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.

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. 

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. 

An interview with Francesco Loiola, a USC senior and Italian-born citizen, shed light on the country’s sociopolitical complexities. 

Currently, over 118,000 deaths have been reported in Italy, and the government is again scrambling to contain a new surge and the emergence of variants. As the first European country to enter a full lockdown, Italy has become all too familiar with the imposed stringent restrictions. 

“Italy is fragmented,” Loiola said. “There are parts of the nation where people tend to behave in a certain way.”

Geographical regions are color-coded on a map, depending on their level of contagion. In red-zone areas, individuals cannot leave their homes except for health and work-related reasons, and all non-essential businesses are closed. In orange zones, various shops can open, but restaurants and bars exclusively offer take-away and/or delivery services. In yellow zones, businesses, restaurants and bars may remain open until 6 PM. 

However, over Easter weekend, the entire country was considered a red zone and subjected to a national lockdown from April 3 to 5. In tandem with inoculation delays and medical concerns with the AstraZeneca vaccine due to unsubstantiated claims of blood clot formation, the nation finds itself at a crossroads. 

Vaccination delays across the European Union (EU) inevitably explain Italy’s low vaccination rates, but are not the sole contributing factor. News of AstraZeneca’s vaccine efficacy and health-related concerns halted the EU’s vaccination efforts, giving rise to controversial claims among health and safety experts. A lack of transparency and a disunited front led Italy to temporarily suspend the use of the vaccine until the European Medicines Agency (EMA) granted clearance. In April 2021, the EMA’s Executive Director, Emer Cooke, said there is no clear evidence linking the negatively experienced symptoms, such as clotting and bleeding, to the vaccine. However, the impressions of Italian citizens vary. 

A scientific study published by the European Journal of Epidemiology, “Mistrust in Biomedical Research and Vaccine Hesitancy”, assessed vaccine hesitancy amongst a random sample of 968 Italian citizens. The report revealed that citizen trust in scientific research and vaccine efficacy decreased, especially amongst middle-aged individuals. According to the results, the proportion of citizens willing to receive the vaccination is too miniscule to prevent the effective spreading of COVID-19 within the nation. Trust in the European Medicine Agency is essential to extinguish misleading claims that deter herd immunity efforts. 

“In general, people are aware that there are no side effects but are fearful because of health concerns… some are calling upon Draghi to receive the vaccine on camera and will not receive it until Draghi and the Minister of Health do,” Loiola said. 

Draghi has faced unbearable pressure since winning the Senate’s confidence vote, a formality in creating a new government within Italy. At the request of Italy’s president, Draghi formed his own government in January 2021 to tackle the nation’s health and economic crises.

When Draghi was elected, “newspapers all over the world reported on an Italian giant taking over Italy,” Loiola said. “They called him ‘Super Mario’… this is the first time in 25 years that Italian politics has been shown in a positive light,” posing a direct contrast to the notorious corruption that had taken center stage in Italian politics in years past. 

The “cheating mentality” in Italian politics, as Loiola mentioned, has led to widespread misconduct, as evidenced by Matteo Renzi’s term as prime minister and the infamous referendum of 2016. The proposed plebiscite encompassed a series of drastic changes to the Italian political system. If passed, it would have allowed for major reforms to the constitution. 

Francesco Galietti, chief executive of a Rome based political risk consultancy expressed concerns about the referendum’s disillusioned goals: “Renzi, like David Cameron, thought he could unite the party with a referendum and all he achieved was to divide it more than ever,” said Galietti. For most, the referendum was tied to the prime minister’s performance in office. Renzi received high approval ratings when initially assuming the role in 2014, but voters became increasingly frustrated over high unemployment numbers, the migration crisis and health-related issues. 

The referendum received unparalleled voter turn-out, with 70% of the population voting ‘no’ not only on the issues at hand but on Renzi’s rule. While Renzi promised to step back after an ignominious defeat, he returned after a month, launching his own party and igniting a governmental crisis amid the pandemic. 

Thus, the most notable effect of Draghi’s emergence into Italian politics has been both the nation’s and the European Union’s renewed trust in Italy. His experience as former chief of the European Central Bank, credited with “saving the Euro,” has gained him immense popularity amongst Italians and political opposition parties. He remarkably received the support of moderate and conservative politicians alike and now leads a six-party government. 

“Draghi’s presence means we have access to a lot more European money because they [the European Union]trust him,” Loiola said.

In addition to restoring transparency, Draghi’s main task is to redesign the recovery plan that determines how Italy will spend 251 billion dollars in loans and grants from the EU. Draghi’s extensive experience in handling financial markets has made him the quintessential leader to lead Italy out of its economic crisis and improve the quality of life for Italian citizens. 

The wave of restrictions has caused a 30% decline in Italy’s industrial production and an economy shrinkage of 8.9%, a comparable recession to Italy post-World War II. 

Record unemployment numbers and business closures drove the masses into poverty. Approximately 36.7 billion euros were lost from the Italian economy due to travel restrictions that halted their tourism industry, which traditionally makes up 13% of their GDP. 

The European Commission is expected to release more information about an EU-wide digital vaccination passport that would allow for a certain degree of tourism. When asked about how Italians would respond to a digital vaccination passport, Loiola said: “At this stage, more people care about the economy… by May, citizens under the age of 60 should start being vaccinated and they comprise a huge majority of the population and those most heavily affected by COVID-19. When they administer those vaccinations… Italy will [encourage]tourism.”

With a clear agenda ahead, Italians are hopeful in a reformed governmental approach that can effectively tackle the myriad of crises that have plagued the nation. With an emphasis on transparency and diplomacy, Italy’s growth may be insurmountable within the next few years, making way for a second renaissance under Mario Draghi’s guidance. 

But as human waste piles up in landfills and covers coastal waters, the crisis of single-use plastics has been illuminated vividly. For a population of 7.8 billion, there has been a monthly estimated use of 65 billion gloves and 129 billion face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic. Incorrect disposal of used personal protective equipment (PPE) can be found all over the world littering public spaces. Assuming PPE equipment is used at this rate for 18 months, that would result in two trillion three hundred twenty-two billion masks of plastic waste. Since 91% of plastics are never recycled, this litter will persist in the environment for hundreds of years, igniting a crisis of plastic consumption and waste products. The single-use plastic problem is the global environmental crisis we continue to ignore, and if not careful, short-term solutions to protect humans from the coronavirus pandemic may bring large environmental and public health crises in the future. 

Plastic Initiatives Prior to the Pandemic

Prior to the pandemic, many countries took action to prevent single-use plastic employment. In 2018, Indian Prime Minister Modi announced the country’s intent to eliminate all single-use plastic in the country by 2022. In July 2018, Chile’s congress approved a ban on retail use of plastic bags, with steps to phase out plastic bag usage over the following two years. In October 2018, the United States amended the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Marine Debris Act, funding the program through 2022. In January 2019, Peru banned visitors from bringing single-use plastics into it’s 76 natural and cultural protected areas. In early 2019, the European Parliament voted to ban single-use plastic items, such as straws and food containers, by 2021. Even major global companies have come together to help mitigate the plastic crisis. The New Plastics Economy Global Commitment, including companies such as Coca-Cola, L’oreal, and H&M, has worked to reuse and repurpose plastic to promote a more sustainable economy for plastics. 

These efforts supported larger global initiatives such as the United Nations 2030 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The UN SDGs are a set of 17 goals with 169 targets attempting to create a global agenda for sustainable development through economic, social, and environmental action. Goal 12 targets primarily focus on implementing sustainable management of natural resources, reducing waste generation, adopting sustainability practices, and creating tools to monitor waste production. Government’s actions on mitigating plastic waste by banning single-use plastic helped support this goal and have created actionable plans to ensure sustainable consumption and production. 

However, increased consumption of single-use plastics, including personal protective equipment, has increased poor environmental practices and works contrary to global efforts for environmental sustainability. 

Some positives for global sustainability have emerged from the COVID-19 pandemic. The pandemic has indirectly contributed to SDG goal 13 through reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering outdoor air pollution. SDG goals 13 aims to “take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts.” However, this progress is not the solution to stopping climate change, and this progress is a short term gain. Global efforts to mitigate climate change will still need to occur to meet goal 13’s target. 

The Growing Crisis of Single-Use Plastic

Since December 2019, the world has felt the ever-growing effects of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. In an attempt to ‘flatten the curve,’ governments worldwide implemented precautionary measures to protect citizens through guidelines such as social distancing. What started as a health crisis has also morphed into a global economic and environmental threat, particularly regarding the consumption of plastics. 

Cities with high COVID-19 infection rates have struggled to manage large increases in medical waste. In Barcelona, medical waste, which includes gloves and face masks, increased by 350%, generating approximately 1,200 tons of medical waste compared to the usual average of 275 tons. The drastic increases in medical waste are leaving countries with inadequate waste management systems, resulting in masks, gloves, sanitizer bottles, and other protective equipment piling up on coastal shores. 

“With a lifespan of 450 years, these [disposable surgical]masks are an ecological timebomb given their lasting environmental consequences for our planet,” wrote Éric Pauget, a French politician, in a letter to French President Emmanual Macron. 

In an effort to dispose of medical waste, some municipalities in India have relied on the incineration of medical waste. However, this only further contributes to the releasing of greenhouse gases and other potentially harmful toxins. This style of waste management can cause future health problems by impacting air quality and increasing risks related to climate change mitigation. 

During the pandemic, increased demand for single-use plastics has caused some countries, such as the United States, to delay single-use plastic bans amid COVID-19 concerns. In October 2020, following over 6 months in delay, New York implemented a plastic bag ban. Plastic bag bans in Maine and Oregon were postponed. In California, a single use plastic bag ban that had been in place since 2016, was suspended. Postponements, suspensions, and failed implementation of plastic bag bans have only hurt global consumption of single-use plastic bags. 

Growing consumption of single-use plastic and poor disposal of the amassing waste is a concerning global problem not only for humans, but for wildlife and the environment as well. 

The Effects of Single-Use Plastic on the Environment 

According to the UN Environment Program (UNEP), more than 8.3 billion tons of plastic have been produced since the early 1950s, with about 60% of that plastic landing in landfills or the natural environment. 

More than 99% of plastics are produced from non-renewable sources, such as oil and coal. Moreover, only 9% of all plastic waste produced is recycled, with 12% being incinerated and the remaining 79% accumulating across the globe in cities, oceans, and landfills. The current increase of single-use plastics from large-scale global production of single-use protective equipment and a 6-10% increase in online shopping, according to the UN Conference on Trade and Development. This will lead to millions of tons of plastic being thrown out, with unclear solutions to mitigate the growing crisis. 

According to the UNEP, eight million tons of plastic end up in the world’s oceans each year, with the Chang Jiang River in China carrying over 1 million tons of plastic alone. Rivers can serve as easy pathways for plastic to travel into oceans and impact wildlife. Properties that make plastic useful, such as its resilience to degradation, make it nearly impossible for nature to break down. As plastic is broken into smaller pieces by natural weathering, the resulting microplastics can be consumed by marine life and enter the human food chain through fish consumption. Over 170 marine species have been recorded as having ingested human-made plastics. A study from the International Journal of Molecular Sciences found that in fish, microplastics have been found to cause major adverse effects including oxidative stress and intestinal damage. Beyond ingestion, marine wildlife can get entangled in plastics. Moreover, the accumulation of debris can disrupt marine ecosystems such as damaging coral reefs and affecting the feeding habits of marine life. 

There has been minimal research on the effects of human marine wildlife consumption of plastics. It is still unknown what potential risks microplastic consumption may have for humans and wildlife in the long-term. However, adverse effects in marine ecosystems illuminate concerns for the health effects of plastic consumption in humans. 

The Economic Impact

From an economic standpoint, plastic waste landing on shorelines can have serious economic consequences for communities reliant on tourism and fishing. In 2014, the United Nations estimated that plastic waste causes $13 billion in annual damage to marine ecosystems. 

Besides consequences on marine life and communities which rely on marine sustainability, single-use plastics are harmful for the economy. Plastics are workhorse materials in today’s economy. Able to be created at low and efficient rates which have versatile function, plastic is integral to everyday life. However, plastic usually has a very linear lifespan of make, use, dispose. This is problematic because most of the material ends up as waste. Large organizations, such as the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, which launched the New Plastic Economy initiative in 2016, have suggested that the best way to economically benefit from plastic is to shift to a circular economy for plastics. The circular economy is an economic system in which from the outset, materials are designed to ensure they are not used up. 

Essentially, the maximum value of every product is used systematically to support reusable solutions while benefiting the environment and the economy. If done correctly, a circular economy should bolster productivity in society, such as incorporating new jobs, help the environment by producing less waste, and help the economy through less spending on waste management and clean up while preventing economic losses. 

After a first-use cycle, 95% of plastic packaging material value – equivalent to about $80 to $120 billion annually — is lost. These economic losses are further compounded by the 32% of plastic packaging which escapes collection systems, resulting in economic cleanup costs. Furthermore, approximately $40 billion is spent on clean-up externalities for plastic packaging materials, which “exceeds the plastic packaging industry’s profit pool.” 

In the future, countries around the world will need to pay for these costs. By improving the plastic lifecycle and creating a circular economy system, governments and nations around the world can achieve better economic and environmental outcomes. A transition like this would require a coordinated effort among governments, policy makers, and financial investors. Some critical steps are being taken to begin this process, but many countries still need to address mitigating current plastic waste and usage. 

Efforts to Combat Single-Use Plastic Usage

According to the UNEP, 99 countries have introduced measures to mitigate plastic bag usage. For example, In 2020, China announced plans to ban single-use plastics across the country by 2022. This legislation could immensely reduce single-use plastic waste globally because, as of 2020, China is the world’s largest producer and one of the largest users of plastics. 

However, the continued strategy of many countries to export plastic waste abroad is concerning for plastic waste reduction. As of 2020, the United States is the world’s largest plastic waste producer, with the United Kingdom as a close second. Data from 2016 shows that half of the plastic collected for recycling in the U.S. was sent abroad. In 2019, data from the European Environment Agency showed that the European Union exported 150,000 tons of plastic waste per month, with approximately double the rate in 2015 and 2016. Majority of this waste was shipped to China and Hong Kong. 

In 2018, China banned the import of plastic waste, with some other countries such as Indonesia and Thailand placing restrictions as well. A Guardian investigation from 2019 found that U.S. plastic was being sent to countries in which environmental regulations are limited and labor is cheap. Many of the countries the United States is shipping its plastic waste to are poorly ranked on how they handle their country’s internal plastic waste. One study found that Malaysia, the biggest recipient of U.S. plastic recycling since the China ban, mismanaged over half of its plastic waste. 

The practice of larger and economically stronger nations exporting plastic waste to other countries with laxer regulations does nothing to mitigate the effects of plastic waste. Rather, plastic waste still ends up impacting the environment and biodiversity, just in different parts of the globe. 

Global awareness and cooperation have begun to emerge as the plastic consumption and waste crisis continues to grow. Efforts, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals were created to help increase global sustainability. Goals 12, 13 and 14 tie directly into the plastic conversation. Goal 12 aims to implement sustainability practices and monitor waste production, goal 13 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 14 aims to reduce marine pollution of all kinds and address ocean resilience to marine debris and pollution. Reduction of plastic usage can have major impacts on wildlife, and can help reduce environmental degradation. Working in tandem these goals can have a major impact on the mitigation of single-use plastics waste. With 193 countries formally adopting the UN SDGs, economic and environmental legislation focused on these targets are likely to grow further as 2030 approaches.

Another global strategy to help mitigate plastic waste is being explored by the World Trade Organization (WTO). In November 2020, as part of the WTO’s Trade and Environment Week, multiple countries initiated the ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue on Plastic Pollution and Environmentally Sustainable Plastics Trade.’ This week of WTO member-led events and workshops was prompted by efforts to build a greener and more sustainable global trade system as global trade recovers form COVID-19. The dialogue aims to “explore how improved trade cooperation, within the rules and mechanisms of the WTO, could contribute to domestic, regional, and global efforts to reduce plastic pollution and transition to a more circular and environmentally sustainable global plastics economy.” 

Efforts to create a more circular economy for plastic consumption have the potential to make major environmental impacts. Although efforts are still in the early stages, a structured conversation and statement on trade and environmental sustainability was backed by 49 WTO members. Informal discussions are expected to begin in 2021, indicating a fast timeline to begin reassessing global plastic consumption and its environmental impacts. The WTO’s ‘Open-ended Informal Dialogue’ hosted by China and Fiji received strong early support from Australia, Barbados, Canada, and Morocco, suggesting multiple countries’ interest in creating sustainable trade around plastic. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership — organized by the World Economic Forum — has advocated for a transformation of the global plastic industry. The aim is to move towards a circular model of plastic consumption, in which waste moves from disposal back to repurposing, which will require lots of transparency and global efforts to monitor the plastic industry.  It is unclear how feasible this effort to change the global plastic will be. 

The Global Plastic Action Partnership is in early stages of building and growing public-private partnerships to create tangible plastic pollution strategies. The partnership has developed a list of 10 calls to action, which it aims to tackle through it’s growing partnerships. Some of these actions include agreeing on plastics to be eliminated and preparing markets to phase those plastics out, making the recycled plastics market competitive economically, and stimulating consumer adoption of plastic reuse. World collaborative interest in creating global policy solutions for plastic action is crucial for global sustainability efforts. 

Beyond this, there is potential to implement extended producer responsibility measures, which would reduce the burden of municipalities to financially and physically reckon with the build up of plastic waste management. Additionally, it would provide incentives for manufacturers to design more low impact and reusable products, rather than single-use plastic materials. 

Actions to create a circular economy and minimize the effects of single-use plastic are essential to sustain our environment and global biodiversity. Only time will tell if global collaboration on minimizing plastic consumption will be able to overcome the years of plastic neglect and affect future environmental sustainability. Global alliances on this issue are providing hope that the single-use plastic problem can be solved. 

However, from the beginning, it has always been known that storing and distributing vaccines would be a tall task. Everything from road conditions to human error can squander life-saving doses. Recently, just a single unplugged cord, knocked loose by a cleaning contractor, rendered 2,000 vaccines in a Boston hospital useless. These are the frustrating — yet inevitable — realities of needing to develop vaccines quickly and effectively, but not having time to consider convenience. 

Those lost doses are often a result of factors outside of human control. However, hundreds of thousands more lives are being put at risk by the most pervasive and permanent virus of all: greed. 

But there are currently global coalitions working to ensure that vaccine rollout is equitable. COVAX is a cooperative set up by the World Health Organization, Gavi (the Vaccine Alliance), and the European Commission in order to ensure the equitable distribution of vaccines. The coalition’s broad goals are motivated by the vision that no matter a country’s prosperity or wealth, they will have the right to protect their people and have equal access to vaccinations as they are developed. 

The COVAX facility maintains a diverse portfolio of vaccines and essentially gives lower income countries collective bargaining power to ensure that manufacturers deliver appropriately and in a timely manner. It is made up of both ‘self-funding’ countries and countries in need, and is primarily funded by member states of the WHO and funding from external sources. A separate COVAX Advance Market Commitment (AMC) acts as a vaccine fund, made up of a mixture of foreign aid and philanthropy from the private sector. Under the Trump Administration, the United States announced its withdrawal from the WHO, citing corruption and political favoring toward China. However, the Biden administration, in its first days in office, announced the United States’ recommitment to the organization, and as a result, the COVAX alliance.

Former President of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, told The World radio that “this is an interdependent and interconnected world. [COVAX countries] have to see vaccines as a global good to be able to save humanity — and humanity is worldwide… they cannot treat it as apartheid [and]they cannot say because you’re poor, you will not be vaccinated, only the rich will be.” COVAX is supposed to be a multilateral effort demonstrating the public health impact of the world coming together, with wealthy nations extending a much-needed hand to the world’s poorer economies.

For example, Canada, a G7 nation with the tenth-largest economy in the world, invested $440 million in COVAX. While most wealthy countries are buying their vaccines directly, Canada instead intends to use half of their contributions to buy vaccines through COVAX for their own people. Trudeau is facing harsh criticism for Canada’s disjointed and ambiguous coronavirus protocols; after all, Canadian leadership initially called the virus a low risk to their nation, and delayed a comprehensive response for far too long. More recently, Canada has been widely criticized for their ineffective plan for how to distribute their doses to the masses. Perhaps Trudeau views COVAX as a way to bail him out of an unfavorable political dilemma — one that was entirely the fault of his administration — instead of as a way for Canada to contribute to global recovery. 

While it is the only G7 nation to benefit from COVAX thus far, other countries further along in their coronavirus response like New Zealand — who found success in combating COVID-19 as a result of proper planning from the government — are following suit. Canada already owns the highest number of doses per capita, even before COVAX doses start rolling out in February. In contrast, only one out of the 29 poorest nations have started vaccinations. But this first step forward is nowhere near where the world needs to be quite yet. For the west African nation of Guinea, the country had only a whopping 55 shots delivered to them. 

Outside of COVAX, it was clear from the outset that money could buy human security during the pandemic. Israel, for example, was extremely aggressive in prioritizing the safety of their people and securing vaccines early. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the government paid double for earlier access to Pfizer’s jabs. The reverse side of that coin is a case like South Africa’s. South Africa has acted similarly to Canada in that its leadership failed to take quick and decisive action to invest in a recovery plan. The Serum Institute of India (SII), where the Astra-Zeneca vaccines are made, sells its doses in a tiered system based on wealth. South Africa qualifies as a middle-high income country, yet has nowhere near the economic capacity of Canada. Therefore, they have to pay $5.25 per dose. To put that in perspective, European countries pay around $2.17 to $3 for each of their doses. The SII justified this by stating that some countries were entitled to a discount due to their contributions to research and development.

Canada and South Africa are two countries with poor leadership and poor initial action against the virus; the former and far wealthier was able to exploit a system designed to redistribute resources regardless of wealth by having enough wealth to do so, while the latter and far poorer continues to lag behind and pay a premium they cannot afford. 

It’s clear that there is cognitive dissonance between the stated goals of COVAX, the pharmaceutical companies, and participating nations. In order for any form of equitable distribution to happen, countries who can afford it must reap more than they can sow, yet there is no willingness to do so on a country-by-country basis. The WHO warned of the dangers of “vaccine nationalism,” greed and price-gouging, and the effects of these concerns are already materializing. 

COVAX has played into the wealth-based inequality which it originally postured itself against. While thousands continue to die worldwide because their countries can’t afford for them to survive, Moderna charges upwards of $32 per dose, making a healthy margin on saving lives; the vaccination effort has created billionaires and will bring in tens of billions in profit for leading companies while our global economy at large is threatened and strained.

How do we let money take precedence over life itself? Does the DNA of a virus alter because of the presence of money? Do resources disappear when money disappears? Does scientific research become unlearned because of a lack of funds? These complex problems reflect a complex issue with complex answers. The fine line between economic interest and economic necessity is blurred.

The world has to develop antibodies for greed. Combatting COVID-19 is a global effort, because unless vaccinations are administered in every country and to all people, the virus will continue to adapt, mutate and infect. This public health crisis has demonstrated that current approaches with self-interested goals will not work. And while coalitions like COVAX are a good first step in eliminating that greed, individual leadership within each country must step up to act now.

For context, immense violence since the early 2000s has caused a massive refugee problem, with thousands of Chadians seeking refuge in the eastern and southern parts of the country, with some even fleeing to neighboring countries. The 2019 Humanitarian Response Plan reported that, “4.3 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, of whom only 2 million are targeted with adequate support.” 

In order to combat these issues, the UN Security Council ratified Resolution 1778 on September 25, 2007, in collaboration with Chad and the Central African Republic, which created the UN Mission in the Central African Republic and Chad (MINURCAT). According to the United States Institute of Peace, MINURCAT’s mission was to “help create the security conditions conducive to a voluntary, secure and sustainable return of refugees and displaced persons… by contributing to the protection of refugees.” Along with MINURCAT, which deployed its own troops, the international community stationed UN police operations and the EU’s military force (EUFOR) in the country. The UN understood that these operations were necessary to “promote human rights and the rule of law, and promote regional peace.”

In the late 2000s, MINURCAT began making positive strides. An Amnesty International report found that “attacks on humanitarian workers and civilians, which reached alarming levels in the last months of 2009, have begun to decrease as MINURCAT soldiers have been able to carry out patrols in sensitive areas they were previously unable to patrol.” 

Despite substantial progress in this dire humanitarian and security situation, Chadian President Idriss Déby began leading the movement in 2010 to get rid of MINURCAT, requesting that MINURCAT leave the country and suspend all operations. 

Notably, President Déby has a history of repressing citizens. According to an Amnesty International report in 2013, President Déby was accused of suppressing “critics of his rule, and of ignoring promises to respect human rights when he came to power in 1990”. His intentions for wanting to remove MINURCAT from Chad are questionable. 

President Déby claimed that he wanted to protect national sovereignty and insisted that MINURCAT was not truly helping Chadian citizens. He was explicitly critical of MINURCAT troops as they were not “fully deployed.” On January 15, 2010, the Chadian government notified the UN Secretary-General, in an informal note, that Chad wanted MINURCAT to withdraw its operations in Chad by March 15, 2010. The final terms of the agreement allowed MINURCAT to stay in Chad until the end of 2010.

Following the departure of MINURCAT, President Déby began working to protect his citizens solely through his own police forces. However, as Susannah Sirkin, deputy director for the group Physicians for Human Rights, stated in May 2010, it is crucial that MINURCAT remain in Chad. In her words: “The security provided by MINURCAT is absolutely essential. There is almost no judicial system there, very weak police force. There are not female officers to deal with the really rampant sexual and gender based violence on the border and in the camps.” She also stated that there was no demonstration that “…there would be any kind of adequate replacement for this protection.” 

Additionally, Sirkin reflected on the importance of MINURCAT – securing food, water, sanitation, and health care for 250,000 Sudanese refugees and 150,000 Chadians that were uprooted due to violence on the Chad-Sudan border. MINURCAT was able to help provide these essentials as the operation “provided military escorts…” to where the humanitarian groups were stationed. This protection was vital as criminals tend to target humanitarian groups. Furthermore, Sirkin mentioned that “[t]here are crimes, including violent crimes committed even by Chadian camp personnel.” This makes it even more necessary that an independent force like MINURCAT remains in Chad. 

To no surprise, President Déby’s attempts to ensure safety for his citizens have failed as violence and food insecurity has worsened. In addition to general violence, Chad’s violence problem has worsened due to violent extremist group Boko Haram. Boko Haram is a terrorist organization in the Sahel region that claimed responsibility for the suicide attacks in N’Djamena, Chad’s capital, in 2015 that took the lives of at least 27 people. The Institute for Economics and Peaces’ New Global Terrorism Index recorded that in 2014, Boko Haram killed 6,644 people in many attacks throughout Nigeria, Chad, and Cameroon. This escalated violence has also caused a dramatic increase in hunger and malnutrition. In 2009, when the MINURCAT operation was active in Chad, approximately 4.5 million people were undernourished, whereas in 2019, approximately 6.1 million people were undernourished. The increased chaos in Chad today makes the need for an operation like MINURCAT even more necessary. 

It is clear that unless President Déby improves his relationship with the UN, instability in Chad will worsen. 

Japan was once an economic powerhouse. Japanese companies were purchasing assets globally at an astronomical rate. In 1989, the Nikkei Stock Average culminated at a record of almost $40,000. This booming economy was met with turmoil as Japan’s asset bubble maxed out, resulting in disastrously low property prices. A significant amount of work migrated abroad to escape Japan’s economic downturn. The 1990s became a dark time for eager graduates awaiting a coveted position at major companies. To cut costs and protect older workers, companies offered a scant amount of jobs, shutting recent graduates out of the workforce. The labor market entered an employment “ice age.” To this day, those shut out of Japan’s job market in the 1990s are still struggling. They make up what is known as the “Lost Generation”. 

The Lost Generation began as a large population of hikikomori, a Japanese term used to describe adolescents who withdraw from society and confine themselves to their bedrooms. Failure to find employment resulted in ⅓ of the now 40-year-old population becoming shut-ins, or hikikomori. Today, there are around 613,000 hikikomori, according to a government survey in March 2019. The Lost Generation also presents the “8050s Problem”, which entails middle-aged, reclusive and unemployed Japanese still dependent on their elderly parents for housing and financial assistance. Social worker Reiko Katsube identified the 8050s Problem and strives to cultivate connections among this community through the Toyonoka Council of Social Welfare. Katsube recognizes that shut-ins deserve acceptance and a place within society. Katsube began reaching out to this community after the 1995 Kobe earthquake that left hundreds of thousands of people displaced. “Since the quake, we have been striving to nurture connections in the community to prevent lonely deaths,” Katsube says. Hikikomori have endured societal isolation and a discouraging labor market for far too long. Unfortunately, the Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated these issues. 

Prior to the pandemic, the Japanese government realized the Lost Generation was in dire need of assistance after a May 2019 knife attack. A middle-aged man who had been without a job and living with his parents committed this brutal attack, killing two, injuring 18 others and subsequently stabbing himself to death. Japanese media alluded that this man had been suffering from the 8050s Problem, indicating that shut-ins may be a “ticking time bomb.”

The 1990’s employment ice age had extended into multiple decades and its consequences prompted the government to finally take action. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government announced plans to create over 300,000 jobs within three years. 

Government action, however, is untimely. Experts predict that another major employment ice age will occur due to the pandemic. 2020’s April to June quarter indicated a 28% dip in the Japanese economy – the most drastic during the postwar period. According to Recruit Works Institute’s statistics, the class of 2021’s ratio of jobs per graduate will drop from 1.83 to 1.53. In an employment system characterized by the saying, “The doors only open once,” graduates may face a futile job market. Japan’s Chamber of Commerce reports that 78% of small to midsize businesses will cut back the number of new hires because of the pandemic. How will the Japanese government save its Lost Generation while preventing another one? 

Government intervention should include not only job creation but also psychological assistance. The government largely ignored psychological disorders until 2004, when a law was passed to support those with developmental disabilities. Many shut-ins struggle with hypersensitivity, compulsive tendencies, and lack of social awareness. If the government had addressed these disabilities earlier on, then the 8050s Problem would not be as pervasive today. Many elderly parents of these middle-aged shut-ins regret treating their children terribly because they were unaware of the psychological inflictions from long-term unemployment. Japan’s social welfare system must pursue efforts towards creating communities for shut-ins to share their experiences and network for employment opportunities, even if the pandemic limits connection to an online platform.  

Approximately 1 million Japanese in their mid-30s to mid-40s are experiencing long-term unemployment. Boosting incomes while meeting the domestic demand for labor requires significant cooperation among local and national governments and companies. Former Prime Minister Abe’s cabinet expressed willingness to use flexible macroeconomic policies, hoping to raise the minimum wage to 1,000  ¥ ($9.20) and create over 300,000 jobs. However, these measures entail real sacrifices. Securing economic stimulus funds requires serious social security reforms, including increasing revenue from wealthier older people and raising the age to receive public pension from 65 to 70yearsold. The new Prime Minister Yoshihide Suga is fairly popular among Japanese citizens. In a recent interview with Japan Forward, Abe describes Suga as a “results-oriented politician” who will continue the policies of the previous administration. 

Thousands of people apply for a national public service job, knowing that it provides a steady income. Not just any unemployed Japanese person can be granted a government-created job. To be hired as national public servants, the “ice age” generation must first pass government exams. Those who pass the exam must then undergo interviews. Out of the most recent 5,634 applicants who took the exam, only 157 will be offered a position, signifying a competition rate of 35.9 applicants to one job. This system seems much more cutthroat than the 1990s post-graduate job search, which may not resolve the problem. 

Japan’s ambitious plans for economic revival may flounder given the current circumstances. Emphasis on a flexible macroeconomic policy has entrenched Japan in a debt-to-GDP ratio of 200%. Experts worry that government safety nets will hinder structural reforms from advancing economic development, causing companies to lose profit in the long-term. In order to escape and prevent another employment ice age, Japan must shift its focus to reducing trade barriers, attracting more foreign direct investment, and expanding the labor market. 

As the workforce dwindles due to the aging population, the Lost Generation deserves a second chance to establish a career for themselves and repair Japan’s stagnant economy. 

Ever since he gained global attention during his 2018 presidential campaign, Bolsonaro has drawn international criticism for his inflammatory comments. His presidency has only solidified his reputation as a jingoist, authoritarian president who unabashedly promotes his controversial socially conservative opinions. As damaging as it can be to live under a president with a hefty record of sexist, racist, and downright insensitive comments (an experience not entirely foreign to other nations such as the U.S. and Great Britain who also recently elected controversial leaders), Bolsonaro’s policies unfortunately reflect his provocative political persona.

After a year in office, he has pursued policies that relax gun restrictions, cripple the federal environmental protection service, attempted to eliminate the federal indigenous health agency, and engaged in a lengthy list of other efforts to undermine the stability of vulnerable populations in Brazil. Within the first year of his term, deforestation has increased by 85 percent. His political agenda has left no demographic more exposed to disaster than indigenous populations, especially rural communities in the Amazon.

Unsurprisingly, these rural indigenous communities have suffered the repercussions of the COVID-19 outbreak and wildfire surges the most, without any meaningful support from their president.

Indigenous populations, which constitute around 13 percent of the population of Brazil, suffer from COVID-related deaths at a rate almost 250 percent higher than the general population. Brazil’s Indigenous People Articulation (APIB), the umbrella advocacy organization for indigenous communities in Brazil, estimates that Brazil’s 850,000 Indigenous people have endured 26,443 confirmed cases and around 700 deaths, as of late August 2020. An average of two indigenous Brazilians die as a result of COVID-19 every day. These are likely to be low estimates considering even the most capable agencies have difficulty developing accurate measurements of the virus among rural populations.

In Parque das Tribos, an indigenous neighborhood on the outskirts of the capital city of the Amazonas region, a lack of governmental support has forced community members to support themselves. Because local leaders are often older and more susceptible to symptoms of the virus, young professionals bear the brunt of the logistical aid to communities: forming grassroots networks of community support, driving neighbors to hospitals, deriving naturalist remedies for symptoms, and making endless (and seemingly futile) calls to the federal health agency with pleas for more support. Despite impressive demonstrations of community solidarity, the pervasive feeling among residents is one of abandonment.

Parque das Tribos is just one of many such communities. Indigenous Brazilians across the country, deserted by their government and racked with existential terror for their future, have begun protesting against the Bolsonaro administration. In late August, enraged indigenous communities took to the streets. Protestors blocked a major highway, a crucial route for transporting agricultural products out of the Amazon, donning signs urging Bolsonaro to “protect the Amazon” and support “indigenous rights” under an oppressive layer of wildfire smoke.

Indigenous communities were not the only Brazilians to take to the streets. Thousands of citizens have protested Bolsonaro’s education and pension policies since he took office, and more recently protesters have objected to his approach to COVID vaccines. 

Somehow, Bolsonaro continually dismisses any dissidents as “idiots.” Even as indigenous protests continue to gain traction, spreading from Brazil to Colombia, Bolsonaro shamelessly brushes off legitimate criticism as unfounded. Indigenous communities across Latin America continue to march under the banner of “indigenous rights,” calling for equitable land rights, infrastructure investment, and liberty to enforce their own environmental policies, especially in this time of crisis. Bolsonaro turns a blind eye.

To make matters worse for native Amazonians, wildfires erupted with unprecedented strength at the beginning of the dry season in early May and have raged ever since. Unlike the forest ecosystems in California and Australia, wildfires do not naturally occur in the wetlands of the Amazon, and recent trends of annual wildfires are a direct result of deforestation, pollution, and increasing global temperatures — all of which have been exacerbated by Bolsonaro’s lax approach to environmental protectionism.

These fires have been encroaching on indigenous communities, damaging food supplies, destroying homes, and disrupting  already strained and precarious health care systems. Even for communities that lie beyond the fire line, wildfire smoke leaves eyes, throats, and lungs more exposed to the respiratory effects of COVID-19. According to Human Rights Watch, demand for healthcare, especially respiratory medicine such as inhalers, increases on average by 30 percent every wildfire season, and indigenous health care officials annually struggle to accommodate this massive seasonal demand — even before COVID-19 loomed over vulnerable populations.

In the face of anger and desperation, the Bolsonaro administration has failed to develop a comprehensive plan of action, and Bolsonaro himself only occasionally acknowledges the catastrophic state of the economic and physical health of Brazil’s indigenous people. 

In early May, Bolsonaro deployed the army to combat wildfires, granting them permission to seek out illegal logging, deforestation, and fires. However, many residents argue the army’s presence has only exacerbated conditions in the rainforest, and research concurs that the army’s presence, which consists more of infrastructure projects than raids on illegal activity, has done more harm than good.

Despite domestic and international criticism of military deployment and inadequate plans to combat these crises, Bolsonaro continually refuses to address the pleas of indigenous communities for additional masks, PPE, hygiene supplies, and medical personnel. 

Instead, the president made a mediocre attempt to provide aid to rural Amazonian populations by sending medical personnel from SESAI, the national administration for indigenous health. However, the bureau hastily deployed its workers without sufficient efforts to prevent disease transmission from the medical professionals to patients who were not previously exposed. As a result of SESAI’s irresponsible and ignorant aid tactics, the Bolsonaro administration likely accelerated the spread of the virus among remote populations.

In addition to his failure to support marginalized communities, Bolsonaro has publicly and repeatedly denied the dire nature of wildfires and touted his self-proclaimed success at limiting the impacts of the virus.

In his 2019 speech before the UN General Assembly, Bolsonaro blamed wildfires in the Amazon on indigenous communities, as if native Amazonians — who have called those forests home long before colonizers arrived — were foolishly engaging in cultural rituals that burned their homes, their livelihoods, and their heritage to the ground. He also firmly repudiated the existence of climate change, even denying that the Amazon was a crucial source of oxygen and a vital carbon sink for the entire world. According to Jair Bolsonaro, scientists invented climate change specifically to undermine his success as a president.

A year after his heavily criticized speech before the UN convention, Bolsonaro’s pre-recorded video for the 2020 convention continues to promote his policies as “the best environmental regulations on the planet”, even as all measurements of deforestation, wildfires, and carbon emissions indicate that Brazil is drifting further and further towards the point of no return.

In the midst of this multifaceted crisis tearing through indigenous communities, the President actively engages in a campaign of denial and misinformation. He refuses to acknowledge the extent of the catastrophe, regarding both the virus and the wildfires, and therefore, aims to avoid accountability for his failure to support the citizens that his office obliges him to support. Underpinning this refusal to face reality is the belief that he can ignore the struggles of indigenous communities with absolute impunity.

Since the rise of far-right wing, populist leaders like President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Boris Johnson, the global tolerance for deliberate misinformation has dramatically increased. Bolsonaro feels empowered to blatantly deny reality and swerve his responsibilities because his fellow conservative politicians have experienced relative success in the tactic of avoiding reality in order to avoid accountability. 

Like Trump and Johnson, Bolsonaro relies on a cohort of fervent far-right supporters to sustain him through storms of public outcry, both domestically and abroad. In response to their leader’s failure to protect and support their needs as citizens, Brazilians have taken to the streets, as have Americans and Brits and citizens from around the world who feel abandoned by the people whose job it is to serve. 

The voice of the people can only overpower the voices of misinformation, ignorance, and apathy with sustained, collective action. Indigenous communities have begun this daunting task, continuing to self-advocate and protest the injustices of Bolsonaro’s leadership, but the international community must do more to support them. Native Amazonians are dying at disproportionate and preventable rates, and so is their home.

In mid-August, the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced a peace deal, disrupting the status quo in the Middle East. The deal called for the normalization of relations between the two countries, in addition to the halting of any Israeli annexation plans of the West Bank. Outlined below are the political and economic benefits that can be expected as a result of the peace deal/ 

Economic Benefits

First and foremost, the deal is expected to have tremendous economic benefits, as it paves the way for new financial investments in both countries. The hope is to stimulate both economies, which are reeling from pandemic-related shocks, and address an urgent need for economic restructuring in the Arab Gulf, which is notorious for its dependence on the oil trade. The economic stimulus from the deal is especially critical to revamping Israel’s economy, given that, in the second quarter of 2020, Israel’s GDP contracted by 8.1% and the unemployment rate reached levels not seen since 2016. 

Previously, all business between Israel and the UAE was done under the table, meaning that financial transactions were diverted through third parties, and communication was made through overseas cell numbers and VPNs. Despite these hurdles, Israeli trade with the Gulf Cooperation Council is estimated to be about $1 billion. This economic activity overshadows Israel’s trade with the other Israeli-friendly Arab states, with trade revenues with Egypt and Jordan numbering $500 million and $160 million, respectively. 

Within weeks of the peace deal, Israeli venture capital firms have been fielding calls from both sides about investment opportunities, Emirati billionaires have set up direct flights between the two countries, and some Israeli tech firms are shifting their sales strategies from East Asia to the newly opened Emirati market. The Israeli technology sector seems to be of particular interest to Emirati investors, who have been facing unfavorable domestic markets. As the UAE starts to shift away from oil dependency, Israeli tech provides a gateway into diverse investment portfolios, while generating revenue for the Jewish-majority state. 

Political and Diplomatic Gains 

There are clear political advantages for both parties. The peace deal created a positive media storm for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Emirati counterpart, President Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (KZN). Netanyahu especially needed this boost. Since 2016, Netanyahu has faced legal investigations for various allegations, including accepting gifts worth over $1 million, offering to diminish the circulation of a newspaper’s rival if their competitor granted him favorable coverage, and the misuse of public funds by his wife. 

While he has been battling accusations of corruption, the Israeli PM has also faced criticism for his handling of the coronavirus. In the early days of the pandemic, Israel seemed to be ahead of the game in its containment of the virus. However, it wasn’t long after the Prime Minister called for Israelis to “have fun” that the virus truly devastated Israel. As of now, over 200,000 Israelis have had confirmed cases of the virus, and less than a third of Israelis are happy with the way Netenyahu has handled COVID-19, according to a poll conducted by the Guttman Center for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy.

The deal is expected to boost Netanyahu’s international status in addition to his domestic popularity, which is critical given that his recent foreign policy moves have been damaging for Israel’s international reputation. Most recently, the prime minister’s plans to annex the West Bank drew widespread international criticism, with the European Union even threatening to suspend Israel’s preferential trade agreement. Israel’s deal with the UAE helps mitigate Europe’s critique of its foreign policy with positive global coverage of a significant diplomatic accomplishment.

For the UAE, the deal helps shift the conversation away from the country’s involvement in the Yemeni Civil War and toward the country’s geopolitical importance and progress. Since 2015, news covering the UAE has been largely dominated by its role in the chaos in Yemen. In 2015, the UAE and Saudi Arabia intervened in Yemen to fight against the Houthi rebels, proxy fighters supported by Iran. The UAE contributed over 5,000 members of its own troops, trained 90,000 Yemeni soldiers, distributed billions of dollars and provided weapons. After five years of fighting, Yemen has been left with one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises: more than 1 million displaced and over 2 million children malnourished, with 400,000 of them in critical condition. 

Emirati president, His Highness Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan (KZN), was left to assume responsibility for the carnage in this proxy war. Recently, KZN has shifted his foreign policy focus in Yemen to one of retreat. Since last summer, the UAE has been pulling forces out of the conflict and sending them back home. The purpose of this move has been to solidify a domestic defense against Iran, and to pull the UAE out of a war that has been costly and detrimental to its international reputation. The recent peace deal works alongside this important move in two ways. First, it helps to shift the international headlines regarding UAE from one of a warmonger with accusations of violating human rights to an image of a cooperative peacemaker. Secondly, creating a cooperative relationship with Israel helps to strengthen possible military ties against Iran, a common adversary.

Israel and the UAE’s shared animosity toward Iran was an important part of the peace deal.  

Israel, under constant threat from Iran, is accustomed to both fighting Iranian proxy wars and confronting the state directly. On the Lebanese border and in Syria, Israel has faced off against Hezbollah, an Iranian ally based in Lebanon. When it comes to deterring Iran, Israel has leaned on its technological advantage. The nation’s most famous example of its technical prowess is it’s malware Stuxnet,  which was created with the purpose of destabilizing Iranian nuclear facilities. 

With the peace deal in place, the door may be opening for Israel and the UAE to support each others’ military goals and collaborate on intelligence. Already, the UAE is looking to purchase American F-35 stealth fighter jets, a task that would have been impossible if the state did not recognize Israel. 

Looking Ahead

So, what are the future implications of this deal for the region’s stability? In the near future, Gulf states — notably Saudi Arabia — may be incentivized to also formalize relations with Israel, should the economic and security benefits of doing so become undeniable. Additionally, a positive relationship between the UAE and Israel could lead to increased military and business ties between Arab Gulf states and Israel. Already Bahrain, another member of the Gulf Cooperation Council, announced its intent to normalize ties with Israel.

The strength of this budding alliance depends on the ability of Middle Eastern states to place aside past tensions and fully support the success of their regional neighbors. If Israel becomes skeptical of improved Arab militaries, or Arab states start to circumvent Israel, cracks in the alliance will form. There is also the possibility of a Thucydides Trap for Iran, which could see the Arab-Israeli alliance growing stronger and decide to take action before its opponents gain an upper hand. Increased Iranian aggression is particularly dangerous for the region given the state’s alliances with armed rebel groups in several Middle Eastern countries. Thus, Middle Eastern states must remain alert and cautious, preparing for the possibility that Arab-Israeli cooperation prompts further Iranian aggression. 

Nevertheless, the recent peace deal between the UAE and Israel is a refreshing turn in Arab-Israeli relations, representing a momentous step towards greater unity in the Middle East, and providing hope for countries plagued by failing economies and political turmoil in the pandemic era.