Ireland, Populist Xenophobia, and Right-Wing Populism in the Western State

By: Luke Crafton

Almost three years ago, in November 2022, a new wave of far-right Irish politics erupted. For the first time, fierce protests arose over the development of asylum housing for 380 men, women, and children in a former office building in East Wall, Dublin. Locals involved in the protest cited widespread claims which pinned their frustration over the housing struggles of area natives on the influx of migrants. Protestors also expressed distress over anecdotes of disproportionate amounts of unmarried males arriving in Ireland, highlighting unfounded reports of violence and aggression habitually being expressed by migrants and asylum-seekers. 

In November 2023, riots broke out across Dublin that instantly circulated on social networks. Following the stabbing of three children in East Dublin, new Irish right-wing platform Gript, along with various right-wing politicians, began rapidly disseminating information about the perpetrator. Riad Bouchaker’s Algerian identity became a focus, despite his status as an Irish citizen of 20 years. 

The manifestation of this vitriol boiled over on the 23rd. Events included a riot peaking at 500 people involving fireworks and flares, the assault of the gardaí (the Irish police), and the destruction and burning of a Luas tram and gardaí vehicles, costing tens of millions in damage. The ramifications of misinformation and biases were unleashed in some of the most severe disarray that Dublin has seen in recent history. 

This rise in violent far-right demonstrations in Ireland is rooted in populist xenophobia, and has led to the manipulation of a population with valid grievances over housing, economics, and crumbling social welfare systems. Migrants’ concern for their community’s well-being has been weaponized against their communities, which are some of the most vulnerable in the country. Brian Killoran, the CEO of Immigrant Council in Ireland, states that “The far right is a lightning rod…They are harnessing dissatisfaction in communities and blaming migrants when actually there are much bigger structural problems.” 

Many experts point to the fact that the areas of Ireland most active within the wave of nationalism are those in “ignored and deprived” regions where “disproportionate” amounts of migrants are housed due to vacancies and lack of competition. The presence of migrants in these areas is more clearly visible to the Irish natives, therefore reinforcing a collective sense of neglect from the Irish government. 

In response, these populations feel validated in their belief that they are being displaced and thrive upon rhetoric that continues to blind them to the larger serious, but repairable, problems that Ireland faces. 

Ireland represents the experiences of many Western countries as they continue to face challenges in housing, economy, and in the provision of social services, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic. Ireland is not an isolated example of right-wing populism, as countries globally lean towards more drastic right-wing platforms centered around xenophobic rhetoric and anti-immigration policies. However, whether or not this fever faces the root causes of these systemic problems or scapegoats migrants to cope with the issues remains to be seen.

Migration will continue to grow in our highly globalized world due to conflicts, inflation uncertainty, and economic recession. With the West perceived as increasingly welcoming to migrants, America and Europe will have to make a decision. They must decide whether they are willing to honestly confront the changing dynamics of the international community, or if they will turn to ethnocentrism and withdraw from responsibilities to global politics for temporary relief from uncertainty.

Currently, the West has the ability to choose whether it will tackle these problems with awareness and tolerance, or lead our societies to experience firsthand the failure of right-wing populism as a miracle cure for growing domestic and international crises.

Forcibly Taking the Panama Canal Would Be a Disaster for the U.S.

By: Anna Douglas Piper

As Trump continues to threaten to reclaim the Panama Canal, fears of military action, invasion, and loss of sovereignty rise. This would do much more harm than good.

December 2024 marked the 25th anniversary of the handover of the Panama Canal to the country’s government in 1999. The U.S. did this for geopolitical reasons, addressing numerous rising security threats by doing so. Since then, the U.S.-Panama partnership has grown and solidified, reaping many rewards for the U.S.

There were 3 important reasons why the U.S. originally handed over control of the canal. As decolonization spread after World War II, the sovereign American colonial control over the Canal Zone became increasingly unpopular. Panamanians resented the foreign control that split up their land and provided almost no benefits, leading to growing violence. Additionally, as guerilla violence in Latin America spread and increasingly framed their struggles as liberation from U.S. domination, other countries began to criticize the situation. Finally, a left-wing and nationalist military dictatorship seized power in Panama in 1968 whose main goal was to take back the Canal, with force if necessary. 

Negotiations began around this time as the Nixon administration became aware of the rising threats. Famous international relations theorist and Nixon’s Secretary of State Henry Kissinger summarized the threat at the time, saying that “if these [Canal] negotiations fail, we will be beaten to death in every international forum and there will be riots all over Latin America.” President Carter completed the project, signing the 1977 Torrijos-Carter Treaties that committed to transfer control by 1999. 

Though it did not happen immediately, this transfer fueled close ties between the country that eventually led to Panama’s establishment as a democracy. Today, Panama remains a committed U.S. ally with a booming economy.

Taking back control of the Canal would be disastrous to this relationship and to American influence in the region. 

The Trump administration argues that the U.S. faces excessive and disproportionate tolls for ships passing through the canal. They also argued that China controls it, and could use it in a conflict to undermine American interests. Though some Chinese companies have made investments in Panama, there is no evidence to support this claim. Additionally, even if there is worry over potential influence in the Canal’s operation, forcibly retaking the Canal will not solve this problem.

Retaking the canal would effectively be recolonization, as the zone was operated as an entirely sovereign U.S. territory before 1999. This move would not counter China’s threat – in fact, it would benefit them directly. Research shows that Latin Americans have mixed feelings about China’s role in the region. An unprovoked U.S. invasion would “provide China precisely the rhetorical ammunition needed to present itself as a responsible alternative to an out-of-control U.S,” according to Americas Quarterly. 

“It would likely make Panama more pro-China, not less.”

Additionally, the canal is not a simple piece of real estate to take. It is central to Panamanians' sense of their nation. Panama’s efficient and professional operation of the canal has fueled prosperity, expansion, and shown better success rates than when under U.S. control. 

It is simply not in the U.S.’s interest to take the canal back. In fact, it could be catastrophic. 

If concerns over Chinese influence are to be mitigated, the Trump administration must look towards other solutions, like continuing to fuel the region’s prosperity. Additionally, a main criticism, that Panama charges U.S. ships excessively, is actually an environmental concern. In 2023, the country suffered its worst drought in decades, impacting the water supply the Canal runs on. Transits were restricted because of this shortage, though some ships could pass through faster if they paid more. In general, “canal fees are applied transparently and neutrally to all countries.” To prevent this from occurring in the future, the current administration may find more success in preventing further environmental degradation from climate change. 

Trump’s claims, which have now escalated to military threats, have been met with only rejection from Panamanian authorities. 

Panama President Jose Raul Mulino has rejected Trump's claims, arguing that there is “no presence of any nation in the world that interferes with our administration.”

“The operation of the Panama Canal itself, and performing under the terms of the neutrality treaty, we have followed the neutrality treaty to the letter,” says Ricaurte Vasquez, Panama Canal’s administrator. “We believe that both the U.S. and Panama obey the rule of law, and we are consistent in our performance and behavior are consistent with the rule of law…if you go to military intervention I think that will be detrimental for Panama but probably will be more detrimental to the U.S. presence in the world.”

“There is a rule of law, and there is no need for any military intervention in Panama as we stand right now.”

CLIMATE CHANGE IS FUELING THE FOOD CRISIS IN CHAD

By: Anna Douglas Piper

Global food insecurity has surged since 2022, and the problem is not going away. Around 345 million people are impacted across 82 different countries. 

Chad is the third hungriest country in the world, and it is only getting worse. 

From flooding, to drought, to wildfires, climate change directly impacts food security. Geographical features drastically change, crop yields fail, and production levels decrease. The consequences are not limited to agricultural zones themselves. Agricultural chains are intricately connected, so effects in one region can lead to consequences that ripple across the entire market. In fact, in 2021, rising food commodity prices overall were a main driver of approximately 30 million people in low-income countries facing increased food insecurity. 

As climate change continues to impact food production, the most at risk continue to suffer. 17% of Chad faces food shortages, and in 2024, the Government declared a “food security and nutrition emergency.” 

Out of the hundreds of millions of people who face high levels of acute food insecurity, the United Nations estimates that “over two thirds…are there because of climate and conflict.”   

António Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations stressed that climate and conflict were the main causes of acute food insecurity for around 174 million people in 2022. “A global food crisis is creating a hellscape of hunger and heartache for many of the world’s poorest people.”

Food insecurity exacerbates conflict, driving regional instability and threatening the entire world order. Hunger, especially driven by climate change, is a risk to international security. Beth Bechdol, Deputy Director-General, Food and Agriculture Organization, agrees, arguing that “there is no food security without peace, and no peace without food security.”

The U.S. has direct interests in maintaining global order and peace, and therefore direct interests in promoting the stability of Chad. This can be done by mitigating the impacts of climate change on food security in the region.

Questions remain over what is to be done. Some argue for sustainable agricultural practices, like effective water usage, drought-resistant crops, and policies to manage demand for certain products. Others point more to the harm of the global food system itself, noting that the industry is responsible for around a third of greenhouse gas emissions–second only to the energy sector. Food harvesting, storage, and transportation, can all be improved, in a multitude of ways. Additionally, many call for the increased usage of climate-smart technology, like precision watering and early-warning systems. Whatever solutions are implemented, it is important to consider the context of Chad itself in order to successfully mitigate the issue. 

According to Simon Stiell, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, “1 in 10 people on Earth already suffers from chronic hunger — a reality that will worsen with accelerating climate change.  In the not-too-distant future, there could be huge supply shocks, and if heating continues, food production will decline across many countries.” 

To increase food security and avoid conflicts, he called for increased investment in adaptation, resilience and clean energy, declaring that “done right, climate action can help build peace.”

“It is in places like [Chad] where violence and weather shocks drive hunger,” stresses The World Food Programme. “More than one third of the families living in Chad are worried about the same thing right now: ‘when will we eat the next meal?’”