THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON THE SPREAD OF COVID-19

By CC Smith

Coronavirus deaths officially surpassed one million globally, with the United States alone accounting for some 20% of deaths and 23% of total cases (John Hopkins Coronavirus Center). This is a staggering statistic on its own, but even more so when coupled with the fact that the U.S. accounts for 4% of the global population, according to the 2010 U.S. Census. Many factors play a role in each country’s handling of the pandemic, with the most influential likely being national leadership, and perhaps culture itself in close second. The U.S., Land of the Free, is an individualistic culture, motivated by individual desires, independence, and freedom. South Korea, on the other hand, is a collectivist culture, prioritizing the wellbeing of the community and acting in accordance with group goals. 

There is a staunch difference in the spread of the virus between collectivist cultures versus individualistic cultures, with the former greatly trumping the latter in number of cases and deaths. When news of the virus in Wuhan emerged, almost without hesitation, the South Korean people temporarily sacrificed their individual liberties and allowed the government to handle the situation. The government itself then left decision-making in the hands of scientists and epidemiologists. Given the impact the 2015 SARS virus left on the nation, South Koreans knew the only way to get through it, was to get through it. Citizens agreed to install a COVID contact-tracing app that notified anyone upon exposure and would then willingly isolate for two weeks when and if they were exposed. The response was arguably pervasive given the government had access to the whereabouts of almost their entire citizenry, but South Korean citizens willingly complied with the guidelines and behaved in accordance with their collectivist values. In October, both the United States and South Korea reported their highest number of new cases. On the 23rd, South Korea reported 155 cases. The following day, the United States reported over 80,000 (CNN). 

To protect one another and the country at large from devastation, South Korean citizens willingly sacrificed parts of their freedom as soon as Wuhan went public with the news. Conversely, when COVID-19 began to spread in the U.S. in March, thousands of Americans proceeded with their spring break travel plans. As the economy gradually shut down in the following weeks, no mandatory guidelines, rather only suggestions, were emplaced -- only regarding how often Americans were allowed to leave their homes, due to the likelihood of massive retaliation and immediate calls for anarchy if stricter restrictions were instituted. To date, many Americans are still reluctant to even wear a mask, claiming that the government should not be allowed to tell citizens what to do. 

When citizens of a country act with one another in mind, comply with governmental guidelines, and do not give into every self-centered impulse they may have in times of global and national unrest, they will eventually find an equilibrium and be offered those freedoms again. When citizens of a country act with their own fleeting and individualistic desires in mind, the unrest will persist. 

EXPLAINING THE IRAN-CHINA DEAL

By Aria Zareibidgoli

Amidst tensions between the United States and China, the latter is pursuing a deal with another of America’s adversaries, Iran. The two countries seem to be in the closing stages of negotiations, developing an agreement that would signal increased cooperation in the decades to come.

The agreement signifies China’s defiance towards the United States’ aggressive policy attempts at isolating Iran and weakening its economy. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal, was initially supposed to relax the economic pressure on Iran through the removal and suspension of sanctions. However, the United States’ aggressive policy towards Iran resumed (arguably in a more drastic way than before) with the Trump administration’s abandonment of the nuclear deal, the reinstatement of sanctions, and among other additional measures, the outright threat of further sanctions against any buyers of Iranian oil. 

These policies have succeeded in crippling the Iranian economy; the country faces a deep recession, a significant decline in oil exports and production, and a currency that is plummeting in value. Given these conditions, it’s not hard to imagine why Iran would actively seek a deal with its leading trading partner, China.

Many have described the deal itself as an economic lifeline for Iran; according to a leaked draft of the agreement, China will invest in Iran’s infrastructure, energy, transportation, and banking sectors for 25 years. These investments seem to total in at around $400 billion. In exchange, China will receive Iranian oil at a heavily discounted price. Additionally, the agreement suggests increased military cooperation and intelligence sharing between the two nations.

It’s important to consider this development in the greater context of China’s expanding influence. The agreement is the latest step in China’s Belt and Road Initiative, a policy aimed at investing in the development of various countries, primarily in Asia, Africa, and Europe. If the two nations finalize this deal, it will further establish China as a competitor to the US in pursuing dominance in the Middle East. This is especially relevant now when the United States is seeking to diminish their military presence within the region.

Importantly, the deal has emerged after western nations failed to maintain economic commitments outlined in the JCPOA. Therefore, this development also underscores that, following the abandonment of the Iran deal, Iran has moved to further create long-term plans with non-western nations to achieve economic stability. Importantly, this means that in placing intense economic pressure on the nation, the United States has pushed Iran further towards its global competitor, China.

WHY THE UNITED STATES SHOULD TAKE A STEP BACK WITH ARMENIA AND AZERBAIJAN

By Carina Ritcheson

Resuming on July 12, 2020 and escalating on September 27th, the decades old territorial and cultural conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis re-emerged over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The region is internationally-recognized as Azerbaijani, but has an Armenian population. The fighting has no clear end in sight, aggravated by the intervention of Turkey, a historical adversary and oppressor of the Armenian people. Meanwhile, Russia has good relationships with both. From the realist American perspective, this is the perfect opportunity to preserve our role as offshore balancer. 

In 1921, Josef Stalin gave this land to Azerbaijan with an Armenian population. Conflict finally arose in the late 1980s with the Nagorno-Karabakh regional parliament voting to become part of Armenia. This led to war in the 1990s, resulting in millions of displaced people and hundreds of thousands dead. A ceasefire was agreed upon in 1994, but a solution was never achieved. 

Presently, Russia and France are supporting Armenia, while Turkey has pledged its full support to Azerbaijan. The latter relationship revisits historical tensions within the region and provokes escalation. An old Armenian classmate of mine shared with me the current environment. He explains the Turkish involvement feels like a “continuation of the Armenian genocide.” Clearly, Turkey’s outright support of Azerbaijan, politically and militarily, worries Armenians.

Considering Russia’s role in the groundwork for this conflict, their hegemony in the region, and their healthy relations with both of their former satellite states, it makes sense for them to take responsibility. The United States does not have a role in this conflict. While we manage our election, failing Covid response, racism in America, and maintaining our international presence, Russia needs to fix this. As our past few presidents and many Americans believe, it is time to adapt to a new international system, one in which regional leaders fix a problem within their own means. 

While both sides are losing military personnel and civilians, what is on the mind of most Armenians are their troops. Turkish aid rendered Syrian mercenaries as fighters, many of whom came for the promise of a nearly $2,000 payoff. Young Armenian lives are being lost while the Azeris have the mercenaries. Azerbaijan has a population of 9.7 million people with a $46.94 billion GDP, which is grossly disproportionate to Armenia who has a population of 3.1 million and a GDP of $12.43 billion. It is not difficult to understand why Armenians see this as a humanitarian crisis and are pleading for help.

Although both sides accused the other of violating the October 12 ceasefire, with cooperation there can be a longer one. Perhaps, with the aid of more powerful regional countries, they will be able to broker a compromise and save their countrymen’s lives before history repeats itself. Russia has the opportunity to step in and make peace, which does not put our international role in jeopardy. This is America’s time to delegate and focus resources on our domestic concerns.