African Governments Perpetuate Intimate Partner Violence

By: Priya Buddhavarapu

The global average of reported intimate partner violence (IPV) cases is 30%. In Sub-Saharan Africa it’s, 36% and in East Africa it’s 44%. 

IPV refers to abuse or aggression in a relationship, including physical violence, sexual violence, stalking, and psychological aggression. Women in rural areas, as well as marginalized groups, such as sexual minorities, are more likely to face IPV. 

There are three primary stigma components that prevent IPV help-seeking measures. “Cultural stigma” refers to societal norms that put into question the experiences of women facing abuse. “Stigma internalization” refers to the practice of women believing the negative stereotypes about themselves . “Anticipated stigma” accounts for the judgement women believe they will face (i.e. status loss and discrimination). 

However, still underlying these variants of stigma is the perpetuation of “victim blame and deservingness” attitudes. Many victims often hold themselves accountable for IPV if they feel they have violated gender role expectations; have provoked their partners; or feel that they are less deserving of empathy or humane treatment, particularly apparent in racial minority women. 

Even still, other victims lack awareness that what they are experiencing is non-consensual and wrong; it is within the scope of their marriage, they believe, to be treated in such a way. These narratives are only revolutionized by societal stereotypes that IPV is the result of provocation of the partner by the victim. 

Taken together, each of these factors justify the following: when a woman is facing IPV, it is incredibly difficult to seek help. I propose two reasons for why this conclusion is particularly relevant across the African continent. 

First, on average, African nations tend to rank lower on the democracy index than other European, North American, and Asian regions. In 2024, the Democracy Index (calculated by the criteria of the Economist Group) of Sub-Saharan Africa was 4.00,North Africa  was 3.12, while Western Europe was 8.28.  

There also tends to be a relationship between the quality of human rights and a country’s adherence to democratic principles, providing some insight on why women nations with lower Democracy Index scores might face more consequences in pursuing IPV help-seeking measures, particularly when the dominant culture is highly sensitive and conservative. 

Second, rural African women may face even less awareness on issues such as consent and sexual safety; compounded with the conservative tendencies of these rural communities to uphold societal customs and traditions, this may exacerbate IPV and other forms of domestic violence across isolated communities. Furthermore, the lack of infrastructure in rural regions of Sub-Saharan Africa also inhibits a woman’s access to proper reporting networks. 

Thus, due to a lower awareness, societal stigma, and the lack of reporting mechanisms, IPV is particularly grave for the 55%-85% of African women residing in rural areas.

If IPV is a prominent issue across the continent, what, then, stands in the way of government-led preventative measures? 

One argument worth considering regards privacy rights. How is the government supposed to interfere in the affairs of a consensual marriage without infringing on individual privacy rights? This question is particularly relevant for African nations such as South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana, with comprehensive privacy protection legislation. 

However, in the case of other nations with few established freedoms and low Democracy Index scores, this question seems ironic– why would privacy rights even be of concern? 

The answer might lie not in privacy rights, but potentially in the continuous systemic marginalization of African women. Whether it be through inheritance rights or education policies, women remain at the bottom of the African social ladder, maintaining little access to education, land, credit, and education. If these governments fail to protect these rights, there is little hope that they will address IPV in the near future. 

Thus, in order to effectively combat IPV, legal reform towards the rights of African women must first occur. Until then, our efforts must go towards spreading awareness and changing our own deep-seated negative perceptions of IPV. 

Birthright Citizenship is an American Superpower

By: Saira Uttamchandani

The United States has upheld birthright citizenship since ratifying the 14th Amendment in 1868, which asserts that “All persons, born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” While the Declaration of Independence famously claims that “all men are created equal,” our Constitution did not reflect this ideal - it was amendments like this one (the quoted excerpt specifically is part of the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause) that helped our nation live up to the ideas espoused in those famous words.

While the United States is not the only country that grants birthright citizenship, it has become a key feature of American society. However, Trump has expressed his desire to get rid of birthright citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants or temporary residents, issuing an executive order to achieve this. 

Birthright citizenship has helped make America the great nation it is, and to get rid of it would be a mistake. Also, it would not necessarily solve the United States’ immigration issue that Trump promised to address.

The 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, established that the “Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory [...] including all children here born of resident aliens,”  setting the precedent for interpreting the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This interpretation was widely accepted and implemented until the 1985 book Citizenship Without Consent, which argued against birthright citizenship in the United States, and that “citizenship should be based on a theory of mutual consent.” Their arguments have surged in popularity with the recent immigration debate. 

Lawyers for the Trump administration have argued that the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” component of the 14th Amendment does not apply to the children of illegal immigrants or visa holders. Numerous coalitions have expressed disagreement with the executive order, and several court decisions have blocked it. 

An issue with this desire to abandon birthright citizenship is that there is no agreement about changing the Citizenship Clause. Would a baby’s parents both have to be citizens or green card holders? What about the kids of refugees? People have different caveats that they want to include, and there is no consensus, no clear path forward.

There is also the economic impact to consider that millions of babies born in the US (there are about a quarter of a million babies born to undocumented immigrants in the US annually) are deemed undocumented rather than being granted citizenship. The majority of illegal immigrants pay taxes and work, contributing to the US economy. Several experts argue that this contribution is a net gain for the United States. To lose this revenue would hurt the American economy. 

While some of these babies might eventually be eligible to apply for naturalization (and an even smaller percentage will gain such status), most will not. Some of them will be deported, which costs taxpayers money. Some will stay here and be ineligible to contribute to Social Security, get jobs, and a myriad of other opportunities that greatly benefit the American economy. There is also the tax revenue aspect - the United States requires all US citizens to pay taxes. Excluding millions of people from becoming citizens is a big loss in potential tax revenue. 

There is also the fact that illegal immigrants are taking jobs that many Americans are not interested in. An example of this is the farming industry, where undocumented immigrants make up a large percentage of the workforce. They greatly contribute to the American economy, and to lose this workforce would be devastating.

Then, there’s the goal of reducing illegal immigration. Birthright citizenship is not the biggest draw for illegal immigrants - such a migration is most commonly influenced by economic desires, which would not be reduced by getting rid of birthright citizenship. 

To get rid of birthright citizenship would create a host of economic problems for the United States, while simultaneously not solving the migration issue that some politicians hoped it would. It seems clear that this is not the direction the current administration should go in.

The Importance Of United States Involvement in Latin America And The Caribbean

By: Charlotte Sparling

Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) region are crucial regional trading partners with the United States. Beyond their geographic proximity, these countries share economic interests and security concerns. Therefore, it is crucial to have strong relationships as instability concerns in LAC often impact the United States. 

As such, US Congressional members have sought to strengthen relations with LAC. However, the US is not alone in its interest in the region. China has increasingly inserted itself as a major player. 

Following the Venezuelan elections, which were widely viewed as fraudulent, President Xi Jinping of China was among the first to congratulate Nicolas Maduro on his victory. Instances like these concern the United States that China’s presence in the region is a stability concern.

Currently, the United States provides roughly 31% of LAC merchandise imports and 16% of foreign direct investments to the region. Among LAC, however, Mexico is the United States’s biggest trade partner, accounting for 71% of trade. In turn, 62% of US exports to LAC go to Mexico.

While the United States has sought to continue its regional involvement, US investors face challenges in the region. These include transportation problems, corruption, lacking property rights protection, and nontransparent regulatory and legal frameworks.

Continued efforts, including President Biden’s America’s Partnership for Economic Prosperity plan to increase competition and investment in the region to bolster supply chains, have sought to strengthen relations. However, what has been done so far is not enough. 

Over the past decade, China has surpassed the US as South America’s biggest trading partner. China has sought influence through coordinating financing, trade, and investment. From 2005 to 2020, they provided over $138 billion in loans to Latin America, and from 2000 to 2021, regional trade increased from $12 billion to $445 billion. Such programs have placed China in a valuable role as an indispensable trade partner to several LAC countries. This threatens the United States presence in the region and could disrupt trade relations with the US.

In addition to trade and economic efforts, China has invested in public messaging to boost their image as an invaluable ally through efforts that include bidding for high-profile projects.

Worryingly, since 2012, President Xi Jinping has visited the region eleven times, in contrast to President Obama, who visited the region twelve times, and President Trump, who only visited once during his first term. Undeniably, Chinese efforts have seen success. China’s Belt and Road Initiative has twenty-one Latin American countries' signatures. Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico saw China’s involvement as a net positive. However, there are growing sentiments of weariness over bad behavior by the Chinese, “including debt traps, cheap goods flooding the market, and crowding out domestic manufacturers.”

In Brazil, Chinese investments fell to an all-time low in thirteen years. In Panama, 68% said the Chinese government was “untrustworthy” in both 2018 and 2021, a rise from 48% in 2016. Similar to Chinese involvement in Africa, the Chinese government’s foreign direct investments did not live up to their initial claims. Adding to this, since their peak in the 2010s, Chinese investments have slowed down, creating a window of opportunity for the US.

The United States should prioritize meaningful engagement to address pressing and specific issues through positive messaging. Instead of combating China head on, the US should allow China to continue its existing programs which have already shown the people of LAC the long term associated costs. Instead, the United States should focus on what it can do to improve its own reputation in the region.

Already, US companies have been shown to operate with “transparency, environmental standards, and labor standards.” Unlike the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative, the US hires local workers. While benefiting the US, this involvement also helps the region as a whole.

The seeds of doubt towards China have been sowed; it is now time for the US to take advantage of this gap and revamp its efforts in the region to ensure strong US-LAC relations.