict between the administration of Yingluck Shinawatra, the previous prime minister, and other political parties. Chan-ocha, who was the general that led the coup, was the only candidate in an election that was essentially a formality. Dissatisfaction and political frustration continued to rise in the country until it finally boiled over in 2019. 

In December 2019, thousands of people took to the streets of Bangkok to protest a ruling by the Thai Constitutional Court that banned and eventually dissolved, the Future Forward party from the Thai Parliament. The party housed some of the most vocal political opposition to Prime Minister Prayuth Chan-ocha. According to Amnesty International, the charges were politically motivated; the court ruled that a loan of approximately $6 million to Future Forward from party leader Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit counted as a donation instead and so violated the approximately $316,000 donation limit. The protests were also a response to Chan-ocha’s reappointment in March 2019, following an election of questionable legitimacy. 

“When they [the Thai Constitutional Court]dissolved the party, that was the first trigger of the protests. People had been trying to fight for democracy through very peaceful means, both in and out of Congress, and when the attempt inside of Congress didn’t work and the party was now very unfairly gone, people started to get really angry,” TS said.

After a months-long break due to efforts to prevent the spread of the coronavirus, the protests resumed in July 2020, largely led by university students and orchestrated through social media. The turning point came in August when a statement by Panusaya Sithijirawattanakul, a 21-year-old student, clarified the demands of the protestors and united them behind a goal of reforming the monarchy and democratizing the government. Sithijirawattanakul was arrested in October 2020 and, as of publication, remains in detention and on her 22nd day of a hunger strike.

TS, who attended four protests during the height of the movement from October to December, described the protests as being highly organized despite having no centralized leader and being pulled together solely through Facebook, Twitter and Telegram. During the protests, people would pass messages back and forth, sending along requests from the front lines for “supplies like umbrellas and helmets to protect against the water guns.”

The protests continued throughout the rest of 2020, and by the end of the year at least 234 people were charged with crimes relating to the rallies, including nine leaders of the movement who are still jailed and awaiting trial. Tensions rose in early 2021 as the government stepped up its response by declaring involvement in the protests illegal and instructing the police to use harsher methods of deterrence including tear gas, rubber bullets and water cannons. This has gradually caused protest sizes to shrink from their peak of up to 30,000 people, but protestors still turn out in the 1000s. 

Additionally, Thailand’s lèse-majesté law, which under the king’s orders had been minimally enforced since 2018, is being put to use again to punish protesters. Under the lèse-majesté law, also known as Article 112, insulting or defaming the royal family carries a severe penalty. In January 2021, a 60-year-old former civil servant was sentenced under Article 112 to 43 years and six months in prison (after a four year pretrial detention) for posting audio clips to Facebook in 2014 that were deemed to be critical of the monarchy. The increasing usage of the lèse-majesté law is directly tied to the king, according to TS.

“There’s no written evidence of this but everyone just knows that the king got really mad [about the protests]and told top military people to start using 112 again,” TS said.

The protests died down for a short while following the implementation of these harsher measures but have picked up again in recent weeks, rekindled by the fight for democracy in neighboring Myanmar, where a coup recently installed a military government. In the protests following the coup, activists in Myanmar gave the three-finger “Hunger Games” salute of resistance favored by Thai protestors. Showing solidarity in return, protests in Thailand resumed to the soundtrack of clanging pots and pans, the method of dissent used by protestors in Myanmar. 

Thailand and Myanmar join Hong Kong and Taiwan as two more countries in Asia where democratic movements have recently taken hold. Online activism by protestors has created strong bonds between organizers in the four countries and led to the formation of the so-called Milk Tea Alliance, which recently got its own Twitter emoji — a white cup set against a background of milk tea colours from the countries where the alliance initially formed. Roger Huang, a lecturer on political violence at Sydney’s Macquarie University, says that “the milk tea alliance could potentially turn into a genuine transnational anti-authoritarian movement.”

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and the lèse-majesté law leading to dwindling numbers, the protests of this last year have made great progress in changing public perception of the monarchy and differ greatly from past civil unrest in Thailand. Dr. Tamara Loos, a professor at Cornell University’s Department of History, notes that today “Thai citizens openly challenge the role of the monarchy in Thai cultural and political life, which reveals a revolutionary cultural shift. Self-censorship and lese majesté laws that once prevented Thais from publicly expressing their concerns about the role of the monarchy in politics no longer apply. The institution of the monarchy is now subject to public debate and discussion.”

“We’ve never really had a movement from the bottom up like this,” TS said. “The younger generation definitely has a very different view on the place of the monarchy in Thai society that kind of spreads out to other generations as well [through the protests], and people on the fence are maybe reconsidering or at least reflecting on why they have always had those views.” 

Though protests are still happening, their demands have shifted to the return of their jailed leaders rather than the initial lofty goals of reforming the monarchy. Without clear leadership or direction, the campaign is losing steam and at risk of dying out. According to Dr. Tamara Loos, a likely scenario is “a continuation of protests and arrest of its leaders until the movement is drained of momentum,” followed by “a future conflict between those who want genuine change in Thailand’s political institutions and the military.”

“In the shorter term there’s not really a solution; we’re kind of stuck in a gridlock, but I think there’s been a shift internally and we’re going to see that definitely come out as real changes in the next 10 or 20 years,” TS said. 

The post Foreign Perspective: An Inside Look at the Thai Anti-Monarchy Movement appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

But what has often been overlooked in the crisis is the acknowledgment of how different groups of Yemeni citizens are experiencing the conflict differently. In particular, the extreme circumstances of the country’s seven-year-long instability have led many to ignore how Yemeni women often bear the brunt of the issues caused by the crisis, on top of the gender-based challenges they face due to the discriminatory legal system and the crisis’s effect on the level of gender-based violence.

Data about the Yemen crisis’s death toll varies depending on if one focuses on those affected directly by the conflict or if it is extended to deaths caused indirectly. According to the Yemen Data Project, the country has incurred over 18,000 attacks, of which around half were deaths and half were injuries, as a direct result of the conflict from 2016 to now. This, however, does not include casualties caused by other pressing humanitarian issues the crisis in Yemen has created. The United Nations estimates that over 131,000 have died as a result of the indirect effects of the war in Yemen, including factors such as hunger and lack of access to adequate health services. 

According to the Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere (CARE), a humanitarian non-governmental organization focused on the fight against poverty, an average of six women are killed every day in Yemen due to the conflict. Women and children are also frequently displaced, comprising 75% of displaced individuals. The majority of displacement in Yemen is internal, with Yemenis moving from place to place within the country to avoid fighting, famine, and disease. Some of the displaced are met with humanitarian aid when they arrive at new locations, such as in Marib where the UNHCR, UN, and International Organization for Migration have attempted to provide food and shelter to those fleeing the city of Al Suwayda. 

Women are often disproportionately affected by humanitarian crises in times of civil unrest or war. In the case of Yemen, this inequality is exacerbated as women’s access to work is heavily limited by socio-cultural norms.

For 14 years, Yemen was ranked last in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap index, and only in 2021 did it manage to be ranked second to last — ahead of newly-added Afghanistan. According to the 2021 index, Yemen is one of the countries with the largest economic gender gap, at 28.2% of the gap closed so far, and income gap, with women’s income being around 7% that of men. It also has one of the lowest percentages of women in the labor force, at 6.3%, and the lowest number of women in managerial positions, at 4.1%. On top of this, Yemen was ranked 154/156 in female economic participation and opportunity, 152/156 in educational attainment, 95/156 in health and survival, and 154/156 in political empowerment.

This is likely the result of an extremely patriarchal culture in Yemen, rooted in persistent and extreme gender roles. Yemeni women and girls experience forced niqab (a veil that covers the whole face excluding the eyes), divorce shame, child marriage, domestic violence, and honor killings — all of which are aggravated by the extended and ongoing crisis in the country. 

According to Amnesty International, the crisis has forced Yemeni women to take on greater roles and responsibilities than traditionally expected of them and, as a result, the levels of violence they experience have increased. Women and girls not only face extreme danger due to the crisis and fighting in the region between the Houthis and Yemeni Forces (supported by UAE and Saudi Arabia backed anti-Houthi forces), but also security and economic risks due to a discriminatory legal system. Left with a damaged system of services and infrastructure that is unable to properly support them or allow them to seek legal remedy, and further faced with things like arbitrary detentions and the disappearance of male family members, women in Yemen are stepping up and suffering as a result. 

In 2000, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1325, known as the Women, Peace and Security resolution. The resolution was enacted in an effort to address the fact that women and girls suffer disproportionately from negative effects during and after times of war. This unfair burden is due to the proliferation of social networks and the magnification of inequality, both of which expose women and girls to things like sexual violence and exploitation in greater capacities than in peacetime. In the nearly two decades since its adoption, the resolution has aimed to help affected women by making them participants in peacemaking efforts and politics. 

The resolution has been somewhat successful in some regions, playing a large part in helping women participate in peace processes in their countries. This has meant enabling women to act as signatories on peace agreements, participate in peace talks and negotiation, assist with humanitarian responses and post-conflict reconstruction, or partake in other peace-driven actions.

Nonetheless, women in Yemen are consistently underrepresented in peace talks, even in the face of concerted effort from the UN and other humanitarian organizations to address this gap. So, despite women taking on the roles vacated by their loved ones who may have been lost in the crisis or forcibly taken and held, they are not able to advocate for their own safety. 

This, however, is not the full extent of challenges that Yemeni women face. According to the World Food Program (WFP), in times of crisis, women and girls are put at greater risk for humanitarian issues, on top of the gender-based issues they already experience. One of the most common problems is that girls are often pulled out of school or forced to marry early in order for families to survive, as many are unable to afford food alongside paying for school or an additional child. The WFP also reports that, for women, one of the main dangers is malnutrition. This can be caused by the burden of pregnancy — more than one million pregnant and lactating Yemeni women required malnutrition treatment or prevention intervention in 2019 — or the burden of childcare. These women have to become self-sacrificing to a dangerous extent, often giving up their own food to feed their children.

Right now in Yemen, around 50,000 people are facing famine-like conditions, and 11 million more are experiencing food insecurity. Young children are particularly vulnerable to hunger, with around half of Yemeni children under five expected to experience acute malnutrition, according to the WFP. 

As the Yemen crisis fades from news headlines, due to the nature of it being such an extended conflict, it’s important to stay up-to-date on the current situation. This is particularly true when considering how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the war-torn country and its most vulnerable populations.

COVID-19 is not the first public health crisis to affect Yemen, as cholera, diphtheria, measles, and dengue fever were all reported in the country prior, with cholera affecting a suspected two million Yemenis since 2016. However, Yemen was, and is not, prepared to handle the pandemic. According to the World Health Organization, medical facilities and personnel have not been left alone during the conflict. More than half of the 5,000 or so health centers have closed and many health professionals have been forced to flee. On top of this, health aid has been obstructed by the Houthi and other authorities.

Considering the heavy use of starvation as a weapon of war in Yemen, primarily by the Houthis, the impact of hunger and starvation on an individual’s health and the disproportionate way women experience hunger has escalated the pandemic. In April 2020, the UN humanitarian coordinator in Yemen warned that, based on epidemiological projections, nearly 16 million people in Yemen could be infected by COVID-19 under the current conditions. 

The actual number of cases in Yemen is difficult to know as data on COVID-19 in the country is difficult to collect. The government has only reported deaths in the hundreds, but considering the disastrous nature of the healthcare system and the fact that war makes health crises worse, the number is likely much higher. Still, There is evidence that the country is currently experiencing a second wave of the disease. On top of the expected rise in cholera cases with the rainy season in May, this could be devastating for the population, and it will further complicate and inflame the suffering and discrimination that women in Yemen already face.

There is hope, however, as at the end of March 2021, Yemen received its first batch of COVID-19 vaccines, which included 360,000 doses, 13,000 safety boxes and 1.3 million syringes, through COVAX. This was the first step in the plan to vaccinate the country, with an estimated 1.9 million doses expected to be delivered to the country throughout the rest of the year. Those leading the vaccine effort will be forced to navigate the crumbling healthcare system and figure out how to equitably distribute vaccinations. 

Women are suffering in Yemen as a result of the humanitarian crisis, and the COVID-19 health crisis has only made things worse. It is important to understand and acknowledge the nuanced convergence of humanitarian, security and public health crises in Yemen. Otherwise, it is easy to get lost in the severity and horror often broadcasted and covered through global media. 

The post The Yemen Crisis is Disproportionately Affecting Women and Girls appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.