Some notable ones as of late are a woman’s right to drive, granted after the law stripping this right was abolished in June 2018, a woman’s right to obtain a passport and travel abroad without consent from a male guardian if she is at least twenty-one, granted through an amendment in August 2019, and most recently, a woman’s right to join the armed forces, passed in February 2021.

These laws are responded to with global media frenzies, reported on by the largest news outlets in every major region and country. As a result, it is not uncommon for people to think that Saudi Arabia has generally improved in women’s rights. However, according to the Human Rights Watch’s (HRW) 2020 World Report on Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabian women are still required to have male guardian approval for many things such as getting married, leaving prison, or obtaining healthcare. Women also face discrimination in regards to family, divorce, children and child custody matters. On top of this, men are still able to file for guardianship of women based on perceived “disobedience,” which can lead to women being forcibly imprisoned or kept in the male guardian’s home. 

This report shows little change in Saudi Arabia’s position in both the HRW 2019 World Report and the HRW 2018 World Report. So, despite chipping away at the guardianship system with small legislative changes, the overall treatment of women, in regards to legislation, has remained fairly consistent. 

Perhaps even more egregious than the persistence of the guardianship system is the Saudi government’s treatment of those who have spoken out against it. While the government is praised in the press for somewhat minor changes in the system, the women’s rights activists calling for change are arbitrarily imprisoned. Ahead of the lifting of the ban on women driving in 2018, over a dozen women’s rights activists in Saudi Arabia were arrested. After being held for a year, many faced trials throughout 2019. These trials were closed, barring journalists and diplomats from attending. One of the activists, Loujain al-Hathloul, was only released this February after spending over one thousand days in detention. Even after her release, she faces travel bans and a suspended three-year sentence under Saudi terrorism laws.

Other women’s rights activists arrested alongside al-Hathloul were said to have been released as well, but it is likely they are under similar restrictions, diminishing their ability to speak up. This was not an isolated incident. According to Amnesty International, in April of 2019 fourteen women’s rights activists were arrested for peacefully supporting women’s rights movements. The individuals were kept in detention through the end of the year without charge or trial. 

Many believe that the Saudi government’s decisions to make changes to their policies regarding women’s rights come from international pressure over anything else. This is a particularly popular stance when considering the most recent reforms, as President Biden has put pressure on the Saudi government through his cabinet’s commitment to protecting human rights abroad. This is thought by many to be the main reason behind the release of al-Hathloul, but it does not reflect a real change in the will of the Saudi government to protect and help their female citizens. 

Aside from the issue of stifling women’s rights activists, the Saudi government’s actual reforms seem to be largely cosmetic. Despite passing a domestic abuse ban in 2013, the Saudi government still, in many cases, mistreats the women who decide to report such abuse. In 2020, a large social media movement started in Saudi Arabia where women used the hashtag “Why I Didn’t Report It” to discuss their experiences with domestic abuse and the legislation surrounding it. Women who participated spoke of smear campaigns and victim-blaming if they reported, and many were arrested after being reported by their male guardians for disobedience. As long as the male guardianship system exists, many women in Saudi Arabia do not feel safe going to the police and are unable to escape abusive situations. 

There has also been a large resistance to the changes in the law from those that want the guardianship system to remain intact. Many women face backlash from their families for invoking their recently granted rights. So, although women may have the legal right to join the military, get a job, drive a car or get a passport, all without the consent of a male guardian, many still feel obligated to get permission from their father, brother, or husband depending on how accepting the family is of the new laws.  

Considering that women have been beaten, arrested, and, in extreme cases, killed for disobedience under the male guardianship system, its continued existence does not set a promising precedent for the future of women’s rights in Saudi Arabia. Until major action is taken to dismantle the discriminatory guardianship system and women’s rights activists are no longer silenced, it is difficult to say that the Saudi government has made any serious headway in promoting women’s rights.

It seems many recent reforms came from a place of economic strategizing rather than a serious commitment to change. For example, the expansion of jobs women are now allowed to work expands the Saudi workforce, boosting the economy. It’s very possible that this is the main goal for the Saudi government when taking into account the fact that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has repeatedly dedicated himself to diversifying the Saudi economy in preparation for a post-oil future. Allowing women to participate in the economy in a greater capacity would be a large part of that. 

It is worth questioning why the governments and news organizations of the world praise Saudi Arabia for these small changes without demanding the real changes necessary for achieving gender equality. For countries like the United States, which has a vested interest in maintaining good relations with the world’s largest oil producer, it has become common practice to turn a blind eye to the questionable practices of the Saudis. 

This was affirmed just recently with the Biden Administration’s decision not to penalize the Saudi Crown Prince over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi despite their aforementioned commitment to human rights. Khashoggi’s murder on October 2, 2018, inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, caused international outrage due to the suspected involvement of the Saudi government. In February 2021, a U.S. intelligence report on the murder was released directly implicating the Saudi crown prince. Biden decided that the relationship was too important to risk direct punishment, citing counter-terrorism and facing Iran as his reasoning.

Without a greater commitment to abolishing the male guardianship system and with a continued history of suppressing the voices of women’s rights activists, it is hard to believe that the Saudi government wants to bring about real change. In combination with inaction on an international level, it is likely that this pattern of making minimal revisions to legislation preceded or followed by sweeping crackdowns on activism will continue to act as the only way the Saudi government addresses women’s rights.

The Scottish Parliament is currently going through the process of drafting legislation regarding a new referendum on Scottish independence. If the referendum proceeds, it will be the second Scottish referendum within the past decade, following one that took place in September 2014 during which 55.3% of Scottish voters opted to stay in the UK.

How does a referendum work?

Nearly seven years ago, Scotland was led by the pro-independence Scottish National Party, which had a majority in the Scottish Parliament. The SNP believed that independence would grant Scotland more peace, prosperity and freedom — especially over its economy and military. 

In order to initiate an independence referendum, the Scottish Parliament needed to gain permission from the British government, and then solidify the referendum into law. This is because the Scotland Act of 1998 disallows the Scottish Parliament from unilaterally passing a bill when its provisions include matters reserved to the British government such as “the Union of the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.”

In October 2012, the Scottish Parliament signed the Edinburgh Agreement with the UK to lay the foundations of the referendum. Then Scotland passed the referendum legislation in the Parliament to settle the details, including the date of the referendum and the wording of the question. 

In 2014, when the referendum occurred, all Scottish residents who were over age 16 were eligible to vote “yes” or “no” to the question: “Should Scotland be an independent country?” However, the result of the referendum eventually prevented Scotland from claiming its independence, with 44.7% of Scots voting to leave the UK and 55.3% voting to stay. This result was thought to have ended the dispute over Scottish sovereignty, with the British prime minister at the time, David Cameron, claiming that the “debate has been settled for a generation.”

Yet, it didn’t take long for calls for Scottish independence to resurface. 

Following the UK’s exit from the European Union in 2020, Scotland once again expressed a strong intention to leave the UK. The distancing between the UK and the EU is a driving force behind the new Scottish referendum. Unlike England, which left the EU to pursue unilateralism, Scotland has always been a proponent of the EU and wants to keep its role in the political union. The results from the 2016 Brexit referendum support this, with 62 percent of Scottish voters electing to remain in the EU. This figure is the highest compared to all other regions in England, Welsh, and Northern Ireland, and drastically contrasts from all other English regions with the exception of London. 

Why is Scotland Calling for a second referendum?

The Scottish government believes that “Scotland will be worse off outside the EU” in aspects including trade, economy, security, and immigration. 

For instance, after Brexit, Scottish businesses will lose full access to the EU’s Single Market, which is also known as an internal market without trade barriers. This allows the EU members to move people, goods, services, and money around freely. If a product is able to be sold in an EU country, it can also be sold among other EU members. Brexit also prevents Scotland from participating in the EU’s Customs Union, which, according to the European Commission, enables “countries to apply a uniform system for handling the import, export and transit of goods and implement a common set of rules.” Without involvement in these, British goods that enter the EU will face extra customs and border paperwork, causing delays and resulting in an extra trading costs estimated at around £7 billion annually. 

Additionally, Scotland will lose EU program funding for agriculture, fishing, and rural development. Since 2014, the EU has provided £5.6 billion to related programs in Scotland. 

Moreover, Scottish people will face more restrictions when working, studying, or travelling to EU countries. Domestically, the number of EU migrants to Scotland may drop by 50%, which will also have a significant impact on sectors that rely on immigrant labor. The Scottish government projects that leaving the EU will lower Scotland’s gross domestic product by approximately 6.1% by 2030. 

The current leading party in the Scottish Parliament is also pushing for Scottish independence. Although its effort to create an independent Scotland failed in 2014, the SNP continues to advocate for the independence of Scotland. Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP party leader and the First Minister of Scotland (leader of the Scottish devolved government), declared that a different and better future for Scotland “is only open to us with independence.” The SNP currently has 61 out of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament, and it may hold a new independent referendum if it were to win a greater majority seats during the election this May. Statistics from February 25 show that 52% of survey respondents planned to vote for the SNP and another 52% said they would vote ‘Yes’ for a Scottish independence referendum. 

However, the SNP is facing an internal challenge, as there is an ongoing political dispute between Sturgeon and Deputy Party Leader Alex Salmond, which would eventually affect the party leadership and the outcome of the election. 

What’s the impact of independence?

A 2019 publication from the Scottish Parliament explains that independence ensures “Scotland’s choices will determine Scotland’s future.” Analysis from Foreign Policy and Center for Strategic and International Studies indicates that if Scotland is able to have its independence, it may gain the ability to make independent decisions on its economy, defence, natural resources, national infrastructure and raise its global status. Scotland may elect to strengthen its military by taking part in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). It also might seek to recover from its economic losses by rejoining the EU. 

However, a report from the London School of Economics found that EU membership does not necessarily guarantee a boost to the Scottish economy. The report indicates that Scotland’s trade figure with the UK is four times greater than its trade with the EU, and rejoining the EU will carry the cost of creating a trade border between Scotland and the rest of the UK. Since 61% of Scottish exports go to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, Scotland’s break from the UK will likely create financial losses.

London is seemingly feeling the pressure. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson recently took a trip to Scotland in order to persuade the Scots to remain in the UK. His willingness to endure press scrutiny for the trip underscores the degree to which an impending referendum is unsettling for Downing Street and bids for UK unity.

How is the UK responding?

The current government of the UK is against a second Scottish referendum, and has started to appeal to the Scottish people using the government’s financial power. 

The government has bypassed the Scottish Parliament to provide direct funding to local communities, infrastructure and projects. Because the previous first minister of Scotland has made a promise that the independence referendum is something that happens “once in a generation,” Johnson said that the SNP should not break this promise and should stop a second referendum from taking place. 

In a letter he wrote to Sturgeon in January 2020, Johnson wrote that, “the UK government will continue to uphold the democratic decision of the Scottish people and the promise that you made them. For that reason, I cannot agree to any request for a transfer of power that would lead to further independence referendums.”

Overall, it’s difficult to determine which of the two sides has the greater chance of deciding the fate of the UK and the people living within it. The issue itself reflects years of conflicts and clashes between Scotland and England — many historical and many present and political.

On September 26th, Chile, Colombia, Peru, Argentina, Paraguay, and Canada, all signed a joint letter to the International Criminal Court (ICC) to launch an investigation against Venezuela for alleged crimes against humanity. This united effort is momentous not only because it is the first time in history outside entities have officially requested the ICC to do this, but also because within the region, Latin American leaders have usually avoided open criticism of other nations. Additionally, in late September, the United States imposed sanctions on three members of Maduro’s inner circle and family in order to force him to lessen his grip on Venezuela’s government and military. Venezuela’s government now faces the possibility of being fully exposed to the international community and cannot escape the consequences if found guilty by the ICC. Venezuela’s future, especially that of its citizens, may just depend on the course of this investigation and subsequent actions committed to punishing the government for its alleged crimes.

Venezuela’s Alleged Crimes: Torture, Murder, and Cruel Detainment of Opposition  

Dating back to 2014, the Venezuelan government’s alleged crimes include the capricious detainment of anti-government protesters and political opponents, torture, and more than 8000 extrajudicial murders. According to Jose Miguel Vivanco, head of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch, in a statement to NPR, “Our research shows that the abuses in Venezuela were not isolated, nor were they the result of excesses by rogue security forces members.”

This evidence demonstrates the fact that Venezuela’s political abuses are not caused by rogue opposing groups. Rather, President Maduro has concentrated power within the executive branch and is executing his own control to silence the opposition, effectively transforming Venezuela from the democracy it once was to a dictatorship. This transition is evident by President Maduro’s actions to counter opposition groups, which have also included eliminating freedom of speech and independent media, therefore eradicating the basic civil liberties of Venezuelans. Citizens do not have the freedom to voice their opinions or actively fight to change what they disagree with in the Maduro administration. They face the fear of cruel violence at the hands of the government, which was originally meant to protect and fight for their rights as a true democracy is supposed to.

Venezuela Has Failed in Rectifying its Current Economic Crisis

Aside from the political turmoil, Venezuela’s president has not effectively solved the economic issues that have crippled the Venezuelans since 2010 such as food shortages, increasing homelessness, and inflation. President Maduro and his government have attempted to fix the problem, but simply introducing more money into the banks to increase currency flow and strengthen the bolivar and reducing prices that have forced domestic industries out of business have only worsened the economic status of the country as well as devalued the currency.

Furthermore, Venezuela’s failure to diversify in making products for other industries by continuing to be solely dependent on oil as the main export commodity has made it difficult to purchase imported goods, thus producing more trouble for the economy. The socialist government, in an attempt to help the poor by reducing prices and increasing wages, has in fact created the opposite effect: their efforts in trying to transform and progress Venezuela has resulted in an even more critical situation for Venezuelans.

International Refugee Crisis Caused By Venezuelan Turmoil Contributed to ICC Letter

As a result of these abuses by the government and the current economic turmoil, millions of Venezuelans have fled to seek better opportunity and lives in other countries. The resulting refugee crisis has not only affected Venezuela, but has also overwhelmed neighboring countries, with the United Nations estimating that as many as 1.8 million men, women, and children will migrate this year, adding to the 1.6 million Venezuelans that have emigrated since 2015.

Millions of Venezuelans are displaced from their homes, and hundreds of thousands more are forced to migrate to not only neighboring countries, such as Chile, Colombia, and Brazil, but countries outside of the continent such as Spain and the United States.

Although Venezuela’s neighbors have an open-door policy, the unprecedented exodus of Venezuelans has burdened communities of its neighboring countries, as the majority of migrants have poor health and little savings. Reports show an increase in crime and strain in public programs in these neighboring regions, making it evident that Venezuela’s crisis is an external rather than internal threat.

The existence of this regional threat contributed greatly to the joint statement to the ICC, in which the ICC’s prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, has been asked to investigate possible crimes involving human rights abuses committed since 2014. In February, Bensouda stated that her office had already started a “preliminary examination” into Venezuela’s alleged crimes, initiating steps into a possible formal investigation.

What Power does the ICC Have?

In recent years, the Venezuelan crisis has garnered more international attention, but no official action had been made to tackle the issue until now. Even though an official investigation has not been launched by the ICC yet, the fact that not only Canada but also neighboring South American countries have all formally denounced Venezuela and its actions show a momentous shift in the foreign attitudes towards the crisis.

Now that Venezuela’s problem is increasingly viewed as more than just an internal threat and its allegations of crimes against humanity are open to inspection, the government is finally subject to direct international pressure and authority. Since Venezuela is a member of the ICC and is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC for any crimes defined under the ICC’s Rome Statute, Venezuela cannot deflect international investigations, and its government must be prepared to face any consequences.

Even if the ICC is to convict President Maduro and his colleagues, there still remain questions as to how Venezuela will set up a new government and progress from its turmoil. Even if the present government is removed, Venezuela would have to start with a new system to have a thriving economy and alleviation of its income disparity. Venezuela is faced then with a major decision: whether to continue its socialist government under a new leader or adopt capitalist policies such as regulating prices at appropriate levels to support its own domestic industries and promoting pro-business policies that champion the private sector over strict nationalization of industries. Furthermore, given Venezuela’s political and economic ties to other countries, the international community cannot ignore what will happen to Venezuela. With all of these factors, the future of Venezuelans relies on whether the government can undergo a fruitful rebirth and whether the international community can work together to provide aid to a society on the brink of collapse.

In 2005, the IMF and World Bank decided to forgive low–income countries, the majority of which were in Africa, of the crushing debt they owed to rich, developed countries. However, more than a decade later, many African countries are once again seeing alarming rates of debt growth, which is contrary to the economic expansion envisioned by world leaders at the turn of the century. Despite having some of the fastest growing economies in the world, the continent seems to be lagging far behind its Asian peers in terms of development. Many factors play into this, but the most relevant is the insurmountable challenge of debt – financed heavily by semi-private sector loans and unconditional investment – combined with executive corruption.

Foreign Investment Policies in the African Continent

The continent’s top two sources of FDI, France and China, have alarmingly amoral policies that have allowed African debt to skyrocket. Former French colonies in Africa which make up almost half the continent have long relied on investment from France to tap into natural resources and expand their economy. However, with the rise of corruption in a number of African countries post-independence, this reliance has turned insidious. In return for loans, countries that participate in this exchange must sell their oil to France and their leaders – Omar Bongo in Gabon, Mamadou Tandja in Niger, and others – to receive generous kickbacks. With this money, these countries have seen their economies grow steadily, but even Sub-Saharan Africa was not immune to the effects of the Great Recession. When growth lagged, these countries increased borrowing to finance debt, creating a feedback loop that benefited only the leaders of those African countries and the French state-backed oil companies, leaving the rest of the population to suffer the recession’s effects.

To add fuel to the debt fire, recent Chinese lending policies to the region have allowed this debt to grow exponentially. Chinese lending, unlike that of the IMF or World Bank, is considered “no-conditions-attached money” for financing development. Multilateral lenders usually require adherence to certain practices like austerity or open markets for countries to receive money, whereas China does not. China’s goals, similar to deals many European countries have with former colonies, aim to build railroads and capture oil markets. Countries like Angola, the Republic of the Congo, and Cameroon have benefitted from and have been harmed by this in equal measure – commodity price volatility combined with high demand have led to these countries’ risky decisions to leverage their commodity supplies to pay off debt.

Propping Up Corruption on the African Continent

After gaining independence, African countries maintained the institutions their former colonizers had built. Former colonizers did little to dissuade the spread of crooked heads of state. Even France, with its presumed accountability as a G7 state, enabled a thriving network of corruption. In the 2000s, a scandal rocked France when news surfaced that high-ranking members of Elf, the publicly-owned oil corporation responsible for oil drilling in Africa, had been quietly siphoning off funds to certain heads of state. As a result, the company merged with a private megacorporation, Total, but maintained its parameters of operation. Today, behind the closed doors of Total, African leaders are still given benefits that allow them to have a fleet of ultra-luxury cars or a personal Boeing 777.

China, currently the continent’s number one lender, however, never presumed to have those same misgivings as France. Where France hides behind a “private” corporation, China has never pretended to follow Western mores, as seen in the recent decision to abolish term limits. This behavior can be extended to lending in Africa. With no conditions of “democracy or bust” tied to lending, China has allowed heads of state to allocate these funds as they please, and in return, has captured many regional oil markets to accelerate their own growth. This quid-pro-quo has allowed heads of state to misallocate funds for their supporters and core constituencies and furnish their own lavish lifestyles. As China and France are the continent’s top two bilateral lenders, this means that African leaders are facing very little pressure from global economic powerhouses to change their ways.

Private Lending and Debt

Since 2005, lending to the region has come from private companies who don’t care about good governance. Like France’s Total, Chinese state-owned and other privately-owned enterprises have carried out a good deal of China’s total investment in Africa. The financing deals from these private/public institutions are just as opaque – if not more so – as those from the Chinese government. Angola, for example, received over $14 billion USD from 2000 to 2014 from Chinese SOEs. In 2016, Angolan public debt peaked at 75.8 percent of the GDP, which wouldn’t normally be a problem for most states. As a comparison, as of December 2017, the United States’ debt to GDP ratio stood at 105.4 percent. However, the main difference between Angola and the U.S. is growth rate. While the U.S. is the world’s biggest economy and is growing at a steady rate, Angola is experiencing negative growth.

Nevertheless, debt isn’t necessarily bad for less developed economies. Countries can and have used this debt to fund growth. However, many of these African countries have commodity-based economies which experience extreme price volatility. To pay back the loans they need to finance their activities, countries make arrangements with private lenders like Total to borrow even more money to invest in infrastructure on unfavorable terms. The problem arises when debtor countries fail to make up the dollar amount owed. This, unfortunately, happens more often than not, and unsurprisingly, makes them dive deeper into debt. Debt can also accumulate within corrupt governments when loans are invested into profitless infrastructure, such as Mozambique’s fishing fleet that has made little revenue on a $2 billion loan from privately owned Credit Suisse. Despite the consequences of such impractical borrowing, dictatorial heads of state have little incentive to actually reduce their debt to GDP ratio since they are receiving benefits no matter what.

The Future of the Continent

All this money from public bilateral lenders who don’t care about governance supplemented by the rise of unconditional private lending to already corrupt governments have made Africa’s mounting debt issue more concerning. One can only hope that pre-2005 levels of debt are never seen again. With the final pangs of the Great Recession echoing through the continent and further widening the wealth gap between and within African countries, rising debt levels could certainly destabilize even democratic institutions, let alone corrupt ones. This new wave of lending could have massive repercussions for the continent’s continued development which must be watched cautiously.

In July 2016, in response to North Korea’s rising nuclear threat, the US and South Korea announced their decision to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), an antimissile battery built to intercept short- and medium-range ballistic missiles. China quickly objected to THAAD on the grounds that it would weaken its nuclear deterrence capabilities and decrease Chinese influence in the region. To coerce South Korea to disable and remove THAAD, China launched a year-long campaign of economic retaliation, targeting the consumer goods, entertainment and tourism industries. Though it faded quickly and quietly, the THAAD dispute reveals much about the current limitations of China’s power, as well as its potential.

China specifically raised concerns that THAAD’s X-band radar, which monitors THAAD’s surroundings, had too large a scope and could gain information about China’s military actions further inland. However, US defense officials have pointed out that an existing, similar instrument deployed in Japan has a comparable, marginally smaller scope. While China’s claims were technically weak, they were understandable symbolically. Many Chinese found it concerning for the US to deploy a military weapon on neighboring South Korea’s territory – a neighbor who had been recently improving relations with China.

After over a year of tensions, in late October 2017, South Korea and China suddenly announced that they would work towards improving bilateral relations. South Korean media content started re-appearing on Chinese platforms that had previously stopped showing it, the consumer goods and tourism industries began to pick up their lost momentum, and the short-lived protests against the South Korean conglomerate Lotte Group had mostly ended.

Looking closer, the limited impact of its economic blows reveals the boundaries of Chinese power. The first retaliatory action to make headlines was limiting Chinese viewers’ ability to access and consume South Korean entertainment. Popular South Korean celebrities also cancelled or suspended public appearances in China. Even within the gaming industry, Beijing tightened regulations to make South Korean games’ entry into the market more difficult. These industries have felt some impact from the ban and experienced a decrease in the trade surplus of media content in the first nine months of 2017. Nevertheless, the entertainment industries were not significantly hurt by China’s ban, as they expanded their presence in other markets.

China also targeted certain South Korean consumer products, including food products, cosmetics, and automobiles. South Korean carmakers Hyundai and Kia both experienced the effects of the THAAD dispute and saw significant drops in Chinese sales. Although many companies have felt a negative impact, the decrease in some sales were compounded by other factors like boycotts from Chinese citizens and not necessarily strictly by Chinese policy. The South Korean cosmetic giant AmorePacific cited both stagnation of the domestic economy and the decrease in tourism after March 2017 as reasons for slowing sales growth and decreased operating profit.

As China was and still is the number one provider of tourists for South Korea, tourism was the industry that experienced the largest setback during the THAAD controversy. Chinese policy was partially responsible, as regional travel companies suddenly stopped selling package tours to South Korea, but other factors like concerns for safety and political tensions, anger at Lotte Group, and increased negative perceptions of South Korea also contributed to decreased tourism, one study showed. Overall, the number of tourists fell by 3.29 million in the first nine months of 2017 as compared to 2016, leading to a total $6.8 billion loss for the tourism industry.

The hardest hit by this economic dispute was Lotte Group, the South Korean conglomerate that sold the South Korean government the land it used to deploy THAAD. Before the conflict, Lotte owned more than 100 department stores and supermarkets in China, but since February 2017, the Chinese government closed more than 70 of them, citing safety concerns. Lotte Group closed the remaining stores after large protests at numerous storefronts. Recently, Lotte Group announced that it would sell all of its stores in China, abandoning its previous effort to expand its presence in the Chinese market.

Despite all of these negative impacts, the South Korean economy as a whole did not suffer significantly from Chinese retaliation. In fact, total Chinese exports increased in 2017; in the first eight months of that year, South Korean exports to China rose by 12 percent. Despite China’s economic might, many Chinese businesses rely on South Korean companies as part of their supply chains, which helps explain why only three main industries were hit.

Though it came out largely unscathed by China’s economic attacks, it would be difficult to argue that South Korea – and the US – definitively won this dispute. Granted, THAAD is still fully operational today. However, during reconciliation talks, Seoul assured Beijing that it would not seek additional THAAD deployments nor join a trilateral military alliance with the US and Japan. China may not have achieved its full desired outcome, but it did succeed in placing some boundaries on its neighbor’s future behavior. Meanwhile, the popularity of domestic boycotts bolstered the Communist Party of China’s (CCP) power at home.

More than anything, this dispute demonstrated the scope of China’s global clout. Its failure to effect THAAD’s removal revealed that its international influence remains limited by its integration into the global economy. In other words, China can only tolerate cutting off its corporations from foreign markets up to a point. Moreover, China clearly still faces bigger security questions surrounding North Korea. However, as China’s economic might continues to grow, it could become a more viable tool for asserting Chinese power globally, as well as garnering domestic support for the CCP.

In the coming weeks, the remnants of this heated dispute will fade as the region turns its attention to the 2018 Pyeongchang Olympics. With North and South Korea planning to march under a united flag and create a joint women’s ice hockey team, there are modest signs of peace and hope. But even as the world comes together for 17 days of symbolic unity, the underlying distrust in the region caused by this conflict cannot be swept aside with colorful flags and cheerful processions. While nations applaud each others’ athletic accomplishments, the THAAD battery lies a mere 125 miles away, casting an uneasy shadow over the celebrations.

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

The title of the piece was “Irish Anxiety: Economic Dependence in an Independent Country.” Since this article, the disbandment of the Eurozone has become less of a concern. However, an economic bust is still a possibility, and the UK leaving the EU is becoming an even more serious threat. The IMF recently released a report indicating that a Brexit could cause instability in trade flows between Britain and the rest of the EU, including Ireland. Another report by Irish stockbroking firm Merrion indicates that a Brexit could cut bilateral trade flows between Ireland and the UK by 20%.

The fears surrounding a Brexit are only one example of Ireland’s dependence on the European Union and it’s member countries. The island country has heavily leaned on the Union since it first joined.

Ireland became a part of the European Economic Community in 1973 (which then became the European Union in 1991). At the time, Ireland was relatively insignificant economically, having only separated from the United Kingdom about fifty years prior. The choice to join the EEC was an effort to boost a waning economy — which had been predominately secluded from the rest of Europe — by increasing exports to other European countries. The European Commission, the executive branch of the EU, has continued to significantly bolster the Irish economy in recent years.

Take, for example, Dublin’s “Temple Bar” district. Before 1991, the area was one of the most run-down in Dublin. The European Commission then invested 47 million euros in to re-building Temple Bar both physically and economically, and now the area is known to be Dublin’s center for tourism, entertainment and nightlife.

The money from the Commission was used to make more pedestrian-friendly walkways and signage, fund business growth, create parks and instate important cultural institutions. For example, the fund created a new Viking museum, Dublina, a children’s theater, The Ark, and a film institute.

This beautiful park was also a part of the Temple Bar revival project —it was designed to be a helicopter landing site and now is a beautiful hideaway behind the Dublin Castle.

The EU has also invested heavily in Dublin’s light rail system, which is integral to the city. It invested over 42 million euros in re-vitalizing Dublin’s public transportation, creating the red and green lines still in function today. Below is a photo is of the Green Line station by St. Stephen’s Park.

The EU has funded many other less-photographable initiatives in Ireland, the full list of which can be found here. The European Commission also boasts major growth in Ireland since its ascendance to the EU, including a 90 times increase in trade, 700,000 new jobs and an increase in foreign investment from 16 to 30 million euros.

The Eurozone’s large impact in Dublin and the rest of Ireland further reinforces the irony of its independence. Yes, the country has technically been autonomous for nearly a century, but without money and services from the EU, it is unclear as to whether it could support itself. It can even be argued that Ireland wouldn’t exist independently without the 85 billion euro bailout it received from the European Central Bank in 2010. So while Ireland spent this past Easter celebrating 100 years of its independent rule, it should also give thanks to its friends in the EU for its current economic success.

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

It’s debate season in the United States, which also means it’s the season for exasperated threats of moving to Denmark if this or the other candidate wins. Left-wing sweetheart Bernie Sanders is particularly enamored with the Scandinavian country. Sanders has praised Denmark in the past for its progressive policies on free education and healthcare, as well as subsidized childcare. The country is also known for having paid leave for mothers and an on-average happier populace.

There’s nothing inherently wrong with comparing countries. In fact, it is important that we examine social and economic progress elsewhere to monitor policies at home. However, progress and growth in other countries cannot be examined via an “us vs. them” rationale, especially in the context of policy.

Critics of Sanders and his agenda attack his love for Denmark with statistics about taxation rates, GDP and demographics, essentially re-iterating Hilary Clinton’s eloquent “we are not Denmark” response to Bernie’s Europhilia—which is in many respects a valid point. However, just as the United States is more than its GDP, we must examine Denmark as more than a few statistics. For example, take the Danish higher education system.

Denmark’s higher education programs are all, in fact, free. Granted, free is a relative term given high tax rates and cost of living, but if you are an EU or EEA citizen, there is no tuition. This applies even to art and trade schools.

So much scholarship and grant money is offered to cover living expenses that some Danish students are essentially paid to go to college. The State Educational Grant and Loan Scheme (SU), for instance, offers at least some financial support for all Danes, regardless of socioeconomic standing. All Danish college students not independent from their parents are eligible to receive about $900 per month under the SU. Students can receive the funding for up to six years while they are in school, and students who are particularly successful can apply for more funding.

This model particularly appeals to parents, students and adults still paying off debts from ridiculously priced American universities. Even public universities aren’t free in the US, and the average American graduating college in 2015 will have $35,000 of student debt.

A study¹ on higher education in welfare states by the University of Amsterdam neatly summarizes the differences between education in the US and Denmark with the “Decommodification Index.” Decommodification refers to a utility’s independence from the market; the more decommodified, the more it is viewed as an entitlement. For education, the study measured public expenditure on higher education, the share of public expenditure on higher education, enrollment, average tuition fees and the student loan/grant system. The study found that Denmark and the US are the most polarized of the countries studied: Denmark has a Decommodification Index of .97 and the United States has a -1.01 (the Index is a measure of z-scores with a mean of 0, determined by all the above factors of decommodification; all countries received between a -1 to 1 score except the US).

Practically what this means is that Danish students view higher education not as something to work hard for, but something to which they are entitled. While many in the United States work several jobs to get through college, for many Danes college is their job.

There are some that worry that this entitlement is actually hurting Denmark’s economy. The Danish government pays for all kinds of education, and as such, many students are opting for arts and humanities programs over more technical careers. The number of students in Denmark contemplating a career in engineering is only one-third of the OCED average despite booming opportunities for engineers. A few technical companies such as Novozumes, Lego and Coloplast have felt the need to launch advertising campaigns just to win students to the field.

The idea of free education sounds ideal: no more student loans, the ability to focus on studies instead of jobs to make ends meet and no reliance on family or friends. But Americans who want to start marching down the free education path must look at the larger picture: the US is not Denmark.

Electing a president who believes in free education is great in theory, but let’s take Clinton’s statement and consider the logistics. Denmark gets its money for higher education from extraordinarily high taxes. In order to make college free in its current state, the US government would have to hike taxes by an unprecedented amount. (The US would need an additional $160 billion per year to cover the total revenue brought in by state schools in 2012 from non-state sources.) And unlike Denmark, a centralized constitutional monarchy with a fairly homogenous population fifty-seven times smaller than the size of the United States, the US must pass every idea by three branches of government and fifty states. A presidential executive order wouldn’t work here.

Besides the practical difficulties, there is an ideological question of whether the Danish model is compatible with what many Americans perceive to be the core of American values: independent hard work. If a welfare program is what the US wants, it must be willing to sacrifice some of that mentality.

The solution then is to stop using hyperbolic rhetoric. Copying Denmark entirely isn’t feasible. That being said, copying little bits is. The United States could be well served by taking a look at some of Denmark’s student grant and loans programs. It would also be well served by looking at some of Denmark’s other successful programs, such as healthcare and drug policy. True, the US is not Denmark. But that doesn’t mean the two countries can’t learn from each other.

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

[hr]1. Willemse, N., and P. De Beer. “Three Worlds of Educational Welfare States? A Comparative Study of Higher Education Systems across Welfare States.” Journal of European Social Policy, 2012, 105-17.

A streamlined public transportation system is an important element of any modern city’s infrastructure. Metro and subway systems reduce traffic, cut emissions and connect populations. Look to Asia for prime examples of such systems; Japan is home to 82 of the world’s 100 busiest train stations and famous for its timely and clean trains; Seoul’s metro system is the longest in the world and equipped with Wi-Fi and 3G data access in all train cars; other Asian cities, such as Hong Kong and Guangzhou, have garnered worldwide acclaim for their clean, spacious, and high-capacity subways; even in Pyongyang, North Korea, the subway system is a well-used piece of infrastructure.

On the other side of the continent, city governments within India are working to build public transportation systems on par with those systems in East Asia. This is an important step in the success and development of India—its population is set to overtake that of China within the next 20 years, and it is only reasonable that its infrastructure and public transportation systems are up to standard as it continues to grow.

In part, it is a burgeoning consciousness of environmentalism that powered the recent surge in the construction of public subway and bus systems in India. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has stressed the eco-friendliness of India’s expanding subway networks, especially of that in New Delhi. Today, the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (DMRC) is a large institution, servicing 2,500,000 people or more each day, but Modi has even bigger plans for the system. The government has begun construction on a number of new stations in Delhi to further improve the flow of the DMRC and to reduce Delhi’s pollution from cars and industrial sites. Together with other growing Indian metro systems, the DMRC will be a major feat of infrastructure upon completion with at least 6,000,000 daily passengers. While the numbers might pale in comparison to the tens of millions using subways in large cities across East Asia, India’s progress in public transportation reflects well on the government’s environmental policies—to have 6,000,000 people forgoing cars is no small victory. The DMRC has also received attention from the UN as the first public transportation system built under the UN Framework Convention for Climate Change. On the surface, everything seems to be going smoothly for the Delhi metro system.

Modi and his ministers, particularly Urban Development Minister Venkaiah Naidu, have touted the environmental benefits of the DMRC, projecting the image of an eco-friendly government and urging Indians to be more environmentally conscious. For Modi’s government, the developing subway systems are proof that the government is playing its part in reducing emissions. Naidu has even repeatedly encouraged ministers and government officials to use the Delhi Metro every Wednesday; Naidu rode the Metro to the airport, although it is unclear whether other ministers have followed suit.

In conflict with their domestic rhetoric, Indian leaders sing to a very different tune on the global stage. In anticipation of the UN climate summit in Paris in November 2015, the Indian government has declared it will not create a plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. India, after all, is a developing country, and Modi believes that his government’s main priority is to reduce poverty and grow the economy, not to reduce the country’s carbon footprint. India’s greenhouse gas emissions have been a point of concern for developed countries in Europe and North America, but the Indian government has insisted on honoring its own priorities. There is, then, a disparity between India’s environmentalism abroad and at home.

For Modi, this inconsistency is purposeful and strategic. Encouraging environmentalism at home shows that he cares about the health of Indians and cities’ livability; cleaner cities are conducive to a healthier, happier and more supportive population. The growing infrastructure, particularly the DMRC, also employs a great number of people, from construction workers to engineers and suppliers. He has not only created jobs by promoting green life choices; he even runs the metro system at a profit. Modi has capitalized on environmentalism at home, using it as a social and economic tool. His approach to the international stage stems from the same motivation: business development. While domestic environmentalism provides some form of revenue for India, cooperating with developed nations to cap emissions does not. India’s economy relies on industries like mining that will be stunted by environmental restrictions imposed by the international community. Modi cannot afford economic stagnation. Partaking in an emissions cap agreement will put India at a disadvantage, and it is simply not in line with Modi’s business-centric platform. By refusing to join in an environmental agreement, Modi also demonstrates to Indians that he values Indian interests above all else, a potent nationalist message.

To date, Modi has focused heavily on internal business and government interests. But, at what point do his international responsibilities outweigh his domestic duties? As a leader of one of the world’s most populous countries, Modi’s choice has global, lasting consequences. If he cooperates with developed countries, then India’s international image would improve and people around the globe would benefit from less pollution. But if Modi stands his ground, he could build India’s economy further. International leaders claim that the world cannot afford more emissions from developing countries like India, but Modi believes that India cannot afford to limit itself in the middle of its economic boom.

Modi has managed to balance economic and environmental interests regarding the construction of the DMRC; his next challenge is to find that balance on a global scale and place India on the same platform as powerful developed nations like the US and China, economically and environmentally.

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

Nathaniel Haas

President Obama’s address to the nation on Tuesday night was a timely and timeless reminder that not only is the state of the union strong, but so too is Obama’s resolve to leave a legacy and craft a vision for the future of the Democratic party. On a host of domestic issues from the economy to education, the president smartly balanced his (perhaps too populist) calls for higher taxes on the wealthy with welcome reminders that the economy is recovering and gas prices are at record lows. He laid the groundwork for what will be a powerful case for Democrats to retain the White House in 2016.

Critics will undoubtedly attack the president for the partisan nature of the speech during a time when Democrats have complained about Republican standoffishness and political gridlock. Despite outlining a wish list of proposals upon which to work with Congress, Obama unleashed a record number of veto threats (four–the most any president has ever outlined in one speech to Congress). He also landed several jabs to Republicans on climate change and the Keystone pipeline, in addition to the ad-libbed “I won both of them” remark in reference to his two presidential campaigns, all of which turned Boehner a deeper shade of orange. Was the president being partisan? Undoubtedly. But the Obama camp has realized that motivating the base is perhaps more important than appeasing a Republican party that Democrats have appropriately given up on working with. The president’s tactic is smart, and reflects the correct belief that the next two years of Democrat policymaking will not be legislative in nature, but rather executive. For that, the Democrats need strong public opinion–not Republicans in Congress. 

Luodanni Chen

Economy, economy of the world, who is the most competitive of them all?

Paul Krugman’s 1994 paper “Competitiveness: A Dangerous Obsession” pointed out the common trend for great economists and world leaders to forget about the concept of comparative advantage, and instead fixate on events like how China’s has overtaken the American economy. Comparative advantage is an economic law that proves international trade would only increase the size of the whole pie, and the world economy is not a zero-sum game. Trade is beneficial for both countries involved when they are trading goods and services for which they have the respective comparative advantage. For example, the US has the comparative advantage in manufacturing planes, and China in apparels. When these two countries trade, they are helping each other by avoiding the high opportunity cost of producing goods for which they do not have the comparative advantage. Through this process, each country gains access to more varieties of goods at fairer prices because of the exposure to international competition, among other benefits. Simple, good economics. However, Obama’s call for the “in-sourcing” of jobs excites the American people. Rhetorical hostility and hypercompetitiveness towards China is often both useful and necessary in US domestic politics. Nevertheless, Americans should see past the president’s political grandstanding and recognize the benefits of comparative advantage economics.

Luke Phillips

I have to hand it to him; President Obama delivered an excellent piece of oratory at his State of the Union address. Most pundits have been right to compare this speech with the president’s earlier campaign speeches–inspiring, uniting and supportive of the timeless American ideal of equal opportunity for all, and sheerly riveting in its rhetorical power. It was a beautiful thing to watch.

Unfortunately, the parallels with the president’s earlier campaign speeches go a step beyond mere beauty, and into purpose. And for all intents and purposes, this was a partisan speech. The president hasn’t exactly been an exemplar of bipartisanship in recent years (though, to be fair, neither has the Republican Party.) This speech merely repackaged the partisan policies of the last couple years to make it appear that the economic growth we see today is entirely thanks to the wisdom of St. Barack. There was no thoughtful discussion of the actual policies in question, nor was there much inspiring talk about long-term planning for the future (though the quip about staying on Mars makes up for the whole thing.)

Ultimately, I’m disappointed with the president. I’m glad he touched the right nerves in the body politic’s decaying corpse. I’m also glad he got the rhetorical strengths and values of the US correct. But, I didn’t see an honest discussion of actual policies and hard decisions; I saw a self-congratulatory orgy of back-pats and snipes. Although my belief in our president as a speaker has been rekindled, my belief in him as a statesman has been dampened.

The only thing worse than President Obama’s speech was Senator Joni Ernst’s Republican rebuttal. If President Obama was insincere, Senator Ernst was seemingly insane. If President Obama tried to cloak his partisanship with a silver tongue, Ernst made no such attempt and instead appealed to the partisan passions of half of the US. We have a lot of work to do to fix the political dysfunction of our ruling class. My fellow Americans, let’s get to work.

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

The answers are many and complex. First, geographically, Turkey is located between the East and the West, yet only 3% of Turkish territory actually lies within Europe. The rest of the nation borders hostile neighbors such as Iran, Iraq and Syria. Second, Turkey is culturally aligned more with the East than with the West. The majority of the Turkish population is Muslim, whereas most EU nations are home to a Judeo-Christian cultural tradition. Third, EU leaders are wary that Turkey’s fragile economy could place a heavy financial strain on the EU. In recent months, Turkey’s inflation has reached 7%, the value of the lira is slipping, and foreign investors are fleeing. However, the most glaring explanation for Turkey’s delayed entry seems to be its increasingly autocratic government.

Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s regime has committed countless human rights violations, and thus jeopardized Turkey’s chances of joining the EU. Last summer, peaceful demonstrators staged a sit-in to show their disgust with the government’s encroachment on civil liberties. The government responded with violence, using water canons and tear gas to forcibly remove the protestors. The police killed four and injured thousands. Since a major criterion for admission to the EU is high human rights standards, the government’s brutality elicited a negative response from EU officials and prompted German leaders to question Turkey’s eligibility. Further, EU leaders voted to delay accession talks that had been months in progress. Presently, corruption is corroding the government and Prime Minister Erdogan’s reputation. Last month, the Turkish government blocked websites such as YouTube and Twitter. Yet, censorship of social media platforms is but a fraction of the abuses in Turkey – a nation where journalists are routinely arrested and incarcerated for criticizing the party.

While the EU is not ready to accept Turkey, the Turkish public is hesitant to join the EU. Recent polls have shown public frustration toward the accession movement. Additionally, Turkey has experienced spurts of economic growth in the last decade thanks to a customs agreement with the EU that has facilitated, among other things, the development of a sophisticated export trade. Turks might feel that the country doesn’t need the EU to be successful. Prime Minister Erdogan and other top Turkish officials have recently expressed disdain toward the EU, with one minister even being quoted as saying: “Turkey doesn’t need the EU, the EU needs Turkey. If we have to, we could tell them ‘Get lost, kid!’” Although Turkey has seen considerable economic growth in recent decades, the economy is still underdeveloped and could benefit greatly from EU accession. However, the rhetoric of Turkish leaders indicates a turn away from Europe. 

It is clear that Turkey’s gradual abandonment of democratic principles is likely to hinder the progress of their EU membership bid. Regardless of posturing by Turkish leaders, the economic benefits of EU membership are undeniable. Yet, it is clear that the Turks have a long way to go before they will be able to join the EU, if ever.

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