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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Before one can assess success, however, it is necessary to understand the conflict’s origins and how it eventually became a chiefly humanitarian crisis. 

The initial intervention was, by and large, not motivated by any humanitarian reasoning. Instead, it was a military reaction to the 9/11 attacks, ordered as a means of “self-defense” by then-President George W. Bush. This marked the beginning of the infamous and lengthy War on Terror in Afghanistan. 

Considering the initially shallow and less than altruistic motivations, the sheer length of the conflict meant there needed to be some other reasoning to continue having a U.S. presence in Afghanistan. This became more obvious as another attack like 9/11 failed to occur and the self-defense argument grew weaker. 

As the United States continued to push against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda with varying levels of success throughout the early 2000s, the Bush administration began to more heavily promote a humanitarian rationale for the continued fight. The conflict evolved, extending from the counterterrorism efforts to promoting democratization, nation-building, and women’s rights. 

To further justify the ever-lengthening invasion to the American public, Bush invoked humanitarian rhetoric to garner popular support. He rallied the media toward the narrative that Afghan women were being oppressed and needed to be liberated by the West. The State Department pushed out reports on the Taliban’s abusive treatment of women, which were then reported on en-masse by news outlets nationwide. 

The shift in the portrayal of the invasion led many Americans to believe U.S. soldiers were in Afghanistan to protect, or save, women, on top of defending the United States from terrorism, rather than simply the latter. This revamp can be marked by Bush’s speech on April 17, 2002, in which he stated that the United States would assist in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. 

“We know that true peace will only be achieved when we give the Afghan people the means to achieve their own aspirations,” he said, outlining those aspirations as developing a stable government, training an army, educating children, and improving infrastructure, all in the name of recovering from the rule of the Taliban. 

Throughout this speech, and much of his rhetoric regarding the War on Terror, Bush referred to the Marshall Plan, the U.S. policy of providing economic and humanitarian aid to European countries post-WWII, citing it as proof that the United States goes beyond winning wars, and that the country is dedicated to providing assistance. However, the humanitarian effort in Afghanistan during the War on Terror should not be compared to the Marshall Plan. 

Where the Marshall Plan was a carefully planned, extremely strategic method of aid dissemination that helped rebuild Europe after it was devastated by war, humanitarian aid in Afghanistan and the greater region during the War on Terror was more haphazard. This was due to the prolonged nature of a conflict that was not expected to last as long as it has. What was thought to be a quick counter to the 9/11 attacks was nowhere near quick, and, according to the Red Cross, the humanitarian ramifications of prolonged war are much more prominent than they would be after a short conflict. 

So, the U.S. humanitarian effort in Afghanistan was not part of the initial plan. Even so, there was an effort. The reconstruction endeavor in Afghanistan was backed by Congress sending $38 billion toward humanitarian aid in the country from 2001 to 2009, and by 2021 the total amount of humanitarian aid funding has reached about $57 billion (around 40% of the total $143 sent to the country). After the news of the troop withdrawal, a further $300 million is slotted for disbursement to Afghanistan in an attempt to prevent the government from collapsing. 

The need for this boost in aid in response to the withdrawal after the twenty-year conflict is somewhat concerning. It brings into question just how dependent Afghanistan is on U.S. humanitarian aid. If ending the occupation causes the Afghan government to fall apart and humanitarian concerns to skyrocket, has the United States actually succeeded in building a strong government and combating humanitarian issues? 

If not, what has the United States been doing all these years if there is so much concern for the state of Afghanistan when the occupation ends?

There is the obvious answer, the United States has been fighting terrorist groups such as the Taliban, Islamic State, and Al-Qaeda. However, when so much of the rhetoric surrounding the War on Terror does relate to humanitarian concerns, especially human rights violations by the terrorist groups themselves, then it is worth considering if the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan actually improved humanitarian conditions. 

While the United States has provided aid to the Afghan government, hoping to help legitimize it and weaken the Taliban, military operations have had negative humanitarian costs. U.S. airstrikes in the country have caused thousands of civilian deaths. In 2019, the number of civilian deaths caused by U.S. and Afghan military activity was, for the first time, greater than the number caused by the Taliban, largely due to an increase in airstrikes. In total, as many as 43,000 Afghan civilians have died throughout the war from a multitude of causes, including military operations and humanitarian issues such as lack of healthcare access. According to the Human Rights Watch (HRW), all of the groups involved in the conflict in Afghanistan, including the United States, are guilty of laws-of-war violations. 

Some feel as though the human costs of the war in Afghanistan, and others like it, are much too high. The Watson Institute at Brown University, which has produced many studies on the conflicts in the Middle East and surrounding region involving the United States, argues that the initial response to 9/11 and the effort to hold those responsible accountable should have been non-military. The Institute rationalizes this by stating also that prolonged involvement in Iraq only led to the further proliferation of Jihadi groups in the area. These are not unpopular stances, as the war in Afghanistan has continued to take both American and Afghan lives throughout its twenty-year history. 

As U.S. troops begin to leave Afghanistan, it is crucial to consider steps that would prevent the humanitarian situation from devolving. The HRW recently stated that legal reform in Afghanistan has been largely dependent on U.S. support, and this reform has led to an expansion in rights for women and girls in the country. The organization further urged that, following the removal of troops, the United States commits to supporting human rights efforts in Afghanistan. This will be absolutely vital if the United States hopes to leave Afghanistan with a chance at attaining stability without the ever-present assistance of U.S. troops. 

While the United States’ human rights record is murky in Afghanistan, an end to the conflict may be the best choice for the citizens of Afghanistan. If the United States ensures it maintains support for Afghanistan, even if not directly with boots on the ground, there are positives for the humanitarian concerns regarding the conflict. In general, an end to the twenty-year occupation will also put an end to civilian casualties caused by U.S. military operations. This is a positive. However, there is still the concern that, by leaving, the United States may be opening Afghanistan up for the Taliban to take over once more.

The worst-case scenario would be if the United States pulls the troops out of Afghanistan and immediately proceeds to leave the country to fend for itself in fighting the Taliban and dealing with ongoing critical humanitarian concerns. Currently, the United States sends more aid to Afghanistan than almost any other country. According to Forbes, Afghanistan is incredibly dependent on foreign aid for basic government function and services, with 75% of its spending in 2019 coming from grants from the United States and other countries. In 2019, the World Bank estimated that the country would require anywhere between $6 billion and $8 billion in international grants per year from 2020 to 2024 in order to provide these services and deal with the Taliban. 

The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan is concerning even ignoring the violence, and the question of aid only adds more worry. According to ReliefWeb, the humanitarian information site for the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the percentage of Afghans experiencing food insecurity doubled between September 2015 and November 2020, increasing from 37% to 76%. In the same period of time, the percentage of those experiencing emergency food insecurity increased from 8% to 42%. This is in addition to the human rights violations committed by various terrorist cells in the country, and the discrimination against women and ethnic minority groups, such as attacks against the Hazaras. Thousands of Hazara have been killed or injured in different attacks since 2015, but the group has faced persecution since the late 1800s. This history of slavery, ethnic cleansing, land confiscation, and other forms of discrimination was thought to have finally ended with the fall of the Taliban in 2001. However, the Hazaras are still targeted by many terrorist cells in Afghanistan with little to no protection from the government, driving many from the small population, the poorest of Afghanistan’s many different ethnic groups, to leave the country if they have the means to, take up arms against their persecutors, or live in fear. 

As the withdrawal approaches it’s conclusion, well ahead of the original September 11 deadline and set to meet a new deadline of August 31, we are starting to see the results of taking soldiers out of a country that has been dependent upon them for nearing two decades. These results do not bode well for the future of Afghanistan. Biden addressed those who questioned whether the Afghans who assisted the United States and are awaiting their visa approval would be able to come to the country, “Our message to those men and women is clear: There is a home for you in the United States, if you so choose and we will stand with you, as you stood with us.” 

The administration did not offer a number for how many people would be allowed, only that the relocation would be complete by the end of the withdrawal. However, this does not address the millions of Afghan citizens still suffering in horrible humanitarian conditions or ending up as civilian casualties of war. Biden’s response to criticism of the withdrawal was to all-together deny any humanitarian intentions for the invasion. 

The President stated that “we did not go to Afghanistan to nation-build, and it’s the right and responsibility of the Afghan people alone to decide their future and how they want to run their country.” 

This is not only contradictory to what Bush, the man who started the war, pushed during his time in office, it is a complete dismissal of what U.S. policy about the war has been for years. Although many may agree with the sentiments of self-determination Biden invoked, here it is simply being used to avoid taking responsibility for what has started to happen in Afghanistan due to the power vacuum caused by the absence of the United States. 

So what has happened in the past few months? In early July, the Taliban displayed containers of weapons seized from the Afghan military while U.S. troops were withdrawing. Since May 1, the terrorist group has taken over 100 districts in Afghanistan, essentially doubling the previous number of districts they controlled. There has been an increase in violence, particularly against women, journalists, and the educated. The United Nations raised the alarm about the high level of violence, particularly against women, and called for a reduction in violence to save lives. 

As the direct connection between the United States and Afghanistan is severed, the United States must commit to providing aid to the Afghan government. Otherwise, the situation will continue to devolve and any previous humanitarian or military efforts in the country will be reversed.

“All the people are free in Mauritania and this phenomenon [of slavery]no longer exists.” This strong assertion from Mauritania’s minister of rural development came after he was confronted by CNN about the shocking reports of enslaved dark-skinned Africans in the Muslim-majority country. This type ofgaslighting rhetoric and normalization surrounding slavery in Mauritania has led to agregious human rights and health violations.

History of Slavery in Mauritania

Geographically placed between Northern and sub-Saharan Africa, Mauritania is the meeting place between the dominating lighter skinned Arabs and oppressed dark-skinned Africans. The hierarchical dynamic between the two groups was established after centuries of Arab Moors raiding and enslaving native African villages. 

Mauritania was the last country to legally outlaw slavery in 1981. After evidence revealed that slavery was still ongoing, international criticism pressured the country into passing a law criminalizing slavery in 2007. Following further pressure, a law was put into place in 2015 declaring slavery a crime against humanity. Although this legislation established an increased maximum sentencing of 20 years and allowed human rights organizations to bring cases on behalf of victims, it provided no protection for victims themselves. Since then, the prevalence of slavery is believed to have decreased from approximately 20% in 2012 to 1% in 2016. However, uncertainty still exists due to lack of cooperation from the Mauritanian government. Today, the enslavement of dark skinned Afro-Mauritanians and Haratines continues to be considered standard practice.

A Culture of Racism

The primary propagating factor of slavery in Mauritania is the culturally ingrained racism, causing it to be supported by both perpetrators and victims. In contrast to chained slaves being transported to the United States through the slave trade, Mauritanian slaves are entirely descent-based or chattel slaves. Generational slavery has created deep societal and cultural acceptance of dark-skinned Africans as inferior humans. In addition, several local Islamic leaders agree with and propagate the idea of slavery by teaching slaves that Allah wants them to be enslaved and obedience will lead them to heaven. 

Many slaves internalize this belief, preventing them from seeking freedom. Individuals who wish to be freed from their masters are often shamed by other slaves who believe in the principle that their natural societal role is to be the servant. After being freed, some individuals are unable to come to terms with their freedom. Abdel Nasser Ould Ethmane, the co-founder of the prominent Mauritanian anti-slavery organization SOS Slaves, revealed that his former slave Yebabwa is still unable to consider himself a free man after decades of release. Likewise, many freed slaves feel dependent on their former masters and believe that they must show their gratefulness with continued servitude. 

Impact on Health and Human Rights

Several reports have revealed the extent of abuse that enslaved people suffer at the hands of their masters. Several accounts of rape by masters, indirect infanticide, and permanent injuries due to torturous work have been exposed by multiple investigators. In one case, an enslaved woman named Fatimatou lost two of three children in the late 1980s after her owners prevented her from taking care of them during her work hours. Moreover, 71.3 births per 1,000 live births are to young dark-skinned girls that have been raped by their masters. 

As a country, Mauritania has several problems with the quantity and quality of their healthcare. Ranked 155th out of 187 countries on the Human Development Index, Mauritania has a low life expectancy at only 57 years and poor access to safe drinking water and sanitation. This burden of poor health falls disproportionately on dark-skinned Mauritanians. 

Due to this ingrained hierarchy, the health needs of slave owners are placed before their servants, leading to very few resources for the persecuted group. Maternal mortality rates are disproportionately higher for enslaved women. Sexual assault is prevalent among slaves and creates disastrous physical and mental health effects. Malnourishment is extremely common in slave children, and many slaves are forced to work without mercy in environments that compromise their health and immunity. Inequalities between these two groups also exist in un-enslaved people. Many newly freed slaves are targeted due to skin color and are refused food and shelter by many Arab business owners. 

The Resistance (and the Lack Thereof)

Over the years, several organizations have been formed in order to draw attention to these dire human rights violations both domestically and internationally. The most prominent group is the aforementioned SOS Slaves organization, which has established two schools designated for newly freed slaves and worked to represent those who wish to escape. The United Nations also played a large role in the creation of the 2015 law declaring slavery a crime agaimst humanity and published a list of recommendations for Mauritania to combat this issue. Meanwhile, non-governmental organizations such as the Chicago-born Abolitionist Institute have started to publicize the existence of modern-day slavery to the Western world. 

However, the Mauritanian government is actively resisting these efforts and continues to deny the existence of slavery. In one specific case, the government staged a fake rescue of a slave named Moulkheir and her young children, only to pass them off to a former Mauritanian colonel who re-enslaved them. Many anti-slavery activists have faced random arrests, torture, and detainment in remote prisons. The government has also explicitly banned the gathering of anti-slavery activists in a poorly veiled attempt to silence them. Simultaneously, the United States government and the French government have repeatedly squandered opportunities to critically engage with Mauritania on this issue. In fact, the United States has increased the number of deportations of dark-skinned immigrants back to Mauritania, with 79 individuals in 2018 alone. 

Moving Forward

The enslavement and effective torture of dark-skinned Mauritanians has made them victims of health-related disparities, severe physical violence, emotional distress, and the lack of free will. Given that members of prominent Western countries emphasize the freedom of their citizens on a daily basis, it is imperative that they now stand with the persecuted and enslaved Mauritanian people. Blatant human rights violations by countries aren’t rare; Libya was exposed by CNN in 2017 of having an expansive slave trade built on African migrants moving to Europe. The response to this atrocity was severe and repeated pushback from multiple African and European nations, and led to Libyan leaders committing to a mass evacuation of these migrants. Mauritania’s current role in modern slavery is a fundamental breach of human rights and must be criticized by all international players in order to spark an appropriate response.

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

In 1979, Deng Xiaoping, former leader of the People’s Republic of China, implemented a one-child policy in China which ordained that each family could have only one offspring. Fear of overpopulation and another famine occurring soon after the devastating Great Chinese Famine of 1962 were the primary drivers behind the enactment of this law. Deng believed that by limiting the number of children born in China, the population as a whole would gain greater access to basic necessities and better opportunities for economic success. China enforced this policy by requiring intrauterine devices after the birth of a child and imposing punishments such as forced abortions and sterilization for a second pregancy. China abolished its one-child policy in 2015.

Use of Propaganda

The Chinese government inundated its people with slogans touting the benefits of having one child. These messages were found everywhere, from billboards to murals to images printed on decks of cards. The Chinese shibboleth “If you want to become rich quickly, have fewer children” was ubiquitous. 

Those raised during the era of China’s one child policy still bear psychological scars. The victims include more than the mothers who underwent forced abortions or the doctors who performed them. In her September 2019 TED Talk, Nanfu Wang spoke with great emotion about her experience growing up in the time period, saying “I remember feeling a sense of shame because I had a younger brother.” The government propaganda filled the Chinese with such a sense of national duty that many were left with overwhelming guilt if they did not abide.

Abandoned Children

Perhaps the worst consequence of China’s strict one-child policy is that violators sometimes abandoned their children. Some of these abandoned children were left at shelters, while others were tragically abandoned in dumpsters or sewage pipes. The children deserted were most frequently female and sick or disabled because these children were considered less desirable in Chinese society.

Recognizing the abandonment crisis, in 2011, China began building “baby hatches,” or safe places for parents to drop off unwanted children. Many opposed the safety drops because they believed it encouraged abandonment, but experts argued that parents were going to abandon their children under any circumstance. 2016 estimates place the number of orphans in China at 460,000. Tragically, most of these children may never find a home, since children over the age of fourteen are ineligible for international adoption.

China’s Missing Women

The government creates one sole exception to the one-child policy. If a couple had a daughter, they could try again for a son who was more likely to work and bring economic success to the family. However, complications arose when the second pregnancy was also female. These pregnancies often either went unreported or were terminated in sex-selective abortions. This strong preference towards male children led to a significant gender imbalance in China’s population, which has created what is known as China’s “missing women” issue. As a result of this imbalance, studies indicate that by 2020 nearly 24 million Chinese men will experience great difficulty finding wives due to a lack of suitably aged women. Sociologists predict the imbalance will lead to intergenerational marriages, where younger men marry older women. However, such marriages pose further complications for couples as the older women may be beyond child bearing age. Additionally, there is an unknown number of women (“missing women”) who are excluded from receiving state welfare benefits and lack many rights afforded to Chinese citizens because their families failed to document their births by registering them with the government.

The 4-2-1 Problem

Most recently China’s growing concern is the “4-2-1” problem. This 4-2-1 dilemma is the generational burden borne by an aging population of men who are “only children.” It is called the 4-2-1 problem because it explains the dynamic of an adult male who is an “only child”, and who bears the obligation of caring for not only his two aging parents, but also his four aging grandparents. The problem is compounded if these men marry, as they become responsible for their spouse’s parents and grandparents. This financial and social burden only serves to further dissuade couples from having large families themselves. 

Was it effective?

At first glance, it may seem that way. China’s birth rate declined while the policy was in effect between the years of 1979 and 2015. However, this decrease cannot be solely attributed to Deng’s law, as the initial decline in birth rates began even before the one-child policy was implemented. One significant factor that contributed to this  decline was China’s rapid economic expansion during this time period. Researchers, using data from sources such as the United Nations Population Division and Eurostat, have established a pattern of inverse correlation between fertility and income. As a country develops and experiences an increase in income, its fertility rates decline significantly. This calls into question whether the one-child policy was necessary or whether fertility rates would have continued to independently decline as a natural consequence of  China’s growing prosperity.

Will China’s population grow now that there is a two-child limit?

It is very unlikely. Now that families have become accustomed to only having one child, many parents believe that having multiple children would strain their resources. While China previously faced an overpopulation issue, now it faces the opposite: the birth rate is increasingly low. Twenty million children were predicted to be born in 2018, however there were only 15.23 million births that year, two million fewer than the year before. 

International implications?

As China’s population ages and fewer young people work to support its economy, China’s position as a global economic leader may weaken. The combination of a shrinking and aging population will lead to less domestic consumption and economic growth, which could have profound consequences for the global market. Currently, people aged over 60 constitute 17.9% of China’s population, a figure which grows yearly. As the number of China’s eligible workers declines, the country will likely suffer, affecting both its position as an economic world power and the global economy as a whole.

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

The Guardianship System: Why Saudi Women Are Fleeing

In January of this year, 18-year old Rahaf Mohammed Al-Qunun barricaded herself in an airport hotel room in Bangkok as she pleaded for asylum after renouncing Islam and escaping Saudi Arabia. Al-Qunun was planning on applying for asylum upon arrival in Australia but was stopped in transit in Thailand where officials confiscated her passport and booked her a flight back to her family. After blockading her hotel room door with mattresses and chairs, she launched a twitter campaign to get the attention of the UNHCR which soon went viral. Ultimately, after a long standoff with airport officials, Al-Qunun was able to meet with the UNHCR and four days later flew to Canada where she was granted asylum.

However, unlike Al-Qunun, not all women who attempt to flee Saudi Arabia are able to successfully obtain asylum and escape persecution. In 2017, Dina Ali Lasloom, a 24-year old Saudi woman, was similarly stopped in transit in the Philippines while on her way to Australia. Her video appeal for asylum meant to avoid being killed by her family members also gained international attention – but not before several of her uncles found her in the airport. She was forced to board a flight back to Saudi Arabia where she is now believed to be held in a detention center.

As more and more Saudi women seek to run away from troubling situations, such internet campaigns and their subsequent stories of success or failure are becoming increasingly common.

Why are Women Fleeing?

Women are increasingly seeking to escape Saudi Arabia for several reasons including domestic violence, inequality in divorce and childcare, and discrimination when seeking employment. However, the most striking issue facing women in Saudi Arabia is the lack of freedom resulting from strict guardianship laws. From birth until death, women are treated as minors and need the approval of a male guardian, usually their husband, father or uncle, before taking certain actions.  Their constraints include needing consent to marry, leave jail, get an education, apply for a passport and travel outside the country. Consequently, women are subject to the decisions made by their male guardian even if the guardian is abusive or excessively controlling.

Those who try to flee and are caught can be jailed until their guardian approves their release and often face increased abuse upon returning home. Despite the risks, for many, the danger is worth it. In 2015, the Saudi Ministry of Labor and Social Development documented more than 1,750 women fleeing their homes to escape situations of extreme authority.

The Saudi Government’s Strict Response

While social media outlets like Twitter have given struggling Saudi women a tool to seek protection and international assistance, recent developments in technology have also aided in strict enforcement of guardianship laws. Most notably, the app Absher has made it easier for guardians to track and control the travel of women. The app, developed by the Saudi government, allows citizens to access government services including the strict monitoring of women. Through the app, guardians choose where women can go, allocate the duration of travel and determine which airports they are allowed access. Furthermore, if a woman leaves a specified area, SMS alerts are sent to the guardian’s phone. Although both Apple and Google have faced harsh criticism for carrying the app, neither have removed it from their app stores, and the Saudi Interior Ministry says that Absher currently has more than 11 million users.

The Saudi government has also increased its efforts to prevent women from fleeing through campaigns that portray running away as betraying the nation. A recent video from the General Department for Counter Extremism compares women who flee the country to men who join terrorist groups. Furthermore, attempts to change the system are stifled as women’s rights activists who protest guardianship laws are being increasingly detained.

Why Are Saudi Laws So Strict?

Women’s rights in Saudi Arabia are greatly influenced by traditional customs of the Arabian Peninsula and Sunni Islam. Saudi Arabia, however, differs from most other Sunni-majority nations as it is dominated by an especially conservative form of Sunni Islam, Wahhabism, which focuses on a strict, literal interpretation of the Koran. This movement was founded by Mohamed ibn Abdul Wahhab in the 18th century and has had the support of the royal family for centuries. As a result of these political-religious ties, Wahhabism has played a role in the creation of current Saudi government policies such as the requirement that women wear the full black abaya, a long robe which covers a woman’s full body, and strict gender segregation. Internationally, this extreme interpretation of Islam has been greatly condemned. In 2013, Wahhabism was identified by the European Parliament in Strasbourg as the “main source of global terrorism,” as many believe it has contributed to the rise of terrorist groups. However, in 2017, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman promised a return to “moderate Islam” in order to put the country in unison with other nations around the world and make the country more open to foreigners, although it remains unclear how this will turn out in coming years.

The Future of Women’s Rights

While the Crown Prince lifted the ban on female drivers last year and recently launched an initiative to improve work opportunities for women, the strict guardianship system remains in place. Reform of this system is essential for the progress of women’s rights.

In March, Saudi Arabia made a commitment before the UNHCR for the second time in six years to abolish its guardianship laws. However, continued international pressure is necessary to ensure that the country sticks by the recommendations accepted in its Universal Periodic Review. Countries with significant influence in Saudi Arabia such as the U.S. and U.K. that have largely remained silent need to speak out against the detention of human rights defenders in the country and push for the Crown Prince to add civil rights to his reform agenda. Furthermore, UNHCR members need to promote more specific recommendations to be accepted, rather than the current vague terms that Saudi Arabia has accepted. The country usually resorts to making minor adjustments to its guardianship system rather than overhauling the entire system as promised. The best way to reduce the number of women fleeing abroad and to improve their situation at home is to reform the domestic system, and countries with economic influence in Saudi Arabia need to take the lead and increase pressure.

With the fourth highest population of transient people in the nation, roughly 9,000 people within the San Diego area are unable to acquire and maintain safe or adequate housing. Despite an overall decline in homelessness in California in 2018, San Diego has experienced a 4.8 percent increase in its homeless population over the last two years. The issue is exasperated by the inaction of San Diego’s government and local institutions, effectively placing the burden upon the residents. Left without a choice, these residents have attempted to remedy the situation with makeshift food drives and community outreach. However, the few grassroots movements that have sprung up are largely underfunded and unable to make a lasting impact. As the issue continues to grow in the heart of Southern California, health, safety and ethical concerns become more pressing and crucial to combat.

A Question of Health

The homeless epidemic has created a perpetual healthcare nightmare in the seemingly ideal vacation destination of San Diego. Living unsheltered in close proximity, the homeless both create and suffer from an unsanitary environment that facilitates the spread of serious and deadly diseases. In 2017, an outbreak of Hepatitis A among the homeless and drug users resulted in over 600 cases and 20 deaths in San Diego County. The government of San Diego responded by deploying mobile foot teams to the streets to administer mass vaccinations, targeting those perceived as high risk. However, its efforts were underwhelming, with the government taking more than six months to devise a plan to administer the vaccination. With its strikingly slow response, the government undoubtedly contributed to the rapid spread of the virus and drew criticism from external bodies such as the California State Audit. Furthermore, even after this catastrophe, officials failed to institute programs to prevent similar outbreaks in the future, nor were any steps taken to remove the poor living conditions that contributed to the virus’ inception. Inability to access proper healthcare, hygiene facilities, and mental health professionals perpetuate an ongoing cycle that prevents these individuals from getting off the streets for good.

Threatening Safety

While health concerns threaten the lives of all of San Diego’s residents, the transient population continues to pose a safety threat to the community. In 2017, the city’s rate of violent crime increased 3 percent with the homeless population often involved either as the victims or perpetrators. While local news rarely cover such incidents, attacks against and by homeless individuals are frequent and often incredibly violent. In 2018, a homeless man was beaten to death with a skateboard in North Park.  Hundreds of victims in San Diego County that year were subject to violence due to their transient status. In 2017 alone, two different serial killers solely targeted homeless individuals, murdering them by setting them on fire and impaling them with railroad spikes.

Although some local residents have committed or  continue to commit violent crimes against the homeless population, the homeless themselves are also perpetrators of criminal behavior, a fact tied to the high rates of mental illness within the homeless community. In 2017, a mentally ill homeless man attempted to assault more than five different people before police were able to arrive on the scene and subdue him. A few weeks later, another homeless man terrorized a couple sitting in their car. Unfortunately, incidents such as this occur dozens of times per year within San Diego County, and the threat of violence hangs over all individuals in San Diego.  

An Ethical Dilemma

In addition, the lack of access to basic human necessities such as food, clean water, hygiene products and adequate shelter is a pressing ethical concern. This standard of living, typically associated with third world countries, is experienced by roughly 9,000 people living in one of the most affluent communities in the world. As previously addressed, the lack of funding dedicated towards mental health programs is seriously concerning. From a moral standpoint, the city of San Diego must address whether access to mental healthcare and facilities will be a priority for the growing homeless population.

Criticized by many for its limited response and inaction, the government of San Diego has failed to address the homeless epidemic within the county. While city council members refuse to comment, and other local government officials seem to look the other way, the ever-growing population of San Diego residents without homes and its associated health and safety concerns continue to suffer.

Although the solution will be complicated, the choice to help is simple. Given these pressing issues, it is the duty of local and state actors to intervene on behalf of those who are unable to help themselves. The San Diego government must step up and take responsibility for its residents, including those without homes. This may include more frequent screenings for serious and life-threatening diseases, the establishment of hygiene facilities in areas with high vagrancy populations and more funding directed towards rehabilitation programs, healthcare and mental health programs. In order to make real progress, the community of San Diego must come together to acknowledge and combat this epidemic before it worsens even further.

In a recent Amnesty International report, it was found that 13-year-old Dinara Yergali was just one of many Uighur Muslims in China who have suffered from humanitarian abuses. In March 2018, upon returning back to her hometown in Zhaosu County, Xinjiang with her mother from Kazakhstan, she was detained by the Chinese government. Her whereabouts are still unknown. Yergali’s case highlights one of many in which Uighur Muslims have been wrongfully detained. China’s human rights abuses have been touched upon in recent news, but the media has not adequately covered the severity of these abuses and the overarching consequences of its actions.

Who are the Uighurs and what is their current situation?

The Uighurs are a Turkish ethnic minority in Xinjiang, an autonomous provincial region in Northwest China, where approximately 11 million Uighurs currently reside. Most Uighurs are Muslim and follow a moderate version of Sunni Islam. However, most Uighurs do not view themselves as Chinese but instead feel culturally and ethnically closer to Central Asian countries. Many Uighurs even speak a language close to Turkish, with some refusing to learn Chinese Mandarin.

In August 2018, reports from human rights organizations and the U.S. Department of State confirmed that the Chinese government had detained close to 1 million Uighur Muslims. The U.S. Congressional-Executive Commission on China wrote that it is “the largest mass incarceration of a minority population in the world today.” The Chinese government is also detaining other ethnic minorities and targeting Kazakhs, Kyrgyz and other Muslim citizens who have family members in places which the Chinese government has deemed to be a “sensitive country” such as Indonesia, Kazakhstan and Turkey. Additionally, the Chinese government has published an official list of 26 countries which it has labeled as “sensitive.” Most or all of the nations are Muslim nations.

Since then, Uighurs have been forced to live under an immensely restrictive surveillance state. They have been arrested, detained and relocated to “re-education camps.”  Those that manage to avoid the re-education camps are regularly visited by government workers and are sometimes forced to assigned homestays of government workers.

Orchestrated and widespread government discrimination against Uighurs began in 2014 when 200,000 Chinese Communist Party (CCP) members were a part of – according to the Chinese government –  an effort to “visit the people, benefit the people and bring together the hearts of the people.” In this time CCP workers were dispatched to villages in Xinjiang to watch and report on Uighur citizens. In 2016, the “United As One Family” campaign was instituted by the Chinese government. Around 100,000 party workers were placed in the homes of Uighurs whose family members were detained or disappeared as a result of the previous policy. By 2017, there were more than 1 million party members assigned to homestays in Uighurs residences.

What happens in homestays and “re-education camps?”

Homestays are a method for the Chinese government to regulate the religious and cultural practices of Uighurs and other minority groups in order to ensure their allegiance to the Chinese Communist Party. During homestays, party members are told to take note of and change a number of practices such as speaking Mandarin instead of Turkish in the household. The family’s level of religiosity is tested by offering them pork, cigarettes or alcohol (substances prohibited by Islam), or offering a handshake to greet a female member of the family. Their loyalty to the CCP is measured by whether they have Qurans and other religious items in their home or Chinese flags and posters of President Xi Jinping. Furthermore, party members threaten Uighurs to not hide personal opinions or belongings, telling them that their internet and communication activity is being monitored. These measures of loyalty and secularism are used to determine whether family members should be sent to re-education camps or not.

Those sent to camps are brainwashed and nationalized. They are forced to learn Mandarin Chinese, swear their loyalty to Xi Jinping and renounce Islam. The detained have to listen to “ideological lectures, sing hymns in praise of the Chinese government and even write self-criticism essays.” In internment camps, they also live under an extensive surveillance state. China has employed the use of facial recognition cameras and QR codes to track Uighurs and confiscate cell phones and other materials deemed to be threatening to the Chinese regime. There have also been many reports of physical and mental torture. Survivors have said they are subjected to military-style discipline, sleep deprivation, solitary confinement and beatings.

Why are they being persecuted?

China has claimed that its actions are in response to violent Islamist and ethnic separatist groups in the Xinjiang region. It is true that in the past decade there have been conflicts between Han Chinese (China’s ethnic majority) and Uighurs. Similar to Tibetan independence activists, Uighurs have organized to call for their autonomy. Uighurs have felt that their culture and livelihoods are under attack and in response, there have been outbreaks of political violence. For instance, in 2014 a Uighur separatist group was responsible for the stabbing of 33 civilians at a railway station. However, the Chinese government has also indiscriminately blamed attacks on Uighurs from the region. After a knifing attack in February 2017, Xinjiang’s Communist Party boss, Chen Quanguo, urged government forces to “bury the corpses of terrorists in the vast sea of a people’s war.”

 China has also abjectly denied the reports of Uighurs being kept in re-education camps in front of the UN. They later stated that the re-education camps were vocational training facilities, set up in an effort to alleviate poverty and quelling terrorism in the region. Chinese government spokespeople have claimed that the Uighurs were voluntarily given courses on Chinese history, language and culture. Another narrative that the Chinese government has adopted is that religious ideology is a disease. Consequently, the Chinese Communist Party has distributed official messaging describing Uighurs that have been put in re-education camps as being “infected with religious and extremist ideology.”

It is interesting to note that China does not treat all of its Muslim population in the same way as the Uighurs. There are 10.5 million Hui Muslims living in China, making them the largest of China’s recognized ethnic minorities. Unlike the Uighurs, China lets the Hui practice their religion without restriction. For example, Hui Muslims wear traditional Islamic clothing and are even allowed to pray in school, while Uighurs have been forced to cut their beards and remove their veils. CCP workers have gone so far as to prohibit Muslim names for new babies. What is the difference between these two Muslim groups in the eyes of the Chinese government? Simply, the Chinese government does not view the Hui Muslims as a domestic security threat. Hui Muslims are more integrated into the Chinese mainstream with the Han majority and have not pushed for autonomy.

There is also an economic element intertwined in the systematic oppression of Uighurs. China’s new Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), an ambitious plan to expand China’s sphere of influence to the Middle East and Central Asia through infrastructure and trade, relies on controlling Xinjiang. Xinjiang is home to China’s largest natural gas reserve, 50 percent of the country’s coal reserves and 20 percent of its oil. Two of the Belt and Road Initiative planned economic corridors will pass through Xinjiang. Thus, the success of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) relies, in part, on the stability of Xinjiang. The Chinese government wants to ensure separatist voices are quelled in order to ensure it can hold onto the region’s resources and move forward with BRI development.

What is being done about this crisis?

As with most human rights crises, the most vocal voices condemning China have been international human rights NGOs. However, their reach has been minimal because of the Chinese government’s tight grip on media and press in the Xinjiang region.

Last year, the U.S. Congressional Executive Commission on China urged the Trump administration to place sanctions on officials and companies involved in the “ongoing human rights crisis” in Xinjiang. The committee wrote, “Muslim ethnic minorities are being subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, egregious restrictions on religious practice and culture and a digitized surveillance system so pervasive that every aspect of daily life is monitored.”

The new UN Human Rights Chief, Michelle Bachelet, has also demanded that monitors be allowed access to Xinjiang, a request that drew an angry response from Beijing. The situation is unlikely to change without greater action from powerful nation-states and Muslim countries. Despite the persecution of the Muslim minority in China, many Muslim nations have been silent on the issue. Perhaps their silence can be attributed to Shia-Muslim governments being unwilling to defend the rights of the Sunni Uighur minority or because many of these governments themselves are familiar with the use of oppressive and repressive tactics against their own citizens.

The international community should be proactive about accepting refugees and refuse to deport Uighur refugees, like Germany and Sweden have done. They should also urge neighboring Central Asian nations to not view their economic interests with China as mutually exclusive with helping refugees. It is unlikely that China would retract their plans for the BRI with countries such as Kazakhstan. However, many Central Asian countries are apprehensive of risking their economic relationship. It is paramount that the international community begin paying attention to the ethnic cleansing of Uighurs.  

Democracy dies in darkness. In the wake of several brutal crackdowns of environmentalists and human rights advocates, few places better exemplify this than Vietnam. While many Vietnamese and international observers had hoped that this one-party communist state was beginning to show signs of democratization, Vietnam is conversely becoming increasingly authoritarian and has cracked down even harder on environmentalists, human rights advocates, and trade unions in the process. With this increasingly fraught domestic background, Vietnam is quickly finding itself caught in the middle between Chinese and American ambitions and unsure which country Vietnam should strengthen ties with.

Inklings of Unrest

With an abysmal human rights record, as of 2018, Vietnam ranks 175 out of 180 countries for press freedom. Despite this, there was hope that Vietnam could begin a process of democratization due to the 2016 protests over a chemical spill at a Formosa Ha Tinh Steel plant. Due to plastic chemicals entering the waters, Vietnam’s $7 billion dollar seafood industry was greatly threatened by what has been considered Vietnam’s worst environmental disaster. As many of Vietnam’s rising factors are owned by Chinese firms, so too is Vietnam’s increasing environmental problems.

These anti-Chinese protests also feed Vietnamese geopolitical concerns as well. China’s rise in the South China Sea has made many Vietnamese nervous about the nation’s encroaching influence and has been a site of continued protest as well. For a large number of Vietnamese, rejecting China means rejecting anything Chinese. Although Formosa Ha Tinh incident in 2016 was caused by Taiwanese and not Chinese mismanagement, many in Vietnam are concerned about the increased involvement from mainland Chinese people in the country. For many in Vietnam, there is little distinction between Taiwan and China; during the Formosa Ha Tinh incident protesters stopped buses and pulled out Chinese passengers, who were then beaten.

Although there is a shared authoritarian commonality between the two countries and hardliners in the Communist Party of Vietnam (CPV) want to emulate China’s authoritarianism, many in Vietnam are not only skeptical, but they are downright sinophobic. With the Formosa Ha Tinh incident in 2016 and protests in 2014 and 2018 around the disputed South China Sea, many younger and more moderate Vietnamese are increasingly ambivalent or even outright hostile towards China compared to older generations.

The 2016 Formosa Ha Tinh incident placed the CPV in a precarious position. On one hand, the Party has tried to downplay the economic influence of China, while on the other hand, it has increasingly expressed concerns about China’s aggressive claims in the South China Sea. Both Politburo’s of these Asian communist nations work hard at maintaining some semblance of shared solidarity, yet both the CPV and the CCP are also finding each other in disagreement with each other. Additionally, a growing segment of the population finds Vietnam’s relation to its large neighbor a source of aggravation or even a reason to push for greater Vietnamese rights. As Vietnam found itself in this rather precarious position vis-a-vis China during this time, the CPV found a friend in the Obama administration.

Writing the Rules For a New Friendship

At the end of 2015, 12 Pacific Rim countries – including Vietnam – announced their intention of creating the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), with the United States’ then-President Obama and Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe leading the charge. The goal was to reduce trade barriers across the Pacific, as well as ensure certain health and regulatory standards across the region. Although Vietnam was invited, it was very clear that China was not welcomed.

While many observers have acknowledged that the TPP was the Obama administration’s attempt to counter a rising China by allowing the United States “to write the rules” of trans-pacific trade, the TPP was also part of Obama’s Vietnam strategy. Beyond the now-famous video of Obama and Anthony Bourdain eating Bun Cha in Hanoi, the Obama administration worked hard in pushing for stronger American-Vietnamese ties during the final years of his administration. For example, in June 2015, the Obama administration signed an agreement with Vietnam to deepen “greater operational cooperation” in response to China’s actions in the South China Sea. Then in May 2016, the Obama administration agreed to lift an arms embargo for Vietnam and sent two US Navy ships into the strategic Cam Ranh bay as part of growing naval and military ties between the two nations.

The TPP was part-in-parcel with the Obama administration’s outreach to Vietnam, and the hope was that with increased military ties might come growing economic ties as well in order to pull the country away from China. The Obama administration’s goal was two-fold: tighten regional cooperation with Hanoi and pressure the CPV to adopt reforms around labor unions, human rights, and environmental protection. As part of the 2016 agreement on the arms embargo, Hanoi agreed to allow independent labor unions to form as part of a side letter to the TPP. For environmental and human rights activists, China-skeptics, and reform members of the Communist Party, the TPP represented the beginning of a new Vietnam emerging from the protests against Formosa Ha Tinh.

“The TPP could have been some wind in the sails of Vietnamese activists, trade unionists and environmentalists,” said Brad Adams, executive director of the Asia division at Human Rights Watch, to the South China Morning Post.  “Pulling out of the TPP has been a big setback.”

Make Vietnam Great Again

President Trump is no fan of trade deals, especially Obama-era trade deals. In fact, one of Trump’s first acts as President was to pull the U.S. out of the TPP. Yet despite its rhetoric, the Trump administration in many ways has continued the Obama strategy of courting Vietnam to counter China. However, the absence of the TPP has strengthened hardliners in the CPV and weakened moderates in both the party and the country.

“As soon as America withdrew from the TPP, you saw a radical change in the way [the Vietnamese]government treated workers, labor activists and unions,” said Do Thi Minh Hanh, in a statement to the Washington Post.

While crackdowns against activists began back in 2016 before the Obama summit, they dramatically increased in 2017. Approximately 27 activists were arrested and charged with “activities aimed at overthrowing the People’s Administration” according to Amnesty International. On April 5, 2017, Brotherhood of Democracy founder Nguyen Van Dai was sentenced to 15 years in prison, but due to health concerns and international pressure, Nguyen was able to go into exile in Germany. Additionally, approximately 100 “prisoners of conscious” are imprisoned in Vietnam for speaking out against the CPV’s mismanagement of environmental disasters, demanding democratic reforms, and practicing their faith.

The U.S. State Department has stated that it is “deeply troubled” by the increased crackdown yet continues to build ties with the CPV despite these concerns. Much like with North Korea, where President Trump has become silent on human rights abuses in the DPRK due in part to “falling in love” with Kim Jung-un, the Trump administration has moved away from traditional US foreign policy of promoting human rights to find new friends abroad. In October of this year, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis visited Vietnam to boost military ties between the two nations. Trump’s tough rhetoric on China has won fans across Vietnam, and though he is not quite as popular as Obama, support for the current US president is still quite high.

While deepening military and economic ties during the Obama administration led Vietnam to agree to some measures of liberalization, the Trump administration has fostered those same military ties at the expense of human rights. This change in stance has deeply affected Vietnam and may have effectively snuffed out Vietnam’s opportunity to peacefully transform from a dictatorship to a democracy like South Korea or Taiwan before it could take hold. There is every right to be skeptical of a “Vietnamese Spring” occurring because of the TPP. However, the Obama administration proves that strengthening military ties should not come at the expense of human rights, and the Trump administration’s relative silence is deeply troubling. Ultimately though, the problems that brought the Vietnamese out on the street back in 2014 and 2016 have not been addressed, and concerns around environmental degradation, a rising China, and Vietnam’s place in the global geopolitical world order will only continue to grow in the coming years.

Roe v Wade may have been revolutionary for women’s health and rights in the United States, but the majority of the over 325 million women living in Latin America and the Caribbean are still subject to a near-total ban on abortions. With more than 97 percent of Latin American women subject to the ban, women’s reproductive and equal rights are severely challenged in this region, which has only recently begun to address the repressive status quo. Many considerations including past legal decisions, legal differences in the region, religious influence, and health implications – all are inspiring activism for increased women’s rights.  

Of the 33 Latin American and Caribbean countries, merely three countries and one region permit abortions without restrictions: Cuba, Guyana, Uruguay, and the Mexico City region. Nine states permit abortions for maternal medical exceptions, while six countries maintain complete bans on abortions with no exceptions. Of these six countries – El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Suriname – only three have revisited these laws in its highest courts, all of which have upheld the total ban.

Legal Decisions on Abortion

In early August 2018, the Argentine Senate voted on a bill permitting elective abortions up to 14 weeks. While the bill failed 38 to 31, this marked the first time since the 2012 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortions in cases of rape or maternal health threats that the highest lawmakers in Argentina had reconsidered the ban. Most circumstances are still considered illegal in Argentina, yet prior to this, all women seeking or obtaining abortions could be criminally charged under the 1921 Constitution.

The 2018 bill progressed after public support and a trans-party alliance led to narrow passage in the lower house, and although President Mauricio Macri opposed the passage, he said he would have signed it. Led by young female lawmakers, the early-term anti-abortion legislation vote challenged most political parties’ hardline anti-abortion positions. If it passed, it would have caused Argentina to become the largest country to permit abortions in the region.

In the same week as the landmark Argentine vote, the Supreme Court of Brazil considered decriminalizing abortion up to 12 weeks into a mother’s term, which has been illegal since 1940. The hearing was called by Justice Rosa Weber after a botched abortion caused 31-year-old Ingriane Barbosa Carvalho to die of hemorrhage in May. The hearings were instrumental because as the most populous Latin American country, Brazil holds the powerful position of setting precedent in any legal decision made. Last November, the amendment PEC 181 proposed extended maternity leave as well as to a ban on abortion altogether. The bill has not become law, yet opponents argue that it contradicts Brazil’s 1988 constitution that protects rights to healthcare and dignity, which many argue includes the right to abortion. However, Christian conservatives are advocating to criminalize abortion in all circumstances, and bills such as these stand in stark contrast to the recent proposed decriminalization of abortion this year.

The actions of Argentina and Brazil are critical in the battle to decriminalize abortion in Latin America. As the fourth and first most populous countries in the region respectively, a decision to legalize abortion in the two countries would apply to 126 million, or 2/5, of the women in Latin America.

Differing Laws within the Region

The majority of the region, including Argentina and Brazil, allows abortion only in cases of rape or maternal health risk. Despite these exceptions, women still struggle to obtain an abortion because of barriers, such as need for judicial authorization or difficulty in finding a doctor who will perform an abortion. If discovered to have obtained or be seeking to obtain the procedure, women can face homicide charges and prison.

To illustrate how countries with complete bans operate for example, in El Salvador, women can face up to 50 years in prison for obtaining an abortion. Known to have the strictest abortion laws in the world, El Salvador considered miscarriages to be abortions and criminalizes them accordingly. In spring 2018, two bills were put forth in Congress proposing amendments to the abortion ban in four situations, opening the debate in El Salvador’s legislative body for the first time. However, no authoritative decisions have been made as a result of the debate.

Of the three countries with unrestricted abortions, each has different limits to how late in the trimester a woman can end her pregnancy. In Guyana, abortions is legal up to eight weeks, in Cuba up to 10 weeks, while in Mexico City and Uruguay, abortion is permitted up to 12 weeks. In 2012, Uruguay followed Cuba as only the second country in the region to completely legalize abortion in the first trimester. This decision was heavily influenced by public health campaigners who raised awareness of women’s health and the large statistics of consequences and deaths resulting from criminalizing the procedure.

According to experts, the continued polarization of abortion rights is mainly due to two reasons: the conservative Church’s influence in the region and their extensive reach that has manifested itself into Latin American political parties.

Religious Influence in the Abortion Debate

The implications of anti-abortion laws extend well beyond historical rulings to the political influence of the Catholic Church in Latin America, which dates back to the European conquest of the region. Today, the Holy See’s influence manifests itself differently within each country, meaning that the taboo of abortion varies.

Although Argentina has seemed to distance itself from the church with its 2010 legalization of gay marriage, the Catholic Church still exerts significant influence in the country. Moreover, as the country is the birthplace of Pope Francis, little is likely to change during his appointment. Although the Pope has supported other progressive debates, such as prisoners’ rights, both Pope Francis and various bishops have spoken out against legalizing abortion, with Pope Francis comparing abortion rights as the “white glove” to the Nazi eugenics program.

Despite this influence, there has been a decline of Latin Americans identifying as Catholic. Overall, Catholic identification has dropped from 80 percent in 1995 to 59 percent in 2017. While countries such as Paraguay, Mexico, and Ecuador boast populations that are majority Catholic, many of the countries that have at least partially legalized abortion—Uruguay, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, Honduras, and Nicaragua—have populations comprised of less than 50 percent Catholics. This may partially explain the unrestricted access to abortions in Uruguay— with the lowest levels of Catholic commitment in the region – as only 38 percent of Chileans identified as Catholic in 2017. The regional average was 59 percent.

Prohibitive Laws Have Health Implications

Not only are less citizens identifying with Catholicism, but liberal campaigners claim they are also fighting against the region’s status quo, where women do not receive abortions. In this fight, activists have shifted the discussion from the right to abortion to the right to a safe abortion, which lies in contrast to the unsafe abortions currently obtained due to the ban. Criminalizing abortion has not prevented women from obtaining the procedure; it has only greatly increased the risks associated with it.

The criminalization of abortions has been proven to have significant health effects, as about 760,000 women in Latin America and the Caribbean are treated each year for complications from unsafe abortions. In fact, anti-abortion laws do not decrease the number of abortions each year, but actually increase the danger of obtaining an abortion. Compared to the  9 out of 10 abortions performed safely in countries with legalized abortion, three out of four abortions in Latin America are considered unsafe. Women in Latin America travel farther, use more unsafe methods, and receive less support in order to obtain the same results that are legal in other countries.

There is a popular saying in Latin America that “rich people have abortions and poor women die.” This reflects that fact that women will obtain abortions if they desire to; it is only a question of how the procedure will occur. While the wealthy can travel out of country to receive the procedure in safe areas, poor women and women of color disproportionately resort to unsafe pills and procedures often without either legal or familial support.

With 44 out of every 1,000 women attempting an abortion, Latin America boasts the highest per-capita rates despite the bans. Moreover, criminalizing abortions does not remove the demand for the procedure; in fact, the percentage of abortions in Latin America has risen from 23 percent in 1990-1994 to 32 percent in 2010-2014. While this increase cannot be solely attributed to the restrictive laws, if a woman needs an abortion, current legislation will not dissuade her; rather, it will only force her into a more dangerous situation by preventing access to safe procedures.

Impact on Gender Equality

It is clear that the abortion ban in Latin America does not support women’s equality. It is rejecting women’s rights to make decisions about their own bodies, and it also reinforces the taboo of women’s sexual health in the region.

Taking on this fight is critical for women’s rights, which is a realization that has prompted various multi-national movements against current abortion laws. For example, the women’s rights movement known as Ni Una Menos, or “not one less”, began in 2015 in protest of 14-year-old Chiara Paez’s violent death by her boyfriend after she was discovered to be pregnant. As one of the more secular countries in the region, Argentina has taken significant steps towards legalizing abortion and reinvigorating the women’s rights movement. The movement has spread across the region to include Brazil and parts of Mexico among others. “Green Wave” demonstrations are also seen throughout the region, named for the green handkerchiefs and flags used by activists. In Argentina, green bandanas symbolize abortion rights, and this symbolism has spread to countries including Chile, Mexico, Peru, Uruguay, and Spain.

Even before Argentina’s latest vote, the region was prime with activism, providing a setting for the Argentine bill to remake its way into the Senate. The bill’s reintroduction shows the tenacity and also the shifting beliefs about women’s reproductive rights and maternal health in the region; the Argentine vote only increased and spread the passion for women’s rights. Following this, the movement has travelled as far as Spain, spurring the region into protest.

Many draw comparisons between the Latin America abortion debate and the re-emerging effort by some Americans to overturn Roe v Wade. While Latin America appears to be slowly progressing towards less restrictions, the United States is reconsidering abortion and contraception restrictions. As activists look towards the future of abortion in Latin America and decide their priorities, it may help to ask: What would the US look like without Roe v Wade, and do we want that in our region of the world or do we want the current unchanged situation in Latin America?

The question remains—are equal rights finally coming to a head in Latin America or do external influences still exert their control on the region to prevent complete equality? Is the region’s status quo worth the inevitable health risks that it forces women to endure?

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.