Chaos in ECOWAS and Regionalism’s Regression: America’s Role

By: Wyatt Dayhoff

The Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, was founded in 1975 to advance economic integration across fifteen West African states as they struggled to cope with skyrocketing debt and the enduring legacy of colonialism. When civil wars and political instability hampered its efforts, the organization pivoted to facilitate peace and security in the region. Since then, it has helped end numerous political crises, playing a large role in the region’s complete democratic stability from 2015-2020, and has been hailed as the most successful model of regional governance in Africa.

Then, on January 28th, 2024, three of its founding members declared their resignation from the bloc, sending shockwaves through the organization and the continent as a whole. Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, all engulfed by coups since 2020, blamed the organization for kowtowing to foreign powers and betraying the roots of the organization. 

Why did they leave? All members of the new “Alliance of Sahel States” (AES) had been facing scrutiny, both verbal and economic, of their junta-led regimes from ECOWAS and Western powers prior to their secession. Mali, for example, was slapped with sanctions by the bloc while it endeavored to recover from COVID- and Ukraine-induced shocks, causing devastating inflation and price hikes for basic commodities. These sanctions, in tandem with an apparent failure to prevent terrorism, turned public sentiment against ECOWAS, which is now seen by many as a puppet of the West. The Alliance’s grievances, then, are not surprising, and ECOWAS was unable to negotiate a return to democracy as it had previously done so well. This followed multiple failures to intervene when other West African leaders (Ouattara in Cote D’Ivoire and Conde in Ghana) used manipulative tactics to receive extra terms. 

Even before this landmark event, experts noted that ECOWAS was at a crossroads. Divided and discombobulated, the bloc was hemorrhaging authority and legitimacy. Now, its raison d’etre teeters on the brink: outside of its confines, the organization cannot hope to even attempt to restore democracy to the three nations, much less facilitate trade. The AES will likely suffer, too; on February 19, Niger defaulted up to $520 million in debt, and without access to regional markets the nation will plunge even deeper into economic strife. Sahelian border closures will recreate the very problems that ECOWAS was formed to solve. ECOWAS lifted existing sanctions on February 25th to account for the default, but it still remains unable to provide broader support given Niger’s lack of membership.

The future paints a grim picture for the West African region, reflecting larger concerns about regionalism in developing nations. ASEAN, arguably the most influential regional bloc, was fractured by Myanmar’s 2022 coup and remains paralyzed. Regionalism and multilateralism, concepts that showed such promise in the 2010s, now lay tattered after COVID’s enormous economic and political impact. Instead, neo-Cold War thinking has surged, with countries joining either the Chinese or the Western camp. While China and the United States are working together to create a debt relief package for emerging markets, bandwagoning with one party or the other has become the norm, making aid and support contingent on politics. 

The world can ill afford a continuation of this trend. Democracy has declined precipitously in recent years and remains shaky, economic growth has stagnated in many countries, and global income inequality is at the same levels as the early 20th century. In other words, developing nations are not developing, and the lack of a regionally-based framework for cooperation and resistance to outside pressures certainly adds to the strain. 

While the states of ECOWAS must work better in tandem, the United States has also been complicit in such stagnation, repeatedly burying coalition-led plans in the United Nations and imposing neoliberal economic deregulation that has lowered living standards. In pursuing its own economic interests, America has often neglected the needs of others, and without a profound shift in how it approaches developing nations, it will continue to draw the ire of those it tries to court. 

American partnership, not peonage, is needed. Otherwise, organizations like ECOWAS will continue to falter under adversity because positions taken become attached to big brother. Given its size, it is difficult for America to not loom large and lurk in the back of decision-making. That said, acknowledging that intervention has and continues to fail is needed for American policymakers to help actualize a more inclusive future that benefits both American and its partners. 

Until then, we can only hope that the trust destroyed during the pandemic can be reignited going forward. West Africa has come a long way already, and effective institutions, if maintained, could secure the livelihoods of some of the youngest, fastest-growing populations in the world.

How Nagorno-Karabakh Undermines Western Justifications in Ukraine

By: Danial Butt

The Republic of Artsakh, better known by its Russian name of Nagorno-Karabakh, is a piece of land in the Caucasus that has been disputed by Armenia and Azerbaijan for decades. The vast majority of Nagorno-Karabakh’s population is Armenian, and its people were effectively operating as their own state, wholly autonomous from their neighbors. Due to Soviet imperialist policies, it was considered part of its Azerbaijan region instead of Armenia with arbitrary border lines comparable to that of colonialist regimes. When the Soviet Union collapsed, Nagorno-Karabakh was then recognized by the rest of the world as part of the modern day independent Azerbaijan. But mere recognition in itself is not a legally binding way to determine land claims. Nagorno-Karabakh itself seceded from the Soviet Union to form its own republic in 1991. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan not only claimed the territory for itself but has also been rewriting its history to claim that Armenians are not indigenous to the region but are invaders that need to be expelled. 

Sound familiar? Like Ukraine, Nagorno-Karabakh is a key region in Eastern Europe that is being disputed under the same tactics of historical revisionism and blatant disregard for international laws. While the Western world has very much been invested into the War in Ukraine over the past few years, it has comparatively been uninvolved in protecting the people of Nagorno-Karabakh. Within the past year, Azerbaijan’s offensive effectively expelled over ninety nine percent of the native Armenian population from Nagorno-Karabakh. Various global organizations have labeled this catastrophe as a genocide, perpetuating the legitimacy of “might makes right” policies. Conversely, Western leadership itself has largely ignored if not exacerbated the conflict, selling weapons to the region for decades instead of properly negotiating peace between any of the countries involved. Such actions expose the hypocrisy of the so-called democratic powers, showing how they are only fixated on protecting human rights when they have to protect their own interests.

While the UN offices in Azerbaijan have reported that over 100,000 people fled Nagorno-Karabakh, they also reported that they “saw no damage” present in their investigations. But such claims have been disputed. Notably, Azerbaijan was criticized for obstructing UNESCO investigations into Nagorno-Karabakh. If they truly did “[see] no damage”, then it begs the question: why would Azerbaijan act as if there is anything to hide? With Azerbaijan’s long standing policies of declaring Nagorno-Karabakh as for themselves, there is no doubt that Azerbaijan will take the opportunity to tear down any evidence of Armenian ties to the land.

While it still operated as its own country, Nagorno-Karabakh itself had been relatively prosperous. For example, Nagorno-Karabakh had higher annual wages than Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, it is nigh impossible for such conditions to continue in the region, as Azerbaijan operates under authoritarian rule without free and fair elections. One may have expected Armenia’s ally in Russia to protect their interests and fellow people in Nagorno-Karabakh, but Russian fears of a democracy growing on their doorstep rendered this impossible as Armenian politics have recently transitioned towards Western democracy. Moreover, Russia has instead been galvanizing their diplomatic ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey. Both of these countries have been attempting to take control of the Zangezur Corridor, which goes through Armenia’s Syunik province. The loss of this land would hinder Armenia’s sovereignty even further if not entirely. But even without ownership of the corridor being settled, Armenia has alarmingly been referring to Azerbaijan’s escalating attacks on their borders as a sign of war to come.

It would of course be in the West’s best interest to aid Armenia and the refugees from Nagorno-Karabakh now, but there is a worrying problem that it is too little too late. Ethnic cleansing in Nagorno-Karabakh has already been accomplished with Russia and arguably even UN offices turning a blind eye to it. Continuing to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan instead of its own country not only served to legitimize the annexation but has effectively signaled that Armenia proper is now ripe for the taking. By this very logic, Palestine and Taiwan can freely be annexed as well as they are not recognized either. Much of Palestine has already been displaced while Taiwan is still in a precarious situation. And of course, Ukraine itself is still in imminent threat of being taken over. Even if Russia does not succeed now, it has already been proven that the West cares about protecting democracy as much as Russia cares about Armenia.

The Dangers of Tunnel Vision: Parsing Taiwanese Democratic Choice

By: Anna Murray

On January 13th, 2024, the Taiwanese public elected Lai Ching-te to serve as their next president, marking the first time in history that the incumbent party in Taiwan has claimed victory with two subsequent different candidates. The victor’s party, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), gained international recognition for being the least favorite option for the People’s Republic of China. Lai Ching-te has long expressed intent to strengthen economic relations with the US, continuing efforts made by previous president Tsai Ing-wen to wean Taiwan off of economic dependence on China and establish significant trade relations with regional partners in Southeast Asia and across the Pacific in Europe and the US. Americans concerned with cross-strait affairs felt an overall sense of relief that the Taiwanese public had favored the DPP over the Kuomintang, which on the whole favored better economic relations with the Chinese mainland. 

However, most international observers were surprised by the relative lack of focus on China within this Taiwanese election cycle. Polls and surveys showed that the vast majority of younger and middle-aged Taiwanese voters focused on domestic issues in this election: inflation and job insecurity, housing shortages and wages. At the end of the day, the DPP offered the public a domestic policy package that exceeded the competitors’. To an America that only ever sees Taiwan in the context of the cross-strait conflict, this reality is almost unbelievable. To the average Taiwanese voter, the visible shift to domestic issues is a long time coming.

The first undeniable fact is that the Taiwanese position on China, at least since the advent of the 21st century, has rarely changed. Most Taiwanese individuals highly value the status quo; they do not wish to replicate the “one country, two systems” situation that plagues Hong Kong, but they also do not want the violence and uncertainty that would come with declaring independence. Previous President Tsai Ing-wen faced scalding criticism over her prioritization of independence from China, so much so that Lai Ching-te doubled down on reducing cross-strait tensions as much as possible during his 2024 electoral campaign. Seen time and time again, any politician that attempts to move beyond this status quo is almost immediately discredited in the eyes of the average Taiwanese voter; sharp changes in strategy must invariably be avoided at all costs. As such, in the grand scheme of things, the actual China strategy of the DPP candidate does not vary all that much from the KMT candidate.

Perhaps more importantly, the Taiwanese people are tired of talking about China. For a country that has been talking about and contending with the threat of the PRC for the better half of a century, the fear and uncertainty are commonplace. A professor of mine in Taiwan cautioned us almost immediately against asking locals about the cross-strait issue; though Americans start a discussion on Taiwan with the PRC, it is taboo to discuss on the island itself. The US has only recently reopened the conversation on Taiwan because of the Russian invasion of Ukraine and its implications, but cross-strait relations remained a preoccupation over decades in Taiwan. The China threat is thus a sunk cost in Taiwanese elections; if you’re going to be a politician in Taiwan in this day and age, you must have something else to bring to the table. 

What is left is an intense pride for the type of miracle democracy that Taiwan is; founded out of the ashes of a dictatorship under Chiang Kai-shek and weathered through menacing PLA navy ships at its borders, Taiwanese public participation is as unshakable as ever. It was not until recently that the vast majority of Taiwanese individuals began to identify primarily as Taiwanese; regardless, this individualism has become a crucial part of civic participation and perception of government’s responsibility. Put simply, Taiwanese voters see that there is a lot to Taiwan’s name that does not include the cross-strait crisis, and they expect their government to respond. 

While the DPP may favor economic relations with the United States more than China, it is likely the case that China will not base its decision to act on Taiwan on the outcomes of their elections. No Taiwanese party would wholeheartedly hand the island over to the mainland, and Taiwanese industry is already too dependent on China to make a difference one way or the other. Most past attempts to diversify trading partners have faced extreme difficulty due to Chinese sanctions and diplomatic actions; this is a fact that would likely not alter by administration either. In the end, the Taiwanese story will depend on the Chinese willingness to move from threats to action, and this period of uncertainty could span from tomorrow to never. In the meantime, Taiwan can fight by maintaining a well-coordinated democracy, a strong domestic economy and production capacity, and a steady stream of visiting tourists, students, and dignitaries to drum up support. As a result, domestic policy in the coming years will be more crucial than ever, a conviction this election proves beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Summer 2023 Crisis in Kosovo and International Response

By: Brooke Blosser

Tensions between Kosovo and Serbia have been a long standing reality of the Balkan Peninsula. In the twenty years since the breakup of Yugoslavia, relations have continued to be unstable, often with violent flare ups between the two countries. Tensions remain high because Kosovo used to be a province of Serbia, and Serbia does not currently recognize Kosovo as an independent state. Another point of contention are the pockets of ethnic Serbian minorities in the northern part of Kosovo, while the rest of the country is ethnically Albanian. Violence has taken many forms over the years and has come from both sides, with the most recent incident occurring this summer. Ethnically Albanian town officials were elected to a Serbian-majority area despite a boycott by Serbian civilians, causing a series of violent protests. These protests were a uniquely devastating flare up, warranting international concern over the longevity of the tensions. These tensions, if not resolved, could have significant impacts on each country's chances of gaining European Union membership, something that grows ever more important after Russia's invasion of Ukraine.

The 2013 Brussels Agreement between Serbia and Kosovo mandated the creation of a majority Serbian district with autonomous Serbian leaders. The Kosovar government called for elections in this district in November of 2022 following a mass resignation of Serbian officials. These officials had been influential in preserving the ‘parallel system’, which allows Serbia to maintain an influence on Kosovar government institutions in Serbian-majority districts and protect the majority Serbian population. When the Albanian government called for new elections, the Serbian majority boycotted the elections and only ethnic Albanians voted.  Thus, when Albanian leaders were elected in this district, Serbs living in the North and the Serbian government in Belegarde took issue. Serbians protested the instatement of these elected officials by demonstrating in front of the municipality buildings. They demanded new elections, in which the Serbians would voice their disapproval with Albanians serving in a position of power over the ethnic Serbian majority. After four days, these protests turned violent and garnered varied international response.

France and Germany were quick to call for new elections, saying that elections with less than five percent of the eligible voters was “not a condition of legitimacy”. This was a call for de-escalation, and an attempt to dissuade citizens from violence. Most international responses followed this logic – halting the violence and promoting compromise would be the best route for both countries involved. The United States, France, and other European Union countries have been extremely involved in creating compromises between the two nations, and have urged both leaders to follow the agreements that they previously created.

Neither Serbia nor Kosovo are currently members of the European Union. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, EU membership has become ever more critical to a country’s security, especially in eastern Europe. Serbia has been in talks with the EU about accession to the organization since 2009, but the continuation of violence between Serbia and Kosovo has drawn out the process and ultimately dampened their prospects of membership. Kosovo has not applied for EU membership, and is only partially recognized around the world. Continuing tensions between these two countries vying for international approval – and an unwillingness to adhere to previous agreements – does not bode well for either of their futures. EU membership is vital for smaller countries for security: if one member is attacked, countries could be required to send military aid and assistance. Countries with smaller populations would benefit greatly from the extra assistance. Russia could become a threat to peace in the Western Balkans in the future, and these countries must be prepared in case they need military assistance.  If these two countries cannot put an end to the violence, prospects of either one gaining EU membership for essential security and economic integration purposes will dwindle, leaving them exposed and isolated from the rest of Europe while Russia invades Ukraine less than a thousand kilometers away. The United States and European Union members must continue to urge restraint between Serbia and Kosovo, and attempt to mediate before tensions escalate to a point of no return.

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.