The Wage Economy Contributes To Food Insecurity Among the Inuit

By: Priya Buddhavarapu

We live in a world where one jar of nutella costs $48 for some Inuit communities. 


The Inuit people, traditionally spread across the northern regions of North America, Greenland, and Russia, are a vast and diverse indigenous group that have, for centuries, thrived in the relentless Arctic environment. By engaging in cultural practices such as seasonal subsistence hunting, gathering, and preservation methods, as well as values such as sharing, respect for elders, and extended familial units, the Inuit people are able to call the Arctic tundra their home. The term Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ) refers to the various types of Inuit traditional knowledge that encompass these values. 


In the recent past, many of these communities have been undergoing a transition from the traditional subsistence economy to a wage economy, perpetuated by the increasing costs of hunting and fishing, the effects of climate change in Arctic regions, changing interests, and loss of IQ. The average Inuit wage worker, however, faces an extreme disparity compared to the average urban citizen. From factors such as job shortages to a lack of affordable housing and healthcare, there exist several barriers to the economic wellbeing of several Inuit communities. 


One consequence of this economic transition stands out, an acute food security crisis. Food insecurity refers to when a household or community has limited or uncertain access to safe and healthy food. Due to environmental changes and the manpower of communities being diverted to the wage economy, many Inuit people are no longer able to rely on IQ and traditional practices to self-sustain. In one Inuit region, 70% of adults were found to be living in a food-insecure household.  In Nunavut, a large region in northern Canada populated by twenty-five Inuit communities, food insecurity is at crisis level


A solution to this, some offer, is to treat Inuit individuals like other citizens, expecting them to rely on the transport and purchase of market foods, or food shipped from southern areas. This is, in fact, what is currently being done in several communities across Canada and Alaska.


This, however, is unfeasible. 


Due to the longer distance and lack of adequate transportation across these northern regions, produce spoils quickly. If products do make it to their destination, costs are unattainably expensive. Additionally, the food that is readily available in these areas is usually highly processed and calorically dense, leading to high obesity rates among Inuit populations. This is juxtaposed with the starvation arising from inconsistent access. Furthermore, Inuit adolescents and children are at heightened risk for mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, compounding the adverse health effects of food insecurity.


Moreover, the shift to the wage economy has also driven a shift in traditional Inuit values. Most notably, this has been the destruction of the Inuit family structure and culture of sharing. Research has consistently shown that subsistence hunting is crucial to Inuit identities and economic wellbeing. Fully employed Inuit are significantly more likely to adapt to solely sharing within a nuclear family structure, whereas partially employed or sport-hunting guides are more likely to share subsistence food with extended family and distant kin. 


Values of sharing,cooperation, and the traditional Inuit familial structure are being disrupted by this economic shift. What was once collective now is becoming individualistic. 


The issues that the shift from a subsistence to a wage economy has caused  have severely contributed to the enormous food insecurity crisis present in these regions. Compounded with the effects of climate change, communities are seeing effects from health degradation to community collapse. 


In combating this issue, governments must listen to the voices of representative Inuit bodies, relying on IQ and their longstanding knowledge of their lands to address and ensure consistent access to safe and nutritious foods. While a solution to this complex issue will not come easy, it is imperative to rely on deeply relevant guidance that has survived centuries of obstacles. 



Trump’s Harmful New Plan For Gaza And It’s Pushback

By: Jacob Rabin

Trump recently produced global shockwaves when he announced an American plan to control Gaza during a bilateral press conference with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. Although the Gaza Strip has been governed by different nations and groups since the Mandate of Palestine began after the end of World War II, the United States has absolutely no claim to any of Gaza or its resources. 


Trump’s plan to “take over” and “own” Gaza is borderline insane as a result. Furthermore, Trump’s proposition that other Middle Eastern nations would absorb the current Palestinian population that resides in Gaza is unthinkable, particularly as American allies in the region scoff at the notion.


The conflict in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas that also involved Iran and Hezbollah has been a traumatic event involving the loss of much life and the destruction of much property. Beginning with Hamas’s incursion into Israel on October 7, 2023, Israeli military action has been across the region as the country has sought to protect itself from further attack. 


As Israel’s longest-standing ally, the United States has provided billions of dollars in aid since the country was first recognized, reflecting not just a desire for an independent Israel but also showing the importance of Israel’s security to American interests in the Middle East. As the only true democracy in the Middle East, the United States relies on Israel immensely. 


Nothing changed after the October 7th attack, with the United States having provided nearly $18 billion in military aid as of October 2024, the one-year point of the conflict. The reintroduction of a Trump administration into the picture has only led to a renewal of the United States’ commitment to Israel.


Some have even argued that Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu were extending the war in Gaza until an eventual Trump re-election – with Netanyahu being the first foreign head of state to visit the White House, those beliefs have not been dissuaded. The bilateral press conference between the two leaders simply reinforced the argument that Trump and Israel are in essential lockstep. 


However, even as the two agreed on topics such as their opinion on the Biden administration and the dangers of Iran, a clear (if unsaid) division occurred. President Trump introduced his new plan that would entail the United States taking control of Gaza, saying, “We'll own it.”


Even Prime Minister Netanyahu seemed to view the proposal negatively, saying, “President Trump is taking it to a much higher level. His words and tone overwhelmingly make clear that Israel would not be a fan of further American presence in the region.


In addition to several American allies rejecting the plan, Republican lawmakers also expressed discomfort, feeling that it was just another empty plan similar to Trump’s ideas about the Panama Canal and Greenland.


Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt seemed to walk Trump’s plan back, saying that the United States would simply rebuild Gaza and Palestinians would only be temporarily displaced.


Even with pushback from nearly every avenue, Trump only doubled down on his plan, posting an AI-generated video depicting a resort in Gaza being built out of the rubble. Even if this talking point is nonsense, it is still absurd that the President of the United States is engaging in such spitballing.


While peace in Gaza, and the Middle East more broadly, is necessary, the solution is not more American involvement. The United States has no business or right to involve itself deeply in foreign affairs strictly for American benefit. This is especially true when Americans' lives are at risk. Instead, we should continue to work with Israel to maintain a ceasefire, allowing peace to return to the region.


Lessons From Ukraine to be Applied to a War Over Taiwan

By: Charlotte Sparling

The war in Ukraine has entered its fourth year. Despite predictions that Ukraine would quickly succumb to the Russians, they are still fighting. 


In response to aerial attacks, Ukraine’s drone strikes targeting airfields, oil refineries, and other critical institutions seek to cripple Russia. Furthermore, since the start of 2025, Ukrainian forces have “stabilized much of the 800-mile front line inside Ukraine, stalling Russian advances and counter attacking” in the surrounding area by the cities of Toretsk and Pokrovsk. 


Through these efforts, Ukrainian forces continue to fight to hold the line.


Russia has responded to Ukrainian defense by employing extensive resources, with North Korean troops only adding to that. Combined Russian and North Korean troops seized villages and cut supply lines to main Ukrainian forces in Sudzha. 


The United States and Europe have continued to provide Ukraine with key support. As questions arise about future American support, the status of Ukraine is becoming increasingly contingent on European aid. The United States currently provides roughly half of the aid to Ukraine. If that is to substantially decrease, Europe would need to quickly step up.


Together, Europe’s resources “constitute a massive air force, giant navy and formidable army.” Yet, the quantity of resources has decreased compared to during the Cold War. Consequently, these countries have begun to revamp their stockpiles. The collective European resource pool surpasses Russian resources, but this rebuilding focus is still crucial.


Global leaders must learn from the Russo-Ukrainian war and apply these lessons in preparing Taiwan for the possibility of a Chinese invasion.  


In East Asia, China continues to pressure Taiwan, as seen by their aggressive posturing. For decades, Taiwan has faced this threat, with China almost every day probing Taiwanese defenses with warships and fighter jets with the aim to “to destroy the sovereignty of a free and democratic Taiwan and subordinate it to communist China.”


Former Director of the CIA, William Burns, noted instructions from Chinese president, Xi Jinping, to prepare for an invasion of Taiwan by 2027.


The implications of an invasion “are enormous, potentially including a global economic crisis far worse than the shock caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.”


Preventative measures are vital to prevent such a calamity for the surrounding region. Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Australia would become especially vulnerable if the US failed to act.


Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Taiwanese leaders stood by the victim, Ukraine.“ ‘Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow’ is now a commonly used phrase in Taiwan.”


Therefore, the US needs to secure Ukrainian sovereignty if it hopes to do the same with Taiwan. Just like dominos, if one is to stand, so too must the other.


The West failed to deter Putin’s invasion, and Ukraine’s future does not contain a guarantee of a reversal to pre-invasion conditions. Russia probed responses to its actions in 2014 amidst its invasions of Crimea, Donbas, Syria, Georgia, and Chechnya. Later, in 2022, Russia carried out the invasion of Ukraine itself. 


“If you want peace, be prepared for war.”


China is watching America’s reactions to Ukraine to anticipate what American involvement would look like if China invaded Taiwan. While there are heavy economic costs weighing on Europe following their break with Russia, the costs of a Taiwanese invasion would be far greater.


If the US abandons Ukraine, roughly half of its support would disappear. Simultaneously, a Russian victory would embolden China to move against Taiwan.


These two conflicts are intertwined. Accordingly, Taiwanese officials have learned from Ukraine and have made changes such as restructuring their military by lengthening service terms and training. They have also expanded their drone program after observing the key role drones have played in Ukraine.


The war in Ukraine has exposed modern warfare challenges, US and European military readiness to respond, and has brought about crucial lessons for the future. 


While deterrence with Russia failed, there is an increased need for it to work with China.