The reform plan, which aimed to raise the retirement age from 62 to 64 years old, was proposed to ease the financial burden of France’s public pension system. It passed on March 16 with President Macron overriding Parliament after two failed votes of no confidence. However, the reform faced extreme backlash from unions and citizens, who took to the streets to oppose the bill and its reverberant consequences on France’s working population. Most recently, on March 7, over one million people participated in the demonstrations, which blockaded eight of France’s largest oil refineries. 

The protests have bridged political divides and presented questions of working conditions and social welfare. In this way, France’s predicament highlights a growing issue on the global sphere: rapidly aging populations. 

The World Economic Forum has recently estimated that the number of persons over 65 years old is expected to reach 1.6 billion by 2050. As such, providing care and support to seniors is projected as one of the next decades’ most pressing policies. With countries such as Japan holding the highest proportion of people over 60, at 28.7%, many countries’ demographics present a red flag to governments who will have to tackle what the International Monetary Fund has labeled the next long-term global crisis. 

So how does France’s predicament apply to pensions and understanding how the global community will tackle their impending demographic pyramids? 

The build-up to French reforms

The 20th century’s advancements in life expectancy, coupled with a decline in birth rates, has spurred an increasing number of older adults in comparison to younger populations. While people are generally living longer, healthier lives, the old-age dependency ratio, the proportion of young people working to support retirees, has steadily increased over the past 20 years. This means many countries have been left dealing with how to afford social security. Just in 2023, France was among the countries with the highest ratio, sitting at 55.8%, meaning there are less than two working-age people per aging individual. 

This has made the question of sustainability the core of the French government’s rhetoric toward its proposed pension reform. Premier Elisabeth Borne presented that there have not been enough worker contributions to sustain pension spending, leading to large government expenditures in order to bridge the gap. In 2020, France’s spending made up 13.7% of its annual GDP, making the system among the most costly in Europe. 

Yet, while France’s impending pressures are acknowledged, many labor unions claim the government has exaggerated estimations. According to a recent report by France’s Pension Guidance Council, although the pensions system will trend towards deficit in the coming years, it is currently in surplus. Therefore, citizens have proclaimed the government should find an alternative financing solution that will not have a detrimental impact on the older population.

Among the negative issues raised by protestors is that of the senior unemployment rate. France has one of the lowest employment rates among EU nations for individuals between 55-64 years, raising concerns over how the government will help support job opportunities for the elderly.

France’s system at a glance and the build up to reform

Currently, an individual in France needs at least 62 years of age to apply for a state pension. The country’s system operates along a continuum depending on when someone started working, their occupation and special circumstances accrued.

Citizens born after 1968 need approximately 41 years of working experience to obtain full pensions, which range at an estimated 1000-1200 euros. If the minimum contributions are not met, France provides old-age pensions to all citizens over 67 years old. 

The schemes, however, are centered around a mandatory pay-as-you-go structure, where the current workforce helps maintain and pay contributions to retirees. The recipient’s pension amounts are centered around a points system, where individuals accumulate points based on their career experiences and salaries to gain additional benefits. 

The most recent proposal stems from Macron’s movement to universalize the system and gradually remove the specialized pension schemes. All steps he believes will help stabilize the system and save the government over 12 billion euros. Macron claims raising the retirement age will increase the minimum pensions by an average of 800 euros and avoid worse measures such as increasing the contributions of current workers, raising payroll taxes or cutting funding from other government programs. 

Nevertheless, unionists have proposed an array of different solutions which they believe more justly treats the older populations, such as raising taxes on businesses and employers to fund retirement costs. Although Macron has stated that he wants the government to work out solutions to push corporations to share more profits with workers and ensure corporations are taxed on super-profits, in a recently translated interview with the news outlet France 24, the French president avoided further comment on this proposal. Macron held that raising the retirement age was the only solution to balance spending. 

Policy Issues

Raising the retirement age is not a new phenomenon. Since 2012, over 82% of the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) member countries have undergone increases. Just in 2011, Italy passed its retirement reform, which aimed to raise the retirement age to 67 years old.

Yet what France signals is a purview of policy issues that arise along with an aging population. Starting from social security and support, France opened Pandora’s box to possibilities regarding modernizing pension systems to support retirees. 

One of the most commonly implemented measures to change the pension system, particularly in Asian and Nordic countries, is the introduction of Automatic Adjustment Mechanisms (AAMs). AAMs are a series of fixed rules to evolve pension systems to changing criterias. Popular AAMs include Notional Defined Contribution Scheme (NDCs), which alter pension benefits to life expectancy through a series of formulas in a pay-as-you-go system, and balancing mechanisms which calculate the minimum rate to finance the system for the next 75 years. 

Automatic Adjustment Mechanisms were adopted by both Japan and Germany in 2004 to help maintain balance within their pension systems. Although they have been criticized in the past for depoliticizing the system, they are held to varying degrees in multiple European countries, excluding France, who does not have any. 

There have also been proposals regarding private sector pension plans, which entails more substantial, structural changes to the system. Currently, France’s only private pension scheme is known as PER, where individuals can invest into their own retirement funds over the course of their career. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, private pension schemes are much more popular and emphasized by the government. While some have proposed this change would help lessen pressures, the private-centered model would require drastic changes, making this type of reform unlikely.

Macron’s decision marks a hard line countries face in moving towards the sustainability of social security. However, if raising the retirement age is harshly against public opinion, countries will have to invest in researching alternative solutions, structural or formulaic, to ensure the shifts will not place more weight on retirees. 

In fact, there has been a push for countries to work towards reaching what has been coined the ‘silver economy,’ an economy geared more towards the elderly, through a series of policies to emphasize and grow the involvement of individuals over 60. This would include promoting more flexible working models to encourage a longer and more sustainable work period, as well as incentivising private investment in innovations, and making it easier for individuals to enter the labor force. Scholars believe that by increasing support and incentives for the older populations, countries can transition toward later retirement periods without large public disapproval, particularly among individuals with more labor intensive careers. 

Ultimately, it remains to be seen how France’s reforms will develop. The proposal may have been pushed through parliament but protests are nowhere near ceasing. What France evidences is that it is not simply enough to propose raising the retirement age. Rather, countries need to implement more long-term investments and proposals to solve social security financing. If not, reactive measures, no matter how justified, will only fuel backlash from the public. Especially in a country where over 70% of the public opposes reform. 

Looking closely at Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Lawrence v. Texas (2003) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the dissenting opinion in Dobbs certainly has the better case to argue the potential unraveling of privacy rights. 

The majority in Griswold ruled that there is a right to marital privacy in the use of contraceptives. Although the Constitution does not explicitly give the right to privacy, the Court found the right existed in the First, Third, Fourth and Ninth Amendments. Lawrence established the right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states “No state…shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (Privacy); nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws (Equality).” Obergefell found that the right to marry is protected by the Constitution under the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause. 

Each case is built upon the other to determine privacy rights. In Lawrence, the majority relied on Griswold about protecting the private decisions of consenting adults, and the overturning of Roe, which protected the private decision of an abortion, was just the first to go in the fall of the privacy rights dominoes.

The Supreme Court had to reach long and far when trying to justify its ruling in Dobbs, and in the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito stated that precedent would not factor into the decision because “Roe was egregiously wrong from the start.” Alito argued one must look to the Constitution to determine if something is protected by substantive due process, and abortion was not explicitly described as a liberty or a right, nor did the Constitution mention the word abortion at all. Additionally, one must take American history and tradition into account when making judicial decisions, and abortion. Noneone of the rights like use of contraceptives, same-sex marriage or same-sex sodomyare rooted in American history. 

Abortion is only built on other unenumerated privacy rights like Griswold and Lawrence. Because the right to have an abortion is built on previous decisions, it’s likely that Griswold and Lawrence are threatened. The Dissent in Dobbs argued that if you apply those same arguments to same-sex marriage, contraceptives, sodomy, etc., that will result in overturning those cases.

The opinion also explained that abortion destroys “potential life” and Alito argued that none of the other previous decisions involved the potentiality of life. He argues that “None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite. They do not support the right to obtain an abortion…” 

However, Griswold was about potential life because it was about the use of contraception. Contraception is inextricably tied to abortion because contraception prevents pregnancy. Plan B or other emergency medications are considered contraceptives but could be considered an abortion, which would be unconstitutional based on Dobbs, which means the Court could go after contraceptives to limit possible abortions. 

Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh argued in his concurring opinion that “The Court in Roe erroneously assigned itself the authority to decide a critically important moral and policy issue that the Constitution does not grant this Court the authority to decide…” He explains that the Supreme Court should not have the ability to decide over issues of morality, but if that were true, then privacy cases before Roe (ie. Griswold, and Lawrence) would not have established those rights. Same-sex sodomy, the use of contraceptives and gay marriage are unquestionably moral issues, and the Court ruled in favor of all three. It would not be surprising if the Supreme Court took a similar approach in other privacy rights cases using the morality argument. 

Additionally, Kavanaugh claims that women are still free to travel to other states to get an abortion, because of the “constitutional right to interstate travel.” However, this is inconsistent with the majority and concurring opinions because there is no right to interstate travel in the Constitution, just as there is no right to an abortion explicitly in the Constitution.

If the Supreme Court stays as conservative as the majority of it is, then we can see the possibility of the Court relying on Dobbs to overturn future privacy rights cases. This is even more likely when Justice Clarence Thomas explicitly said the Court should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” 

The dissenting opinion cites Chief Justice John Marshall, saying that the Constitution is a living document that must endure an ever-changing society that faces new challenges. Following the dissenting opinion’s logic, we must not simply look at how the framers originally intended the Constitution to be, but also confront new problems that either weren’t addressed during the framing or didn’t exist in 1788. The framers knew the U.S. would change so they didn’t write specific rights into the Constitution, intending for them to be created later. And the Court has done just that in its history, creating new rights and liberties. Roe was the same. 
The ruling in Dobbs is a walking violation of every person’s guarantees of liberty and equality for all and undermines all other privacy rights laws. A lawsuit filed in Amarillo, Texas against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is seeking to block the use of mifepristone and misoprostol, which are abortion medications and account for more than half of all abortions in the U.S. and has been legal since 2000 when it was first approved by the FDA. As the federal judge making the decision is conservative, abortion advocates are worried the lawsuit could further restrict women’s access to abortion nationwide.

However, this option might soon be inaccessible as well. According to Starbucks Chief Executive Howard Schultz, the Starbucks corporation is initiating the process of closing its doors (and restrooms) to non-customer visitors. Starbucks boasts 15,000 locations in the United States, and for a long time has had accessible restrooms. While this decision by Starbucks might appear insignificant, it will hurt many metropolitan cities dependent on using the Starbucks locations as their one and only accessible restroom. For people who are unable to afford a 5-dollar drink in order to gain access to the restroom, there are no other alternatives; for many homeless individuals today, it is a daily reality that they have to search the city for a public restroom until finally having to resort to public urination instead.

This ongoing scarcity of public restrooms in the city is the result of many corporations closing their bathrooms off from non-paying customers and the sustained lack of public restrooms in such densely populated areas. As many urban mayors and other political figures boast that their plans will help the homeless population, this has not materialized any new public areas to take care of business. This results in the homeless and those unable to afford to endorse private businesses having no option but to urinate on the street regularly, creating a slew of health and public safety issues. 

Even when action has been taken to eradicate America’s public urination issue, the support and maintenance of these programs have been weak and unresponsive. In 2018, Mayor Eric Garcetti tried to set up restrooms in homeless hotspots to help alleviate this problem. After setting up restroom stations in Skid Row for three months, they were quickly removed because the city did not have the infrastructure to continue supporting the process. So why do we as Americans let this public safety issue go unnoticed? And how can major metropolitan cities in the United States not support the local efforts of eradicating public urination?

Public urination creates unsanitary conditions for city dwellers and can create long-term effects of health issues and exposure to disease if left on the streets.  discussions around homelessness must be desensitized in order to create a recognizable difference. Furthermore, public urination is not only a crime but can classify someone as a sex offender. One of the easiest ways to give a sense of normalcy and security to the struggling homeless populations in major cities is allowing them the privacy of a bathroom. It is as easy as installing and maintaining operating porta-potties in areas with high foot traffic and little restroom access. With the proper funding and care to these programs, states could pass effective legislature that funds these projects and provides a temporary solution to a part of a major problem. Politicians and local activists need to prioritize the push for public restrooms as a way of helping homeless people work out of their situation and to protect the greater safety of the American people. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

These words, from Canadian philosopher and futurist Marshall McLuhan, emphasize both the necessity of a collectivist attitude and the necessity of coordinated action toward climate change. As the world rapidly approaches the disaster barrier that is 1.5 degrees celsius, it is imperative that the United States takes steps to reach critical climate targets such as net-zero global carbon emissions by 2050. 

Though these may seem like lofty goals, they are now considered essential by many climate experts, if we are to avoid major climate catastrophes that will cost millions of lives, destroy ecosystems and environments and affect trillions of dollars in global revenue. 

Given the extent to which oil and natural gas lobbyists are entrenched and hold influence in American politics, implementing large-scale renewable energy may be difficult to accomplish within the next 10 years. Alternatively, other avenues must be considered to reduce our carbon footprint. A course of action that has been seemingly overlooked is legislation to reduce methane emissions by decreasing the number of cows consumed — essentially, legislation to tackle the meat industry. If deemed politically feasible and in the interest of the administration, President Joe Biden currently faces several alternatives and options for reducing emissions from livestock in order to meet emissions targets.  

Agricultural emissions in the United States account for approximately 10% of all GHG emissions. The largest culprit within the agricultural industry is cattle which — through digestive methane production, transportation, packaging and distribution — directly contributes approximately 30% of all agricultural emissions. The most concerning of these emissions is methane (CH4) — which has a global warming potency 86 times higher than that of carbon dioxide (CO2). 

Cattle contributes to methane emissions primarily in 2 ways. The first is through a process known as enteric fermentation, which is a natural digestive process in which food is decomposed and fermented, creating a by-product of methane. The second primary contributor is cow manure, which often releases methane as it decomposes under anaerobic conditions in piles or open-pit lagoons. 

Combatting methane emissions is a nuanced issue, and agricultural organizations and scientists alike have been doing their best to tackle the challenge for the past 30 years. Many have sought to reduce emissions through intentional alterations of a cow’s rumen, the stomach chamber in which microbes ferment feed hence producing methane. Others have focused on selective breeding for cows with less methane-producing microbes, as well as experimenting with different feeds that promote better digestion. Nevertheless, emissions from agriculture have actually increased despite efforts in many developed countries to actively reduce methane production in cows.

There are several critical reasons why, even with an average reduction of methane emissions per cow, global methane emissions from cattle have still increased by 10% within the last 30 years. First is the phenomenon known as “meatification” in regions like Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Demand for meat has skyrocketed as purchasing power has increased within these regions, and, as a result, global meat production has nearly doubled since 1990. 

Second, measures adopted have been inefficient at reducing overall methane and GHG emissions. While they have made some difference in reducing emissions per cow, raising cows is still a massively inefficient process. In order to raise a cow for slaughter, you must raise it for two to three years as well as provide it with an exceptional amount of land, water, and food. Moreover, cows produce about up to 21 tons of manure per year, and ineffective manure management can lead to greater methane emissions. On top of that, many of these measures have been adopted inconsistently throughout the globe, given that wealthier nations are more equipped to fund the research and supplies needed to successfully implement these measures. 

Yet, research still continues in these areas despite the limited effectiveness of the measures being developed. Why? The larger answer lies in the fact that improvements and advancements in these areas allow the animal agriculture industry to expand. 

But these scientific advancements cannot fix an industry that is inherently destructive – not only to the planet, but to the health of citizens as well. If the United States is serious about combating the negative externalities created by animal agriculture — including methane emissions from cattle — a new agricultural landscape must be constructed rather than focusing improvements to the current one.

There are several paths the Biden administration can pursue if it wishes to significantly reduce the cattle industry’s methane emissions. The first alternative is cut from the old cloth, but worth exploring nonetheless. It involves feeding cows a specific type of seaweed. A 2018 study from the University of California, Davis suggests that feeding cows seaweed could reduce methane emissions from beef cattle by as much as 82%. Unfortunately, implementing this on a massive scale is near impossible because there is simply not enough of that type of seaweed to sustain a cow’s diet, and there are several logistical challenges with providing seaweed supplements to cows grazing on an open range. 

A second policy Biden mught consider is focusing on supporting the growth of businesses that produce plant-based protein substitutes. Plant-based meat alternatives have historically been frowned  upon, but their popularity has absolutely exploded in the past few years with the success of companies like Beyond Meat. Two out of five Americans have tried plant-based meat, with that figure stretching to over 50% for those 25 and younger. Moreover, plant-based substitutes are expected to achieve a whopping 85 billion dollars in sales in 2030, an 1,847% increase from 2018. This growth has only accelerated throughout the pandemic, as the unsafe COVID-19 conditions endured by many meat processing workers have increased calls for more meat-free alternatives.

Another promising innovation the Biden administration could support is lab-grown meat. Currently, lab-grown meat is still in its infancy in the United States, with plans to serve cultured meat still several years away. However, in the United Kingdom the process is a little further along. There are currently 15 startups focusing on lab-grown meat and they have plans to expand to mass production in the coming years. CE Delft expects that by 2030, lab-grown beef could be just as inexpensive as agricultural beef. Even better news, if lab-grown factories were funded by renewable energy it would reduce total beef emissions by 93%. Lab-grown beef may be the best potential alternative because not only does it allow us to reduce our methane emissions and assuage ethical concerns about animal farming, but it also allows consumers to keep the taste and nutrients of meat readily available in their diet.  

But one notable hurdle the United States faces with both plant-based proteins and lab-grown beef is the political strength of the U.S. agribusiness industry. According to research from New York University, major meat and dairy producers have spent millions on lobbying efforts and campaigns aimed at discrediting links between climate change and animal agriculture. Over the last two decades, ‘Big Ag’ has spent $750 million on supporting national political candidates who hold similar policy stances, with Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Joni Ernst among their top recipients. 

Unsurprisingly, these major conglomerates have been able to get away with highly carbon-intensive methods of agriculture, as well as produce food at a very cheap rate due to large agricultural subsidies. The Barack Obama administration tried to check the advances of Big Ag, promising millions of rural farmers that they would fight back against the most powerful players in the industry, only to stop when the major agricultural conglomerates banded together with their congressional allies. 

Nevertheless, the emergence of climate change as a central political issue will facilitate Biden’s ability to check the power of Big Ag. As more and more American citizens express their concern about climate change, Congress will have to listen to its constituents or risk losing popular support. Additionally, with Democratic control over the House, and the Senate nearly equally split, climate policies will face less hurdles than they did under former President Donald Trump. Biden should take advantage of these circumstances to steadfastly push climate action.

And as such, I believe the Biden administration should consider adopting the following measures to mitigate the effect of the meat industry on climate change.

1. Increase investment in seaweed farming products;
2. Increase subsidies to plant-based protein companies in order to promote industry growth and reduce prices; 
3. Decrease or eliminate subsidies to animal agriculture, which keep the price of beef and other animal products artificially low; 
4. Have the EPA classify methane as a criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA);
5. Fund research, infrastructure, and production capacities for lab-grown beef;

The climate crisis grows more grim every day. If substantial action is not taken by the Biden administration to fundamentally reduce American beef consumption and minimize animal agriculture in general, the United States will struggle to reach its emission targets, thereby hampering the global climate fight and bringing the world closer to environmental catastrophe. 

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

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

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

Navigating Trade and the Global Economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Growing Challenge of Cyber Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emerging Technology and Media Concerns

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

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

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

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

Looking Forward

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

NEW YORK — The Biden administration has expressed an interest in reinvigorating U.S.-Canada relations following a virtual meeting between President Joe Biden and Prime Minister Trudeau early February. The meeting, which was the first between the then newly-inaugurated president and a foreign head of state, focused on each country’s response to COVID-19, economic cooperation during the pandemic and moving forward, as well as other shared interests among the two close allies. As the White House begins forming its foreign policy objectives and global leadership, it is essential to consider the current state of U.S.-Canada relations and where the two countries may be headed moving forward.

“Generally in world politics, there are no permanent friends, but permanent interests. But, there is supposed to be a special exception for some countries,” said Brian Bow, director at the Center for the Study of Security and Development at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia, in an exclusive interview with Glimpse from the Globe. “It is not unique to the U.S.-Canada relationship, but Canada has a special relationship with the U.S. and Canadians were happy with that in the first half of the Cold War.”

When former President Richard Nixon reformed the United States’ economic policy in 1971, which is often referred to as the “Nixon Shock,” along with leaving the Gold Standard, Nixon began putting tariffs on products leaving the United States.

“Most countries reacted with hostility, but no one was more surprised than the Canadians,” Bow said. “They assumed it was a mistake that they weren’t on the list of countries that wouldn’t need to pay these surcharges.”

Following the change invoked by Nixon in U.S. international economic foreign policy, Canada had to do some “soul-searching,” as Bow said. Canada began realizing that they needed to have other partners rather than just entirely relying on the United States. Canada tried to diversify its economic partners, but ultimately failed, as penetrating new markets, especially in Asia, can be pricey and full of uncertainty. As a result, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement was signed in 1989, signaling that economic relations would return to normal. This agreement; which eliminated all tariffs on trade, was a precursor to NAFTA, which was then enacted in 1994. 

“Even since then, there have been these recurring periods where Canada hasn’t liked the direction the U.S. has been going in,” Bow said. “The controversy with the Bush administration over the war in Iraq in 2003 was a big one, and the election of the Trump administration in 2016 was another one.”

Bow believes that the current administration in Ottawa is better aligned with President Biden than it was with Trump. That said, he believes there is a possibility of Trump-like rhetoric making its way into Canadian politics in the future. 

“When I was a teenager in Canada, stylish clothing would make its way about five years after it appeared in America,” Bow said. “The same thing can happen with policies and parties in Canada trying on Trump-style rhetoric.” 

The possibility of conservative politicians in Canada imitating the populist and often provocative language of Trump will certainly impact relations between the two neighbors. While this style of rhetoric is not prominent in Canada yet, Canadians, including Bow, are worried this could occur in the future. The next federal election in Canada could see a tight race between liberals and conservatives. Current polls show Prime Minister Trudeau with a narrow five-point lead, but Biden’s win may have an effect on Canadian elections. Many politically engaged Canadians are happy that the Biden administration will be holding office for the next four years; a recent poll showed that four in five Canadians hoped for a Biden win. 

Canadians are excited and hopeful about the Biden administration’s position on various issues, namely climate change. Undoubtedly, the Biden administration is taking the threat of climate change more seriously than the previous administration. Already, Biden has appointed former U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as the U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, a new position within the cabinet. Additionally, the U.S., as of February 19, has rejoined the Paris Agreement with the international goal of keeping global warming below two degrees celsius, needed to avoid the most catastrophic impacts of climate change. Canada is also a signatory of this agreement and has fiercely advocated for its importance. Most recently, on February 25th, Biden and Treadau announced that they would be coming together to reach their goal of net zero emissions by 2050 with their “U.S.-Canada Partnership Roadmap.” 

The Partnership works to align the goals and climate policies of each country so that they can cooperate more efficiently. In addition to aligning policies, the plan hopes to create more policies and projects that will promote job growth, address inequality and combat the effects of climate change. Advocating for the creation of clean-energy infrastructure and ensuring that cross-border energy is renewable is at the core of this partnership. Biden and Trudeau also committed to having polluters take responsibility for their damages.

In addition to the announcement of the plan, Trudeau said that “U.S. leadership has been sorely missed over the past years… [it is]nice when the Americans are not pulling out all references to climate change and instead adding them.” 

While both countries must implement long-term goals for climate change to protect our planet, the issue of COVID-19 has taken precedent this past year as over 500,000 people have died of COVID-19 in the U.S. alone as of February 2021. 

During the initial meeting between Biden and Trudeau, COVID-19 was the primary focus. Both leaders agreed that cooperation in combating the virus was essential. Canada has struggled to vaccinate its population due to supplies being bought up by larger economies like the United States and United Kingdom. As part of his statement, Trudeau raised the idea of buying vaccines produced in the United States. Canada is currently receiving vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna plants in Europe and Biden’s team reportedly said that it was the administration’s priority to “ensure every American is vaccinated.” 

It is unlikely, however, that the United States would sell vaccines produced domestically to Canada until late summer at the earliest. As of February 20th, 2021, only 2.43% of Canadians had received at least one dose of the vaccine compared to about 14% of the U.S. population. 

Despite the challenges associated with vaccine distribution, the United States and Canada have committed to keeping trade as open as possible. The Prime Minister’s office emphasized “the importance of avoiding measures that may constrain the critical trade and supply-chain security between our countries” in a public statement. Economically, it is in the best interest of both nations to keep borders open and encourage trade to avoid unemployment and increase GDP.   

Although Canadian and U.S. interests are more aligned than in previous years, on his first day in office, Biden signed an executive order to end the expansion of the Keystone XL pipeline, a project supported by the Government of Alberta, a provincial government of Canada. The Keystone XL pipeline, which began planning and construction in 2008, travels from Canada through Texas. The pipeline, which began operating in 2010, was scheduled for an expansion to be able to carry even more oil. Despite the pipeline providing economic benefits to both countries, Biden canceled the project in order to protect the environment and indigenous communities. A January statement from the White House said that “the President acknowledged Prime Minister Trudeau’s disappointment regarding the decision to rescind the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline.” 

Bow said that the pipeline will hurt domestic relations between the local governments and the federal government in Canada, rather than hurting diplomatic relations between Ottawa and Washington. Given that Trudeau is substantially worried about political support in his country, this may be why he showed disdain for the cancellation of the project. 

“The prairie provinces who are the major oil exporters in Canada are the ones who really desperately wanted Keystone to go through, and people in other parts of Canada don’t really care that much about it,” Bow said. “There are real differences between Canadians on those issues.” 

While the Trudeau administration did not express as much distress about the cancellation of the project, in a statement released by the Government of Alberta, Premier Jason Kenney expressed his disturbance with Biden’s actions to cancel the Presidential permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. He highlighted the 2,000 jobs that would be lost due to the cancellation of the project. The statement also said, “That’s not how you treat a friend and ally.”

Even though some of the provincial governments may not support President Biden, there is no reason to believe that the Trudeau administration, which will be in office for at least the majority of Biden’s stay in the White House, will become hostile with the U.S. over this issue, especially as, since the cancellation of the project, Trudeau and Biden have already begun working on several projects together. 

The future of U.S.-Canada relations looks hopeful as the two countries are already working together to tackle global issues such as climate change and COVID-19. However, the  relationship between the two countries can change depending on the issues at hand and the administration holding office. 

With the popularity of Trumpism in the United States and growing support of populism in Canada, both countries could experience major political shifts once the two leaders are up for re-election. However, until then, the neighbors will most likely continue to work cooperatively together and advance the two countries’ unique historical, cultural and geographical relationship.