China's Quiet Influence on Ethiopian Development

By: Jack Massingill

On its face, Ethiopia’s controversial construction of its Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Blue Nile appears to be another manifestation of the country’s historic independence from colonialism. Due partly to its isolated situation high among the Semien and Bale mountains and partly to the unity and organization of its monarchy, Ethiopia successfully defended itself against British and Italian invasions for a century. Mussolini’s forces briefly overran the country in 1936, but Ethiopia regained sovereignty by 1942, becoming the shining star of the developing pan-African movement. To many, it was an example of Africa’s capacity for unity and self-determination in the face of European imperialism. Today the Ethiopian government publicly and enthusiastically seeks to fill that role; that is, the role of the pan-African hero. However, in its efforts to use the GERD to do so, it jeopardizes the independence that earned Ethiopia its reputation in the first place.

The Ethiopian government plans for the GERD to yield 16.15 terawatt-hours (TWh) of electric power per year upon its completion, more than doubling the country’s current energy output, which came to 11.15TWh in 2016. The government plans to use this immense new hydroelectric capability to provide electricity to impoverished neighboring countries as well as its own people. The dam also threatens the livelihood of millions of Egyptians downstream, who depend on the Nile’s water for agriculture--water that the GERD will stop up. Because of this threat, the United States has warned Ethiopia that it will restrict humanitarian aid unless the latter nation comes to an agreement with Egypt regarding the fair use of the Nile. The Ethiopian government has gone ahead with its construction of the GERD anyway, and began to fill the dam in July 2020. Of course, the aid that the U.S. sends to Ethiopia is not electricity. What Ethiopia generates for itself is not exactly comparable to what it risks losing. But the Ethiopian government’s headstrong continuity in its construction of the GERD is an example, from a pan-Africanist perspective, of its independence from the West. Apparently, it does not rely on foreign aid as much as it has faith in what it can provide for itself.

But the GERD is not being built entirely without foreign assistance: it is a developing pearl under the quiet pressure of China’s Belt and Road Initiative. The Ethiopian government proudly publicizes that the dam is funded by Ethiopians through bonds and private investment, and this is true. But in 2019, the government also hired two Chinese contractors--one of which is owned by the Chinese government--to contribute to the dam’s construction for a total of over 150 million dollars. In addition, the Chinese state has loaned Ethiopia three billion dollars since 2013 to “build power transmission lines to connect the [GERD] to major towns and cities” and to “fund the expansion of Ethiopia’s power grid”, according to the South China Morning Post. China, by Xi Jinping’s direction, has invested significantly in Ethiopia’s economic development, as well as in that of much of Africa, in its ongoing bid to win the favor of, and influence over, the developing countries of the continent.

Far from all of China’s African investments are targeted toward the GERD--since 2014, American foreign direct investment in Africa has plummeted to zero while China’s has nearly doubled to six billion dollars a year. But just as Ethiopia has long been the most exemplary microcosm of pan-African ideals in practice, so is its massive dam a symbol of the deceptively alluring promise of Chinese wealth in the 21st century. Whether China or its beneficiary countries publicly contextualize it as such, their relationship through the Belt and Road Initiative is almost always reinforced by, and perhaps founded on, their shared past of being victimized by imperialists. For this reason, in addition to China’s willingness to fund their needs, underdeveloped countries in Southeast Asia and Africa, Ethiopia among them, may be persuaded to accept Chinese investment and partnership over that of the U.S. But Ethiopia and the PRC will be only ‘partners’ for as long as it is in the latter nation’s interest to be. In 2020, despite similar past traumas, China is not a victim of imperialism, but has all the resources--which Ethiopia does not--to become a victimizer. American money may not be any better an alternative, especially during the Trump presidency, but Chinese influence undeniably endangers the independence that preserved Ethiopia through the world’s last period of imperialism. For now, that influence remains unspoken and unchecked, accumulating incrementally as the rain falls.

How Will Colombia Pay for its Peace Agreement?

By: Ben Gustafson

In 2016, the Colombian government led by Juan Manuel Santos unveiled a groundbreaking peace agreement with Colombia’s largest rebel group, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known as the FARC). With the agreement, the government hoped to end the longest-running armed conflict in the Western Hemisphere, which displaced millions and left at least 220,000 dead. However, Colombians quickly realized that creating the agreement was the easy part. Implementing proved to be much more difficult.

In many ways, the government failed to keep their side of the bargain. First, the government promised to rectify the economic inequality that has plagued the Colombian countryside since the FARC’s inception. The government planned to redistribute land, ensure property rights within a new rural legal system, and inject the countryside with massive infrastructure projects. Yet according to New York Times reporter Nicholas Casey, millions of Colombians still await the promised arrival of roads, schools and electricity.

Additionally, the government guaranteed victims adequate financial reparations and an end to the conflict. As of 2019, the government had only provided reparations to only 10% of the more than 8.8 million victims, according to a Brookings Institution report. Casey reports that since the peace deal was signed, at least 500 activists and community leaders have been killed, and more than 210,000 people displaced from their homes amid the continuing violence.

The problem is partly political will. Many Colombians saw the agreement as a capitulation to the FARC, resulting in the election of conservative President Ivan Duque. However, even Duque would like to implement rural reform, the first and most important issue in the agreement. In fact, according to Emilio Archila, High Presidential Councilor for Stabilization and Consolidation, Duque has allocated 150 million dollars for a multipurpose land registry and presented legislation to address irrigation issues in rural areas.

Implementing the peace agreement is not so much a political problem as it is an economic problem. Archila said it best, “it all comes down to one word: money. The issue is not the lack of will, but the lack of resources.” Point one of the agreement, rural reform, represents 85% of all implementation costs, and the government simply does not have the resources. Colombia’s government is $25 billion short, according to newspaper El Tiempo.

Thus, before the government can focus on implementation, the government must figure out how to pay for it. The first solution that comes to mind is deficit spending. However, if the government decides to spend money it doesn’t have, it must carefully evaluate the economic consequences. There’s a possibility that deficit spending could hurt the economy, leaving the prospects of successful implementation of the agreement even worse.

The government must find creative solutions to its fiscal dilemma. They could start by looking at what is already working in the Colombian countryside. One industry that seems to be doing something right is the cocaine industry. In 2017, despite the government’s efforts at forced eradication and crop-substitution programs, coca production soared to an all-time high, according to the Economist. One reason is many areas lack quality roads necessary to transport crops. Without roads, the only option many farmers have is to cultivate coca because they can turn an acre of coca leaves into a few kilograms of cocaine paste, which can be carried into town in a backpack.

One potential solution to Colombia’s financial problem is to legalize coca production for lawful uses. A report published by the US-based Open Society Foundation details the potential application of coca in nutrition, natural medicine, personal care, and agro-industry. According to freelance journalist Lucy Sheriff, coca fertilizers were found by the researchers to be a low-cost, high-nutrient technology. The report identifies Peru and Bolivia as examples of how coca legislation can be successfully implemented. If Colombia followed suit, they would no longer need to spend millions of coca eradication and crop-substitution. Additionally, the new tax revenue could help pay for rural infrastructure.

However, many have their doubts about legalizing coca products. For example, Ana María Rueda, an adviser to Colombia’s drug policy director, says there’s no market for coca products. Rueda also mentions that if the government legalized coca, it would need to be able to regulate the coca market. Without a significant state presence in the countryside, effective regulation would be very difficult. Thus, the problem comes back to state capacity and the government’s ability to fund rural infrastructure.

In a perfect world, Colombia should not have over-promised, but here we are. Above all else, Colombia must focus on raising money for its comprehensive rural reform. The government will likely need to look to innovative solutions, like promoting alternative uses for the coca leaf. Ultimately, peace will not last long if the government continues on its present course.

The Continuing Imprisonment of Muslim Uyghurs in China

By: Griffin Asnis

In what is possibly the largest contemporary mass incarceration of a minority population in the world, over one million Muslims are reportedly detained in internment camps in China’s western region of Xinjiang, where the Muslim Uyghur population totals 12 million. Some speculate—including Dolkun Isa, president of the World Uyghur Congress—that as many as two million Muslims are currently imprisoned, based on information provided by released prisoners. Nevertheless, the relative silence of the international community regarding China’s cultural genocide is stunning.

Chinese government officials initially denied the processes of forced assimilation and acculturation, which had begun in earnest under the government of President Xi Jinping. Yet—in light of mounting pressure from the international community, government officials have acknowledged the existence of such camps, though they regard these institutions as centers for learning, offering educational and vocational training to Muslim ethnic minorities. Known euphemistically as re-education schools, these clandestine facilities are purported to counter Islamic extremism through the cultivation of vocational skills as well as training in the Chinese language. Falling well short of education, however, the camps’ inhumane methods of indoctrination signify a blatant, and systematic, attempt to ethnically cleanse the minority Uyghur population.

Accumulating evidence from individual accounts, satellite imagery, and leaked official documents provide limited insight into Xinjiang’s sprawling network of re-education camps. Satellite images have captured footage of ongoing, large-scale camp construction. Images of the camps from above depict large prison-like structures, looming watchtowers, and razor wire fences. Various accounts of physical and psychological torture—even death—from former detainees reveal a horrifying reality within the walls of the detention centers.

Prisoners are detained with neither the aid of an attorney nor a trial for months and, in some cases, years, as they are compelled to renounce their religious affiliations and assert steadfast allegiance to the Communist Party. Detainees are often subjected to continuous brainwashing with Communist propaganda and coerced into memorizing and reciting political songs. Because police forces effectively thwart access to the camps and closely surveil foreign journalists who travel to Xinjiang, independent accounts from detainees are increasingly rare.  

The Chinese government’s reach extends well beyond the perimeters of its internment camps, however. Within the Xinjiang province, Muslims are consistently exposed to ethnic profiling as well as encumbering travel restrictions. During Lunar Year celebrations, authorities in the region have reportedly forced Muslims to consume pork and alcohol. Several draconian laws forbid parents from selecting certain names like Mohammed for their babies, and even ban long beards and headscarves, too. In fact, these institutionalized forms of cultural persecution are reflective of a broader mission to cleanse Muslim minorities of their distinct culture—one which has transpired over many years. What’s more, a system of forced labor is emerging from these internment camps in western China, in which minorities are forced to accept jobs at newly constructed textile factories for free or at a low cost. In this case, it seems the Chinese state’s ostensible goal to re-educate its Muslim inhabitants is not as much an attempt to thwart Islamic terrorism as it is an endeavor to forcibly assimilate a significant minority population into a Chinese-speaking, industrial workforce.

The Chinese government must be held accountable for its egregious violations of human rights by the international community, and its unjust practices must be unequivocally condemned. To remain silent is to trivialize a moral travesty.

What Can U.S. Aid Really Do in the Northern Triangle?

By: Anna Bickley

More than 100,000 asylum-seekers—the highest number in more than a decade—reached the United States’ southern border in March 2019. Many came from El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras—known also as the Northern Triangle of Central America—to escape violence and limited economic opportunity. 

However, this influx of refugees does not seem to be reflected in American policy. The United States plans to admit a maximum of 18,000 refugees in 2020—the lowest number admitted since 1980—under strict new admissions ceilings set by the current presidential administration. Additionally, the current administration has slashed aid in Central America, much of which was intended for the Northern Triangle, from nearly $700 million to $530 million with plans to decrease further in the coming years. 

At the moment, many of the most dire problems facing the citizens of the Northern Triangle— especially gang violence, crime, struggling educational systems, national disasters, and limited economic opportunity—can be traced back to the government’s lack of necessary resources to deal with these issues. In 2013, the attorney general of Honduras stated that his office only had the resources to investigate one-fifth of all homicide cases in the country with the highest murder rate in the world. Honduras and the other nations in the Northern Triangle need funds to deal with the pervasive issues that are driving people to seek asylum in other countries; however, they are severely lacking in the institutional capacity to gather such funds. 

Due to frequent tax evasion in the Northern Triangle, only an estimated 70 percent of wage-earners in Guatemala and one-third in El Salvador pay any personal income tax. Tax collection rates in the Northern Triangle are among the lowest in the world with Honduras’ tax revenue at 19 percent of GDP, El Salvador’s at 16 percent, and Guatemala’s at merely 10.3 percent. 

Targeted aid has helped to improve tax collection in the past. In 2004, USAID partnered with the Salvadoran government to improve El Salvador’s revenue collection capacity and audit systems at the national tax collection agency. The $10 million investment helped El Salvador to raise an additional $1.5 billion in taxes without increasing tax rates. Similar investments could drastically increase the capacity of Northern Triangle governments to solve many of the social and political issues that push people to flee to the U.S. in the first place.

However, increased revenue would be ineffective against government corruption. Northern Triangle governments continually rank among the world’s most corrupt—in all three nations, former presidents are currently serving prison sentences. Corruption costs Honduras an estimated $367 million a year, or 4.3% of GDP, and El Salvador approximately lost $550 million to corruption in 2015 alone.

Some recent anti-corruption initiatives have had positive outcomes. Guatemala's UN-backed International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG) was established in 2006 to prosecute corruption cases. Within three years of its founding, impunity levels for serious crimes dropped from 95 to 72 percent with homicide rates steadily falling ever since. In 2015, CICIG’s investigations led to the arrest of Guatemala’s sitting president Otto Pérez Molina who is currently awaiting trial for corruption. Historically, the U.S. Congress contributed about a third of CICIG’s $18 million annual budget. 

Finally, many are driven from their homes in search of greater economic opportunities abroad. In part due to the lack of tax revenue and the abundance of government corruption, the economies of the countries in the Northern Triangle are often stagnant and lacking in opportunity. Aid has proven to be successful in the past, especially in Guatemala wherein 2013 USAID agricultural programming helped increase rural farmers’ sales and created 20,000 new jobs in agriculture.

Though it is unrealistic to expect Congress to funnel infinite aid into the Northern Triangle and see results, it seems counterproductive to slash aid in the region given its historical success and importance. Instead, a strategy to address the root of the crisis in the Northern Triangle is more vital than ever before. A plan which would include domestic initiatives to strengthen porous tax regimes and combat corruption could be a major game-changer for many citizens who desperately wish to stay in their country but cannot due to these issues. 

Brexit: Not Quite a Disaster for Everyone

By: Matt Heller

The EU has won. The tumult and chaos that has been left in wake of the UK’s inability to work out a Brexit deal, and Parliament’s continued failure to find a way forward is nothing but a wholesale victory for the EU in their handling of Brexit negotiations. Why, one might ask, would the EU seek to make a process so difficult that greatly affects the economies of its now 27 Nation bloc? Simple, to send a message.

When the British unexpectedly voted on June 23rd, 2016 to leave the EU, they were not alone in their Euroskeptic opinions. The alt-right had been rising in Europe, ever since the migrant crisis of 2015 brought out vitriolic, nationalist rhetoric as a form of backlash against the largely nonwhite, Islamic immigrants. The alt-right rallied behind anger at Muslim immigrants whom they felt threatened their way of life, and largely opposed the EU and the liberal ideas of free movement across borders that it embodied. Well before the Trump Presidency in the United States brought fear of the alt-right into the minds of most Americans, it had been surging in Europe. By 2015, UKIP was a powerful political force in Britain, in opposition to the EU and a perceived threat of rising “Islamization” at home. Similar groups rose up throughout Europe, notably PEGIDA in Germany, and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, who further increased his anti-EU and anti-immigrant rhetoric as the migrant crisis continued.

Then, following the Leave victory in the Brexit vote, these right-wing groups surged further. French politician Marine Le Pen’s National Front came a strong second in the 2017 elections, as did Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who called to ban the Quran in the Netherlands, the same year. Other right-wing movements grew too, Poland’s Law and Justice Party took the majority of the Sejm (Parliament) in 2015, Germany’s right-wing populist party Alternative for Germany came in third in the 2017 Bundestag elections, and just recently Italy’s Euroskeptic, populist parties Lega Nord and the 5 Star Movement entered into a coalition government following their victories in the 2018 Elections.

The rise of these groups posed an existential threat to the EU, one they hoped to stop by making an example to dissuade nationalists from pushing further exits from the EU. They did this by hardballing negotiations as much as possible with Britain, taking almost two years to get a divisive agreement with May’s government. During this time of uncertainty about the future, the pound sterling took repeated hits, Britain lost foreign investment, and their economic growth slowed to a trickle. To any other country considering their own EU exit, this would have proved quite daunting. Further considerations that Britain had such a troublesome divorce in spite of having only a single land border with the EU, an independent currency, and a diverse array of non-European trading partners, would make it even harder for a smaller, more interconnected country, like Hungary, to ever dream of escaping from the EU.

By using Britain as an illustration of just how challenging an EU withdrawal agreement is to make, the EU is successfully able to stop anti-EU sentiment from politically dividing the bloc further. Even with their rising right-wing parties, EU members like Italy and Poland are shying away from an attempt at an EU withdrawal anytime soon; with all the trouble Britain is going through, the risk is simply not worth the reward.

Britain is the case study for EU-withdrawal; they were the first and best-positioned country to do so and from the moment the ballots came up “Leave,” the rest of Europe was watching them. Given the current chaos, it is clear that other nations in Europe will not be following their lead, representing a victory for the European Union.

The Accessibility of Social Media

By: Daisye Rainer

This day and age, social media rules most of the things we do. It’s often how we keep in touch with friends, how we find strangers, how we spread messages, and how we get information from anywhere in the world. We often think of social media as a tool that makes the world a little smaller and one that connects us to people and helps us form communities. Put simply, social media is powerful. Because at its foundation, social media is easily accessible. However, sometimes this accessibility can be manipulated. Anything, no matter its verifiability, can be amplified.

The most poignant example of this is that of Facebook in Myanmar. Facebook is widely used in Myanmar, with almost 18 million users. According to the New York Times, it is “so broadly used that many…confuse the Silicon Valley social media platform with the Internet” (Mozur). Needless to say, Facebook is a major source of information for many people in Myanmar. But when social media becomes the Internet, any message or post is a little bit more credible or believable.

Therefore, when military officials in Myanmar began to use Facebook to spread messages of hate, hostility, and lies about the Rohingya people in August of 2018, much of the public continued to read into and spread the messages. In short, the anti-Rohingya propaganda proliferated across Facebook and played a large role in encouraging hostility and violence towards the Muslim minority.

This manipulation of the media was only a part of a much larger tension between the Buddhist majority in Myanmar and the Rohingya minority, which led to the exodus and displacement of over 700,000 people last August (McKirdy). Discrimination of the Rohingya people has existed for years, ranging from policies that deprive Muslim people of complete citizenship to arbitrary arrests, killings, rapes, and abuses of Muslim people.

But Facebook gave that discrimination and hate a voice. It manifested itself in a more dangerous way because many were taking these false posts as plausible— as news. Facebook, then, was a tool that aided a genocide, as the UN describes it, and violence against the Rohingya people. A platform this broadly accessible obviously has serious implications on the messages we are receiving and the information that governs our decision making.

The way that social media gives a voice to anyone demonstrates how it can be manipulated for political gain, personal agendas, or in this case, “ethnic cleansing” (Mozur). Myanmar is an extreme example of the manipulation of social media, but it illustrates social media’s innate power over users and the public at large. In truth, it appears that the media has a much tighter grasp on the workings of politics, culture, and society than we’d like to admit.

The Irish Border Question

By: Landon Holben

After the Irish War of Independence and the Irish Civil War came to a close in 1923, the United Kingdom and the newly ordained Irish Republic were left to decide how to go about creating and maintaining the 499 km border that divided the two nations. In 1926, a boundary agreement was lodged with the League of Nations and thus became international law. In the following decades, customs and security checkpoints were few and far between along the border. The only exception to this came during the Troubles (1968-1998), when British military forces placed checkpoints at every entry point along the border to reduce cross-border paramilitary activities. However, the largest threat to maintaining an open border has actually recently arisen within the last three years.

After the highly contested June 23, 2016 referendum in which the UK voted to “leave” the European Union, all parties involved reassured the citizens of Ireland and the UK that they would maintain an open border. This assurance came despite the fact that the boundary between Ireland and Northern Ireland would technically be an external EU border and thus require some form of security. The concept of the Irish “backstop” has come into play, which essentially would protect cross-border trade from being impacted if the UK and the EU do not agree upon an all-encompassing withdrawal deal. The kicker, however, is that this backstop agreement would allow only Northern Ireland to remain in the EU customs union and other parts of the single market. Therefore, Northern Ireland could continue unrestricted trading with Ireland, but it would be essentially separated economically from the rest of the UK.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has been caught in a difficult impasse, in which the European Union and Ireland are pressuring her to accept the Irish backstop agreement while many members of May’s parliamentary coalition are pressuring her to form a deal that protects either the entire UK or none of it at all. May’s recent comments that she would not move forward with Brexit unless a comprehensive and open border policy was achieved angered many citizens and officials who are in favor of Brexit. Just recently, the German Finance Minister, Olaf Scholz, announced that the European Union stands behind Ireland, affirming that the EU will not budge from promoting the Northern Ireland backstop agreement.

To make matters even worse for May, there have been reports that sentiment for Irish unification if Brexit occurs has been rising steadily among the Northern Irish public. Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar has received plenty of calls to stand up to the United Kingdom and to be open to unification talks regarding Northern Ireland. It seems that Brexit could very well lead to the reunification of Ireland after nearly a century of separation.

An open border between Ireland and Northern Ireland seems to still be in the best interests of both nations. However, this can only be the case if done correctly, and the current administrators of Brexit do not seem to be capable of compromising on the issue. This has been one of the main reasons that the European Union has refused to review the British government's proposals for a total UK backstop agreement; there is simply a lack of communication and cohesiveness regarding the implementation of Brexit.

Regardless of the outcome, the backstop negotiations are beginning to have real-world effects as Northern Irish freight companies are scrambling to apply for, and often being denied due to the unfinished negotiations, permits that would allow them to continue normal operations if Brexit is completed. With Prime Minister May’s March 29, 2019 exit deadline steadily approaching and continued incoherence of political messages from London, Ireland and the rest of the European Union have decided to hold their ground and let the “Brexiteers” drag themselves to the negotiation table.

The New Face of Ethiopian Leadership

By: Lorena Tabrane

On October 25, 2018, a revolutionary event took place in Ethiopia. Sahle-Work Zewde, a former diplomat, was chosen to serve as the country’s first female president. She is expected to serve two six-year terms in her new position.

Following this, a new wave of women was appointed to serve in the country’s parliament, causing them to hold fifty percent of the government’s top ministerial positions. This event has raised a lot of excitement among the feminist community. It is seen as a significant advancement for women’s rights in the region; bringing the hope of a shift towards increasing equality for females in the country.

Ethiopia’s democratic government is a federal parliamentary republic. This system of government allows for a cabinet, a parliament, a president, and a prime minister. While there are clear checks and balances, the prime minister is the one who holds true power to enact change in the country; leaving the position of president as a symbolic one aimed to represent the voices of many around the nation without holding any legislative power. Although the election of Sahle-Work Zewde is greatly promising for the advancement of Ethiopian female rights, this division of powers within the state opens up the question of whether the new president will bring about actual change or simply act as an ineffectual symbol. A significant part of the answer to this question lies on the country’s prime minister, Abiy Ahmed, as his cooperation will ultimately determine whether real change will occur.

Since his election in April, Prime Minister Ahmed has enacted a series of beneficial policy changes that defy the country’s long history of human rights abuses. He freed thousands of political detainees and solved a long-lived dispute with the neighboring country of Eritrea. Although these actions seem promising, his intentions towards gender equality in Ethiopia remain unclear.

This election can ultimately have three kinds of impacts on the country. A symbolic presidency would result in a lack of governmental action towards the advancement of women’s rights. But due to its representative nature, it would cause more women to be interested in government and they may take steps towards political participation. A substantive presidency would result in advocacy and action for female rights, instead of merely symbolic representation. For this to occur, President Zewde would have to create a tangible change in Ethiopian society through legislative implementation. This form of impact would be extremely beneficial for Ethiopia’s female population, as practices such as female genital mutilation and child marriages remain in place in some regions of the country despite the government making them illegal. Lastly, Zewde could have a descriptive presidency in which her influence is not limited to women. Instead, it could extend to the educated upper class. Such advocacy would allow her to appeal to a larger section of the population and in turn lead to a greater legislative impact.

While there is a possibility for Zewde’s presidency to be a strictly symbolic one, the future of the country looks promising in terms of female advocacy. With a newly elected government, the future of the country appears to be in the hands of leaders that advocate for a more inclusive and peaceful future.