Joining the Belt and Road Initiative would be politically impossible for the United States, given its current standing with China and the rest of the world. Not only that, but it would be unsustainable for the current U.S. to participate, and ineffective given its equal economic stance to China, despite its large debt. Joining the Belt and Road Initiative would also be seen by many in the international community as the United States officially conceding economic and developmental dominance to China. Taking direct action against the Belt and Road would also not be optimal—tariffs, sanctions, annexation, invasion are all too drastic actions, and would paint the U.S. as the needless aggressor, particularly when the issue at hand doesn’t require the amount of overkill. It is also unclear if these options would be successful in the first place. Neutrality, while tempting to take, does not serve the U.S. well in the long term, as it would just be passively standing by as China excels and surpasses us. In order for the U.S to not only keep up with China’s rapid expansion of influence, there is only one viable option for us to take. It's recommended that the United States take the necessary steps to create its own global initiative. The goal of this groundbreaking initiative would be to challenge the PRC’s perceived hegemony on infrastructure projects in developing nations, present the world with an alternative economic future based on American ideals rather than state control, and to greatly aid the U.S. reemergence as a dominant global power willing to shape the future of humanity for the better. Below, I have outlined a plan for the early stages of this initiative. The following are countries and economic blocs I believe would readily join the economic plan and should be approached first: The EU, the UK, Australia, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Canada, Argentina, Panama, Chile, Colombia, Peru, South Korea, Kenya, Brazil, Philippines, New Zealand and Nigeria. This list, however, is only tentative and should be taken as a starting point, able to be changed if wished at any point in time. Similar to previous economic treaties like the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and proposed treaties like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the first order of business for an economic operation of this magnitude is to clear the drawing board by abolishing previous tariffs and regulations prohibiting free trade between member countries. The U.S.’s primary motivation should be seeking to embed itself as much as possible into invited countries. Like China, the most effective strategy would be to invest and buy trade rights to key infrastructure in member nations. American institutions, like the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC), could be expanded to have a wider range of operations. One of the most important early steps would be to revitalize its foreign diplomacy and insert itself once again on the global stage, this time as an economic ally rather than a military one. After 2016, the United States has seen a shortage of diplomats as key diplomatic positions are left empty. I recommend the United States work immediately to swiftly refill these empty positions to ensure that the country has a voice in important foreign decisions. Despite the grand vision of this initiative the United States does not find itself in the same position that the People’s Republic of China is in. It is not a possibility for America to invest hundreds of billions of dollars to directly counter the BRI. Rather, the United States should focus on key infrastructure investment and presenting developing countries with a powerful economic bloc that promises more freedom and national sovereignty. The United States should also invest in the private sector of developing countries to emphasize local growth and self-sufficiency, which will, ultimately, allow these states to become less reliant on Chinese manufacturing and industry. Rather than divestment and isolation, combating a snake growing as quickly as the Belt and Road Initiative requires quick action and bold moves. The US cannot afford to lose its power stronghold from lack of work: it must move fast but with caution to bring in a new age of blooming economic cooperation. Its initiative will not only paint the US in a positive light, thereby repairing its reputation as an outgoing, benevolent state, and show that it is willing to take risks for the betterment of the world. In the long run, it will be good for its economy as well, as a type of remedying done to heal it post-Covid.
0 Comments
South Korea is in a tenuous situation diplomatically due to it being next to two nuclear powers and in one of the most contested regions in the world: on the Korean peninsula and behind both China Seas. Since the Korean War, South Korea has steadily gained power in its region by establishing itself as a strict government-run capitalist state. Its government structure consists of the national government, governmental agencies, and local governments, but external players like private sector companies also have a large sway on policy. Due to its commitment to competing in the global economy, there is a large focus on education, literacy, as well as a strong social hierarchy that enforces its economic structure. As a republic, South Korea has a president and prime minister, as well as many political parties within its national assembly.
Despite some advancements to its military in recent years, South Korea’s diplomatic relations with its neighbors and the rest of the world revolve around economic ties and trade. Its largest industries are electronics, telecommunications, automobile production, chemicals, and shipbuilding, so it serves as both an engineering and manufacturing hub in the region. With 81% of the population living in cities, South Korea is exemplary of modern consumer culture and the prowess of globalization. Seoul is ranked as the 4th largest metropolitan economy in the world, another example of the resources South Korea has put into being economically dominant over militarily. Similar to Germany, Japan, and the wider EU, South Korea leverages home and foreign trade to keep power, which has led to it developing large trade agreements and coalitions with even larger powers like the U.S., Russia, and China. From an outside perspective, Korea is seen as a mediator between East and West, as it both is strongly capitalist but primarily trades with China and has a culture that fits somewhere in between East and West traditions. As a country primarily made up of Atheists and Christians, many of South Korea’s policies fall in line with Western Foreign policy like intervening in foreign nations and being concentrated on trading globally. China, the U.S., and Japan are its largest trading partners, 3 countries deeply tied to the rest of world trade, and 3 that have had a lot of influence on Korea’s development since the 1950s. Ideologically, South Korea is focused on democracy and sustaining its market, unlike China, Saudi Arabia, and Vietnam which make up some of its largest trading partners. The U.S., as an intermediary in the region and as South Korea’s largest military ally, uses South Korea as a base for many of its affairs in the region. Japan is an ally to South Korea and a strong economic partner, but there has been a lot of tension between the two countries since the Japanese invasion. Then comes the issue of North Korea. In recent years South Korea and North Korea have steadily been growing closer to reunification or greater economic integration. The threats of nuclear strikes are less relevant now that North Korea is backing down little by little with its harshness towards South Korea. As its only land border, it is in South Korea’s interests to heavily strengthen its relationship with North Korea and both have practically the same people. Since the Paris terror attacks and the Charlie Hebdo shooting in 2015, Muslims in France have been increasingly stigmatized and discriminated against while the French government continues to please the anti-muslim sentiment. Recently, a French teacher was decapitated in broad daylight for sharing Hebdo cartoons with his class, and since then, the government has responded with laws proposed to “overhaul of the way Islam is organized in France,” but many Muslims argue that those laws just add more stigmatization to their already downtrodden religion. On one side are the free-speech supporting, often Catholic, and white protestors and movements around France and the rest of Europe calling for less immigration and Islamic influence in their countries, and on the other side are the Muslims who feel like their religion is under attack by the French government and are being unfairly grouped with radical Islamists.
Government interference in religion is a controversial idea in many places in the world, but currently, the French Government is trying to prevent future attacks by influencing Islam’s practice in France. In this case, each side is a community, but because Muslims are a minority in France, they would be the individuals within a greater community. An argument could be that by appealing to the majority, the people who are actively opposed to the spread of Islam, the French government is inadvertently causing more attacks because individuals in the Muslim community feel like their religion is under attack, and so they are too. Of course, this is a very small minority of Muslims. By forcefully changing things like where France gets its imams, the government is changing how Islam will be practiced in France, which would certainly go against the wishes of French Muslims who already feel stigmatized. For Muslims, as the article points out, Islam plays a much larger role in their lives than Christianity does for Christians, so any changes will be felt more and probably cause more violence by bad actors. All of the Islamic attacks are horrible, but by appealing to the anti-muslim sentiment with separatism more than to the Muslims’ wishes, the possibility for more violence rises so far seemingly despite the government’s attempt to root out Islamists. It is a broad goal, and the article implies that so far it has hurt and upset Muslims more than anything else. In this situation, there are two sets of individuals, Muslims in their broader French communities and Islamists in the Muslim community. For the broader French community trying to prevent further attacks, the belief is that principles such as freedom of speech are more important than appealing to their Muslim neighbors. The larger community is worried about violence from Muslims, which in turn seems to be causing more violence. In the long term, by protecting the core principles of their society like free speech and the protestors being unwilling to compromise their beliefs, it is unfair that Muslims are being forced to change while the other side gets their way without any change of themselves. The larger community believes that the spread of Islam will hurt their community but the ways that they are trying to prevent violence, at least in the short term, seem to be causing more violence by radical Islamists influenced by the government’s decisions. The irony in the situation is that if France made it clear that they wanted to see short-term results, the protestors would probably end up giving up the rights that are core to this fight because the government would take up a much more active role in suppressing communities. In China, there is the example of Xinjiang, a province that had a similar issue of Islamic attacks, but there, the government responded with a harsh crackdown on Uighurs, a Chinese Muslim minority, and it is well known that rights in France like the Freedom of speech are not present there, especially in response to the violence. In recent years, governments around the world have taken action to try to prevent Islamic terrorism and while their motivations are clearly to stop violence, those countries must consider the wishes of the majority of Muslims whether or not they agree with Islam to ensure justice for all, not just the majority. Source: https://apnews.com/article/paris-france-emmanuel-macron-islam-europe-ea5e15bb651bbe443b27bc19948cae6b In its current state, the Eritrean government is one of the most restrictive and oppressive in the World, second to only North Korea. The current president, Isaias Afwerki, has been in power since 1993, and is the definition of a tyrant. His worst policies include forcing every Eritrean into forced military service, prohibiting practically every freedom we take for granted, and backing the violence done by his officers and ethnic group. Indefinite Military Service and Forced Labor The current Eritrean government is extremely controlling of its population, and a primary method for its subjugation is the forced conscription of men and women when the turn 18, and sometimes even when they're younger. Often times, students in their last year of high school are transferred to military camps which control all aspects of their lives. Once their actually in the military, rampant abuse like sexual exploitation and unfair punishments plagues the service. But despite the government officially limiting mandatory service to 18 months, the horrible conditions don't end for most Eritreans as they're often forced into indefinite terms at the will of the government, which sometimes even leases service people as laborers to private companies. On top of all this, the compensation for being in the military is very low so families are often left without a primary source of income when their children are conscripted. No Freedom of Speech, Expression, Association, or Religion Eritrea's government has taken extreme measures to limit and oppress any dissent. It's known to be the most censored country in the world, and no external press or opposition parties are allowed within Eritrea. The internet is largely unreachable and large gatherings are suppressed heavily. Due to the lack of free speech, Eritreans have practically no power to speak out, which has lead to the extreme abuses of power in the country. The country is extremely locked down and the military has total control of the population, except in zones where militant groups fight for power, where conditions are even worse. Additionally, the Eritrean government allows Eritreans to be apart of only four religious denominations, Sunni Islam, Eritrean Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Evangelical church. Eritreans affiliated with other denominations face prosecution and detention. Oppressive Violence Many Eritreans face unlawful detention for minor charges, and without any fair prosecution system, detainees mostly aren't given any trial. Abuse is rampant inside detention centers, detainees are extremely exploited, and some are even tortured. Because of the religious stigmatization in the country and conflict with Ethiopia, many killings and even massacres have been committed by the Eritrean military on civilians in Eritrea and in the Tigray region of Ethiopia. Women especially are targeted by the military and sexual violence is prevalent against female soldiers and civilians. My solutions:
There are many possible solutions I can think of to rectifying Eritrea's human rights catastrophe, including the introduction of external NGOs, more tariffs/restrictions on countries dealing with Eritrea and on Eritrea, using external Military involvement, aiding Ethiopian militias/military, disposing of Isaias, and letting the country run out of labor and fall apart. But my optimal solution is to boost the Eritrean economy and improve business relations with the country through ethical and humanitarian trade. Rather than punish the Eritrean people for their government, making ethical and advantageous trade deals with the country could incentivize the government helping its people rather than tyrannizing them by allowing terrible labor conditions and taking away any freedom they once had. Eritrea has a lot of valuable resources and currently primarily trades with China. US/Western trading deals can bolster both Eritrea and its people, as well as us. Eritrea is relatively impoverished, so improving their economy with ethical trade will give people more economic power, and hence more political power. This solution is very risky though, as the government might take these new economic deals as justification for their current oppression. It will be important for organizations and countries to be careful to not let corruption ruin deals, but solutions like this one have worked in other countries. China, the best example of this outside economic influence changing its quality of life, saw human rights growth as it became a major trader with the rest of the world. Hopefully, the Eritrean government will be less interested in such extreme censorship when they’re whole society gains economic power and growth, something that holds Eritrea back compared to neighboring countries. Sources: “China Balance of Trade1981-2021 Data: 2022-2023 Forecast: Calendar: Historical.” China Balance of Trade | 1981-2021 Data | 2022-2023 Forecast | Calendar | Historical, tradingeconomics.com/china/balance-of-trade. “Eritrea.” Eritrea Economy: Population, GDP, Inflation, Business, Trade, FDI, Corruption, www.heritage.org/index/country/eritrea. “Inside Eritrea: The World's Most Censored Country.” VICE, www.vice.com/en/article/gv5dqx/inside-eritrea-the-worlds-most-censored-country. Robinson, Mary. Business and Human Rights: A Progress Report. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/BusinessHRen.pdf. and news articles on Eritrea:March 5, 2021 - Ethiopia: Eritrean Forces Massacre Tigray Civilians September 11, 2020 - Eritrea Busses Thousands of Students to Military Camp 3 April, 2020 - Eritrea: Show humanity and release prisoners of conscience amid COVID-19 27 June, 2019 - Eritrea: Government officials and supporters target critics abroad as repression stretches beyond borders 99% of every animal species to ever live on Earth has gone extinct, over 4 billion of them. The factors for extinction are constantly changing from meteors to volcanoes to pandemics trillions of animals have fought and lost to the claws of natural selection. As the most prevalent and survivable species of all time, we humans have found ourselves many rungs above the predators of yesterday in every ecosystem on Earth. Little stands in the way of our dominance, besides ourselves. Humans are simultaneously the world’s greatest builders and largest exterminators. These traits collided and merge to give us both current society and the storms that face it. Be it the pandemic or nuclear war, our innovation and collectiveness have given us our biggest threats. Climate change leading to global warming is quickly becoming the greatest reckoning humanity has ever faced: a purely human-made issue directly caused by what our predecessors did. But climate change is not just a human issue. It affects and likely will affect almost every species on Earth if our corrupting ways go unchecked. Oceans are expanding and heating up, deserts are drying further, and natural disasters are strengthening, forcing change on plenty of environments. Now close to a million species globally are on the brink of extinction from global warming. California is uniquely affected by global warming because we have many different environments here, so the effects are widespread to many species. After the largest recorded wildfires in California over the past few years, in addition to the larger than ever droughts and heatwaves, native plants and animals here have been dramatically affected. Natural habitats like redwood groves, Joshua Tree, Death Valley, and the Trinity Alps are all experiencing exaggerated climate shifts. Without the thousands of years of evolution normally given to native species in such shifts, there is a significant risk of eradication to the flora and fauna that make California’s unique land. The L.A. Times article “California builds a ‘Noah’s Ark’ to protect wildlife from extinction by fire and heat” linked details efforts to protect now endangered California species. Targeting climate change with policy and effort, like renewable energy solutions and carbon removers, is an important focus, but we are at a point where our inaction has irreversible consequences, so compromises are needed to sustain what we have now. Should it be humans’ job to protect other species from extinction regardless of if we are causing it? Should we only keep a few of each species alive or devote more resources to protect entire populations? Can we be the judges of what species should be saved? Whose responsibility would it be to protect them? Do you even care about climate change? What relevance does it have in your life? Should climate change and its effects be fought on a company level, county level, state level, etc, or should it fundamentally be at a global level?
The American public started to hear murmurs of Hitler’s atrocities in November 1942, and there is reason to believe that the government knew even years before. Any rational person today would agree that the Holocaust was the most sickening attack on Humanity in modern history, but looking back at it, why did the United States not try to end it sooner? According to Why Wasn’t Auschwitz Bombed? by Brent Douglas Dyck, the allies had the resources to put a dent in Hitler’s systematic genocide of Jews, Roma people, disabled people through Aktion T4, and other minority groups in Europe, but the extermination only came to a halt at the end of the war with the Death Marches starting in 1944 from the threat of imminent invasion. Though it took place during the largest war ever and the United States was almost solely concerned with winning, ethically and consciously, America should have given more effort to destroy the tools of the Holocaust like Aushwitz and prevent such a massive death toll.
The goal of the Holocaust was to eventually exterminate anyone that did not fit Hitler’s vision for of German people, which he himself did not entirely fit into, and America, even with its massive racial divide at the time, clearly wanted to prevent that, but not enough to destroy the root of the problem before it was too late. Jewish Americans heard stories from relatives in Europe about how serious the situation was, and Jewish leaders such as Johan J. Smertenko and A. Leon Kubowitzki petitioned the government to stop the Holocaust. But the Allies did not and instead focused their bombings on fuel refineries and munitions factories, often mere miles away from concentration camps. The most popular excuse by American Officials was that the bombings would take resources away from important frontlines, but there were serious issues to this argument. First, it is easily refutable now because, of the 10,000 sorties flown every month by the American Airforce in 1944, only an estimated 300 would be needed to destroy Auschwitz, the most prominent concentration camp, and that diversion of forces would not severely damage higher priority missions of the Airforce. Another issue with the argument was that part of the reason America joined the war was to fight against fascism, the ideology that propelled the holocaust, and if the United States took action to stop the Nazi’s genocide, it would have been a direct blow to Germany’s intentions and a signal that America was the righteous county it was positioning itself to become. America did have the goal of ending the Holocaust and achieved it with German surrender in 1945, but that goal came after the goal of militarily beating the Axis. Though there were news reports and coverage of the Holocaust, the horrors of the Germans’ treatment of Jews were indescribable. When American soldiers entered the camps, they found mass graves of hundreds of thousands and were instructed to take as many photographs as to document just how bad it was. While Americans back home heard about the Holocaust, it would be hard to comprehend and understand what was happening, and so the American public was less concerned about stopping it than defeating the Axis. Without a massive movement to cease the holocaust, military leaders had little pressure to divert troops to dealing with death camps. But with those decisions of inaction, they relinquished morality. Martin Luther King Jr. famously said “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and the Holocaust is the greatest example of injustice ever, as millions of people were put to death without trial or witness just because of their ethnicity. From an ethical standpoint, the United States, with all its military and political power, should have taken more action to stop the final solution before the end of the war. By ends-based reasoning, stopping the holocaust by targeting concentration camps and the forced migrations of Jews would have helped millions of people, and there simply is not enough evidence that if the United States diverted resources to do it, it would have compromised any of our fighting power against Germany. If the Axis won the war in Europe, millions of more people would die and presumably, the Axis would go on to invade the Americas and other continents, causing millions of more casualties, but Axis victory would not have come from Americans quelling the holocaust. From a rule-based approach, if America was quicker to intervene in the Holocaust, the precedent would be set that America was the world’s police, and would likely intervene in the future like during the Rwandan Genocide. Lastly, from a care-based approach, the United States definitely should have intervened sooner to save millions of lives from terrible and unjust deaths for horrendous reasons. With hindsight, it is easy to say the Holocaust should have been stopped sooner, but back then, it is hard to understand why American officials were against the idea of stopping the Holocaust sooner. Personally, all of my Jewish European relatives died in the Holocaust, and my great uncles fought on the European front, so it is heartbreaking to hear that the United States would not use a tiny portion of its forces for such a massive cause. Just the scale of the Holocaust showed how absolutely terrible the Nazis were, and it is shameful that America missed such an opportunity from the ineptitude of officials and the prejudice of the public to save millions of people forced from their homes into the concentration camps. Winning World War II was among America’s great feats, but we made three enormous mistakes during it, dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan and not intervening soon enough in the Holocaust. Less than a month from the twentieth anniversary of the toppling of the Twin Towers, the Taliban has taken over Kabul and most other Afghanistan cities, coming the same day as the US withdrew its final government personnel in the country. Now, the U.S. is trying to evacuate citizens and any affiliated with the military out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible. Striking videos show tens of Afghans clinging onto landing gear on the huge military planes flying out of Kabul, showing the extreme desperation a lot of people there are feeling. Kabul is in disarray, as the Taliban has completely taken over the government, as shown in the image below, and now has access to the military bases and equipment left over by the U.S. military. Taliban leadership in the Afghanistan presidential palace In Trump's final year as president, he signed an agreement with the Taliban to withdraw all U.S. troops by August 2021, and now that Biden has almost fulfilled it, as very few citizens or military personal are still on the ground in Afghanistan, and it is very likely they will all be gone in just a few days. As for the millions of Afghans who are currently having their entire society dismantled and remade into one much closer to Islamic principals, the U.S. and other countries are stepping in to offer expedited visas and asylum applications, but it seems like the amount of help cannot keep up with the desperation. Thousands of Afghans worked with foreign military's as interpreters and guides, which puts a large target on their back from the Taliban, and there have already been reports of lists of interpreter names being used by the Taliban who want to eradicate western influence on their state. Women especially are in danger in the new climate, despite the Taliban's vows to maintain some women's rights from external countries. Over the next few weeks, it is expected that the rest of the world will respond en masse to the Taliban. The Supposed Leader of the Taliban, Hibatullah Akhundzada The west and specifically America set its sights on Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion in 1979, which ended with the Soviets withdrawing in 1987, and the Taliban began its rise to power in Afghanistan in the 1990s. Then the U.S. invaded after 9/11, after the Taliban had become Afghanistan's government, and quickly replaced it, but stayed in the country until now. Many reasons have been given for the War in Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history, from imperialism, the pursuit of precious resources like oil, weapons of mass destruction, to just being an offensive on Islamic terrorism. It is a convoluted web of deception and half-truths, but the web seems to be ending now. In the coming months, many articles and books will be published on America's role in Afghanistan and how vital or harmful it was for us to stay there: what I want to wonder about is what this withdrawal means for the future of American foreign policy? U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan
Currently, many countries are experiencing the draw of isolationism, the belief that countries should focus on their people before foreigners and dis-invest in the rest of the world, similar to how Japan was before World War II. Trump ran his campaign saying he would put America first, which echoed in his promises, like building a wall on the Mexican border, removing American dependency on China, and stopping the U.S.'s presence in Afghanistan. Now, Biden has yet to backtrack on any of those and show a different strategy for foreign affairs. Trump's trade war with China is still in effect and we are leaving Afghanistan, two developments unexpectedly allowed by a liberal president. But despite Biden's unwillingness to change course, I think the U.S.'s pursuit of globalism and interventionism are at no risk of being quelled. With the largest economy and military in the world, bringing us any further out of the world's affairs would leave a void for the next world superpower to fill and hurt all of the people who pay for U.S. interventionism. I think that, because the companies that generate so much of our economy and GDP are the ones most globalized and the largest in the world, almost surpassing the bounds of U.S. regulation and becoming global entities, it is in our government's interest to want to keep those companies American-centered. The behemoths that are governments and corporations exist in a power structure where neither has majority control, and each wants more, but companies do not need to worry about their citizens, and for that reason, it seems to be, while we are a capitalist country, in the U.S.'s interest to keep big business centered here, where its people can enjoy the benefits. I'll be interested to see if America stays as liberal as it has been in the last forty years in the rest of the 21st century. Also, Afghanistan has an estimated trillion-dollar amount of minerals under its control- resources that are key for U.S. businesses. sources: https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/16/world/meanwhile-in-america-august-17-intl/index.html https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/8/15/in-pictures-taliban-fighters-enter-afghan-presidential-palace https://www.bbc.com/news/world-south-asia-11451718 https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/18/business/afghanistan-lithium-rare-earths-mining/index.html After being delayed for a year, Japan has been hosting the 2021 Olympics for the last month, which has been ripe with controversy and strife between nations, the most serious competitors in the world. As an event that has existed for thousands of years, the Olympics have always been at the forefront of competition and a good vessel to experience how nations interact and portray themselves. From the 1936 Olympics in Nazi Germany to the 1980 games in Moscow, the Olympic Games have a great deal of history regarding foreign relations, and in the modern age, countries have never been so competitive. That competitive nature has led to much strife, especially in the U.S. this year, as entire countries make up the fan bases and practically every news organization in the world covers the games, often in a very skewed and propagandized manner. This year's Olympics began its life with a year of hardship because of COVID forcing the Japanese government to postpone the games, but even now many people are still protesting the games, as many countries are experiencing a surge in COVID cases, Japan included, and the games have been linked to many new cases between teams and some in the outside world, despite all of the precautions put in place like not allowing people in the Olympic Village outside. For Americans, the controversy started even before any athletes landed in Japan. In late June the sprinter Sha’Carri Richardson was disqualified from competing in the 100-meter race for using Marijuana in between the trials and the actual Olympics, which ignited social media and has stayed in the news even now. She became somewhat of an icon, appearing in a Beats commercial a few weeks later accompanied with a new Kanye West track as personalities debated whether her disqualification was warranted, and furthering the conversation about Marijuana's usefulness to cope with trauma, which Richardson said she was using it for. Then as athletes and teams arrived at the Olympic village, specifically American news and social media picked up on the cardboard beds for athletes, sparking much false information and debate about the treatment of athletes. And most recently, Simone Biles, the greatest gymnast in the world, withdrew from her team because of stress and mental health problems, which definitely caused the most strife, as many called her a coward and weak, while many others supported her decision and commented on how strong Biles had to be to make it that far and then be able to accept that she was not ready instead of going on after an underwhelming performance where she was clearly struggling. Despite all of the controversies with this year's games beyond the fields and courts, the brunt of Olympic reporting is done on scores, medals, and rivalries; what the games are all about, and also what shows how competitively certain nations take the games. For small countries, the Olympics can be used in a way to boost their national image, such as Jamaica winning majorly in track and field this year and previously with the help of Usain Bolt. But the Olympics are mostly dominated by four countries, China, Russia, The U.S., and Great Britain and Northern Ireland which all vie with each other for the top placements across the categories. Each of these countries seems to take the games especially seriously as they have the largest audiences and fan bases, so naturally, narratives are pushed to downplay opponents. One example of this downplaying comes from the New York Times live updates page, which ranks countries by medals won, rather than by weighing golds, silvers, and bronzes which just so happens to place the U.S. at the top of the leader board, despite China having a few more golds and being placed higher on the official Olympics website. There are plenty of other examples of news programs seemingly coping with their country's failings at the games, but all just highlight how politicized the events have become. The two top countries in the games this year, the U.S. and China have serious tension, but instead of the games lifting some of that antagonism, as they have previously, countries are more concerned in politicization than in the spirit of the games, sportsmanship, and graciousness. Relatively, the Olympics mean little to the course of global foreign relations, maybe a little more to smaller countries, but they indicate how modern nations are distancing themselves from each other, showing hints of the grip nationalism still has over so many places and people and how it is up kept by media.
Mather, Victor. “Olympics Updates: U.S. COLLECTS 10 MEDALS, Second to China.” The New York Times. The New York Times, July 24, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/07/24/sports/olympics-tokyo-updates?name=styln-olympics®ion=TOP_BANNER&block=storyline_menu_recirc&action=click&pgtype=LegacyCollection&variant=show&is_new=false&smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur. “Olympic Medal Count.” Tokyo 2020 Olympics (Jul 23-Aug 8, 2021). https://olympics.com/tokyo-2020/olympic-games/en/results/all-sports/medal-standings.htm. OlympicTalk. “Sha'Carri Richardson Not on U.S. Olympic Track and Field Team.” OlympicTalk | NBC Sports, July 7, 2021. https://olympics.nbcsports.com/2021/07/06/shacarri-richardson-olympic-team-tokyo/. Ramsay, George, John Sinnott, and Rebecca Wright. “'I Have to Focus on My Mental Health,' Says Simone Biles after Withdrawing from Gold Medal Event.” CNN. Cable News Network, July 29, 2021. https://www.cnn.com/2021/07/27/sport/simone-biles-tokyo-2020-olympics/index.html. Cancel culture is a key term on the rise over the last five years in America. Social media has amplified the voices of the masses to confront celebrities, brands, and anyone else for any grievance past or present and attempt to cancel them, a form of societal boycott and reprimand. "Cancelling" was coined when Hollywood stars like Harvey Weinstein and Kevin Spacey faced massive sexual assault accusations, and since then has been used on what seems like every major cultural figure pre or current to the internet age. Recent cancellations have come for brands like Ben and Jerries for them deciding to stop selling their products in Palestine which inspired this post to Hilaria Baldwin for faking her Spanish heritage, with many more taking place every week beginning on platforms like Twitter and YouTube. In America, generally people believe cancelling is a left leaning practice, and some say it is being used as a method to suppress differing opinions, when really it is a tactic being used by all sides of the political and social divide. Though the words cancel culture have a very controversial and abrasive effect, the act of boycotting and reprimanding has been ingrained in democratic societies since the Romans. But the internet has made it so much easier to find and group claims and sometimes gives benefits to accusers that now boycotts are happening much more often and quicker, and responses come out just hours after accusations, with millions of people weighing in meanwhile. Since it began in America and a lot of us are only exposed to the American internet and media, there is a question to be raised: has cancel culture acclimated into the rest of the world, specifically beyond western countries?
This week I was away in Greece for some family member's work, and this blog will document my takeaways and reflections on Greece in the lenses of my travel and its situation in the world.
Greece has always been a relatively poor country compared to its fellow EU members, and its financial crisis in 2014 and COVID have only hurt its struggling population. Going there felt like I was staying in the wrong neighborhood, yet that's just how the entire city of Athens was: there was graffiti on every wall and building, some of the worst street designs ever, and plenty of dilapidated building more emblematic I thought of downtown Phnom Penh than what the city of Athena, the Greek god of knowledge, would be like. But the city was not exactly in poverty, it was just clear that the government had chosen very carefully were they wanted to use their resources. The most popular tourist destination in Athens, the Acropolis, with the famous Parthenon in the center was very well kept, and was close to tens of shopping streets as well as the city center, with metro lines all around that had all been recently implemented. Because of how much history there is in Athens, I assume the government has really had to pick and choose what monuments they want to properly preserve, as other famous destinations like the Academy were much closer to piles of rubble than the gymnasia that birthed western philosophy. Surprisingly due to how wide the city was, I was able to go most of the trip without taking a taxi by walking and taking the metro and I think I got a proper feel for the atmosphere of the city. As a big foodie, meals were always at the top of my mind, and considering I got a Greek salad at almost every restaurant along with my entree, despite my hate (or now previous hate as I forced myself to eat them) of tomatoes, the food in Athens was very good, and definitely a highlight of the trip, especially my favorite dish orzo and lamb. Like the food, the people I interacted with in Athens were all very warm and open. A common theme Athenians wanted to talk about was politics: taxi drivers, tour guides, and even biologists all were very avid about discussing Greek and American politics. |
Check Out the Other Pages
Be sure to press previous at the bottom of the home page and menu at the top right to see writings I've done relating to global topics and a short page on me and why I'm writing this blog Archives
May 2022
|