The Worldwide Responsibility to End Hostilities in Sudan

By: Brooke Blosser

Since April 2023, the Sudanese Civil War has been creating a humanitarian disaster. Sudan is currently facing “one of the worst humanitarian nightmares in recent history”, while much of the focus of the rest of the world is on other geopolitical issues. Due to dwindling global aid, The United States and other world leaders should take a more decisive stand on the war in Sudan, and commit to ending the humanitarian crisis and promoting democracy within the country.

The Sudanese Civil War is a consequence of political regime changes in Sudan over the past thirty years, most of which have come through violent military coups. Thus, political violence has been the norm in Sudan, and the country has had a difficult time achieving democratic stability. These trends set the stage for the power struggle between two factions of the Sudanese military: the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a paramilitary group. These two groups worked together in 2019 and 2021 to carry out a coup and consolidate their power. However, questions of how the groups would work together led to a power struggle, and ultimately, the outbreak of the Civil War. The difference between this conflict and past conflicts in Sudan is that both groups are recognized by the government - neither of them can be considered rebels. With the fighting not expected to end anytime soon, the humanitarian situation can only grow worse.

The UN reports that 12,000 Sudanese have been killed and eight million have been displaced. It is difficult for children to attend school and hunger is widespread, with 90 percent of the population facing food insecurity. Additionally, the Civil War has internally and externally displaced millions, adding to the instability both within Sudan and the Horn of Africa region. Refugees in surrounding countries like Chad and South Sudan are straining the already precarious economic systems, and compounding upon existing infrastructure issues in those countries. This crisis is currently one of the worst humanitarian issues in the world, and international organizations and world leaders need to step up to assist with ensuring humanitarian assistance reaches the people of Sudan.

Aside from assisting with humanitarian needs, organizations like the United Nations and world leaders, like the United States, must assist with brokering a peace, or, at the very least, a ceasefire to ensure protections. Aside from the obvious need to end the war for humanitarian reasons, the United States has a strategic interest in ending hostilities. If Sudan fails to return to peace, the country will become a breeding ground and safe haven for terrorist organizations. Additionally, when more migrants are forced to resettle in neighboring states, instability could spread and incite greater violence in the region and create even more space for terrorism to grow. However, even with these high stakes, no country or organization has been able to foster productive peace talks. One set of talks, organized by Saudi Arabia and the United States, fell apart due to disagreements between the Saudis and Americans. This is unacceptable, both for the citizens of Sudan stuck in a humanitarian crisis, and the world at large under the threat of terrorism.

However, it would be beneficial for both sides to explore peace: the RSF remains unpopular with the Sudanese people, while the SAF struggles to maintain order in an increasingly disorganized military structure. The incentives to pursue peace exist, both for actors in Sudan and around the world. The United Nations and other influential world leaders need to step up and provide areas for mediation to end the hostilities and protect the people in Sudan from a terrible humanitarian crisis. Additionally, the world must be committed to continuing this support through assisting with peaceful transitions of power and other democratizing measures in Sudan. Creating a culture of a peaceful democracy, which is a popular idea with the Sudanese, should not be undertaken with a goal of creating a “Western” democracy. Rather, the world should work with Sudan to create a peaceful democracy on their terms, not ours. By taking into account Sudanese culture, the world can assist with creating a lasting democracy that protects the Sudanese people from humanitarian crises, and the world from terrorists growing within their borders.

India’s Ram Mandir Consecration Is Not to Be Celebrated, But Mourned

By : Vaidehi Bhardwaj

The Ram Mandir has revealed the Modi government as an authoritarian monstrosity, yet we remain blissfully blind. 

Young men pelting passing cars with sticks and stones- going so far as to slash tires. People being dragged out of buildings and beaten in the streets. Homes bulldozed, women groped and harassed, cemeteries set ablaze by violent mobs. Could this be Germany in the thirties? A scene from Rwanda in the mid-nineties?

This is India in 2024.

Days after the consecration of the sacred Ram Mandir (Temple of Ram) in Ayodhya, violent mobs of young men trawled the streets in seven different states, chanting “Jai Sri Ram” (Praise Lord Ram) and attacking Muslim minority communities. According to supporters of the temple, Ayodhya is the “janmabhoomi,” or birthplace, of Lord Ram, one of the most prominent gods in Hindu polytheistic tradition. Some historians claim to have pinpointed the exact spot upon which Lord Ram was born- a place where, coincidentally, a Muslim mosque erected during the Mughal occupation of India stood. Evidence for this claim is scant and disputed, but the BJP government has claimed a temple built on the site will mend historical grievances from the Mughal occupation, and pave a new era of cooperation between Hindus and Muslims in the country.

Maybe the mobs wreaking havoc across India didn’t get the memo- they tore down storefronts without saffron-colored flags, a symbol of Hinduism, and those hosting Muslim symbols or Arabic writing. They cornered women and men alike on the streets and asked them to chant Hindu hymns, beating them if they refused. Mobs pasted banners with Hindu symbols onto Christian and Catholic churches. Opposition leaders from minority communities and parties received threats in-person and on social media. Amidst the chaos, Prime Minister Narendra Modi lauded the temple as a beacon for a brighter future and the end of a “historical knot” of contention between Hindus and Muslims. Ironically, neither Modi nor his party, the Bharatiya Janata (BJP) addressed the clearly religiously-motivated violence- in fact, several key BJP politicians stoked it, saying they “very well know what needs to be done.” 

This is not the Modi government’s first foray into authoritative fascism. In fact, discriminatory and divisive actions have slowly but surely become the norm in India since 2002, with the Gujarat Riots under Modi, then Chief Minister. It has continued to a crescendo in recent years- in 2019, the BJP introduced a law allowing Indian asylum for all citizens except Muslim ones of neighboring countries- a law that is set to go into effect this year, preceding elections. Anti-conversion laws in several BJP-ruled states prevent religious conversion without prior approval from the government. Education is not spared either: chapters on minority and lower-caste struggles for rights, and diversity in democracy, have been quietly removed from high school textbooks. The government has replaced mentions of Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister and famous secularist, with those of V.D. Savarkar, the creator of militant Hindutva (Hindu supremacy). Periodic crackdowns on the Internet, healthcare, and public gatherings have also become terrifyingly commonplace. Free speech and expression no longer exist- the Modi government used a series of peaceful protests in January 2020 to impose draconian restrictions on news agencies.Furthermore, the government deleted over a thousand Twitter accounts, ordered a complete Internet shutdown, and imprisoned activists on baseless charges for extended periods of time. Activists and academics are consistently harassed and threatened by authorities and laypeople both. Any kind of dissent is instantly painted as anti-Indian: Modi himself deemed Punjabi farmers peacefully protesting new agriculture laws as Khalistani separatists and “parasites.” Is it any surprise, then, that Hindu militant nationalists feel comfortable visiting such open violence upon minority communities? After all, Modi and the BJP clearly built the foundations- signaling that minority religious and political groups are somehow dangerous, un-Indian, and undeserving of rights and respect.

And yet, Hindus around the world rejoice at another supposed “win” for their religion and their country through the consecration of the Ram Mandir. They take to the streets and celebrate in parties, in parades, or in Tesla caravans. They choose to forget that the Ram Mandir is built precisely on top of the ruins of the Babri Masjid, a Muslim mosque abandoned by the local Muslim population after Hindutva sentiments made it too dangerous to worship there. The mosque was eventually torn down in 1992 by militant Hindu nationalists. They choose not to hear the leading Hindu scholars of the country decrying the temple as a politicized sham. They turn a blind eye to the civil rights and liberties disappearing as a result of their actions. They are perfectly content labeling those who raise concerns about their glee as “not Hindu enough,” “playing appeasement politics,” “separatist,” “Marxist”- as other. 

“The NRI population that is supporting that majoritarian project…basically they’re supporting a coming genocide,” says UVA Professor of History Indrani Chatterjee. “In every riot since 2002, Muslim middle classes have lost their business, shops and properties and are either killed- as in the Gulbarg Society Massacre- or completely and permanently displaced. So that’s what’s effectively happening. That’s terrifying. That same kind of violence is being visited by means of bulldozers that are sent to demolish shrines, mosques and hutments of the working poor among Muslims living in Delhi suburbs. It’s a clear step-by-step ethnic cleansing that’s happening. Nobody is going to call it that.”

After all, this is the true genius of Modi and his ilk- not their success at governing (which has been minimal), but their fearsome ability to exploit religious, ethnic, and caste differences that have existed in India from time immemorial. With one hand, they point to the sky and proclaim unity and progress for all Indians- while with the other, they quietly continue to tear apart the seams that hold an immensely diverse and populous India together.

The Ram Mandir is not cause for celebration. It is not a success for “historically marginalized” Hindus, nor is it a step in reclaiming Indian heritage. It is no pushback against Mughal colonization, or a new era of “Ram Rajya” (just and ethical governance). We must recognize the Ram Mandir for what it is- another discreet, devastating attack against one of the minority groups Modi and the BJP have demonized, and an inexcusably unapologetic marriage of religion and the political state. We must mourn the Ram Mandir project- it is nothing but another death knell for Indian democracy.

A Return to Cold War Nuclear Deterrence?

By: Alexander Macturk

Early this month, Chief National Security Correspondent for CNN Jim Sciutto reported that senior Biden administration officials began “prepping rigorously” for a potential Russian nuclear strike in Ukraine. Sciutto’s report mirrors the unsettling trend of states with nuclear arsenals levying similar threats. North Korea’s Kim Jong Un welcomed the New Year with an order to “thoroughly annihilate” the United States and South Korea if attacked. Iran’s technological advancements have lowered the development time required to weaponize its nuclear research. Coupled with the instability in the region, prompted by the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack, Iran is worryingly poised to build its nuclear stockpile. 

Despite this, the validity of such threats and likelihood of nuclear proliferation remain unclear. Nonetheless, the U.S has exited its post-Cold War bliss and reentered a new period where  nuclear deterrence is no longer a theoretical strategic issue. In fact, the risk of use of nuclear weapons in combat is rising. Therefore, the national security community requires a strict reexamination of the doctrine of nuclear deterrence, its application in the post-Cold War world, and a path forward.

For the U.S, the way to address nuclear deterrence varies between military and political leaders. Admiral Charles Richard, former Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, has stressed American policymakers’ retreat from their myopia and sober realization that nuclear deterrence has always been integral to strategic deterrence. He emphasizes that nuclear deterrence itself has never been a universal deterrent. In fact, leaders such as Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev vigorously competed with each other for unilateral gain under the umbrella of nuclear deterrence. 

Failure to fully understand nuclear deterrence may lead to dangerous consequences. Nuclear weapons can inflict “uncontestable costs,” including an all-out nuclear assault. Nevertheless, nuclear deterrence does not exist separately from conventional deterrence. On a similar note, Sciutto also reported executive branch officials’ concerns that Russia may employ a “tactical or battlefield nuclear weapon.” The possibility of Vladimir Putin deploying tactical nuclear arms underlines the important duty of policymakers to prepare for any battlefield possibility and disregard the practice of solely relying on nuclear deterrence for international stability.

The poor application and stunted understanding of nuclear deterrence has evolved from the bipolar power struggle between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Admiral Richard has saliently warned that the twenty-first century authoritarian nuclear regimes may now stake their legitimacy on the ability to wage nuclear war. For example, North Korea passed a law in 2022 that explicitly states its status as a nuclear power. Authoritarian regimes do not employ traditional nuclear deterrence to persuade a potential adversary that the costs of a retaliatory nuclear attack far outweigh the benefits of an initial strike. In fact—and reflected in the language of the 2022 North Korea law—these authoritarian regimes misconstrue their nuclear arsenals not as a deterrent but as a strategic tool for “taking the initiative in war” and securing the continued viability of their regimes. 

To address this uncomfortable and present reality posed by the nuclear proliferation since the end of the Cold War, the U.S. must remain committed to international diplomacy aimed at limiting the development of nuclear arsenals. The U.S. must also push reduction treaties, like New START between the U.S. and Russia, as better alternatives to nuclear deterrence. Looking ahead, the U.S. should also work to lower tensions on the Korean Peninsula to ensure that Kim’s 2022 nuclear declaratory law has no chance of being practiced. If committed to pursuing renewed and reinvigorated commitment to nuclear proliferation and reducing tensions in conflicts involving nuclear powers, the U.S. would bring stability and international security and help make nuclear displays irrelevant on the global stage.

Indonesia’s Nickel Empire at the Expense of Human Rights

By: Apal Upadhyaya

Indonesia has more than quadrupled its nickel production in less than ten years, positioning the island nation to dominate the international nickel market. Nickel is necessary for the production of stainless steel and lithium-ion batteries found in essential everyday items like electric toothbrushes, laptops, computers, and cellphones. These batteries increasingly find use in next-generation technologies to power electric vehicles and e-bikes. Further, the demand for nickel is expected to increase 6-fold by 2030 fueled by growing demand for electric vehicles, a climate-friendly alternative form of transportation. Indonesia’s islands of Halmera and Sulawesi are home to the most identified nickel reserves in the country, making land there extremely lucrative for potential nickel mining companies. 

However, because of the land’s overwhelming value, thousands of Indonesian pepper farmers and other landowners have reported their land being seized by mining companies. Police intimidate locals and sell private lands well below market value with little negotiation. Furthermore, while the Indonesian government paints its nickel mining initiatives as green and energy friendly, the seizing and excavating of lands has resulted in thousands of acres of deforestation. The little regard and respect the Indonesian government and mining companies have for the Indonesian people whose ancestral lands have been seized blatantly violates property and human rights. While Indonesia has made it its goal to disrupt the international nickel market, it has lost its sense to protect the rights of its people. 

In Indonesia, formal land titles are difficult to acquire, especially for ancestral lands. In 2021, local governments began transferring land deeds to mining companies without the consent of the land’s residents. In one case, a widow and her family was given around $50 million Indonesian rupiah ($3,223) in exchange for the land. With the farm, the widow could make up to 6 million rupiah ($386) in one month from her harvests, and without her farm-based income, the widow has resorted to to selling cooked food at a stall to make a fraction of that income she would have made if she still had her land. Notably, these land deals and disputes are predatory and disproportionately affect Indonesia’s poorest populations. This exploitative approach to nickel mining is not going away. The number of land disputes increased from 1,520 conflicts between 2005-2015 to 2,939 conflicts between 2015-2023 under President Joko Widodo. This has affected 135,608 households, or close to one million people. 

On the island of Gelam, which is part of the Kendawangan conservation area zone, local government officials claim that land deeds were only given to mining companies because of residents’ requests. Residents refute this claim and argue that they never willingly gave up their lands to mining companies. Local Indonesian governments and officials have abused the lack of land deeds among their poorest populations to better position themselves for success in future nickel mining operations. The Indonesian government has recently become a controlling shareholder of  PT Vale Indonesia, one of the mining companies seizing land in Sulawesi. Thus, the government of Indonesia is complicit in this seizing of land affecting almost a million citizens. The government’s gross disregard of its own citizens violates the property rights and threatens the livelihoods of the millions of people who live off their land to gain a reliable income. 

The Indonesian government frames this focus on nickel as a push towards clean energy, but massive deforestation and pollution undermines the government of President Joko Widodo’s goals. Over 13,173 acres (5,331 hectares) of forest have been cleared on Halmahera, driving away deer and boars and polluting the water of local rivers. PT Weda Bay Nickel, the largest nickel miner on Halmahera, has deforested 3,600 acres of forest as of 2022. Widodo has sought to support developing industries, hasten recognition of land ownership, and slow deforestation. However, based on the actions of mining groups backed by the Indonesian government, deforestation in Indonesia still continues. 

While Indonesian nickel mining can make the nation a key player in the international nickel market, the violation of property and human rights to undertake such a project cannot be understated. Seizing and evicting people from ancestral lands for the sake of mine development is wrong. Excavating such lands in a way that pollutes key water sources and destabilizes the surrounding environment is wrong. Indonesian policymakers must stop issuing permits to mine and hold leaders accountable for violations of community members’ rights. If safeguards and restrictions do not materialize, the people of these islands will be displaced and the environment will be destroyed, both reduced to an afterthought of innovation. 

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.