With housing prices continuing to climb, fewer people can and will have access to affordable housing. This spurs a snowball effect—forcing individuals to be evicted or unable to become homeowners in the first place. The latest update at the end of 2022 has shown that more than 1.8 billion people do not have a permanent home. The United States is short of 6.5 million homes that are necessary to solve its homelessness crisis. In comparison, the United Kingdom needs 4.3 million homes to recoup the backlog of people living in public housing facilities.

There are multiple variables that affect the fluctuation of prices of the housing markets in the United Kingdom, United States and Europe. However, the most critical factor is the demand for homes on the market today. With there being a surplus of buyers and shortage of houses, this triggers house prices to become and remain high. However, this fact is much more complex than it appears. It is a toxic combination of high mortgages, high interest rates, shortage of skillful construction workers, and in some cases, poor investment decisions. High housing prices have been evident since the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and now future homeowners are facing a taxing increase in the popular 30-year fixed or amortized mortgage rate, which sits at 8% – the highest in decades.

Sheila Bair, who served as a federal regulator in the mid-2000’s during the 2008 housing crisis, claims that current housing prices seem to be “bubbly,”as the rise in prices reaches unsustainable levels. A housing bubble occurs when prices of homes reach unsustainable (high) levels,  often caused due to speculative buying. This buying frenzy, or irrational buying habit of homeowners, leads to a surge in prices that increases the chance of owners defaulting on their mortgages. Which is when homeowners are unable to pay their monthly house payments. When the bubble has “popped,”  housing prices drop to a point where many people owe more to their home than what it is actually worth. Bair is confident that although housing prices need to be corrected downward, it will not happen anytime soon. The shortage of homes will likely keep housing prices at their current price or potentially higher for the next 10 years.

In China, however, compared to the United States and Europe, it is somewhat of the opposite. Its largest property developer, Country Garden, is undergoing difficult times as they have difficulty selling their housing to investors and homebuyers. Years of overbuilding in China’s rural cities such as Shaoguan, have caused an oversupply of homes that Country Garden is unable to sell. Involved in 3000 property projects, the company faces approximately $186 billion USD in liabilities, most of which are due in one to two years. As news unfolded that the company was having trouble repaying its debt, people started to lose confidence in viewing houses as a safe investment. Chinese authorities are now attempting to boost housing sales by making it easier for people to buy homes, including first-time homeowners, and lowering down payment ratios. This may be a concern to real estate professionals as it shows a repeat of what first triggered the 2008 financial crisis in the United States. With growing fears about China’s troubled real estate market, this is a significant concern as foreign investments from East Asia, Southeast Asia and the United States may face the repercussions and losses if China’s real estate market continues to go downhill. While we might see a slowdown in the housing market, analysts and professionals suggest no housing crash in the next 10 years. Instead, a potential rise in prices is what we are expecting to see. As economic uncertainty and troubled assets are a concern for the health of the global economy, the solution to this housing crisis is ambiguous. Whether we should soften interest rates and down payments for homes in China or rely on Gen Z workers to develop construction skills in the United States and the United Kingdom, the future remains unpredictable.

The post Global Housing Crisis: A Closer Look at the US, China and UK appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While this apartheid regime has existed for the past 75 years, and these atrocities for even longer, it has failed to gain adequate coverage by the mainstream media. The main reason for this is that of Israel’s creation, where a UN resolution gave Israel its own state, disregarding and displacing the Palestinian people who resided on the land. Israel is much richer than Palestine, and, however disheartening it may be, standing by Israel is more advantageous for governments across the world for many reasons, including the power of Israel’s financial allyship. Because of this, it is far more uncommon to see a major publication or news outlet throw its support behind the Palestinian people, who have been subject to ethnic cleansing for the past 75 years.

Now, as the world begins to understand the gravity of the genocide that is occuring in Palestine, governments are also beginning to crack down on any criticism of the state of Israel. 

While governments have expressed unwavering support for the Israeli government, despite the war crimes that are being committed daily, it becomes clearer every day that these countries’ populations do not agree. From Yemen to the United Kingdom and the United States, pro-Palestine protests have garnered millions to support their cause. However, as people begin to express their discontent with government support for Israel, these governments are limiting the right to protest and free speech. 

For example, in Germany, a country which outlines that, “every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech writing and pictures … There shall be no censorship,” the government is directly opposing what is stated in the country’s legal code. Currently, Germany is banning a number of pro-Palestinian demonstrations, with police attacking citizens for simply wearing a keffiyeh, a traditional Palestinian scarf. These are not only horrifying attacks on free speech, but in direct opposition of what the German government claims to stand for. Germany has justified its actions as combating antisemitism, but it is abhorrent and dishonest to Jews and Palestinians alike to claim that standing up against Israel’s apartheid regime is an antisemetic act.

Germany is not the only country where this is happening, though. Austria, Hungary and Switzerland have all attempted to enact similar bans, while France continues to ban these protests on a case-by-case basis. 

Unsurprisingly, protest is also being heavily suppressed within Israel. In a country that is often lauded as the only democracy in the Middle East, its government is restricting the right to express any disagreement with its current actions. Not only is Israel arresting dozens of its Arab citizens for suspicions of terrorist sympathy, but is also treating social media posts with the Palestinian flag as hate speech. 

Seeing this, a clear act of anti-Arab sentiment and proof that Israel does not see Palestinians as equals, makes me wonder if Israel really has “the most moral army in the world” as it claims. If a global power who arrests citizens for sympathizing with innocent civilians is considered moral, the state of the world is worrisome.

The United States, a country that constantly boasts about its First Amendment rights and the right to free speech, is certainly not exempt from this hypocrisy. Some of the most elite universities in the country, which often pride themselves on being free-thinking and allowing of political speech, are among the harshest opposition to pro-Palestinian speech. 

Columbia University has suspended both JVP (Jewish Voice for Peace) and SJP (Students for Justice in Palestine) over claims that both groups are supporting hate speech. The idea that JVP, a Jewish activist organization with over 700,000 members, is antisemetic is not only laughable, but an insult to every Jewish person who stands against Israel’s crimes. Brown University is yet another example of this, arresting 20 Jewish students for asking that Brown consider a divestment resolution.

It is important to note that free speech within the United States is limited to the prohibition of government retaliation, meaning that groups not associated with the government are free to respond to speech as they wish. This is a bit of a difficult area to navigate, but it is crucial to remember that free speech does not signify speech without consequence. Speech that one simply disagrees with should not be a punishable offense, but speech that is hateful in nature and threatens violence must be addressed. Free speech does have consequences and it has limits, yet the Israeli occupation of Palestine continues to prove that governments will only acknowledge the right to free speech when it suits them. 

A prime example of this within the United States is the censorship of Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Tlaib was censured for defending the use of the slogan “from the river to the sea,” which is not violent, despite what Zionists may claim. What this statement means is that Palestine will be a free state for all to exist in, regardless of religion — it is not calling for Jewish genocide as many Zionists choose to believe. While Tlaib, the only Palestinian-American member of Congress, faces a completely unjust censure for this statement, government officials who have called for violence against Palestine have not faced similar repercussions. 

Representative Max Miller has gone so far as to say “I don’t even want to call it the Palestinian flag because they’re not a state, they’re a territory, that’s about to probably get eviscerated and go away here shortly, as we’re going to turn that into a parking lot.” 

This statement is unquestionably violent and does not begin to acknowledge the fact that Palestine is made up of innocent civilians, with half of Gazans being children. Yet, he has not faced any repercussions while Tlaib is censured for speaking on behalf of a country that endures genocide. The double standard here is astounding, and I am ashamed to be represented by those who silence voices advocating for equality while simultaneously failing to condemn others who wish violence upon innocent civilians.

The other side of the coin here is the individuals who are not receiving any repercussions for their actions. While free speech is a cornerstone of democracy and something that must not be taken away, it is important to consider that the right to free speech includes the ability to retaliate. 

While people are free to express themselves in a manner that you choose, they are equally able to respond, whether in agreement or not. And, as explained by UN Secretary-General António Guterres, “addressing hate speech does not mean limiting or prohibiting freedom of speech. It means keeping hate speech from escalating into something more dangerous, particularly incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence, which is prohibited under international law.”

Everyone should unequivocally condemn the vitriol that is being spewed, that which is antisemetic as well as that wishing violence on Palestinians. The University of Southern California has its own issues with this, specifically regarding Professor John Strauss, who was taped on video saying, “I hope they all are killed,” as he walked passed an event held to mourn the thousands of Palestinian lives lost to Israel’s genocide. Not only is his speech not protected from consequence by the First Amendment, but it is in direct contrast with USC policy against hate speech. 

I must add that I do not have faith that USC will uphold what it claims to stand for and unequivocally condemn this violent speech, but I hope that I am wrong. 

Globally, we have been subject to a media campaign to support Israel and suppress any opposition to the Israeli government, labeling the fight for Palestinian liberation as antisemitic. However, it is clear that people across the world do not stand with our respective governments, and it is crucial that we continue to oppose Israel’s violent settler-colonial apartheid regime by using our right to free speech, regardless of the attempt to take it away from us.

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

The post The Meaning of Free Speech During Genocide appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Baseball has always been something that has united our family, provided a sense of togetherness in my community and has helped my father cope with his nostalgia for his childhood. My dad still talks about listening to the radio during the 1972 World Series between the Cincinnati Reds and the Oakland Athletics. He fondly remembers wearing his Reds cap as he cheered for the Big Red Machine in his 1966 Chevy Biscayne on his way to the Carvel ice cream parlor down the road. 

To us, baseball isn’t just a game, but rather a way to express our nostalgia for our past. Baseball allows us to indulge in our desire for a more simplistic life in a constantly changing world.

The sport isn’t just significant to me. It’s a large facet of American history and has played a role in crafting American national identity. Baseball started to gain its popularity during the 1800s as the United States was undergoing its own industrial revolution. 

As urbanization rapidly increased, the nostalgia for rural America grew. Subsequently, baseball parks began to pop up across American cities, including places like Cleveland, Ohio, and St. Louis, Missouri. These parks served as a platform for Americans to express their roots and rural beginnings.

Many Americans view baseball as an expression of their rural origins due to the meticulous design of the game. During industrialization, baseball parks became the only green areas in cities. In the book Take Time for Paradise former Major League Baseball commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti describes the baseball field as a “green expanse, complete and coherent, shimmering and carefully tended.”

The grass of the field represents the vast farmlands of America, which harkens back to Americans’ rural beginnings. Baseball parks are called “parks” because of their grass. In Downtown St. Louis today, the baseball park is still the greenest area in the whole city.

Home plate is the most iconic symbol in baseball and is the centerpiece of the game. In baseball, the goal of the player is to always come home and reunite with the team – the player’s family. 

Home is an English word that is almost impossible to translate into other languages. Home is a concept rather than a place. Home provides a sense of inclusiveness, care, comfortability and family. When a player hits a home run, he makes his way slowly around the field and his teammates run to home plate to wait for his exciting arrival at home as the crowd roars cheerfully. In a world where the focus on capitalism and efficiency distracts from the need for home and family, baseball is a reminder of the importance of human connection.

Even the setup of the players in baseball represents the family unit. At home plate, the catcher and the batter are similar to siblings, while the umpire acts as a parental figure.

“This tense family clusters at home, facing the world together, each with separate responsibilities and tasks and perspectives, each with different obligations and instruments,” Giamatti writes. 

The family units work together as complements to each other’s skills. Their goal is collective, representing community: to reach home and score runs. This idea is parallel to life on the farm. In rural America, it was critical that each family member had a different skill set in order for the farm to operate properly. 

Baseball is timeless. In other sports, the game is almost always timed with a clock; however, baseball has no clock. When baseball first originated, before stadium lights were created, the sport could only be played between the rising and the setting of the sun. If the game did not end, it would continue the next day. 

On the farm, a farmer could also only work during the day, and if the work was not completed in a single day, the farmer would pick up the work again the next day. Working on the farm was also not timed, but rather focused on the individual work of each farmer. Baseball is modeled off of agrarian life. 

While other sports may have higher viewership today, such as football or basketball, baseball is still widely considered America’s national pastime. Today, baseball is majorly centered in big cities and still provides an escape from the city as it continues to allow Americans to be reminded of their agrarian roots. 

Team mascots for minor league baseball connect to our agrarian past too. Examples of this are Shelly from the Modesto Nuts in California, Celery from the Buffalo Bisons, and Mr. Shucks from the Cedar Rapids Kernels. 

Furthermore, baseball continues to be consistently dedicated to the origins and authenticity of the game even though big business has become a large part of baseball. Despite the large business involved in baseball, parks still have real green grass. Baseball has always been consistent since the late 1800s. If a player from the 1800s was placed in a baseball game today, the player could probably keep up because the skill set required to play the game transcends time.

While the design of the game and its connection to the heart of America may often be overlooked, the relationship between sports and the American dream is not. The ability for players to be rewarded for their skills and to become incredibly wealthy by means of  their passion is a dream that can happen in America. 

Baseball is America’s sport through and through. Grab a beer, a bag of Cracker Jacks and enjoy the game. 

The post Preserving America’s Legacy: The National Pastime and its Agrarian Roots appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

That all changed at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics. For the first time, the United States was granted the ability to send the best of the best: a super team consisting of Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Karl Malone, Charles Barkley and Patrick Ewing. The Men’s team proceeded to steamroll every country in its wake, winning by a margin of 30 points or more every game. 

The United States dominance in basketball at the Olympics has continued, winning six out of the last seven Olympic gold medals. However, the competition has risen substantially.

Team USA struggled in the buildup to the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. They lost an exhibition match to Nigeria 90-87 and Australia 91-83. In the first game of the 2020 Olympics, Team USA ended their 25-game Olympic win streak to France, losing 83-76. While the U.S. proceeded to win out and take home the gold in Tokyo, this grit-and-grind tournament signified that the United States is not the only country with elite basketball talent. 

This talent has been showcased in the National Basketball Association (NBA). Three out of the five players selected for the 2022 All-NBA first team were foreigners: Nikola Jokić of Serbia (who also took home his second consecutive NBA MVP award) and Giannis Antetokounmpo of Greece and Luka Dončić of Slovenia. Other international all-team awardees included Cameroonians Joel Embiid (2nd team) and Pascal Siakam (3rd team). 

The rise of international superstars in the NBA has translated into global popularity of basketball as a source of entertainment. But how much of this is attributed to the globalization of basketball and the increased presence of the sport in international markets? And does basketball possess an influence that extends beyond the sport itself?

Basketball Globally

While soccer remains king of the sports world globally, basketball has seen a steady rise in popularity over the years. 

Countries such as the Philippines have a huge NBA fan base, with around 63% of the population saying they are fans of the game. Other major foreign basketball hubs include China (38%), Canada (30%), Argentina (28%) and Spain (27%). 

Similarly, in countries like Brazil, Australia and the Philippines, NBA league pass, a subscription based service that allows consumers to watch all NBA games live, has risen in demand. As basketball in the U.S. becomes more accessible to foreign consumers, basketball’s popularity increases as a source of sports entertainment. 

Basketball coverage, however, has expanded beyond the geographical boundaries of the United States. 

Most recently, the 2022 EuroBasket tournament in Berlin concluded on Sept. 18 with Spain defeating France 88-76. This tournament brought together 24 European countries, countless NBA stars and a strong media presence. 

A more global affair, the FIBA world cup is set to take place in August 2023. This multi-stage tourney will feature some quality competition for the United States, with countries such as Spain, Australia, Canada and Serbia all vying for the trophy. 

As the rise of international basketball superstars continues, the FIBA tournament has become less dominated by Team USA and more intriguing to a global audience. In fact, Spain was crowned 2019 FIBA champions after the U.S. was stunned in the quarterfinals by France. 

Basketball as a Business

In addition to improved accessibility of the sport in other countries, the NBA has continued to market basketball effectively abroad. This strategy has pushed basketball into the upper echelon of international sports. 

The NBA continues to expand its NBA Global Games series, where NBA teams travel beyond the U.S. and Canada for a slate of preseason and regular season games. This year, the Atlanta Hawks and the Milwaukee Bucks will square off in the United Arab Emirates for a preseason game, followed by a regular season game in Paris, France between the Detroit Pistons and the Chicago Bulls. The NBA sees these games as a marketing opportunity to expand their brand and to promote basketball to areas outside of North America. 

The NBA has also invested heavily in regions it believes to have long-term financial success in. The clearest example of this is in China. 

Back in 2008, the NBA announced plans for a multibillion dollar project with China to design and operate basketball arenas in major cities in an effort to promote basketball and integrate the two markets. Today, the NBA has a $5 billion business in China and NBA owners are projected to have over $10 billion in investments in the country. 

The NBA, in tandem with FIBA, have also invested heavily in Africa with the creation of the Basketball Africa League and over $1 billion in investment. The hope is to give young talent in Africa the opportunity to make it big in the NBA and make a dent in the otherwise dominant soccer economy in Africa. 

The New Ping-Pong Diplomacy?

When news of Kobe Bryant’s passing came to light, millions of Americans were in mourning. This sadness however, was equally felt in a country he had touched for decades, through both his dynamic play style and his frequent visits: China. 

Bryant was lauded by the Chinese population as a symbol of success, along with his patented “mamba-mentality,” with the People’s Daily publication noting after his death: “His fearless spirit of fighting, both on the court and in real life, is worth remembering.”

Bryant was very involved in China and essentially served as a de facto ambassador. He established the Kobe Bryant China fund which gave supplies to poor children, along with various basketball camps he held throughout the off season: an example of athlete diplomacy.

This type of athlete diplomacy goes both ways, with foreign players also making an impact as well. Yao Ming, the 7-foot-6 Hall of Famer from China, was widely regarded as the bridge that connected American and Chinese cultures through basketball during an extremely strenuous period of US-China relations. Plus, emerging stars from lesser-known countries such as Luka Dončić of Slovenia, Joel Embiid of Cameroon or Domantis Sabonis of Lithuania all bring their unique cultural upbringing and social media presence that connects American sports fans with people from all over the world. 

However, this globalization is not without its critics or controversy, with many seeing the expansion of the NBA as a simultaneous politicization of the sport. 

The most prominent example occurred back in Fall 2019, when Houston Rockets General Manager Daryl Morey induced a geopolitical salvo with a tweet supporting the Hong Kong independence movement. With China being the NBA’s largest international market, this was met with intense backlash from the Chinese community and government. 

China’s CCTV suspended the broadcast of all NBA games as a result of the tweet. Many NBA executives also distanced themselves from Morey and his stance on the issue. 

This apparent backtrack by both the NBA, and later Morey, were chastised by American political figures as “giving in” to Chinese censorship. Ted Cruz and Beto O’Rourke both criticized the NBA for prioritizing “profits over human rights.” 

It seems that as basketball continues to spread globally, many of the political and soft power issues that arise with many subject matters will follow the sport as well. In addition, basketball, more than anything, is still a business that requires intense financial endeavors. While the political and economic ramifications of the globalization of basketball are still unclear, what is obvious is that basketball’s rise has created a unique community of millions of people around the world. It will continue to be an entertainment hub for years to come. 

The post Basketball, A Global Entertainment Powerhouse appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

At Robb Elementary school in Uvalde, Texas, a town of approximately 15,000 people, an 18-year-old opened fire, killing 19 students and three adults, with this number still being updated. The 18-year-old shooter is dead. This shooting is the deadliest since Sandy Hook in 2012 when 20 elementary school children and six faculty members were killed. 

Thus far this year, there have been 288 mass shootings in the US and 28 school shootings. In comparison, there were eight school shootings in Mexico that have occurred this year; yet, Texas politicians are more concerned about building a wall to keep “dangerous” migrants out, instead of actually protecting our children on the ground from domestic terrorism. In Canada, 900 people died of gun violence last year. Whereas, in the US a staggering 30,000 were killed. On any day in the US, approximately 100 people die from a gun. 

The horror of each life taken should be enough for the US to take action on creating increased gun control legislation. But as we have all seen, nothing changes. There are 393 million guns in America. There are more guns in the US than Americans. Several changes can be made to curb this issue and enact real change. A study at Harvard University and Northeastern University found that 22% of gun sales happen without a background check. Increased background checks, such as passing the Fix NICS Act, which was introduced in 2017, provide funding for states to improve their background check system so that records are updated. Overlooks from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, in 2017, allowed a shooter to kill 26 people at a church in Sutherland Spring, Texas, as he was able to buy a gun despite a domestic violence conviction in the Air Force. This conviction should have come up if the system was updated correctly and that mass shooting, hopefully, avoided. 

The passage of the Manchin-Toomey Act, which was introduced in 2013 following Sandy Hook, would require background checks for sales made online or at gun shows. Sales made on these platforms do not require background checks for sales between friends and family. While the Fix NICS Act is more feasible to pass in the short term, to genuinely stop mass shootings, the Manchin-Toomey Act must be passed.

Banning assault weapons also is a significant measure that must be taken to prevent mass shootings. Following an uptick in mass shootings in 1994, President Bill Clinton signed the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, which expired in 2014. Both in Sandy Hook and Parkland, an AR-15 or similar model has been used. These weapons can kill victims more quickly and produce deadlier wounds. Banning bump stocks, which are an attachment to semi-automatic weapons that can improve the rate of fire for the gun, must happen. After the 2018 Las Vegas shooting, the deadliest shooting in US history, members of both parties expressed interest in banning bump stocks as the killer used them against his victims. Despite considerable bipartisan support for this ban, action has not been taken. The creation of more “Red Flag” laws, which allows the court to take away someone’s ability to buy a gun if a family, household member, or police deem them as an extreme threat, also must become more common in the US. Although there was also some bipartisan support for this type of legislation, the NRA strongly opposes this stance as it would “deprive someone of their Second Amendment rights without due process of the law”. 

The NRA and Republican lawmakers often refuse to sign and actively fight against these legislation proposals using Second Amendment rights and mental health as their primary rebuttals. The NRA has consistently lobbied the US lawmakers to protect guns, with Mitt Romney receiving over 13,000,000 in donations from the NRA over his career. Republican lawmakers accept this money and respond to these tragedies by stating that mental health is the real issue at play. According to The Social Science Quarterly in 2017, gun owners are more likely to blame factors such as parenting and popular culture for the problem than non-gun owners. 

Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut stated, “Spare me the bullshit about mental illness. We don’t have any more mental illness than any other country in the world. You cannot explain this through a prism of mental illness, because we don’t – we’re not an outlier on mental illness. We’re an outlier when it comes to access to firearms….” Joe Biden added to these sentiments saying, “Where the God is our backbone?” I couldn’t say it better myself.

For a country not at war, it is unacceptable that children fear going to school, the movies or the park due to gun violence. And that is the reality we have just accepted — this reality is completely unacceptable. If a human’s worst nightmare is getting a call that your child has died, why are we not doing everything in our power to stop gun violence, especially when this issue affects everyone and the majority of Americans want increased gun control? 

Our lack of action is the same logic as to why we did not act to stop the spread of COVID-19 in 2020 because we thought it would never personally kill or profoundly affect ourselves or family members. Or the same reason we don’t act on climate change is that you will never be forced to be a climate refugee. They say that we need to “protect our rights” or “take care of the economy,” but what about the right to live, to exist. Where is our humanity? This logic is false, selfish, and frankly idiotic. Something needs to change. Now. 

The post Texas School Shooting: Are We Really Safe Anywhere? appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Indigenous people in the United States have been marginalized and discriminated against for centuries with restricted access to health care, land rights and much more. Yet, unfortunately, this glaring problem persists. 

Several U.S. states have laws that deliberately restrict and limit tribal sovereignty. Glimpse From the Globe sat down with Mr. Jair Peltier of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa in North Dakota to discuss this issue. Peltier is a third-year Ph.D. student in the Political Science and International Relations department at the University of Southern California. His research involves indigenous sovereignty and tribal constitutions. Peltier is also a graduate cultural ambassador for the Native American Pasifika lounge.

Q: During the 1830s, a trio of cases presented to the U.S. Supreme Court held that tribes possess a nationhood status and retain inherent powers of self-government. Since then, there have been countless instances of Indigenous people being denied their rights, even in modern-day America. Keeping this in mind — To what extent does the United States recognize tribal sovereignty? Do you think this is a need-based relationship? 

A: What it comes down to is that, the federal government is required to recognize indigenous sovereignty by the laws, and it is a very delicate relationship so it tries its best to avoid it as much as possible. Broadly within the American bureaucracy, native people are given, at least now, leeway or preference, I should say. 

The federal government has the right to derecognize any rights the tribes have as a sovereign nation and eliminate them as a federally recognized tribe. This actually almost happened during the Trump administration. The Mashpee Wampanoag tribe of Massachusetts were almost derecognized because they weren’t “native enough” anymore. I would say it’s a balance, tribes are a sovereign nation until [the U.S.]Congress says otherwise. That’s kind of how the view is by the courts. 

But it just takes a simple act of Congress to take that right away, so they are guaranteed until they’re not, basically. To the question of whether this is a need-based relationship, the United States would rather not have that relationship. However, the federal government is obligated to because of the treaties they signed. Hence, they are required to provide native people with education, health care, both kinds of things, so that’s why we have Indian health services, that’s why we have the bureau of Indian Education. 

A lot of times I would say they prefer not to have the relationship, because it just complicates things for developers, for the states — the states have a lot of contention. Like the federal trust relationship, they don’t like the idea that they can’t directly deal with the tribe, they can’t regulate anything that happens with the tribe. So there is this kind of tug of war between the states and the federal government that takes place with the tribes.

Q: Many stereotypes against Native Americans exist to this day. What stigma and stereotypes surround indigenous peoples and their tribes? 

A: What it comes down to is this idea that native people are primitive. So, ever since the inception of this country [the United States], there has been this narrative that native people are savages and are not developed to have civilization, they don’t have culture, they are just brutish humans or even subhumans. So ever since then, there has always been this desire to paint them as uncivilized, when in reality, they have complex societies, they have governments, they have trade, they have complex trade routes, trade complexes, everything, even the idea of democracy. 

The Iroquois league actually inspired the U.S government to have separation of powers in their system and that’s recognized, Congress recognized that in like the 90s but they put it in the very middle of like an omnibus bill, nobody even saw it. The settlers, the native people are seen to be villains, villains to be conquered and then when they are dead, we have society. So that is the danger of these stereotypes and you see that every day in tribal communities. 

The other side of it, the side other than stereotypes of being primitive and uneducated, there’s also stereotypes of the sexualization of Indian women, of native women.

Q: How binding are tribal constitutions and what is the level of their jurisdiction? Do they conflict with federal and state laws? 

A: The tribal constitutions are binding within the tribal territory, within tribal land. Their laws, they are the ones they write themselves. But the thing about tribal constitutions and constitutional reform is that they have to follow the federal government. You have to get approval from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and you have to get approval from Congress, so if Congress decides to limit your laws, it can do that. 

All it takes is a law. Congress can pass a law and a tribe can be limited from exercising a certain sovereign right or passing a certain law. I think that what tribes need to do more of is test the limits, so tribes need to be more willing to break the rules, even if they know that this is going to lead to a court case. A court case is exactly what we want. We should be, in a way, I don’t want to say weaponizing, but we should be using the tribal court or the federal courts in our favor and the only way we are going to get those rights and victories is if we have a case in the first place. 

So, the way I would approach it is find out what we want to do, see if it’s allowed and if it’s allowed, do it, if it’s not allowed, do it anyway. Take the government to court and have the courts decide whether or not you can do it, and I would be willing to bet that the [U.S.] Supreme Court would recognize  our rights more so than the federal government. 

Q: As a Native American yourself, what systemic discrimination do you face? Do you think your rights are restricted?

A: Growing up, I experienced racism in my hometown. I went to a predominantly white school in North Dakota, and there was definitely racism directed towards native people. Often complaining that native people are welfare cases, you know, that they’re drunks, they’re all on drugs… they wouldn’t say  explicitly that it’s the natives, they would say it’s the people from out east, because that’s where the reservation is. 

Some were very explicit. I remember there was a native friend of mine, he was talking to a white guy in high school and the white guy was talking about natives in a very bad way, and my friend said, “Oh, well, you know I’m native,” and he said, “Oh, well you’re one of the good ones, you know.” 

And then of course, and excuse me, I don’t mean to upset you, but  “prairie N***er” is a word that is used against Native people. It’s a racial slur that is— I wouldn’t say it’s common, but it happens. Though, the thing about me is that I was always rather white passing, so I didn’t feel as much the sting of racism and disadvantage, as the more brown, darker skin Native people that I know. In my family, my sister especially faced racial epithets. This is because of misrepresentation and not enough representation.

Q: USC recently named the Center for Public and International Affairs building after Dr. Joseph Medicine Crow — a war chief of the Crow Nation. I know you recommended his name without expecting it to be chosen. That being said, how has your experience been here at USC both in terms of community and resources? Do you feel you have to overcompensate and be overqualified/more than the required for equal treatment/opportunities? 

A: I first came to USC in the fall of 2019, and back then I would say that I was new in town. I wasn’t really looking for “my place”, you know, I had a home, I had a girlfriend at the time, I didn’t really spend much time on campus outside of being at home or in class. But eventually, I did find the Native American Student Union, which was mostly undergrads, but I would sit in on meetings and things like that. It was during the time when they were making the transition into being the Native American Student Assembly, so I was really happy to help and add to the good work they were already doing. 

What I have found at USC generally is, at least in the last 3 years, it has been responsive to native people. They want more native people to be visible, land acknowledgements are growing in popularity around the country and I think USC is also increasing the use of land acknowledgements. I think having a permanent land acknowledgment it would be great, but that may be in the years to come. 

But, the thing about it is that my department hasn’t been as supportive in that particular light, the Political Science and International Relations PhD program. So, the first year was really hard for me because I have all these ideas for research on indigenous sovereignty, tribal nations, tribal constitutions, and there is a lot of dismissiveness from the faculty. They’re like, “Oh, I don’t know about this, I don’t know anything about it, go talk to someone else.” Or they’re like, “Why are you in political science?” That was the question I got a lot. “Why are you here in POIR?,” “Why are you here?” 

I would get asked by faculty members — these are people who are supposed to support me, a graduate student. They would just say, “Well why aren’t you in anthropology?” or “why aren’t you in American Indian studies?” 

And I’m like, because what I want to study is political in nature. If you do not believe that tribes are sovereign, then you relegate these ideas and concepts to anthropology, relegate them to  history maybe or to native studies. But if you truly believe tribes are sovereign, which I do full heartedly, this is a political question.There’s a political nature to my research. So finding support had been rather difficult, at least in the first year. 

I did eventually find my faculty advisor. She’s been really helpful, she’s been really good, Alison Dundes-Renteln. I wish I had met her sooner. But, aside from a couple allies early on, she was the first professor who seemed really interested in pushing my research forward. She validated my research goals and always reassured me that there is a place for Indigenous people in this program.

Q: Everytime a national movement gains momentum, progresses and moves one step forward, we see it take two steps back. Do you think this is happening with the American Indian movement with not many advocates in politics? Finally, what do you think is the future of Indiginous people here in the United States and how can we, as students, help and advocate for indiginous rights? 

A: Well, I would say it’s definitely a slow process but I think there’s generally been progress made over the years. What we need is creativity and innovation and Native people are very creative. 

Native people are very good at creating novel ideas and making novel connections. This all goes back to the oral tradition and free sharing of ideas and stories in an accessible way, enabling diversity of perspective. Native people need to embrace their sovereignty and exercise it in a more purposeful way. 

For many years, the policy applied in Indian Country has been applied in a domestic sense. However, when you consider that tribes are sovereign nations, it becomes clear that you have to apply international concepts and principles. 

Once we do that, then we open up an avenue for political and economic development. And to the last question, I would say that the most important thing for non-native people to do is educate themselves. Learn local indigenous history and gain a better perspective on the lives of indigenous people who are still here. How did the land beneath your feet become “America?” When you answer that honestly and openly, then we can start addressing the issues facing Native people and approach strong and lasting solutions.

To the readers, reach out to your local tribes and start a conversation. Decolonization is a process that requires the cooperation of the descendants of settler colonizers. There is no one alive today who is to blame for the destruction of indigenous people. But many continue to profit from this legacy and should strive for justice.

The post Tribal Sovereignty and the Fate of Indigenous People appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

The results of the 1970 Roe v. Wade ruling protect an individual’s right to choose whether or not they have an abortion  — without any state regulation in the first trimester. The restrictions placed on the second and third trimesters are up to state laws and discrepancies. 

The leaked first draft of the opinion to overturn the case is dated Feb.10, 2022, written by Justice Samuel Alito and states that “it is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” This seriously jeopardizes the health and well-being of all potential child-bearers in the United States. 

This profoundly conservative draft is somewhat ironic, as a key component of the GOP campaign is the right to freedom. Yet, the freedom of thousands of people is threatened by this potential overturning. 

Almost 50% of abortions globally are performed unsafely, with 97% of these unsafe abortions conducted in developing countries. If the United States bans abortions, it will face an inevitable increase in unsafe abortions and further endanger the lives of its citizens. 

More restrictive abortion laws proportionately increase unsafe abortions. Banning abortions does not prevent abortions. It prevents safe and clean abortions. According to reports by the Guttmacher Institute, countries with abortion bans see that 37 per 1,000 potential women still have abortions, whereas the rate in countries without restrictions is only 34 per 1,000. 

Twenty-two states have pre and post-Roe abortion bans that would go into effect immediately if a decision were to be made ruling the original case unconstitutional. Many of these restrictive laws will also encourage the dissolution of protections that allow for cross-state travel for receiving an abortion. According to Census and Guttmacher data, a 2017 report found that 8% of individuals left their state of residence seeking an abortion. Following several state by state cases, 74% left Wyoming, 57% left South Carolina and 56% left Missouri. The same report also found that the more restrictive the state’s laws, the greater the percentage is of people traveling to seek an abortion. 

People of color and minorities, including immigrants, face greater danger from restrictive bans. Looking at the state of Georgia, white people make up 57% of the population, yet only 22% of abortions. Black individuals in the United States are more than three times as likely to receive an abortion as white individuals. The necessary healthcare and services for these individuals will decrease dramatically, and the states that continue providing abortions will see an unmanageable increase of patients traveling throughout the country. 

In an attempt to protect against a situation like the reality we are now facing, on Feb. 28, 2022, the Senate voted on the proposed Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), which would federally ensure the right to an abortion; however, it expectedly failed to receive the 60 votes needed to pass, as the democratic seats plus Vice President Kamala Harris only make up 51 votes. Civil and reproductive rights are in serious jeopardy. 

As it stands, there are more than 20 countries where abortions are strictly prohibited, and over 50 countries allow for abortions only on the basis of preserving health. As a global superpower, the United States is supposed to set an example for the rest of the international community. Yet, it continues to drop the ball in terms of healthcare. The United States spends roughly $7,300 per person in terms of healthcare, whereas the Netherlands, for example, spends only $4,000 per person yet ranks higher in terms of their health system performance.

With the power the United States possesses, it should be careful about the legislation it passes and its influence on the rest of the international community. European leaders are already speaking out and criticizing the U.S. decision. Member of the Irish Parliament on the nation’s health committee, Roisin Shorthall, said: “We have seen, with the reported imminent overturning of Roe v. Wade in the United States, that rights, once secured, must continue to be fought and advocated for.” 

If overturned, the United States will be taking ten steps backward regarding civil and reproductive rights progress. At this moment, the future of the case is up in the air, with action and results expected in June 2022. In the meantime, ways to help include donating to pro-abortion institutions and organizations like Planned Parenthood, the Center for Reproductive Rights and Population Action International. 

As thousands of protestors gather in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington D.C. and other parts of the country, it is clear that Americans will not be silenced in the face of this development. In the words of Seattle City Councilwoman Kshama Sawant, “We are facing the single biggest attack on women and reproductive rights in most of our lifetimes.” Now more than ever, Americans are calling on the court system and their legislators to stop their attacks on abortion and protect fundamental human rights. 

The post One Step Forward, Ten Steps Back: A Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

However, in particular, one athlete has caught the nasty gaze of American scorn: Eileen Gu, an 18-year-old half-white and half-Chinese skier. Gu was born in America but was raised by her Chinese mother and grandmother; she recently chose to play in the Olympics for China, bringing them the honor of two Olympic gold medals. 

Her decision to represent China was met with hard backlash by figureheads of American conservatism such as former UN ambassador Nikki Haley and controversial talk show host Tucker Carlson; they decried Gu as a “traitor” in some cases, and according to the sage words of Nikki Haley, “you’re either American or you’re Chinese” when referring to Gu’s bicultural identity.

Their contempt towards the young athlete is mainly rooted in Eileen Gu’s citizenship status ambiguity. To play for China in the Olympics, one must have full citizenship in the nation; since China officially does not recognize dual citizenship within its constitution, Gu would’ve had to discard her American citizenship to play for the country. 

Gu has dodged questions regarding her citizenship, though some outlets such as New York Times theorize that Gu may have been given special privilege due to her high-profile status.

Regardless of Gu’s citizenship status, it is unwarranted to make such caustic remarks towards her for simply embracing her dual nationalities; Gu’s Chinese and American heritage are not mutually exclusive from each other, and both have helped shape her into her current star position in the Olympics.

A feature article from the New York Times with Gu goes deeper into her diverse background, noting how she had studied at a private school in San Francisco yet lived with her Chinese mother and grandmother. She traveled for many summers to Beijing, where she immersed herself in the culture and became naturally fluent in Mandarin. Her background is seemingly a blend of both a traditional American and Chinese upbringing.

In the article, Gu argues that she wants to practice “neutral duality” throughout her sports career, stating that “when I’m in the [United States], I’m American, but when I’m in China, I’m Chinese.”

Some Chinese-Americans have heralded her ability to navigate through the tense climate of these two geopolitical superpowers. In another New York Times article highlighting Eileen Gu, one Chinese-American has noted how uplifting it is to see Gu embrace her culture in an international spotlight: “I think it’s so brave, actually, for her to speak about that on a public platform.”

However, this claim isn’t enough for some of Gu’s critics, like Nikki Haley, who states that her hesitancy to condemn the Chinese government for their human rights abuses branded her as someone against democracy. 

The Chinese Communist Party is indeed responsible for a myriad of human rights abuses, leading to a diplomatic boycott of Beijing’s hosting of the Olympics. However, prescribing the an authoritarian regime’s characteristics to an entire ethnic group does not solve the problem. 

Racial profiling, particularly against Asian Americans, has become especially prevalent since 2020. Asian hate crimes have tragically become commonplace across the United States, spurring the blame on China for the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

The anti-Asian sentiment is nothing new within American society. It traces back to the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, where Chinese immigration was deemed “unsuitable” for American society and banned entirely. 

It has also been less than 100 years since President Roosevelt’s Order 9066. This executive order forced Japanese Americans to relocate from their homes into internment camps. The decree labeled Japanese Americans a “national security threat,” and today serves as a startling comparison to today’s political climate. It is reminiscent of an environment where xenophobic demagogues in the United States portray an ethnic group as the enemy, despite them being entitled to the same rights as every other U.S. citizen.

The debate of national allegiance is a particular paradox in U.S. politics. On the one hand, a country built around the notion of immigrants molding the nation’s identity and being a beacon for others internationally to found their own “American dream.” While on the other, a nation that can also be hostile towards those coming from different and foreign backgrounds, seeking to assimilate them into a monolith of American culture rooted in a traditionalist, Eurocentric ideology. This raging conflict of how the U.S. defines its openness towards the growing multicultural society is one that must be answered in an uncertain geopolitical context.

This monolithic American identity is best echoed through the words of President Theodore Roosevelt on his thoughts regarding “hyphenated Americans”: Americans who identify with a hyphenated term (ex. Asian-American) to reflect their dual identities. 

In President Roosevelt’s words, he stated that “it will spell ruin to this nation if these nationalities remain separated from one another instead of being assimilated to the new and larger American life,” regarding the topic of “hyphenated Americans”; that those with dual identities must choose a side, and if they want to be considered a real American that means solely choosing the “American” side.

Despite the United States’ stance as a beacon of liberty for all, from the history and the xenophobic remnants prevalent in modern society, it is clear that American equality is still intangible for many, such as Eileen Gu. Eileen Gu’s decision to represent China despite the tense geopolitical atmosphere should not be antagonized; rather, it should be recognized for showing that Americans can feel an affinity to their other “hyphenated” half and embrace both sides of their culture, representing a multicultural and open U.S. that continues to come into fruition through time.

Nationalist critics such as Tucker Carlson and the like, who brand Gu as anti-American, can continue to spout their talking points as much as they like, for their real fear isn’t China and their authoritarianism. Rather, they feel threatened by what Gu represents for Americans: stepping away from a monolithic idea of Americanism that has gripped this country for so long and embracing their “hyphenated” national identities.

The post Eileen Gu and America’s Nationalism Problem appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

While radical, Hasek’s call to action comes at a time in which everything Russian, from cats to vodka, is either being boycotted or outright banned. The NHL, a league with three times as many Russian-born players as the NFL, MLB, and the NBA combined, is the most recent facet of Russian-influenced North American popular culture to come under scrutiny.

Historically, sports have been able to act as a potent mechanism for nationalistic propaganda, proving a country’s dominance on the international stage. Hockey, in particular, was an integral facet of the ideological battle between the United States and the Soviet Union. Soviet hockey reflected the characteristics the USSR wanted to project: methodical, infallible and dominant. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Russian hockey’s superiority has declined as Russian players can now move to North America to play for the NHL.

Now, the status of those North American-based Russian hockey players is being questioned as Western countries crackdown on Russian influence abroad. Across sports, Russian national teams are already being banned from international play. Leagues employing dozens of Russian players, such as FIFA, the UEFA Champions League, and the International Ice Hockey Federation, have ruled teams representing the Russian Federation ineligible to compete but have continued to allow individual Russian players to participate in competitions. Taking a harsher approach, the International Olympic Committee and its equivalents have universally disqualified Russian and Belarusian-born players from competing.

The NHL has not only kept all of its Russian players under contract but expressed sympathy for the “extremely difficult position” Russian players are faced with in its statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Increased censorship in Russia has made speaking out against the war a risky endeavor. Still, fans and sports media in North America expect the same level of openly critical statements they are seeing from Western celebrities. When asked to comment on the war in Ukraine, the measured responses from Russian hockey players end up sounding inauthentic and overly passive to a Western audience, leading to severe backlash from both fans and North American mainstream media.

An interview given by Washington Capitals forward Alexander Ovechkin — arguably the most famous Russian hockey player of all time — generated controversy as he failed to explicitly condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine. Following the interview, Ovechkin lost his long-time sponsorship with CCM, had ads pulled, and continually faces boos in opposing teams’ arenas.

Ovechkin’s conspicuously neutral statement will not come as a surprise to his fellow countrymen put in the same position. When New York Rangers player Artemiy Panarin posted on social media about his support for Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny back in 2021, Russian players were reminded of the consequences of opposing Putin. Panarin was swiftly accused of domestic abuse by the coach of one of his former Rusian teams — though his former teammates report no recollection of the event — and forced into taking a leave of absence. Putin’s grip has only grown tighter since the invasion, as new censorship laws leave the definition of criticism loose and the repercussions severe.

In the aftermath of Ovechkin’s contentious aftermath, many pointed out the hockey star’s repetition of the phrase “I’m Russian” and that his family is currently living in Russia. To some American fans, this read as blatant support of the Russian government. To those familiar with Putin’s tactics, it was an explanation. Any word against the war could put Ovechkin or his family in danger, a risk heightened by his high-profile status in Russia. Even simply changing a profile picture was counseled against by Ovechkin’s advisors for fear of being read as a statement against Putin.

If an established star like Ovechkin faces this much fallout from both Russian and North American media, then what repercussions will Russia’s actions have on the next generation of Russian hockey players? Their futures will be determined by the next steps of North American hockey organizations.

Rumors have been floated that the Canadian Hockey League, an umbrella organization that encompasses the three major junior hockey leagues in Canada, plans to make  Russian and Belarusian players ineligible in the upcoming import draft. The International Ice Hockey Federation has already moved to ban Russia and Belarus from participating in future world juniors tournaments. Whether or not the NHL will allow Russian and Belarusian players to be drafted in the upcoming entry draft is still up in the air.

These actions attempt to send a firm message to Russia — but isn’t this what Russia has wanted all along?

Before the invasion of Ukraine, the conversation surrounding Russian hockey centered on one name: Matvei Michkov. Michkov is one of the top-rated prospects coming into the 2023 NHL Entry Draft and is currently playing with the St. Petersburg team. His talent is unmissable, but a particularly lengthy contract signed with Russia’s Kontinental Hockey League (KHL) in 2021 made the 17-year old’s status as a future American player questionable.

North American hockey media interpreted Michkov’s contract to be part of the KHL’s effort to retain its young stars, following years of being treated as a development league for the NHL. Signing young players to lengthy contracts to play for KHL teams and calls for age-based restrictions on Russian players moving to the NHL are some of the tactics the KHL has tried to use to maintain control over its young talent. Allegations of legal and physical threats have also been leveled against various KHL teams and their representatives, meaning these players may be intimidated into staying if the league decides to ramp up its efforts to keep its players in Russia.

As Russia takes steps to cultivate young Russian hockey players and block their entrance into North America, we could see a return to the use of Russian hockey — which has long since ceased to be the center stage of hockey excellence — as cultural warfare. Many of these young prospects may be swayed by the current state of forced isolationism in Russia to sign long-term deals with KHL teams. It seems unlikely that these players will be able to play in North America in the near future due to the political, economic, and cultural sanctions set on Russia and the worsening relationship between the NHL and the KHL. Moreover, given the bans, some of them may be unable to continue playing hockey without the opportunities provided in North America.

Not only will the restrictions on play in North America affect the careers of young Russian hockey players, but it displays a level of apathy towards the conditions of everyday civilians in contemporary Russia. Neither the economic nor the political situation look particularly promising for Russia’s youth. Hockey could allow these teenagers to leave a country embroiled in a war where its civilians are being jailed for protesting.

Tense relations between the KHL and the NHL have historically forced Russian players — players with undeniable impact on the nature of the sport itself like Alexander Mogilny, Sergei Fedorov, and, most recently, Evgeni Malkin in 2006 — to defect from their home countries in search of a better future in North America. If the NHL decides to restrict Russian hockey players from playing here, defection will no longer be an option.

The exclusion of Russian prospects based on the actions of an illegitimately elected despot is not only unfair to the sport, its players and its fans but also detrimental to the very moral goal it pretends to achieve. Hockey owes nothing to Russia, but it owes everything to its Russian players. The last thing the NHL should do right now is abandon them.

The post Banning Russian Hockey Players is Exactly What Russia Wants appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.

Fast forward through five years of tumultuous conflict known as the Contra War, and a new leader, Daniel Ortega, finally takes office.

A lot has changed since then, both for Nicaragua and Ortega. Once a man who staunchly opposed a cruel dictatorship, it seems Ortega has now taken up an eerily similar role in the country. 

As of Nov. 9, Ortega officially cruised to a fourth and fifth consecutive term in office, winning a whopping 75% of the ballots cast, according to Nicaragua’s Supreme Electoral Council. Naturally, this does not come as a surprise to those acquainted with Nicaraguan politics. 

Just last summer, four prominent presidential candidates in the upcoming election, along with nine other opposition figures, were all arrested in a matter of weeks. Ortega has even gone so far as to arrest former Sandinista allies of his, all to maintain a firm grip on Nicaraguan politics. 

The United States plans to initiate harsh sanctions and visa restrictions on individuals associated with the Ortega regime Sanctions have been, and continue to be, implemented on Nicaraguan officials who attempt to prevent the rising dictatorial tide.

Ortega’s reelection marks a noticeable trend in Latin American and world politics in recent years. Many developing nations continue to experience sham elections and democratic backsliding, as many leaders tighten their control over the government and their constituents. There have been myriad examples of this, most notably in Eastern Europe and Latin America. 

In addition, the possibility of mass migration as a result of Ortega’s reelection poses numerous questions for the Biden administration and other Central American nations. Will border protection be able to handle a large influx of migrants? Should they be granted asylum? If so, how many? While these challenges cannot be solved overnight, they become more pressing each day and will soon need to be addressed in order to prevent significant consequences. 

Latin America’s Shift Toward Autocracy

While Ortega’s blatant suppression of opposition figures is one of the most prominent examples of democratic backsliding in Latin America in recent years, it is certainly not the only case. 

Venezuela has also experienced similar anti-democratic events. In Jan. 2020, current President Nicholas Maduro attempted what had been labeled by the opposition as a parliamentary coup, in which police officials barred opposition leader Juan Guaido from entering the National Assembly to elect the president of the parliament.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is also looking into the Maduro regime for alleged crimes against humanity. This comes after the UN accused Venezuelan security forces of excessive and brutal force taken against protestors of Maduro’s leadership. Similar to that of Nicaragua, Venezuela also appears to  be quelling a rebellion against the ruling government in an anti-democratic fashion. 

Nicaragua’s western neighbor El Salvador also came under intense scrutiny by the international community after armed military soldiers entered the country’s parliament to help “back” President Nayib Bukele’s crime package legislation. Members of the opposition labeled the move as an act of intimidation and possibly the actions of a dictator. 

Bolivia has also faced attempts to breach democratic institutions . After an interim government was established following the removal of former president Evo Morales, the interim government of Bolivia postponed elections for a new leader, citing COVID-19 concerns. Temporary leadership also wielded the pandemic as a tool to crackdown on criticism of the government in the media and the administration allegedly tapped into COVID relief aid to boost it’s own electoral campaign. 

Many of the democratic institutions that have been established in major Latin American countries are beginning to be tested. While Latin America remains the third most democratic region globally, with only 27% of the region experiencing democratic interruptions in the past 40 years, both a suppression of opposition forces and a lack of election integrity threaten the voices of millions of people and the stability of the region. 

The Immigration Problem

Recent results of the election in Nicaragua have also exposed substantial issues regarding immigration. Thousands are expected to flee due to Ortega’s reelection, which comes after a huge surge in Nicaraguan migrants to both the U.S. and other Latin American countries in recent years. 

Over 80,000 Nicaraguans currently reside in neighboring Costa Rica as refugees, a popular destination for migrants fleeing the worsening conditions in Nicaragua. Many others seek refuge beyond Costa Rica in countries such as Mexico and the United States.

Nicaraguans typically represent a small percentage of Latin American migrants who try to enter the United States from the Southern border. Since Oct. 1 of this year, U.S. Customs and Border Protection has stopped over 19,000 Nicaraguan migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border, an increase by more than 6,000 in fiscal year 2019. 

Similarly, El Salvador continues to have high numbers of migrants at the Southern U.S. border, stemming from the country’s shift away from democratic values. 

Haiti has also experienced a mass exodus of emigration to the United States. As of Sept. 2021, over 45,000 Haitian migrants had been arrested by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the Southern border, a sharp rise from just 4,400 in 2020. This comes after CBP reportedly “rounded up” Haitian migrants on horseback with whips. 

The United States continues to be under scrutiny by domestic and international entities for their treatment of migrants at the Southern border. Many U.S. democrats, along with organizations such as Amnesty International, criticized the Biden Administration for their crackdown on Haitian migrants and overall protective immigration policy. U.S. republicans continue to push a more strict border policy, demanding that Latin American caravans and mass migrations be stopped at the border.   

It is clear that this uptick in immigration as a result of the recent Nicaraguan election will undoubtedly exacerbate this issue for the Biden administration. 

This not only poses an immigration issue for the United States but other Latin American countries as well, such as Mexico and Costa Rica, two countries that have experienced mass inflows of migrants in recent years and will undoubtedly face similar domestic tensions as the United States. 

The Bigger Picture 

This growing problem reflects a larger dilemma for countries such as the United States: to what extent should developed nations get involved in the politics of foreign states? 

While the United States remains very involved in Latin American development with trade deals such as the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), it remains distant from the growing autocratic states. Both President Maduro of Venezuela and President Ortega of Nicaragua have expressed their anguish with Western nations and have made it clear that cooperation is not on the horizon. Ortega recently called EU officials former associates of Hitler who helped assist the U.S. in a campaign for colonialism in Nicaragua, and Maduro remains hostile to foreign influence after Western nations backed the opposition leader, Juan Guaido. 

These contrasting factors reflect the delicate nature of the relationship between Latin America and developed countries. This poses a unique challenge for the United States, who must balance a growing economic partnership with its Southern neighbors with a stable border and rule of law. Thus, what can be done to help quell the mass exodus of Nicaraguans fleeing the desperate situation in their country? 

Establishing sustainable, long-term, economic development in Latin America is an effective way to mitigate mass migration. Most immigrants wish to stay in their home country, but are forced to leave due to economic stagnation. Continuing to promote regional economic integration between the United States and Latin America through partnerships such as the CPTPP will help establish more permanent economic growth. 

Continuing a dialogue with Latin American countries is also essential for maintaining strong ties, which can help address systemic problems such as immigraiton. The upcoming Summit of Americas will be a great platform for President Biden to engage in conversation with top Latin American officials about climate change, economic development, COVID-19 and more, and begin to whittle away at some of the tensions currently facing the two regions. 

It is clear that the United States and other developed countries must address these concerns with Latin American nations experiencing democratic backsliding,, and try to put democratic institutions at the forefront of Latin American politics once more. But until then, there will continue to be political unrest, fraudulent elections, growing dictatorial rule, and millions of people struggling to have their voices heard in Latin America.

The post The Nicaraguan Presidential Election Reveals Alarming Trends in Latin America appeared first on Glimpse from the Globe.