Lebanese citizens’ opinions on Hezbollah are varied and many are quite critical of the organization. Throughout Lebanon, Shia Muslims look at the group relatively favorably while Sunni Muslims and Christians have a much more negative opinion of Hezbollah. However, despite disagreements on the stances and actions of the group, 99% of Arabs agree that all Arab countries must cease contact with Israel in response to Israeli military action in Gaza. Hezbollah as an ideological entity is not necessarily well-loved, but it is also one of few groups committed to resisting the Israeli occupation. This then becomes a difficult issue for many Lebanese civilians as Israel continues its attempt to expand into southern Lebanon, in addition to Gaza and the West Bank. It seems that the only solution is the creation of an organization that will both have higher approval from Lebanese citizens and protect the country from Israeli occupation.

In this conversation of Lebanese support for Hezbollah, it is important to understand the religious makeup of Lebanon. While Lebanon recognizes 18 religious sects, there are three major factions, with 31.9% of Lebanese citizens identifying as Sunni Muslims, 31.2% as Shia Muslims and 32.4% as Christians. While all three groups are very close in size, it is interesting to note that Hezbollah is a Shiite group despite Shia Muslims being the smallest of the three largest religious groups. Shia Muslims are the largest group in Iran, however, which is the country responsible for the funding of Hezbollah.

Conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims has been a cause of division throughout the Middle East, with major clashes in both Syria and Iraq. Despite 85% of Muslims identifying as Sunni and 15% as Shia, Sunnis have not dominated militarily and there remains a great sectarian divide in countries like Lebanon. Fear of conflict is not limited to one group, though, with 67% of Lebanese Muslims believing that Shia-Sunni tensions are a big issue. The emergence of Hezbollah has certainly not aided this and, despite having governmental representation, Sunnis and Christians alike feel as though Hezbollah as a governing entity does not represent them.

Notably, in September 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed Hassan Nasrallah, a Hezbollah founder who led the group for over 30 years. Despite disagreements over Hezbollah’s existence, Nasrallah was relatively well-liked due to his resistance to Israel, including overseeing the end of Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

During an interview in September 1992, Nasrallah asserted that Hezbollah is a resistance party that opposes the creation of an Islamic Republic in Lebanon. Additionally, in their 1998 Statement of Purpose, Hezbollah says, “It should be clear that the kind of Islam we want is a civilized endeavor that rejects injustice, humiliation, slavery, subjugation, colonialism and blackmail while we stretch out our arms for communication among nations on the basis of mutual respect.” 

In the U.S. Counterterrorism Guide, Hezbollah has been classified as a terrorist group since 1997, a designation shared by the Arab League and the EU, among others. Since the group’s inception, it has been responsible for several terrorist attacks around the world. Hezbollah has bombed the U.S. Embassy in Beirut both in 1983 and 1984, with a total of 101 killed and at least 120 injured.

While Hezbollah was created to force Israel to cede its occupied Lebanese territory, the group has now morphed into a different sort of entity. Now, Hezbollah has transitioned from a military wing to a group with heavy influence in both Lebanese military action and politics. In addition, Hezbollah no longer solely targets the Israeli occupation. A prime example of this is the 1994 operation targeting a Jewish community center and killing 94 people in Buenos Aires. 
Since its inception, the United States has given Israel a total of $310 billion in aid, a vast majority of such being military. While the United States views the Hezbollah attacks as unprecedented, Hezbollah sees the United States as a proxy for Israel, funding the occupation of Palestine as well as southern Lebanon. As the United States continues to fund Israel’s attacks on Gazan civilians, a direct opposition to the goals of Hezbollah, it is difficult to see a future where Hezbollah’s terrorist designation is removed.

Alice Walker, in her poetry book Sent By Earth, reminds us that murder is murder and that it is personal. Regardless of “if it is done in war. It is very intimate,” Walker says. “The beings we kill become, somehow, ours for life.”

I believe Walker is correct. 

The thousands of Palestinians  — who have been killed at the hands of the U.S.-funded bombs, and the settler colonial apartheid state of Israel — are not guilty. Americans are guilty.  At this point, with a death count of over 20,000 people and displacement of 1.5 million people, Israel’s violent ethnic cleansing campaign has officially surpassed that of the 1948 Nakba. And this terror campaign is that of U.S. citizens to face. 

PTSD isn’t an acronym long enough to describe what we have inflicted. The women in Gaza have no water to tend to their menstruating bodies, and they have no water for their daughters either. Over a million people in Palestine are displaced, many of them living under tents and tarps, and they spend hours of their days trying to obtain food and water. 

Hospitals — which are supposed to be protected by International Law — have been relentlessly destroyed. Less than 30 percent of Hospitals in Gaza are functioning.  “Not enough beds, not enough doctors, not enough space”, said Palestinian photographer Motaz Aziaza when describing the situation at Al-Aqsa Hospital. 

 “I miss my uni friends, I miss my life”, writes Plestia Alaqad who is a Palestinian journalist.

As we read and see these gut-wrenching and gruesome accounts, it is important not to desensitize ourselves to Palestinian suffering. There are actions we can take every day. Many of us in the U.S. have given far too many tax dollars to genocide. We let our media dehumanize Palestinians through their war-mongering lies. 50 days later and there is no end to this madness in sight. 

And now we must divest from the systems that sponsored this. We will divest from corporate media. I will not watch.  We will continue to boycott Starbucks, McDonalds and Disney. Ethnic cleansers do not get our business. 

Moreover, we must bear the burden of this violence, facing it entirely. Palestinians who have died did so with honor. They died in resistance to their violent occupation. Heartbreakingly, courageous journalists like Motaz Azaiza, Plestia Alaqad, and Hind Khoudary have become heroes of our generation, showing us what it means to be a warrior of resistance in the face of trauma and oppression. 

These heroes — and the burdens they have taken on — should bring us both hope and shame. As they brazenly call out the hypocrisy of Western Media, they have carved paths for us to speak truth to power. But isn’t it sad that our heroes never wanted to be heroes? Isn’t it sad that young adults (many of them our age) had to extort gruesome images of death and terror to make us care? 

Our privilege, as students in the West, means we must continue their work. Our activism will grow to be as relentless as the bombs that displaced and murdered our brothers and sisters. 

As artists, writers, historians, archivists and journalists, we have to tell the truth.  We should show images that maintain both the truth and the integrity of the Palestinian people. We will fight against this gruesome occupation for as long as it takes, and we will understand more than ever that this struggle is not insular. America’s longtime desire to Kill extends everywhere; nobody is safe. 

With our teeth sunk into the military-industrial complex, we have a long road ahead of us in resisting Israel and U.S.-led war crimes — along with further development of potentially catastrophic military developments, which could certainly lead to a disastrous nuclear war. 

Palestinians are wrongfully treated as tokens in the U.S.’s foreign policy agenda. You don’t need to be Arab or Muslim to see that this is wrong. Palestinians are not tokens, and neither are the people of Sudan, Congo & Armenia. These countries have all experienced genocide, ethnic cleansing, and gross human rights violations in recent months. Where has the mainstream media been? Reporting on Barbie. 

Truth is bleak these days. But to stand with the other, the group being marginalized and oppressed, will always be a part of the struggle for liberation. When I feel tired and hopeless, I remember that every action I make matters — that movements have always been built by ordinary people taking both small and large acts. I remember what Angela Davis said: “Freedom is a constant struggle.”

The views expressed in opinion pieces do not represent the views of Glimpse from the Globe or its editorial team.

The impact of Trump’s criticisms is still felt in Washington today. On the one hand, Biden has faced pressure from dozens of senators, Democrats and Republicans, who are committed to expanding upon the deal to include expanded compliance from Iran in regards to its ballistic missile program. Meanwhile, the administration has been the subject of scrutiny from diplomats from France, Japan and Germany, who manufactured a 2003 deal with Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment activities and have served in an intermediary role between the two countries since 2018.

Biden’s insistence that Iran must make the first move toward compromise to maintain negotiating leverage has, in the eyes of the European Union, halted potential discussions and pushed Iran to explore other avenues. The ability, or lack thereof, of Biden to orchestrate any semblance of effective diplomacy at a time when Iran may only be months away from nuclear capabilities will test his multilateral approach to the Oval Office and will potentially determine the balance of power in the Middle East for years to come.

The historically rocky relations between the two countries — characterized by the CIA-led coup of democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh in 1953, the U.S. Embassy hostage crisis in 1979, and the assassination of top military commander, General Qasem Soleimani, in 2020, to name a few — were put on display when Biden ordered a series of airstrikes on Iran-backed militias in Syria in late February as his first demonstration of military force. The airstrikes were supposedly a response to rocket attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq, which Iran denied involvement in. That same week, Iran rejected the European Union’s proposition to moderate informal nuclear talks between Tehran and Washington. 

While Biden’s willingness to extend a diplomatic hand through the EU and prevent the nuclearization of one of the United States’ biggest military rivals, the first such offer in four years, reflects the new administration’s intent to revive global cooperation and internationalism, Iran’s cold response has made restoring the JCPOA one of the administration’s early challenges. Evidently, it will not be as diplomatically simple as lifting sanctions and returning to the 2015 deal, though the State Department recently reported that they are ready to do so. A new round of negotiations must be conducted, whether on Pennsylvania Avenue or a neutral location, with leverage being sacrificed on both sides.

It seems this is already underway. At a meeting in Vienna between intermediaries on April 6, representatives of the United States and Iran agreed to establish a joint commission that will work to simultaneously lift U.S. sanctions and halt Iranian nuclear development, thus officially beginning the negotiation phase, however indirectly.

However, after signing a 25-year, $400 billion dollar oil agreement with China in late March, Iran seems positioned to recuperate some of its economic losses from the devastating 2018 sanctions that Trump reimposed, thereby putting pressure on the Biden administration to concede to Iranian demands. The agreement signals that Iran is moving on from stalled negotiations with the United States and looking to the East for economic relief and potential military support down the line. 

In fact, the Iran-China deal also expanded military cooperation between the two nations, including joint research, training, intelligence and weapons development, with the Chinese foreign minister Wang Yi stating that, “China firmly supports Iran in safeguarding its state sovereignty and national dignity.” Yet U.S. officials seem rather unconcerned with the military aspects of the agreement, citing its lack of specificity and non-binding commitments. 

Even so, the economic leverage that the United States had over Iran as a result of Trump’s 1600 reimposed sanctions will continue to slip as Iran furthers its relations with China. With Iran entertaining other opportunities for relief and perhaps turning toward a more internationalist approach to foreign policy, the JCPOA’s salvation should not be seen as an inevitable conclusion.

Yet the most effective strategy for Biden remains the consolidation of U.S. nuclear demands. While a minority in Washington have continued to criticize the 2015 deal, most Americans opposed Trump’s diplomatic departure in 2018 and still support the JCPOA on its own, which was a landmark achievement of diplomacy and nonproliferation. And, as Iran has restated numerous times, they have no interest in renegotiating or expanding upon the JCPOA, efforts that will become increasingly slim if a new Iranian president takes office in June.

The lifting of some Trump-era sanctions will allow Biden to still maintain leverage in negotiations while also giving the diplomatic discussion some much needed momentum. Even so, such momentum might not get the JCPOA restored or a new nuclear deal established before it’s too late and Iran has already developed full-scale nuclear weapons. For the foreseeable future, Biden will continue to work in a race against time, which may require first rescinding some sanctions and returning to Obama’s Iranian approach in order to get the ball rolling faster. In fact, former weapons inspector and founder of the Institute for Science and International Security David Albright believes that “Iran could explode a test device within nine months; build a basic nuclear weapon in a year; and in two years, affix a warhead to a ballistic missile”.

Ultimately, Biden’s surprising refusal to cave into Iran’s pre-negotiation demands reflects his hard-nosed centrism and the slow U.S. return to diplomatic multilateralism following the Trump presidency. While many would have expected an immediate attempt to restore the JCPOA at all costs before the Iranian national elections, the administration seems sluggish to deliver on one of its key campaign promises. As negotiations stall and Iran approaches nuclear capabilities, expect to see a more desperate and conciliatory Oval Office to Tehran, the EU, and the American public.

However, for a significant portion of Qatar’s population — the over two million migrant workers in the country — the World Cup has brought a more nefarious and dark context to the country. For over a decade, human rights abuses under the kafala system, the sponsorship-based employment used by many countries in the Middle East to exploit migrant workers and trap them into a modern-day version of slavery, have persisted — all in an attempt to prepare the country for the 2022 games. Most of Qatar’s foreign workers are employed on projects directly or indirectly connected to the World Cup, such as constructing infrastructure for the new city being built for the event, and will transition to work in service-oriented roles as the tournament draws closer.

Apart from Qatar, the other countries that allow the kafala system are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Lebanon. Each country has its own specific provisions and legal framework, but all share the same basic concept: government agencies, local individuals or companies in the country employ foreign laborers through sponsorship permits. In addition to salary, the sponsors cover travel expenses from the workers’ home country as well as housing, usually in communal dormitories or, for domestic workers, in the sponsor’s house.

Legally, the kafala system is under the jurisdiction of interior ministries instead of labor ministries, so sponsored workers do not have the protections extended to other workers under the host country’s labor laws. As a result, many experience forced labor, unpaid or unfair wages and excessive working hours.

Additionally, since only sponsors can extend or end the permits allowing workers to be in the country, private citizens have an inordinate amount of control over their workers’ legal statuses without oversight. Workers cannot switch jobs, quit before the end of their contract or leave the country without the permission of their employer. The penalty for doing so depends on the country but can range from revocation of the workers’ legal status to imprisonment or deportation, even if they were trying to escape abusive circumstances (which is not an uncommon situation). 

Though the kafala system applies to all foreign workers, racism plays a large role in how workers are treated. People from Africa or South Asia are typically relegated to lower paying jobs and face much higher levels of discrimination than Europeans or Americans. Additionally, according to the Council on Foreign Relations, the contracts offered to Westerners are less restricting and have fairer terms than the ones given to workers from other countries. Gender-based violence is also common; women, especially domestic workers, experience high levels of harassment and sexual assault but often do not report it to authorities, fearing retaliation by their sponsors.

In Qatar, foreign workers make up approximately 95% of the total labor force, with the vast majority working jobs related to the World Cup. A report from The Guardian found that these migrant workers live and work in poor conditions and that over 6,500 South Asian workers have died in Qatar since it began World Cup preparations ten years ago, an average of 12 deaths each week. Nick McGeehan, co-founder of FairSquare Projects, an advocacy group for migrant workers in the Gulf, said that these deaths are directly related to the World Cup.

“A very significant proportion of the migrant workers who have died since 2011 were only in the country because Qatar won the right to host the World Cup,” he said. 

According to the Guardian, the death toll is very likely higher than what is reported from the Qatari government since the findings do not include people from Southeast Asia or Africa, where a significant number of Qatar’s workers come from. 

Because of the spotlight the World Cup has placed on Qatar, the country has pledged to make reforms to the kafala system — though many of these have not materialized. In 2014, Qatar claimed it was abolishing the kafala system and proposed changes that would institute new regulations and penalties to ensure workers are treated fairly and remove the need for permission from an employer for a worker to leave the country or switch jobs at the end of their contract. These changes were implemented in December 2016 and promptly reversed by the emir three weeks later in January 2017 without explanation.

Following the lack of progress on foreign workers’ rights, Qatar signed an agreement with the United Nations International Labour Organization in November 2017 that has led to some lasting reforms. The government has since passed laws allowing workers to collect compensation for abusive situations and establishing dispute committees to fairly mediate conflict between workers and employers. In January 2020, Qatar announced that migrant workers will no longer need permission from employers to leave, though advance notice is required for domestic workers and employers can apply for a permit requiring up to 5% of their foreign staff to seek prior consent to leave. Additional reforms enacted in September 2020 set a higher minimum wage for all workers and allowed migrant workers to switch jobs without employer permission.

However, this string of positive changes may soon be coming to an end. Following the September 2020 kafala reforms businesses argued that the changes were infringing on their rights as employers and the revised laws were sent to the Shura Council, Qatar’s legislative body, for review. After months of deliberation, the Council issued recommendations in February 2021 that would undo much of the progress that has been made. According to Amnesty International, the suggestions include “removing the right of migrant workers to change jobs during their contract, limiting the number of times they can change jobs during their stay in Qatar to three, restricting the number of workers in a company that can change jobs to 15% unless agreed otherwise by the company, and increasing the percentage of workers who require exit permits to leave Qatar from 5% to 10%.” A decision to accept or deny the Shura Council’s recommendations has not yet been made, but the previous reversal of reforms in January 2017 occurred after similar suggestions from the council.

Throughout the last decade, despite the constant push for improved workers’ rights in Qatar, FIFA has been remarkably quiet on the matter. After Amnesty International published a report on migrant workers in Qatar in 2015, FIFA put out a statement saying that they “are on the right track and [are]committed to continue improving to further contribute to the protection of workers’ rights at the FIFA World Cup stadium projects.” FIFA also established its Human Rights Policy in 2017 and published its World Cup Qatar 2022 Sustainability Strategy in 2019, pledging to leave behind “a legacy of world-class standards and practices for workers in Qatar and internationally”, but none of these mention specific actions it is taking beyond “supporting the Qatari government with continued reform.” 

In March 2021, following reports in the media on migrant worker deaths, FIFA President Gianni Infantino acknowledged the tragedy of the deaths, but ultimately warned against a boycott of the 2022 World Cup.

“Our position at FIFA has always been, and will always be, engagement and dialogue is the only and the best way forward to make changes happen,” Infantino said.

Since FIFA has not taken a firm stance on the issue, teams competing in World Cup qualifiers are taking things into their own hands. Players on Norway’s national soccer team lined up before their game against Gibraltar on March 24, wearing shirts that read: “Human Rights — on and off the pitch.” Teams from Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark have followed suit with similar protests.

Though FIFA has historically been opposed to political statements during games and has previously fined teams for taking such actions, a spokesperson for the organization said that they would allow players to continue with such demonstrations.

“FIFA believes in the freedom of speech and in the power of football as a force for good,” FIFA said. “No disciplinary proceedings in relation to this matter will be opened by FIFA.”

The international response has been similarly muted; apart from the European Parliament, which demanded in 2020 that FIFA send a strong message to Qatar that the World Cup should not be “delivered by the assistance of modern slavery,” no other countries or blocs have spoken out, despite efforts by non-governmental organizations to convince them to do so. In 2014 a case was brought against Qatar by the UN International Organization for Labor over the treatment of migrant workers, but this was dropped in 2017 after the country committed to the reforms that the Shura Council recently recommended reversing.

International sports competitions such as the World Cup bring together people from all over the world in a way that transcends cultural and political differences and allows countries to deepen their relationships in a low-stakes environment. Michel Raspaud, a professor at Grenoble Alpes University whose research focuses on the sociology of sports and sports tourism, writes that Qatar is particularly noteworthy for its use of sports diplomacy and has made “sports a major diplomatic axis that provides the country with international recognition, affirming its role as a regional player and contributing to its security [as]a sort of all-purpose safety valve for tension in the short and medium term.” 

However, Raspaud goes on to say that the positive message Qatar is trying to convey through the 2022 World Cup is “undermined by the contradiction between the values of sports that are emphasized (respect, progress, fairness, etc.) and the social and political situation in a country where labor rights and the status of women and foreigners remain problematic.”

As the World Cup draws closer, attention on Qatar will continue to increase and the country will continue to face scrutiny for the actions it takes that affect migrant workers. Qatar is at a major crossroads, and the over two-thirds of its population at the mercy of the kafala system is waiting to see whether it bends to the Shura Council’s recommendations and returns to the traditional restrictions or concedes to international pressure and maintains its recent reforms.

This 14-year long plan was announced in 2016 by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and aims to reduce Saudi Arabia’s dependency on the oil industry. This plan includes several infrastructure, education and renewable energy projects, but by far the most ambitious project within this 2030 vision is the city of Neom. 

The city of Neom is the prince’s crown jewel and he expects that it will put the country on the international stage and not only manage to be the face of sustainable development, city building and living, but also a major hub for travel, tourism and transportation. 

The city is planned to be developed in the Tabuk province, which is located in the northwest part of the country. The area borders the Red Sea to the south, Jordan to the north and the Gulf of Aqaba to the west, across from which is Egypt’s Sinai peninsula. 

Construction has already begun after Neom’s announcement at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh on October 24, 2017. Neom Bay, which includes some resorts and luxury apartments, has already begun construction. Additionally, Neom Bay Airport was inaugurated in 2019 and will serve as a temporary hub until the main airport is finished. 

The project has been estimated to cost around $500 billion dollars and set to open the first stage by 2025 with the main attraction being The Line, a city shaped in a straight line that will run 170km from the coast towards the inland desert and would take up $200 billion from the budget. The city is planned to be a fully sustainable project that would rely 100% on renewable energies to run. The project would also, according to the Saudi government, create 380,000 jobs and increase its GDP by $48 billion. 

“Why should we sacrifice nature for the sake of development?” Prince Mohammed said in the televised announcement of The Line in January. “We need to transform the concept of a conventional city into that of a futuristic one.”

According to the Saudi government, The Line would consist of three different levels. On the ground floor there would be an uninterrupted pedestrian walkway with parks. The second level would have the services, stores and other commercial spaces. And the third level would be what is being called The Spine. 

In the same announcement made by bin Salman, he mentioned that the city is being built with a future population of one million people in mind. He further stated that all of these people would be just five minutes away from any good or service they would need for their day to day lives. 

The Neom project and more recently The Line have been heavily promoted online and are widely seeking additional foreign investment to help develop the city. Several YouTube advertisements and videos as well as viral explanatory videos have been key to the growing awareness of the project abroad. 

This ambitious project, however, has also raised some questions and concerns surrounding the true intentions behind its construction, as well as the ethical aspects that surround the city building as well as the country as a whole. 

One major controversy surrounding Neom is the current and future displacement of the Al-Huwaitat tribe. With around 20,000 people facing eviction and many Al-Huwaitat advocates being killed in the past years, the project has faced international backlash from several NGOs across the world. On April 13, 2020, Abdul Rahim al-Huwaiti, one of the main advocates from the tribe, was killed by Saudi security forces in what they allege was self defence as Al-Huwaiti had fired first. Al-Huwaiti was a major critic of the Neom project, and many suspect that this could have been the reason for his death. 

“They have begun the process of removing people, beginning with surveying homes with the intent of removing people and deporting them from their land,” said Al-Huwaiti on a video recorded on the day of his death referring to the Saudi forces reaching his hometown. “They arrested anyone who said they’re against deportation, they don’t want to leave, they want to remain [in]their homes, that they don’t want money.”

Despite highlighting on the promotional website that the city will be built on “virgin land,” the testimonies from local tribes say otherwise. This is one of the major controversies that the Neom project faces, but with the recent announcement of The Line it seems like the Saudi government will continue the city’s development. 

This project is also very important for Saudi Arabia, not only due to its potential revenue in tourism and investment, but it will also allow for Saudi Arabia to assume strategic control of trade and transit within the region and beyond. 

The area where Neom will be developed is adjacent to the Strait of Tiran, where the Saudi administered islands of Tiran and Sanafir lie just off Egypt’s beach resort city Sharm El Sheikh on the Sinai peninsula. Alongside the plan to build the city, there is a plan to build a bridge connecting both countries by land. 

This bridge would completely change the way the region works as transporting goods through land from Egypt to Saudi Arabia would become possible, completely bypassing the current need to go through Israel. The bridge would also give Saudi Arabia control over the Strait as well, which could potentially increase the country’s influence over Asian exports to Israel. 

This would also help Saudi Arabia become one of the main hubs for travel and transportation, although the development would face fierce competition from neighbouring Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, two countries which have established themselves as powerhouses in the aviation industry with their major airlines Qatar Airways and Emirates respectively. 

The government wants to incentivise investors by establishing Neom as a free trade zone with its own tax and legal system, the latter supposedly being structured around more open and progressive ideals. This contrasts the strict Sharia law that prevails within the rest of the country which has been criticized for numerous human rights violations. This is something similar to what the UAE has already done with Dubai since 2006, where the Emirati government established an international court system to better appeal to the international investors. 

The project as a whole is Prince bin Salman’s attempt at creating a place that can serve as a major source of revenue and international influence for the Saudi government, and which can put the country on the international stage to not only help diversify the economy, but to also extend the reach of the Saudi influence within the global community. 

The positive, progressive and innovative prospects that the city is set to have, however, must be looked at through a critical lens, as the Crown Prince has proved that he may disregard locals or other people that stand in the way of his projects, even when they are within their right to protest the development. 

It remains to be seen if the Saudi government is up to the task of constructing this massive and ambitious project, and if they will be able to deliver on all of their sustainability promises while bettering their efforts to secure an ethical development. 

This is old news. The report merely revealed information that was leaked and well-known years beforehand: the brutal murder of Khashoggi would not have been possible without the approval of the crown prince. The declassification of the report was largely a symbolic move, much like the general nature of American response to Saudi Arabia and other allies who consistently violate human rights. 

Saudi Arabia has long been a country marred by questionable actions, most notably the decade-long war in Yemen. The Yemen Civil War began after the Shiite Houthi rebels overtook the Sunni government’s capital in late 2014. Fearing Houthi links to Iran, Saudi Arabia formed a coalition with other Sunni Gulf states with hopes of restoring power to Yemen’s incumbent government. As the Saudi-led coalition intervened with airstrikes and economic isolation, a full-blown humanitarian crisis emerged. Yemeni civilians faced famine and an endless downpour of strikes, leading to tens of thousands of casualties, thousands of deaths (including those of children), and millions of people displaced. Despite the global concern, during the first five years of the Yemen War, Saudi Arabia was the largest arms importer in the world — and 73% came from the United States. By supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia and other states in the coalition, the United States ultimately fueled a devastating human rights catastrophe. 

During his campaign, Biden promised to end support for the Saudi-backed war. So far, his administration has temporarily suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states and has revoked Trump’s designation of the Houthi rebels as a foreign terrorist organization. It’s worth noting that these actions do exceed those of previous administrations. However – especially if the arms sales ban is not made permanent – these are mainly emblematic in nature. They signify a reluctance to take hard action and a desire to subdue calls for accountability. 

Shortly after these actions were announced, the backtracking ensued. Biden clarified that the crown prince himself would not be penalized, claiming that the diplomatic cost would be too high. Instead, Biden’s aides described a series of travel restrictions on lower-level Saudi officials among other actions, denying giving Saudi Arabia a pass. According to White House officials, instead of reaching out to the crown prince directly, Biden opted for a call to his father, King Salman. During the brief phone call, Biden reportedly raised the idea of recalibrating the U.S.-Saudi relationship. However, approaching the aging king, rather than the prince who appears to be calling the shots, is likely another mechanism to avoid direct accountability.

The United States is not likely to take harsh action against Saudi Arabia, especially against the crown prince himself. Albeit, Biden was correct in highlighting the diplomatic cost of doing so, as Saudi is a critical ally in ensuring Middle East stability and in confronting Iran. Biden faces the unfortunately difficult task of balancing security interests and basic human values. However, it does illuminate America’s double standards when it comes to human rights. 

Directly punishing world leaders is not unheard of for the United States. It has imposed sanctions on a handful of world leaders: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, Kim Jong-un of North Korea, President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela and Robert Mugabe, the former prime minister of Zimbabwe. Many of these punishments came after various human rights violations among other sources of conflict. However, none of these nations were American allies. In fact, they were the opposite. The unwillingness of the United States to punish M.B.S after a brutal and clear violation of human rights — against a U.S.-based journalist nonetheless — reflects its stance on human rights violators: pursue when convenient. 

It’s not as if Saudi violations have not been up to par with other perpetrators. Migrant workers, religious minorities, women, and other vulnerable groups have all faced questionable treatment in Saudi Arabia. Families affected by 9/11 have taken to the courts, seeking accountability from the Saudi kingdom for providing material support to Al-Qaeda after some Saudi officials had been linked to the horrific attacks. Thus, the Khashoggi murder report could not have been the final straw for the U.S. government to finally reconsider relations with Saudi Arabia. It was an opportunistic maneuver to appease human rights activists and fulfill a back-burner campaign promise, which likely would not have even occurred if the United States was still heavily dependent on the Gulf for oil. 

The United States has consistently shown that it is a champion of human rights — when convenient. If an American ally commits a crime, whether that be Saudi Arabia or even Israel, the United States usually will not pursue accountability. This is not the era of American isolationism; the United States is not shy in actively involving itself in conflicts around the world. 

However, the conflicts it chooses to insert itself in reveal a clear double standard where adversaries are punished and allies go unchecked, even if they have thousands of deaths on their hands. 

The Biden administration is inheriting a host of problems from its predecessor. But with its relatively blank slate, the administration needs to make its mark on the sphere of international development. 

The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — which experienced a budget cut of over 22% under the Trump administration — seems to have lost its teeth over the past four years. Once a hallmark for international assistance and development, USAID suffered under leadership from the White House in the last four years. In particular, Trump’s foreign policy doctrine of selective engagement and withdrawal has only hurt its cause. But with new leadership in 2021, there are many options in play. Should the Biden administration opt for gradual improvement or ambitious innovation? What issues should it tackle first? To make up for lost time, it seems as though innovation is the only viable strategy — beginning with reforming the foreign aid system. 

According to the World Bank, in 2018, over $165 billion was spent on official development assistance. Yet, foreign aid is still a topic of controversy in the international community — and for many reasons. Among scholars and practitioners, there is uncertainty over how foreign aid is defined and measured, as well as how it should be allocated. Additionally, one topic of contention is what the underlying motivations of donor countries are and how intent may hinder USAID’s effectiveness in promoting development. 

In its current form, the foreign aid system is flawed. The burdens of aid and a donor dominated system have distorted the development process – only providing short-term relief in developing countries while reinforcing weak institutions and corruption.

From Michael Todaro and Stephen Smith, foreign aid is best defined as: “all official grants and concessional loans in currency or in kind that are aimed at transferring resources from developed nations to less-developed nations on development, poverty, or income distribution.” 

Most aid comes with strings attached, known as “tied foreign aid,” or conditional foreign aid, giving little bargaining power to recipient countries. Donor countries often control how aid is used, choose who the recipients are, and define its terms and conditions. Tied aid can have detrimental consequences for recipient countries. It can burden them with debt repayment, a current reality for much of the developing world. It can also drive up import costs since developing countries are often required to purchase capital and goods from the donor, when they could find better low-cost goods for development.

Aid without conditions, known as “untied aid,” or unconditional aid, has its own set of drawbacks. Untied aid is often given to a country with little to no research; historical precedent shows a high likelihood that corrupt officials use it to reinforce their own power. In all forms, foreign aid can prove harmful to the development process.

Scholars often identify the foreign aid regime as using a system of “top-down strategies,” where the wealthy donor countries are the key decision-makers. In practice, there is a clear pattern of donors promoting their strategic interests rather than helping the countries with the most need. 

The United States’ aid allocation is a prime example of this. South Asia, where nearly 50% of the world’s poorest people live, receives only $8 per person in aid. Meanwhile, the Middle East, a region of particular strategic interest to the United States (due to political influence, natural resources and geopolitical caution), has well over triple South Asia’s per capita income but receives nine times the per capita aid. Since the War on Terror began following the events of 9/11, the largest country-level aid recipients were Iraq with $61 billion and Afghanistan with $133 billion. Meanwhile, India, which has the largest number of impoverished people in the world, received only $2 per person in aid. 

Poverty rates should not be the only consideration for foreign aid — both Iraq and Afghanistan are war-torn nations with refugee crises, sectarian violence, among other issues. However, the majority of U.S. international assistance was not used for disaster relief or economic development — it was used for military or security purposes. It is no coincidence that the countries that receive the most aid have a significant U.S. military presence, while the country with the largest amount of poverty received much less aid. 

The European Union (EU) displays a similar trend. According to Allison Carnegi and Nikolav Marinov in the American Journal of Political Science, the country of origin of the European Council’s president affects which countries receive aid. There was a “consistent, large, and uncontroversial finding [that]former colonizers give disproportionate amounts of aid to their former colonies.” Quantitatively, a country that normally receives $20 million in aid would receive about $3.6 million more if the president is from their former colonizer country. Since the presidency rotates every six months, this creates tremendous volatility in the European Council’s aid plans. 

It is clear that foreign aid allocation is a mechanism of control, rather than an act of benevolence on the part of developed countries. Donors are not promoting development. Instead, they reinforce the distribution of power skewed in their favor, at the expense of developing countries.

Developed countries as the decision-makers in foreign aid present other issues. Their allocation strategies often suffer from complex data problems – those at the top simply do not have enough information to help developing countries. 

This explains the long history of bureaucracies mistaking symptoms of underdevelopment as causes. Donors often identified low levels of investment, poor education and the absence of modern industry as causes of underdevelopment. In reality, the source of underdevelopment is weak institutions and policies. This is evident in Zambia’s case. If lack of capital was the fundamental cause of Zambia’s underdevelopment, massive amounts of aid should have addressed this. However, without institutional reform, Zambia has seen virtually no increase in per capita income and remains underdeveloped. William Easterly in Foreign Policy calls this phenomenon the “Utopian Nightmare.” 

Donors could pursue institutional change but they hold back for economic reasons. When deciding between changing actions or altering institutions, donors opt for the less costly option: changing policies, although their efforts are eventually short-lived.

The current foreign aid system provides “band-aid” solutions rather than long-term relief. Aid culture has left Africa debt-laden and more vulnerable economically. African countries pay up to $20 billion in debt repayment per annum, at the expense of investing in education and health. Aid has also fueled corruption. The World Bank has contributed $100 billion for development, but in the DRC, Malawi, and Zambia, corrupt leaders used development funds for their personal gain. 

NGO-led aid has seen some success, like with smallpox eradication and child survival. However, foreign NGOs have failed to spur sustainable development. Even after billions of dollars of development aid and numerous hours of NGO work, Kenya is miserably worse off, with nearly six in every ten people living on less than two dollars a day, and the figure is rising. Foreign NGOs providing food aid and other resources create an unsustainable dependency due to the short-term nature of their work. This dependency weakens the state, ensuring that the government is not held accountable for its mismanagement; it also removes the incentive for institutional reform that would actually promote development. 

For foreign aid to be effective, there needs to be more accountability and coordination between donor and recipient countries. There has been some progress through the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and its successor, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), but more needs to be done to fix a system of “top-down strategies” and donor domination. 

So what can the Biden administration do? 

Working with USAID, it must issue global developmental policy that reworks foreign assistance programs and promotes institutional reform. In the near term, that should include strengthening health systems to respond to COVID-19 and bolstering democratic governance amid rising authoritarianism. The administration must also engage with international initiatives: listen to the needs of recipient countries and coordinate with other donor countries on how to meet them. As it reenters the Paris Climate Agreement, the U.S. needs to pull its weight and support developing countries in honoring their commitments. 

Aid can no longer just be donors throwing money at the problem; it should be geared towards long-term prosperity. Without significant reform, the foreign aid system will remain ineffective and hinder development. 

On September 15, representatives from the United Arab Emirates, Israel and the United States signed the ‘Abraham Accords.’ The Abraham Accords — named after the common ancestor shared by the people of Christianity, Islam and Judaism, was brokered by Jared Kushner, senior advisor to the President of the United States,  between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. This peace agreement is historical because prior to the signing of this agreement, the only Arab nations who had peace deals with Israel were Jordan and Egypt.  

The chief reason for this conflict was the ratification of the Partition Resolution in the United Nations, passed on November 29, 1947, which divided the Palestinian mandate, under British rule at the time, into an Arab and Jewish state. However, the holy city of Jerusalem remained under United Nations control. The resolution sparked outrage amongst both parties but Palestinians felt particularly aggrieved as they thought Jews were favored in the deal. This resulted in numerous ongoing conflicts between Arab Palestinians and Jews which only increased following Israel’s independence from Britain.  

May 14, 1948, a day known as Nakba, meaning “catastrophe,” for the 700,000 Palestinians expelled from their homeland. This day is also known as Yom Ha’atzmaut, which translates to “Day of Independence,” for the Jewish people, who gained the newly created state of Israel. Also beginning on said day was the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, where the Arab nations of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iraq and Transjordan banned together to help defend a Palestinian state. Due to inexperience and a shortage of efficient military equipment, the Arab nations were unsuccessful with their attempt to defend a Palestinian state.   

Solidarity towards Palestine amongst Muslim Arab nations was and still is very strong, which means that these countries are all allied against the Jewish State of Israel. Currently Israeli citizens are not allowed to travel to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman or Saudi Arabia in an effort to boycott the country. Nor do these countries have diplomatic relations with Israel. In addition, every nation listed except Oman will not allow people with evidence of travel to Israel,such as an Israeli stamp or a stamp from the King Hussein Bridge, to enter their country. However, this animosity towards Israel could change with the Abraham Accords.

Prior to the Accords, the United Arab Emirates also did not allow Israeli citizens to enter their country. However, since its signing we have seen the first flight between the two countries in years. Not only has tourism opened, but trade and economic relations have become possible. 

Bahrain has also signed a peace agreement. Both deals have similar provisions to normalize working relations between the two countries. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain likely signed the deal for similar reasons, a desire to diversify their economies and access to Israel’s advanced technology. For these compelling reasons, we will likely see more Arab and North African nations signing peace deals with Israel. President Trump seems to have confirmed this, stating, “ we are down the road [in terms of deals]with about five different countries,” including Morocco, Oman, and Sudan. With Sudan taking the lead by signing an agreement to normalize relations with Israel on October 23, 2020. These potential shifts would change the political dynamics of the Middle East.  

There are 12 provisions included in the Abraham Accords. The two most notable are the Establishment of Diplomatic Relations and Economic relations, meaning both countries will establish embassies and assign ambassadors. In addition, both nations have agreed to establish economic relations, which was likely the main reason the Gulf States agreed to sign. As a result, the United Arab Emirates and Israel will open trade routes between each other and allow travel which wasn’t previously allowed.  

What does this mean for Israel-Palestine relations?

Palestinians have protested the signing of the Abraham Accords, specifically voicing  their dissatisfaction with Arab countries making peace with Israel before peace between Israel and Palestine has been achieved. In response, the United Arab Emirates’ Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, Abdullab bin Zayed Al Nahyan, reaffirmed the country’s support for a Palestianian state and thanked President Benjamin Netanyahu for halting his annexation plan of the West Bank. 

Prior to the Abraham Accords, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was planning to annex thirty percent of the West Bank, an area home to approximately 3 million Palestinians and 500,000 Israeli settlers. As of now, annexation has been halted, due in part to the Abraham Accords and COVID-19. Although the plan is currently suspended, Netanyahu has indicated that this hold is only temporary, implying annexation will take place at some point. 

Right now, West Bank Palestinians are faced with eviction to make room for more settlements, insufficient water and electrical resources due to the Israeli regulation, and a lack of access to roads and infrastructure. Unfortunately, these conditions could worsen with Isreali annexation. 

Netanyahu’s aim in the West Bank is to expand Israeli sovereignty. This is alarming for Palestinians and neighboring countries for a number of reasons. An increase in Israeli settlements would result in more Palestinian evictions in the West Bank, further  displacing Arab Palestinians. According to the United Nations Relief and Works agency for Palestine refugees, one-third of Palestinian refugees reside in refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria in addition to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Syria is currently dealing with a civil war, Lebanon is recovering from a tragic explosion and Jordan is handling a water shortage, a substantial increase in refugees could put serious strain on these countries. 

Annexing land along the Jordan River would provide Israel with a military strategic advantage over the West Bank which could be crippling to the already weakened Palestinian resistance.  The Jordan river also provides water and other vital resources for Palestinians and Israelis but if Israel gains sole control of the river Palestine could lose a critical water source for agriculture and energy. 

Although the signing of the Abraham Accords is historic in nature and represents the Middle East effort for peace, Palestinians still do not have an independent state. Since the conflict is largely based on obtaining sovereign land it is hard to imagine peace in the Middle East without an independent Palestianian state. The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain’s signing of the accords has proven to motivate other nations to sign similar deals, Sudan for example, for economic or diplomatic reasons, while Israel contiunes to spread their borders, effectively losing sight of any Palestinian state. 

However, the hope is the Abraham Accords will set the stage for a peaceful Middle East, thus ending the Arab-Israali conflict and any subsequent aggression from Arab nations to Israel.      

The current United Nations report on activity in the region indicated that over 7,700 civilians have died preliminarily and over 800,000 were displaced. This prompted a surge in global activism and media coverage during the months of May and June. The tense shortage of foreign journalists in Yemen was quickly reversed as popular outlets like CNN, the Guardian, and Reporters Without Borders sent teams to cover the ongoing conflict. By now almost everybody has seen the photojournalism out of Yemen — images of skeletal children rummaging in rubble for food.

However, by July, as other recent events took over news cycles, the crisis in Yemen once again faded from the public consciousness, and there are, once again, only a handful of correspondents left. Meanwhile, the parallel conflict in Syria has been a staple in the public spotlight: unforgettable and always on the agenda. Western countries and populations always seemed to have an opinion and an active stance on Syria, yet allowed Yemen to slip into the background. 

This lack of Western attention and presence begets certain questions. How does a full-blown conflict get swept under the rug by western media and governments? Was Yemen failed by poor public relations campaigns? Or was it more sinister? Perhaps there are certain actors to truly blame for maintaining the conflict, or not doing enough to stop it. 

This article looks at three specific regional actors, the United States (along with two of its defense firms) and the United Nations to examine each of their motives and involvements to elaborate on their murky role in the ongoing Yemen crisis.

The crisis in Yemen began as a civil war with its origins in the Arab Spring movement of 2011, when the longtime authoritarian leader Ali Abdullah Saleh handed over power to a coalition led by his Prime Minister Mansour Hadi. This transition took place in the wake of popular uprisings against his 22-year regime known as the Yemeni Revolution. Immediately, the new president faced a slew of problems, not the least of which were jihadist and southern separatist rebellions born out of poverty, corruption and hunger. Saleh used this tension to attempt a retake of power, by banding together with Ansar Allah, another rebel group that had been fighting against Saleh for decades previously in a tenuous alliance, based on opportunism alone. They established a northern stronghold, and moved to brutally take over the capital of Sanaa in late 2014 and early 2015. Ansar Allah is now better known as the Houthis — the central rebels fighting today in the Yemeni crisis.

By this point, an alarmed Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates officially intervened in Yemen, with a force that was nominally multinational (but was mostly Saudi and Emarati soldiers), with the goal of stamping out the Houthis and restoring Hadi to power.

This is the second stop on the road to where Yemen is now. Why did Saudi Arabia, the UAE and some of the other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations intervene? Officially, it was because of humanitarian reasons. But it is widely accepted that their intervention was done for a geopolitical purpose – a game played between regional powers – which only served to inflate the Yemeni crisis. 

The Houthis, which are Shia, represent a minority in Yemen. Shiism is one of two branches of Islam, practiced by over 10% of the world’s Muslims. The other branch, Sunnism, is dominant in the Islamic world and represents a majority in Saudi Arabia, the UAE and much of the Middle East. The two sects are in a seemingly irreconcilable schism, and there is tense religious tension between countries that adopt differing sects in the state religion.

This brings into play Iran, the only majority Shia country in the world. In the past, tensions across the Arab Gulf have been largely credited as stemming from this intra-faith tension, and the capture of Sanaa in 2015 could have been perceived by Saudi Arabia as the Iranians attempting to turn a former ally into a Shiite and pro-Iran outpost on its own borders. With Iran and Yemen situated on both of the two main chokepoints of the world’s most popular oil route, the strategic value of Yemen’s position remains invaluable to whoever holds sway in the country.

Over the past years, multiple third party observers, particularly in NATO and the Trump administration, have accused Iran of being involved in arming and supporting the Houthis. Iran has repeatedly denied involvement, however, citing an Obama-era U.S. intelligence assessment claiming no association between Iran and the Houthis. Yet, intercepted arms shipments, whistle-blowing from unnamed Iranian and Houthi officials and international estimates strongly suggest that Iran is arming the rebels, although the extent remains unclear. Saudi suspicion may be valid, given that Iran has a track record of supporting groups that have support with Shia populations, particularly Hezbollah. 

Prior to Saudi intervention, Yemen’s civil war was likely going to end quickly in a Houthi victory, when Saudi Arabia and the UAE interpreted this impending win to be a threat to their hegemony in the region and invaded to maintain the geopolitical status quo, which had lost support even with many Yemeni Sunnis. By 2018, the Saudi blockade of Yemen created a massive famine that malnourished 18 million civilians and precipitated appalling humanitarian conditions in the region.

But there weren’t just regional powers involved in Yemen. The United States has been heavily involved with the war. At the beginning of the conflict in 2011, U.S. intelligence relied on the Houthis as key strategic allies in the region for the fight against Al Qaeda. However, when Saudi Arabia intervened, the Obama administration gave its support. This would be a crucial move. The US turned its back on its agent in the region to honor a, “70-year alliance,” and in doing so precipitated the conflict: Saudi Arabia’s air force, responsible for an overwhelming majority of the blockade, airstrikes, and bombings, is entirely dependent on American supply and technical expertise.

At the end of the day, it was not just a political decision, but likely an economical one: private defense contractors are making money from Saudi Arabia, their “most valuable customer abroad” ($115 billion in 2015). Lockheed alone signed multiple $3 billion supply deals with Saudi Arabia and the UAE in recent months. Under the Trump administration not only has America signed an unprecedentedly large 350 billion dollar arms deal with Saudi Arabia, but Raytheon, a leading American defense company, has managed to elevate its chief lobbyist, Mark Esper, to the position of Secretary of Defense. Estimates suggest that Raytheon-supplied military technology has directly resulted in the deaths of 100,000 Yemeni people.

The UN’s actions have been limited. In early 2018, it seemed as though Yemen would enter an irrecoverable state of conflict, as the fighting reached Hudaydah, the country’s only active port and a lifeline for the entire Yemeni population. UN Special Envoy Martin Griffiths, backed by his home country the United Kingdom, spent weeks traveling between the Houthi and the allied sides, exchanging information, brokering agreements, and attempting to bring both parties to the negotiating table. Eventually, this led to the signing of the Stockholm Agreement, which called for an armistice and redeployment in Hudaydah, a prisoner exchange program and a neutralization of hostilities in the city of Taïz.

However, the UN’s resolution has been cited as generally weak. Though it prevented a catastrophe, it has not averted the war. Taïz remains a conflict zone, and full redeployment in Hudaydah has not occurred till this date, as conflict seems increasingly imminent. In effect, each party (though particularly Saudi Arabia) has been able to use the Stockholm Agreement as a PR tool and a distraction from the self-generated humanitarian crisis to create plausible deniability.

It seems that Yemen’s present-day condition was born out of several factors. Chief among them is regional geopolitics in a wider ideological and religious conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, for which Yemen can be seen as a proxy battlefield. The United States has played no small role in fanning the flames, using Yemen as an opportunity to develop Saudi reliance on U.S. technology, and profit likely in order to strengthen their access to Saudi oil. And the UN, though it may have achieved the objective of preventing an even worse situation, has nevertheless perpetuated the status quo through lax demands and a minimal capacity to enforce redeployment of troops.

And recent events fail to paint a rosy picture. The September 2019 drone strike on Saudi Arabia’s Aramco, which damaged half of all of the Kingdom’s oil production capability, only stoked an increase in hostilities in Yemen. And even disarmament may not seem to be working. In July, Saudi Arabia called for a unilateral ceasefire for the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Houthis rejected it, and fighting continued in a tit-for-tat manner, while the virus takes a devastating toll on the war-torn population. Meanwhile, the UAE, which withdrew all its forces from the conflict to instead support a third breakaway group in the south, the STC, has guaranteed nothing short of a second theater to the conflict.

It seems that the human cost of the war, already unimaginable in scope, will simply continue to get worse until all actors are able to isolate Yemen from their wider strategic ambitions, and work toward ceasing hostilities and permitting self-rule. Unfortunately, that seems increasingly unlikely to occur soon.

We are currently at a critical juncture in the Yemen conflict. As countries grapple with the pandemic, and the conflict has seemingly been put on hiatus, it becomes crucial for people and countries across the world to pay attention to this ongoing issue. As parties begin to look for exit strategies and sensational incidents like drone strikes become more and more common, it is crucial that the media keep reporting on this issue, initiating transparency and accountability, and keeping the pressure up. 

There may never be a chance like this to push for peace when all sides seem to be taking a break. The alternative is a degeneration back into a conveniently ignorable but utterly damaging conflict. 

As Glimpse From the Globe continues its special coverage of the 2020 U.S. presidential election, it’s important to highlight the differences in key areas of the candidates’ foreign policy agendas. In this piece, we will look at how the incumbent, President Donald Trump, and his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, will tackle the United States’ most topical international issues, including the superpower’s role in the Middle East, the global climate crisis, foreign aid, immigration policy, China and trade. 

An overwhelming trend in this analysis is that Trump’s foreign policy agenda is centered around unilateralism and protectionism, while Biden’s is focused on strengthening the United States’ relationships with its allies and promoting multilateral cooperation.

Middle East

The Middle East represents a key pillar of U.S. foreign policy, given its geopolitical significance for the United States’ economic interests, as well as the country’s counterterrorism, military and humanitarian efforts in the region. Whether it’s Iran’s relentless pursuit to acquire nuclear weapons after the United States’ withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear deal, the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Yemen or the unresolved Israel-Palestine dispute, the upcoming presidential election will determine U.S. action, or inaction, in the region.

Trump: After moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and brokering the landmark Israel-UAE peace agreement, Trump can be expected to continue strongly supporting Israel. In January 2020, he released the New Middle East Plan in collaboration with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump vehemently opposes Iran and has undertaken many actions against the state including withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal in 2018, imposing severe economic sanctions in an effort to curb its nuclear program and authorizing the air strike in early 2020 that killed Major General Qasim Soleimani. Trump has also withdrawn U.S. troops from Syria, but has ordered they remain in Iraq. Over the past few years under Trump, the United States has also improved its relations with Saudi Arabia, especially after Trump expressed his support for Prince Mohammed bin Salman even after Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder at the Saudi embassy in Istanbul in 2018. 

Biden: Joe Biden is a long-time supporter of Israel and a self-proclaimed Zionist. Perhaps the only area of confluence we see in Trump and Biden’s foreign policy is vis-a-vis their support for Israel. However, their stances are not totally aligned — Biden opposes Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and is a strong advocate for the two-state solution. When it comes to Iran, Biden, like Trump, is strongly opposed to Iran’s nuclear weapons program. However, he believes that Trump’s decision to strike Soleimani without Congress’ approval was an “enormous escalation” of tension and pledges to rejoin the Iran Nuclear Deal. Additionally, it is important to note that Biden has had a long involvement with Iraq policy in his past roles of senator and Vice President, which will likely shape his foreign policy agenda. Unlike Trump, Biden is not warm to the idea of close relations with Saudi Arabia and seeks to stop arms sales with the country.

Climate

In recent years, the scientific community has called on countries to speed up their process of reducing carbon, methane and other greenhouse gas emissions. Climate organizations have alluded to the dire consequences of shifting climate patterns such as food shortages, the spread of diseases and mass migration of animals and humans, making climate change the fastest growing threat to global security.

Trump: Trump is doubtful of how much human activity contributes to climate change and is a strong advocate for expanded fossil fuel production and use. He withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, which set higher standards on vehicular emissions and imposed new and stricter regulations on power plants, and rescinded Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Over the past few years, Trump has also slashed funding to the Environmental Protection Agency and has repealed dozens of other environmental regulations. In August 2020, he finalized a plan that allows drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, part of his efforts to open almost all U.S. waters and protected lands to oil and gas drilling. Apart from this, he also hopes to expand new oil pipelines throughout the United States and reduce automobile fuel efficiency standards.

Biden: Biden has released his version of the “Green New Deal,” a climate plan that aims to ensure that the U.S. economy has net-zero emissions by 2050. He is vehemently opposed to new drilling and fracking on public federal lands and pledges to rejoin the Paris Agreement. He aims to reduce the United States’ carbon footprint in transportation, agriculture, and housing sectors and halt the flow of foreign aid to coal-fired power plants overseas. To encourage countries to implement green policies, he also wants to offer debt relief and expand G20 climate efforts. Though Biden is criticized by some environmental activists and organizations for not being more aggressive on climate change, his policies toward climate change demonstrate a stark contrast to Trump’s approach.

Foreign Aid and Multilateral Cooperation

Multilateral diplomacy and foreign aid are key aspects of the liberal international order and are often propagated through international institutions. International institutions serve as both a framework and a platform for international engagement, debate, and cooperation. The United States has been the chief architect of alliance building through international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), United Nations (UN), World Bank and North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). 

Trump: Trump has withdrawn from several international alliances and organizations such as the Paris Agreement, Iran Nuclear Deal, Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the UN Global Compact for Migration. Most recently, amid the global coronavirus pandemic, Trump withdrew the United States from the World Health Organization (WHO), the international organization responsible for coordinating the world’s pandemic response. Regarding U.S. allies, Trump has often questioned the relevance of NATO in the post-Cold War era and has been critical of organizations such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Even relationships with long-term allies of the United States, such as the European Union (EU) have not been stable under his presidency. And, with regard to foreign spending and assistance, budget proposals under his administration have cut foreign aid spending by almost a third.

Biden: In contrast, Biden’s “Summit for Democracy” plans to convene all democratic countries in a single forum to discuss three major global issue areas — fighting corruption, addressing the rise of authoritarianism and combating the proliferation of human rights violations. If elected, Biden not only pledges to rebuild the U.S. Department of State but has also stated that he would re-enter alliances and agreements that the United States has left under the Trump administration. Biden has pledged to reenter the Paris Agreement, for example. Biden has also continuously warned against the current rise of populism as seen in waves throughout the world and calls for increased international investment in collective security and prosperity. In a Biden administration, one could expect the United States to reenter the liberal international order and place a heavy emphasis on multilateralism and global leadership.

Immigration

Immigration has long been an important issue in the American political scene and despite the countless number of American families that can trace their family history to migrants, many voters approve of isolationist and nationalist immigration policies. The debate over immigration in the United States has reared its ugly head in the form of rising xenophobia and bigotry, a critical aspect of Trump’s rhetoric throughout the 2016 presidential election.

Trump: Immigration is a huge issue for Trump, who has championed a zero-tolerance immigration policy since his candidacy in 2016. In 2019, he attempted to complete his vow of building a wall on the Mexican border by shutting down the federal government, and declared a national emergency on the southern border, allowing him to allocate federal funds to this project. Additionally, the president threatened tariffs against Mexico if the country didn’t improve their own border enforcement. The administration has also imposed a zero-tolerance border crossing policy, which has led to the separation of families at the border and mass incarceration of migrants. In efforts to keep migrants from reaching or staying in the United States, he launched the Remain in Mexico program, which requires asylum-seekers to stay in Mexico as they await their immigration proceedings. Additionally, Trump has brokered “safe third country” agreements with Guatemala and Panama, allowing for migrants who travel through those counties to be deported back if they do not apply for asylum there before they arrive at the U.S.-Mexico border.

In 2017, Trump instituted a ban on incoming travel from several majority Muslim countries. While the original executive order was rejected by courts, a revised version banning travel from Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia and Yemen was passed. There have been a number of legal changes that Trump has promoted to attempt to reduce immigration overall. He has reduced the cap on the number of refugees accepted into the United States every year to less than 18,000, down from around 80,000; shifted the definition of asylum to no longer include survivors of domestic and gang violence; ended temporary protected status for citizens from Sudan, Nicaragua, Haiti and El Salvador; and sought to end the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which has prevented the deportation of 700,000 individuals who were brought to the United States as children. 

Inside our borders, Trump has expanded interior enforcement raids, although his deportation numbers do not meet the peaks seen under the Obama administration; attempted to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities; and, in July of 2020, attempted to revoke the visas of international students studying online, only to reverse the order after MIT, Harvard, USC and 17 states filed lawsuits against the policy.

Biden: Biden and Trump’s immigration policies stand on polar opposite sides of the spectrum. The former vice president has condemned the current administration’s policies as “racist” and “morally bankrupt.” However, Biden grapples with a past painted by restrictionist policies under the Obama administration. 

Biden wants to overturn policies that separate families at the border, establish public-private networks that address humanitarian needs, and make DACA permanent. He opposes the president’s ban on several Muslim majority countries and would eliminate the ban if elected. Additionally, he wants to extend temporary protected status to citizens of El Salvador, Haiti, Nicaragua, Sudan and Venezuela, as well as use aid packages to stabilize the countries that migrants originate from. He also backs a 2013 immigration reform plan developed under the Obama administration, that focuses on strengthening border security, cracking down on employers of undocumented workers, creating a path toward earned citizenship, and streamlining the legal immigration system. 

But, Biden’s pro-immigrant stance conflicts with his senatorial record, which includes voting for a law that increased penalties for illegal immigration and expanded the government’s deportation authority in 1996; supporting the Secure Fence Act in 2006, authorizing 700 miles of fencing along the southern border; and, in 2008, proposing to jail employers of undocumented workers, crack down on sanctuary cities, and build more fencing to prevent the entry of drug dealers at the U.S.-Mexico border. 

China

Since former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping began to revamp the Chinese economic and trade strategy in the 1980s, China has been transforming itself into an economic juggernaut. As we enter the 2020s, China will seek to shed its image as a developing country with an unmatched economy and grow into a true global leader. This has not gone unnoticed by U.S. leadership. Former President Barack Obama’s “strategic pivot” towards Asia in an attempt to counter CCP influence in the region, as seen with the creation of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). While both candidates have similar platforms regarding grievances held against the CCP for human rights abuses, territorial disputes in Taiwan and the South China Sea, intellectual property theft and unfair trade practices, each candidate proposes a different strategy for interacting with the rising superpower.

Trump: President Trump has often criticized international institutions like the WTO and multilateral trade deals like the TPP — from which Trump used an executive order to withdraw the United States — for creating advantages for countries other than the United States. Thus, his game plan against China has often revolved around unilateral actions aimed at weakening the Chinese economy and strengthening U.S. producers. Most outstanding in this plan was a series of tariffs on over $350 billion worth of Chinese goods into the United States. Using national security concerns to justify the trade war, Trump has imposed tariffs on goods such as solar panels, washing machines and other household appliances, as well as agricultural products. This led to the US-China Phase 1 Trade Deal which called for the United States to reduce tariffs in exchange for Chinese purchases of U.S. agricultural products. 

Trump has also taken aim at the Chinese technology sector, which many intelligence agencies have argued is guilty of stealing technology from the United States as well as other countries. In 2018, Trump helped push reforms that allowed for the U.S. government to investigate and intervene in foreign investment into domestic companies, particularly taking aim at Chinese venture capital in U.S. technology firms. Additionally, he has imposed restrictions on Chinese tech operations and products in the United States, such as Huawei, Wechat, and TikTok. 

Other instances of Trump challenging China include being the first president since 1979 to speak to Taiwan’s President and proposing arms sales to the island, ending Hong Kong’s preferential trade status following China’s national security law restricting free speech in the region, and imposing sanctions on companies involved in human rights abuses of the Uighur Muslim minority in China. 

Biden: While Biden agrees with the President that the CCP must be held accountable for breaking internationally accepted trade rules. committing human rights abuses and challenging the U.S. energy, infrastructure and technology sectors, he ultimately believes that unilateral tariffs do more harm than good — citing damages to U.S. manufacturing and agriculture industries. He also thinks that the Phase One Trade Deal focuses too much on agricultural purchases rather than changes to Chinese business practices. As opposed to the United States acting alone against China, Biden believes that the United States must rebuild frayed relations with the world’s democracies — including EU member states and U.S. neighbors, Mexico and Canada — and then approach China through multilateral pressure. Biden believes that this is the best way to force the CCP to subscribe to internationally accepted trade and human rights standards. Biden also supported the Obama-era TPP trade pact and the admission of China into the WTO in 2001, showing a strong belief in the use of international institutions to engage with the growing economic powerhouse.

Trade

The backbone of American influence abroad in the post-Cold War era was the Washington Consensus and its focus on an open and liberal international trade and financial system. Rising inequality has led to skepticism toward international institutions on both sides of the aisle. But once again, though both candidates acknowledge these issues, their tactics differ on proposed courses of action. 

Trump: Donald Trump has been vocal about his ‘America First’ agenda since the first weeks of his candidacy in the 2016 election. In his opinion, the United States must combat an international system that is rigged against it and is to be blamed for a large trade deficit, reductions in U.S. manufacturing and the offshoring of American jobs. To combat this, Trump has focused his trade policy on removing the country from allegedly unfair trade deals and renegotiating bilateral agreements to the country’s advantage. President Trump has called the WTO a disaster and has crippled the organization by refusing to nominate judges to its appeals court. In the Asia-Pacific, the President pulled out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, renegotiated bilateral trade conditions with Japan and other member countries and launched a trade war with China that cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars. 

Across the Pacific Ocean, the president oversaw the rewriting of the North American Free Trade Agreement, and signed the updated U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which was passed by the U.S. Congress following amendments including strong labor and environmental considerations. Across the Atlantic, Trump has been taking shots at the EU’s trade relationship with the United States, which he calls “worse than China.” In 2019, he placed tariffs on $7.5 billion of EU goods in retaliation to the EU’s subsidization of aircraft manufacturer, Airbus. 

Biden: The former Vice President’s grievances against international trade stems from a lack of consideration for environmental and labor protections. Biden believes that the United States should take charge of the creation of “the rules of the road for the world” to make climate change and human rights centerpieces of the international order. Biden was a part of the negotiating team during the construction of the TPP, joining Obama in the belief that the best counter to China’s influence in the Pacific Rim would be to build a trade deal in the region focused around the United States. Additionally, he voted to pass NAFTA and approved of the revised USMCA, supporting the additional labor and environmental protections. He believes that “aggressive” retaliation is necessary for countries that break international trade rules and that the rules need to be more thoroughly enforced. Ultimately, Biden wants to use free trade as a tool to strengthen ties with African states, thereby opening up new markets to U.S. businesses.

—-

Though this is not a complete list of Trump and Biden’s stances on these critical global issues, it is important for the American populace to gain a basic understanding of how each candidate has impacted global affairs and how they are projected to impact international issues in the future. Additionally, an introductory awareness of how each candidate seeks to position the United States within the international system is of extreme importance, especially as the world continues to grapple with the ongoing economic, political and social impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.