A Commitment of Humanitarian Aid in an Uncertain Time

By: Alexander Macturk

After the first shipment of humanitarian supplies into the Gaza Strip following the October 7 attacks by Hamas, President Joe Biden expressed his belief that the opening of such an “essential supply route…[was] a critical and urgent need.” Biden and the international community have rightly determined that, in the evolving conflict, managing the Gaza humanitarian crisis is of the utmost priority. While this opinion piece will not speak on the fighting between Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces nor discuss its implications for the Middle East, it should be clear to U.S. policymakers and American citizens that caring for innocent Gazans living in such humanitarian strife must continue to underlie American commitment to and support of Israel in this conflict.

After Israel pursued a unilateral withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from Gaza in 2005, Hamas won elections for leadership of the Gaza Strip. Designated as a terrorist group by the U.S. and European Union, Hamas’ self-proclaimed anti-Israel stance seriously deteriorates an already precarious system of humanitarian aid in Gaza. The majority of humanitarian assistance administered in Gaza is in response to immediate challenges, such as poor water quality, education, and protection. Sadly, much of the humanitarian assistance that could prove useful in improving long-term conditions in Gaza is limited due to Hamas’ willingness to use that same assistance for terrorist activities. Dual-use assistance that has both civilian and military applications — such as cement and rebar — cannot easily enter Gaza, effectively limiting Gaza’s ability to rebuild itself and care for Palestinians in need. 

With each new strike on or accidental bombing of important health care facilities and shelters, Gaza stands at risk of further destruction without the ability to improve itself even after military operations cease. Given estimates that the conflict will last anywhere from a few weeks to months, the U.S. must understand the current military situation as unstable and anticipate the potential power vacuum in Gaza which could undermine recovery efforts. The White House and State Department must therefore remain vigilantly committed to an open humanitarian corridor into Gaza. President Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken must include humanitarian considerations in the joint discussion between the U.S., Israel, and Egypt concerning the Hamas-Israel conflict. The international community cannot settle for only a handful of trucks entering Gaza a day when hundreds of trucks entered Gaza with required — even then an inadequate amount of — humanitarian goods before October 7.

Another pressing matter is that humanitarian assistance funding in Gaza has historically fallen short of what the crisis demands. The short-term assistance focused on water quality, education, and protection falls considerably short of what the U.N. estimates as necessary. Humanitarian assistance relies on the well intentions of wealthy countries; highlighting the consequences of relying on these intentions, in 2018 the U.S. cut humanitarian funding for Palestine, forcing organizations like the World Food Programme to reduce aid to Gaza. Gazans cannot lose the already insufficient aid during the current, intense military hostilities. The U.S. must not only ensure the continued entry of humanitarian assistance into Gaza, but policymakers and politicians should also expand funding for humanitarian assistance. President Biden’s requested 9.15-billion-dollar aid package must be funded by Congress. During a period in which other nations and independent groups challenge America’s role as the world’s leader, Congress can prove continued American commitment to international norms and stability abroad by responding vigorously to Gaza’s humanitarian crisis.

Most importantly, the American public must recognize its pivotal role in fighting the worsening humanitarian crisis. Support for humanitarian aid administered in Gaza cannot wane. The majority of Americans have already displayed their capacity for resilient empathy and support for a people negatively impacted by an overseas conflict in the case of Russian aggression in Ukraine. With widespread calls for humanitarian considerations in the response to the Hamas-Israel conflict from the White House, State Department, and Congress, American citizens can stem the tide of deteriorating humanitarian conditions.

The Hamas-Israel conflict is fraught with uncertainty for Gazans, and the international fallout from Israel’s response is yet to be determined. What is certain is the severe threat to the previously underfunded, inadequate, and limited system of humanitarian assistance that the outbreak of violence presents. The U.S. must fight the humanitarian crisis during such vulnerability and ensure the welfare of and swift recovery for Gazans.

Diving Deep: Renewable Energy’s Marine Future

By: Wyatt Dayhoff

A centerpiece of President Biden’s policy has been to incentivize the push for implementing and improving access to renewable energy, both domestically and internationally. His effort has been admirable, especially in the face of a divided legislature. However, these  efforts may be in vain if more of the materials necessary for clean energy cannot be found, placing the United States and potentially the world behind the renewable energy race. 

In 2022, the White House estimated that demand for rare earth minerals, or REMs, is set to increase from 400 to 600 percent over the next several decades. While mineral recycling could be the future of REM production, the necessary technology will not be ready for at least a decade. Until then, we can expect continued Chinese dominance in the market and repeated human rights violations in the resource-rich nations where mining takes place. Aside from investing in domestic sources of production, what else can the United States do? 

The answer could very well come from the depths of the Atlantic Ocean. Deep-sea mining, a practice in which machines move along the seafloor and extract football-sized nodules of crucial minerals like cobalt and lithium, has recently garnered significant attention for its potential to act as a sustainable alternative supply. Commercial mining has not yet been approved, as the International Seabed Authority (ISA) is still deciding on the terms for its regulatory code, which will be finalized come 2025. 

However, there is one catch: the United States is not part of the ISA. The ISA falls under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which the United States infamously has not signed onto. Instead, the United States has been relegated to an observer role, unable to vote on the code or propose any commercial projects of its own. Put simply, America has no skin in the game yet, but the United States can take on the initiative to be a leader and bring new regulations to the international table.

Deep-sea mining, aside from being a potential boon to the United States’ competitive advantage and commitment to renewable energy, is an industry that needs American leadership. The practice is not without its flaws: many ISA member states, nonprofits and scientists have come out against the practice due to its worrisome connotations for marine wildlife. Deep-sea ecosystems, whose value is still not fully known, are frequently devastated by the extraction machines. Aside from directly trampling organisms, mining machines suspend sediment in the water, smothering deep-sea species like anemones and sponges. Additionally, after the minerals are transported to the surface vessel, the vehicles must pump the excess sediment back into the ocean. This sediment is often released near 1,000 meters above the ocean floor and spreads over vast distances, suffocating midwater species that serve as the backbone of commercial fisheries. The region is so understudied that other damage may be present that we are not even aware of: an entire ecosystem hangs in the balance. 

In the face of these pressing concerns, the ISA has been unable to come to a decision. When the small island nation of Nauru declared its intent to mine in 2021, the ISA vowed (under the rules in its UNCLOS charter) to produce a mining code by 2023. When the General Assembly convened this year, however, they delayed a verdict until 2025. Having only provided exploratory permits to this point, the ISA has control over the direction of this nascent industry but, without guidance, could easily fail to set the right terms, or any at all. 

The Biden Administration can cement its status as a global sustainability leader and bolster its credibility by filling in the leadership vacuum. While ratification of UNCLOS would take ⅔, or a super majority  of the Senate to pass, the economic and geopolitical opportunities of diversifying our REM supply ought to be highly supported by both sides of the aisle. Once a signatory, America can take charge and propose common-sense regulations to the industry, including waste-disposal requirements and imposition of additional environmental havens, or APEIs. These sorts of regulations, while cumbersome for miners, fall in line with Biden’s policy priorities and strike a firm balance between economy and ecology. 

Even if the ISA fails to come to an agreement in 2025, this industry will not stay nascent forever. Mining will start, whether the United States is involved or not. With enormous environmental and geopolitical ramifications, it is incumbent upon America to be a player in the decision-making process behind the future of deep-sea mining. President Biden, the ball is in your court.

South Korean Teachers Deserve Support

By: Apal Upadhyaya

Teachers in South Korea have been protesting for months following the death of a 23-year-old teacher who was driven to suicide in her own classroom by parent harassment and bullying. Teachers and supporters are calling for a revision in the country’s ambiguous Child Welfare Act aimed at preventing child abuse. Parents nationwide have used the legislation to file lawsuits against teachers who punish misbehavior in the classroom or refuse to favor students. Even if the teacher is falsely accused, they can still be punished and even barred from teaching. Teachers nationwide have reported devastating mental health impacts as a result of abuse and harassment by parents. 

In South Korea, teachers have suffered far too long and the government must act to protect teachers from future bullying and harassment. While the government has passed the Teacher Rights Restoration Bill, they need to take further steps to protect teachers from the increasingly predatory actions of parents. The only solution is to redefine the ambiguous clause in the Child Welfare Act. Furthermore, the suffering of teachers in South Korea is the result of the country’s competitive education system which places immense pressure on not only students, but also teachers. As such, comprehensive reform is required to address the underlying impacts of South Korea’s current education system. 

The Child Welfare Act, passed in 2014, aims to protect children from child abuse. The act was created in response to the death of a 7-year-old girl after facing severe physical and mental abuse from both her stepmother and father and thus allows people to report suspicions of child abuse in good faith for the health and safety of the child. However, it is this feature of the act that is being weaponized by parents to harass teachers. Parents have used the ambiguity of reporting suspicions of child abuse in ‘good faith’ to threaten teachers with lawsuits, investigations, and even arrests. South Korean educators and the Korean Federation of Teachers’ Union acknowledge that while the new Teacher Rights Restoration Bill, which prevents unfounded suspension of teachers and prevents principals from downplaying violations of their rights, is a good first step, more has to be done to protect teachers. Korean educators are concerned that the new bill does not penalize parents who falsely accuse teachers of abuse. Thus, schoolteachers should be protected by law from parents who seek to harm them. The only solution that has the ability to appropriately protect teachers is to amend the Child Welfare Act itself. 

As a result of the protests, many have called for South Korea to evaluate its education system. South Korea’s education system is notoriously competitive and it is built into the culture. In South Korea, children in secondary school are pushed to attend hagwons, or academies, after school, and in preparation for college entrance exams, these students study for upwards of 16 hours a day. However, more often than not, the pursuit of achievement and good grades is spearheaded not by students, but by their families. There is a belief that parents alone direct the futures of their children, pressuring students to achieve their idea of success from a young age. This pressure to succeed has caused conflict between parents and teachers, as parents have the ability to threaten teachers with lawsuits or arrests in order to give their children an edge in the classroom. However, it is this type of threat that is worsening the mental health of teachers in the country. 

The time for education reform in South Korea is now. Teachers cannot be expected to deal with the mental pressures of dealing with the families of students for the foreseeable future. With the passage of the Teacher Rights Restoration Bill, the country is moving towards the right path to protect teachers. However, more must be done to dismantle the means that have allowed teachers to be harassed and bullied for almost a decade. The country needs to be reminded that teachers are people too and that the pressures to succeed impact everyone in the classroom, not just students.  Students can still succeed without resorting to means of coercion and threats that parents have employed against teachers. The South Korean government must act promptly to thoroughly protect their teachers. 

The Power of Femininity: Why More Countries Need Female Leaders

By: Pratha Purushottam

Just over 20 of the world’s 193 countries currently have women as their heads of state. According to UN Women, gender equality in the highest positions of power will not be reached for another 130 years at the current rate. Yet, in recent years, women like Jacinda Acern and Angela Merkel have been universally applauded for their leadership, embodying what it means to be a politician for the people. The consensus shows that women tend to perform better than men in positions of power, especially during times of crisis. Such bleak underrepresentation of women in positions of power thus signals troubling consequences. 

Gender-equal governments are more inclusive and give a voice to all their citizens. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, South Africa’s first female deputy president and the former executive director for UN Women, stated that, in gender-balanced governments “you reduce the likelihood of missing out on the needs of some people because you just have never walked in their shoes.” Women bring fresh perspectives, and as a result, gender-balanced governments make better decisions because they are more representative of the people they serve. Looking at the status of women’s rights in countries with male-dominated governments, this holds true. For example, Daniel Ortega has occupied the presidential seat in Nicaragua since 2007, pushing his conservative Catholic ideals and diminishing the position of women in society for years. His government has revoked the legal status of multiple NGOs opposing Nicaragua’s abuse of women’s rights. In addition, Ortega’s refusal to adequately fund comisarías, special police stations run by women for women and designed specifically to address gender-based violence, led to nationwide shutdowns in their operations. A female leader would likely recognize the importance of such issues and therefore prevent the oppression of half the country’s population. 

The COVID-19 pandemic evened the playing field of politics as the entire world faced the same crisis. From the beginning, it was clear that regardless of size or location, countries with female leadership—examples being Denmark, Germany, New Zealand, and Slovakia—tackled the pandemic relatively well. The women heading these nations “were proactive in responding to the threat of the virus, implementing social distancing restrictions early, seeking expert advice to inform health strategies and unifying the country around a comprehensive response with transparent and compassionate communication.” A study even found that female leaders acted faster and more decisively to reduce mortality rates in response to the spread of the virus because they prioritized saving lives over maintaining economic stability—something their male counterparts failed to do. Such empathy and decisiveness ensured significantly lower mortality rates from COVID.

Women are deterred from entering politics for several reasons. Political parties generally do not support female candidates because of their perceived electoral risk, inducing a self-reinforcing cycle of exclusion. Introducing quota systems for female representation in government is one way to solve this problem. Women also face significant violence in politics, scaring many away from government positions. Four in five women parliamentarians have experienced psychological violence linked to their job, one in four physical violence, and one in five sexual violence. Governments around the globe should criminalize such acts, and social media companies should take greater initiative to tackle cyber-abuse, especially body-shaming and sexual innuendo, both of which are often targeted towards women in politics. 

Currently, women win elections, but at an incredibly slow rate. Making a concerted effort to elect more female politicians not only ensures better representation, but introduces new perspectives into a heavily male-dominated sector. Women’s proven leadership skills compared to men in the midst of crisis make them invaluable. In addition, introducing more women into positions of power would likely decrease the gender pay gap. Both voters and governments across the world need to work together to mitigate the dominant hold men possess over positions of leadership. If not, it will be over a century before we see equality. As the world continues to grow and shift towards a more globalized and modern future, women must not be left behind, but rather placed at the forefront of change.

The Cards Were Already on the Table: What the West told Putin about their Commitment to Democratic Freedom

By: Anna Grace Calhoun

As Russian artillery shells indiscriminately destroy Ukrainian cities, the Western response has been swift and sweeping, featuring extensive sanctions designed to sever Russia from the global economy. Pointing to Ukrainian heroism and the unified condemnation of NATO and the U.S., many Western figures have asked with indignation: How did Putin think he could get away with this? In their narrative, Putin gravely miscalculated; he committed an egregious assault on human rights, democracy, and state sovereignty, and he solidified his nation’s destiny of becoming a pariah. However, the recent past reveals the West has been apathetic when it comes to Russian aggression against non-strategically valuable states. The future is impossible to predict, but it is entirely plausible that Putin will walk away having achieved at least some of his goals, such as Ukrainian neutrality. Even in outcomes less favorable to Putin, his downfall is less likely to be brought on by Western rescue than by wild card factors, such as a Ukrainian insurgency. As such, perhaps Western societies overestimated the credibility of their claim to being decisive defenders of democracy. The West must seek to re-evaluate themselves honestly; otherwise, they will never understand the calculus which guides Putin-like figures. 

Perhaps scarred by the Bush era’s overreach and failures in nation-building, the past three U.S. presidents have pursued a foriegn policy that rhetorically emphasizes democratic values and alliance but commits primarily “democratic support” insofar as it serves direct security concerns. This policy has left Russian international assaults on human rights largely unchallenged. Though the West is pointing to the displacement of 6.5 million Ukranians as a motivator for their action against the Russian invasion, it has never given the same attention to Moscow’s backing of the Assad regime, whose civil/proxy war has displaced over 13.5 million Syrians. The Syrian government carried out 32 confirmed chemical attacks and stands accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and “other international crimes, including genocide” by the UN Human Rights Council. Yet, even following Obama’s 2012 “red line” declaration, the West has made no dedicated effort to stand with Syrians in the way it has rallied against potential war crimes in Ukraine. In fact, the same EU countries now welcoming Ukrainian refugees aggressively turned away Syrian refugees, even using them as political pawns in manufactured border crises. What about this response demonstrates to Putin that the West has a genuine, principled devotion to upholding human rights internationally? 

Other Western values asserted in opposition to the invasion include protection of state sovereignty and democratic governance. However, the strength of these commitments are questionable in the wake of Kremlin influence on the most recent Belrusian election. After the fraudulent reelection of current Belarusian President Lukashenko, the leader faced widespread protests, which he met with intense militia crackdowns. His regime then secured further Russian backing, with the KGB forcing his former electoral opponent Tsikhanouskaya to emigrate to Lithuania. This dictator, who kidnapped dissidents and brutalized protestors, solidified his rule in 2020 by enlisting Russian aid in crushing democratic electoral results and uprisings--and his abuses hardly made headlines. Where was the West’s commitment to bolstering democracy in Minsk? The choice to turn a blind eye now exacts an acute cost, with Belarus serving as a key launching ground for Russian missiles and as a potential military reinforcer. Interference with the Belerusian election is just one example among numerous Russian violations of state sovereignty: the annexation of Crimea in 2014, active perpetuation of frozen conflicts in Moldova, Georgia, and Armenia/Azerbaijan, and interference in a U.S. election. Again, the West formed no cohesive and consistent resistance against such assaults on democratic sovereignty. 

Despite the emphasis on the moral imperative to support Ukrainians’ freedom against an enemy committed to evil, Putin’s success in continuing operations to undermine both individual and state freedoms may have taught him a lesson the West has yet to learn: regardless of language suggesting otherwise, human rights and democratic principles unfortunately take a backseat in foreign policy. Biden’s botched statement about disagreements concerning whether to respond to a “minor incursion” only confirmed that security and economic factors exert far more leverage over policy than principles-based ones. So, on balance of interests alone, this invasion is better characterized as a risky bet than as a blind miscalculation, considering the enormous strategic importance of Ukraine to Russia and its murkier concrete value to the West. Putin’s regime predicted and presumably calculated sanctions to be an absorbable cost. Weak Western resolve to defend democracy makes Putin’s expectations about limitations on Western pushback understandable, even if they prove to be incorrect. The West must reckon with the reality that its limited affirmation of fundamental rights internationally may be an authoritarian-emboldening strategic weakness. 

Russia Invaded Ukraine, and North Korea is Watching

By: Addie Simkin

On February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine in a shot heard halfway around the world in North Korea. Europe and supranational organizations like the UN (and, more specifically, the UN Security Council) are regularly discussing the consequences of this attack. However, this assault is also salient to authoritarian world leaders, East Asian politics, and the so-called Hermit Kingdom, North Korea. This  piece considers the consequences of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine on North Korean international relations. 

Politically, North Korea has supported Russia and used the invasion to make a statement against U.S. imperialism. North Korea was one of five countries to reject the UN resolution to condemn Russia, along with Russia itself, Belarus, Syria, and Eritrea. In the statement, diplomat Kim Song criticized the “hegemonic policy” of the U.S. which threatens the “territorial integrity of sovereign nations”. Not only does this statement reinforce North Korea’s historic policy towards the U.S, but it also contains concerning rhetoric about territory and sovereignty. The Korean Peninsula is in armistice, not peace; although the U.S. treats North and South Korea as separate states, neither country sees themselves that way—this is the discursive niche of both the pursuit of reunification and the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine presents a model of and establishes a precedent for violent border revisionism. Looking to the future, this precedent may lead to similar, inter-Korean violence. North Korea has been diligently amassing nuclear strength since 2006; that, along with its unprecedentedly frequent missile launches this year—nine as of March 9—indicate that it is experimenting with both its own armaments and the norms and responsiveness of the international community.

Economically, North Korea’s hard currency intake has been damaged by the invasion. Here’s why: North Korean workers in Russia have quotas for how much remittance they must send to Pyongyang, converted from rubles to U.S. dollars. As the ruble has tanked in value, workers cannot meet their quotas. Consequently, North Korea and China must develop closer trade relations for Pyongyang to supplement the remittances it can no longer receive from Russia. Fortunately for North Korea, Xi Jinping has reportedly expressed that he is ready to work on China-DPRK relations “under a new situation,” although he has failed to define the new situation. Meanwhile, ex-CIA analyst William Brown warns that the growing force of sanctioned countries—North Korea, Iran, and now Russia—may begin to trade amongst themselves, forming closer financial ties. 

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has served to reassert North Korea’s animosity toward the U.S. and the West, redouble its alliance with China, and redefine its relationship with Russia, given that North Korea supports Russia even when it can no longer rely upon remittances from Russia. More than that, Putin has established a precedent of violent invasion which Kim can use to help justify a breach to the inter-Korean armistice.

In Retrospect: On China Hosting the 2022 Winter Olympics

By: Victoria Djou

The Beijing 2022 Winter Olympics brought many inspiring stories: Nathan Chen gained redemption winning gold in the men’s figure skating singles; Chloe Kim defended her halfpipe gold; Erin Jackson became the first black woman to win gold in speed skating. In China, viewership of the Olympics reached an all time high, with nearly 600 million people closely following the games. 

However, for many others, abuses of power by Russia and China marred the beauty of this year’s Winter Olympics. In contrast to soaring Chinese viewership, an all-time low of 11 million Americans followed the Olympics this winter. A dark shadow has hovered around the games since allegations of concentration camps and human rights abuses against ethnic Tibetans and Uyghers were brought to light on the international stage. In December of 2021, the U.S. and Canada stood against China’s abuses with their diplomatic boycott of the Olympics. However, the move was largely symbolic, and one that should not have had to take place; authoritarian dictatorships should never hold the Olympics. 

As a unifying force for the world, the host country should not espouse ideals that threaten other countries’ sovereignty. In the past, Nazi Germany and Russia both used the Olympics not for the good of the world, but rather for selfish self-promotion before invading another country. In 1936, the Berlin Olympics served as a propaganda mouthpiece for the odious Nazi regime immediately preceding Germany’s invasion of Poland. In 2014, the Sochi Olympics served again as a display of strength before Russia invaded Crimea. This year, China collaborated with Russia. Russia then launched a full scale invasion of Ukraine merely five days after the end of the 2022 Winter Olympics. Will Taiwan be next? 

Given the attention that the Olympics receive, countries that respect fundamental norms of international sovereignty should hold the games. Countries known to disrupt the international order in violent ways have no place hosting a peaceful gathering of other countries. China demonstrated its willingness to encroach on freedom, use force when necessary, and violate international norms even before it was given the Olympics in 2015. Since then, China’s aggression has only increased with conflicts in the South China Sea and the forceful seizure of Hong Kong. 

The Olympics should be an international tournament for peace. Sadly, the games are too often misused as a tool for dictators to glorify their power. This autocratic manipulation of the Olympics undermines the core credibility of the games.

The 2022 Winter Olympics was the least watched Olympics of the modern era with good reason. The public simply does not want to watch or afford credibility to dictatorship spectacles. The International Olympic Committee can restore public trust in their institution, both in the US and around the world, only by refusing to place games in authoritarian nations.

The Olympics have long been a global event for inspiring athletic talent to promote international cooperation. But this standard will not endure as dictatorships increasingly use and abuse the Olympics for brutal trans-national power grabs. The time has come for the International Olympic Committee to adopt a new policy against locating humanity’s global games in any authoritarian dictatorship.

United Against Unity: The Troublesome Rise of Right-Wing Authoritarianism in European Democracies

By: Clare Atkinson

German President Frank-Walter Steinmeier was recently quoted during an interview regarding the conflict in Ukraine stating that one should not “underestimate the power of democracy”. However, democratic backslide among Western European nations is a worrying symptom of the recent reemergence of right-wing authoritarianism. This threat does not just plague ‘peripheral’ Eastern European nations, such as Poland and Hungary, but also countries who have fought to ‘defend democracy’ in territories around the world. Current political parties and national leaders are using modern tactics to appeal to a new generation of potential supporters. While right-wing populists used to unite around anti-communist messages, this rhetoric is antiquated and does not resonate with most voters today. Politicians such as British prime minister Boris Johnson and French presidential candidates Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour preach nationalistic sentiments, opposition to international institutions, and a socially conservative religious worldview to demonize pluralism and subtly promote autocracy through new channels of communication. This demonstrates the fragmentation of right-wing ideology in Europe which has the potential to degrade the current rules-based order and disintegrate international cooperation.

         Freedom House cites the United Kingdom as being one of the most free nations in the world in 2022, and the government cites “defending democracy” as one of its main policy goals. However, the administration of Boris Johnson has not only undermined European integration, but also used the media to spread dangerous messages. Johnson’s Brexit campaign touted the slogan “unleash Britain’s potential”- proclaiming a return to the supremacy enjoyed by the former British empire. This was supplemented by lies about the implications of continued EU membership, including costs incurred by the National Health Service from immigrants and foreign laborers, in an attempt to vilify European unity in favor of self-interested national unity. Furthermore, Johnson has been cited on several occasions for speaking out against immigration and making Islamophobic comments. While these messages may not seem detrimental to democratic order in isolation, the current media environment allows leaders to reach individual voters in ways that will specifically appeal to them, changing political discourse completely and allowing the Brexit referendum to pass.

         Although only candidates, Marine Le Pen and Eric Zemmour represent a chance for the far-right in France to gain a foothold in government like never before. Their blatant xenophobia – exemplified by Le Pen’s campaign promise of “keeping France for the French” and Zemmour preaching the “great replacement theory”, the idea that Muslims immigrants will ‘replace’ Europeans – has gained popularity. Beyond an outward hatred of immigration, Muslim immigration in particular, the only politician that rivals Le Pen in her stance against the EU is Zemmour. While these types of candidates have always existed in French politics, they rarely make it past the first round of elections, due to their lack of compromise and hence their inability to form a coalition. Now, with two politicians united in these fringe views and the growing unpopularity of the incumbent, the right-wing is more dangerous than ever in France.

         France and Britain are what many would consider two of the most stable democracies today, and yet they both exhibit worrying signs of right-wing authoritarianism. These two nations, and these leaders, are only a few examples of these sentiments in Europe, and their views and actions are relatively mild compared to others. Furthermore, the similarities in their respective ideologies show signs of potential cooperation around these anti-democratic objectives, further threatening the already struggling European institutions.

         Americans, and citizens of other long-established democracies, take the current liberal order for granted and do not consider the consequences that isolationism and autocratic rule could have on the entire globe. In an increasingly globalized world, we are now more than ever facing  complex problems which require unity, such as climate change and a global pandemic. Not only will a lack of cooperation prevent action against these issues, but it will continue to create conflicts and undermine the basic rights which we enjoy in our democracy. Right-wing populist leaders across Europe are spreading similar ideologies which not only undermines current European institutions, but could potentially facilitate new organizations who are unified on a platform of disunity. Becoming aware of the possibility of a democratic backslide in formerly stable democracies and recognizing the messages of leaders with authoritarian tendencies is the only way to curb the spread of this toxic ideology.

Note: This editorial was written prior to the ongoing conflict in Ukraine.