|
With oil consumption across the globe lowering in the new reality of a coronavirus-ridden world, multiple countries have been experiencing dire economic consequences. A massive decrease in daily transportation, air travel, and a predicted lowering of industrial oil use has forced oil prices to lower. However, oil is not the only resource that has seen significant price drops since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Qatar is experiencing a similar economic crisis at the hands of the coronavirus, as stores of liquified natural gas (LNG) build up and remain unsold. Liquefied natural gas is different from other sorts of natural gas as it has been cooled to a liquid state and is able to be shipped, rather than be sent through underground pipelines. Qatar is stuck between a rock and a hard place. The government can choose to lower LNG prices, which would, in turn, allow them to continue moving stuck cargo and turning a profit. However, this option would force LNG to drop to nearly negative prices in Europe. If they instead choose to cut LNG production, the government would lose important revenue that could be used for infrastructure during these uncertain times, and could possibly lose their top exporter spot to Australia. It is unclear exactly what Qatar will be doing to combat this problem. Oil-production has been slashed in order to stabilize markets, but nothing as concrete or widespread has been done regarding natural gas prices. Countries like Norway and Russia have slashed exports, and the United States will likely do the same. Regardless, Qatar’s shipments are appearing to slow, so it looks like they will be taking steps that benefit the global economy, even if it hurts their own country in the process. Middle-Eastern Art Feature  Amal Al Aathem is a prominent Qatari artist. This piece is from her Gravity collection. Her art often focuses on the spiritual dimensions of women. Al Aathem has been awarded several prestigious prizes for her art.
0 Comments
In an attempt to distract from the overwhelmingly coronavirus-focused media storm that is likely barraging all of your phones, I want to discuss some harmful misconceptions about the Middle East and introduce a new addition to my column. In mainstream media, radical Islam that is practiced by terrorist groups like ISIS is often conflated with conventional Islam, leading to the oppression of Muslims in society and providing yet another avenue for fearmongering. In reality, Islam, like so many different religions otherized by the media, is one that preaches peace, equality, and education. While my column so often focuses on the downsides of what is happening in the Middle East and the many terrorist groups that reside inside of it, it’d be wrong of me to not take some time and ensure that I do not perpetuate any of the negative stereotypes that mainstream media often portrays. At the end of each of my articles, I will be showcasing a prominent Middle Eastern art piece in order to take away from the stereotypes of violence that surround the Middle East. With this choice, I hope to help dispel the problematic notion that people who live in the Middle East and those who practice Islam are violent. Despite what is too-often emphasized in popular news outlets in the United States, Islam is no more of a strict or austere religion than Christianity. At IYPF, we strive to rise above the tropes of mainstream media that stereotype marginalized groups and report only on unbiased truth. As a Jewish person myself, my aim would be to play my part in preventing others, both of my religion and not, from falling into the fallacious, bigoted mindset that labels Muslims as an inherently violent people. I hope that this new addition to my column will help to support the objective reality.  In my new logo, designed by the IYPF’s new graphic designer Claire Fennell, three pieces of art are featured. The first piece is titled Bustan Al-Ma’refa (The Orchard of Knowledge), by Shakir Hassan Al-Said. The second is 1. Pomegranate Tree of Life by Anne Shams, and the third is Impossible Dream by Laila Shawa. Both Bustan Al-Ma’refa and Impossible Dream are by artists of Middle Eastern descent, and while 1. Pomegranate Tree of Life was not created by someone of Middle Eastern descent, it was created in order to portray the beauty in the co-mingling of Jewish, Christian and Islamic cultures.
On February 29, President Donald Trump signed a prospective peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar in a possible first step to ending the war in Afghanistan. However, President Trump’s track record leads people to question whether or not this peace deal will truly bring about the peace it promises, or if it is only masking something more sinister below the surface.
The wording of the peace deal is clear: if the Taliban continues to meet their commitments to prevent terrorism, the United States will begin transitioning their forces in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,600 over a 3-4 month period, and will fully withdraw over the course of 14 months. However, the subtext is what is really important to focus on in evaluating this piece deal. The most likely outcome of this peace deal is heavily reminiscent of South Vietnam after the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. After the accords were signed, North Vietnam immediately began to violate the terms of the accords, and then “the weakened state of South Vietnam was overrun by a North Vietnamese blitzkrieg. America’s abandoned allies had to flee or be consigned to brutal ‘reeducation’ camps.” In my opinion, nothing is going to change. The troop withdrawal is entirely predicated on whether or not the talks between the Taliban and Afghanistan’s government officials succeed. If we look at historical precedence of the Talibans longtime refusal to step down in the Middle East, as well as the United States’ past commitment to fighting terrorism, it feels as though this peace deal is a meaningless decree of nothing. Either the situation will remain the same, or the United States will now have an excuse - be it under the guise of diplomacy or otherwise - to involve themselves even more heavily in Middle Eastern affairs. Either way, this “peace agreement” is little more than President Trump attempting to create media buzz and attention that paints him in a favorable light, likely to improve his chances at reelection for 2020. In reality, he is contributing nothing positive through his foreign policy. Furthermore, this peace deal comes after Trump’s ineffective overture to Palestine for a peace deal. Between this Taliban deal and the disaster with Palestine, Trump’s middle-eastern intervention reflects a greater inclination to lessen U.S. involvement in the middle east. Furthermore, this more reasonable deal comes in the wake of the 2016 election, when Trump campaigned on the promise that he would bring troops home from Afghanistan. This treaty is another step in achieving the goal of completely removing U.S. troops from the middle east. President Obama, during his presidency, used drones as a substitute for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, although he largely failed to pull them out of the war-ridden nation. Instead, he claimed that Afghanistan was a just war that was needed to find justice for the September 11th victims. Further, he claimed that Afghanistan instead of Iraq was a priority for his presidency. Obama went so far as to send 17,000 new troops to the country in 2018 after being advised by the Pentagon. On February 29, President Donald Trump signed a prospective peace deal with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar in a possible first step to ending the war in Afghanistan. However, President Trump’s track record leads people to question whether or not this peace deal will truly bring about the peace it promises, or if it is only masking something more sinister below the surface. The wording of the peace deal is clear: if the Taliban continues to meet their commitments to prevent terrorism, the United States will begin transitioning their forces in Afghanistan from 13,000 to 8,600 over a 3-4 month period, and will fully withdraw over the course of 14 months. However, the subtext is what is really important to focus on in evaluating this piece deal. The most likely outcome of this peace deal is heavily reminiscent of South Vietnam after the 1973 Paris Peace Accords. After the accords were signed, North Vietnam immediately began to violate the terms of the accords, and then “the weakened state of South Vietnam was overrun by a North Vietnamese blitzkrieg. America’s abandoned allies had to flee or be consigned to brutal ‘reeducation’ camps.” In my opinion, nothing is going to change. The troop withdrawal is entirely predicated on whether or not the talks between the Taliban and Afghanistan’s government officials succeed. If we look at historical precedence of the Talibans longtime refusal to step down in the Middle East, as well as the United States’ past commitment to fighting terrorism, it feels as though this peace deal is a meaningless decree of nothing. Either the situation will remain the same, or the United States will now have an excuse - be it under the guise of diplomacy or otherwise - to involve themselves even more heavily in Middle Eastern affairs. Either way, this “peace agreement” is little more than President Trump attempting to create media buzz and attention that paints him in a favorable light, likely to improve his chances at reelection for 2020. In reality, he is contributing nothing positive through his foreign policy. Furthermore, this peace deal comes after Trump’s ineffective overture to Palestine for a peace deal. Between this Taliban deal and the disaster with Palestine, Trump’s middle-eastern intervention reflects a greater inclination to lessen U.S. involvement in the middle east. Furthermore, this more reasonable deal comes in the wake of the 2016 election, when Trump campaigned on the promise that he would bring troops home from Afghanistan. This treaty is another step in achieving the goal of completely removing U.S. troops from the middle east. President Obama, during his presidency, used drones as a substitute for U.S. troops in Afghanistan, although he largely failed to pull them out of the war-ridden nation. Instead, he claimed that Afghanistan was a just war that was needed to find justice for the September 11th victims. Further, he claimed that Afghanistan instead of Iraq was a priority for his presidency. Obama went so far as to send 17,000 new troops to the country in 2018 after being advised by the Pentagon. On January 28th, President Trump released his Middle Eastern Peace Plan intended to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, calling it a “win-win.” Palestinians, however, disagree.
The implication of the President's 'peace plan' paints a dire picture for Palestine's future hopes of dignity and statehood - analysts cite page 34 of 180, which reads: “the predicate condition to a Palestinian state being recognized is that there must be a free press; free elections; guarantees of religious freedom; an independent judiciary; financial institutions that are as good, transparent and as effective as in the western world; and the US and Israel will judge whether the Palestinians have achieved this.” Placing the determination of statehood in the hands of Israel effectively ensures that they will never achieve it. Moreover, Palestinian officials were not included in the three-year-long formulation of this plan whatsoever. It is impossible to expect a fair and inclusive peace plan when the very party that is most impacted by violence and aggression is not included. Mahmoud Abbas, the President of Palestine, cut all ties with the United States and Israel following the release of this deal, describing the plan as “nonsense” and a “conspiracy deal.” President Trump’s timing in his attempt to reintroduce plans to bring peace to Israel and Palestine is interesting, to say the least. After his controversial decision to kill General Qassem Soleimani created near-chaos within the Middle East, one would assume that President Trump would be more strategically conservative in involvement in Middle Eastern affairs, making his attempts to mediate conflicts that are hotly debated as Israel-Palestine that much more confusing. However, the President's actions have nonetheless changed the dynamic of the international negotiating table against peace, escalating tensions on both sides of this already divisive dispute. President Trump’s “peace plan” is little more than a veiled attempt to exert even more control over the Middle East than he already has. Whether it is a product of his foreign affairs wagering that he thought they would have global support for a plan that suppresses Palestine’s campaign for statehood or a power play regardless of international approval, it is a decision that will only further entrench the already painfully high tensions of the conflict, and has already made peace harder to achieve. Just hours ago, Iran launched 15 ballistic missiles at Erbil and Ain Al-Asad Air Bases, both of which are located in Iraq under U.S. control. At the time that this article is published, we are unsure of how many casualties that this strike may have caused, though we know that the bases contained fewer soldiers than usual and were also poorly defended. Coming mere hours after Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif warned Americans to prepare for consequences, the missiles were launched as a direct response to the murder of General Soleimani in an operation aptly named “Operation Martyr Soleimani.” Not knowing the casualty count makes it difficult to anticipate President Trump’s response. If Americans were not harmed, there may still be a chance - to the delight of the global community - for him to work to reach a diplomatic solution. If there were Americans hurt in the strike, President Trump may feel as though there is no choice but to respond with aggression, which could quickly devolve into all-out warfare.
In the aftermath of the Soleimani assassination, policy analysts and citizens of the global community alike remained hopeful that Iran’s method of retaliation would be constrained to sanctions on resources or international condemnation of the United States’ actions. That optimism, unfortunately, has been dispelled with an immediately violent response from Tehran, rendering the conflict more pressing than many had imagined. Asian market indicators have slid within hours, foreshadowing the economic uncertainty that an escalation of this conflict will bring as parallels are drawn between it and some of the largest military conflicts of the 20th century. President Trump’s proclamation over twitter that “all is well” in regards to the Iranian attack appears to be a facade more than truthful reassurance. Americans remain fearsome as they pray for their deployed loved one’s safety, and watch as thousands of brave soldiers flood airports across the country to begin active duty. We anxiously await further information on the status of the stationed Americans’ safety, as it will determine the future of Iranian-American relations. The ball is now in President Trump’s court. He has the ability to de-escalate the situation, or take our country into war. Americans and Iranians alike now must await their fate: President Trump announced via Twitter that he would release a statement about the attacks today. This article will be updated as new information is released. Update, 5:15 PM Earlier today, President Trump took to the podium to deliver an address to the American people amid international discomfort and deepening political rifts between Republicans and Democrats on how best to approach the situation with Iran. President Trump thankfully announced that there were no American casualties. After Iran’s post-airstrike explanation that they did not seek war, President Trump also added to his speech that Iran seems to be backing down. While this may bode well for the prospects of de-escalation of military conflict, the President’s address to the nation still leaves a sense of unease among careful listeners; Iran’s reluctance for military aggression shouldn’t be so easily construed as docility, as it is likely that Tehran will advance plans in the near future that contain subtler forms of retaliation - most likely economic. While military de-escalation sits on the horizon, geopolitical tensions between the two remains at greater heights than ever, with both countries posturing towards a more silent hostility. In the midst of World War 3 memes and esoteric articles, it can be difficult to understand what the death of General Qasem Soleimani truly represents for American citizens and for the global community as a whole.
Qasem Soleimani was the commander of the most highly ranked military power in all of Iran: the Quds. The Revolutionary Guards Quds Force has been designated a terrorist organization by the United States, as they were responsible for killing U.S. troops during the Iraq war. General Soleimani is also known to be very close to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei; many Middle Eastern analysts even go so far as to claim that he has the power similar to that of a Vice President. In America, on both sides of the aisle, he is characterized as a vicious murderer. However, among Iranians, he is known as a hero, and is celebrated for his work while fighting ISIS. Despite the various comical Instagram posts, tweets, and TikToks depicting theoretical draft-dodging for World War 3, this action by the United States is unlikely to actually lead to war. After declaring the death of General Soleimani an “act of war,” Iran’s United Nations ambassador, Majid Takht Ravanchi, assured that it would be met with “a harsh revenge.” The historical precedent, however, implies otherwise. According to Eric Edelman, a practitioner senior fellow at UVA’s Miller Center, “use of force or threat of force from the U.S. has more often than not led to Iran pulling back.” Though the strike on General Soleimani was an incredibly risky undertaking by the current administration, it is unlikely to lead to a measure as drastic as war because Iran knows that they would lose. They are less powerful, have a decidedly lesser number of weaker allies, along with the fact that many foreign powers have committed themselves to de-escalation in the face of this attack. Though the Trump Administration has made a strategic mistake in deciding to kill General Soleimani, World War 3 is not going to suddenly break out in your backyard. What we can expect to see, instead, are smaller, targeted strikes on American troops. Trump’s executive order meant to protect Jewish students on college campuses actually puts them at risk. Primarily, this order states that the federal government will withhold funding from universities that fail to combat what he sees as anti-Semitism. In reality, Trump is targeting anti-Israeli actions, and many people are raising concerns about damage to rights to free speech. The issue I have with this executive order is that it conflates being Jewish with supporting Israel, two things that are not always connected.
Not only does it paint Jews everywhere with a one-dimensional brush, but it also puts them in danger of ostracization. The far-left already has biases against the Jewish people. This is something I’ve anecdotally experienced -- as I am both open about my faith and heavily involved with large-scale far left activism - but has also been empirically documented. This isn’t the first time President Trump has portrayed this one-dimensional perspective of Jews. He’s referred to Benjamin Netanyahu as “your prime minister,” when speaking to American Jews, and he’s openly critiqued Jewish with anti-Israel opinions, calling them “severely disloyal.” To me, it’s terrifying that my peers on the far-left have the ability to use this piece of legislation to ostracize me further, claiming that Jews in general are trying to take away their free speech rights and remove their ability to publically and vocally condemn nations committing grave human rights violations. In the face of this executive action, my message as a Jewish teenage democrat is clear: anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism are different. Jews can be anti-Zionist, but not anti-Semitic. A person can hate the actions of Israel, but they do not need to hate all Jews. Trump’s executive order creates legal means to conflate anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism by punishing anti-Zionist action as “hate crimes” or “hate speech” against the Jewish people. A direct quote from the definition of anti-Semitism originally formulated by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance states that “criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as antisemitic.” Though it may seem a bit out of the ordinary for me to be covering such a domestic issue in a column that is meant to be about the Middle East, the Israel/Palestine conflict has reaches that dramatically impacts Jews nationally, including Jews in the United States. In my experience, this long-lasting conflict has been one of the most controversial issues I have ever discussed, so I won’t be sharing my outright opinion, nor do I owe my opinion to anyone. However, I do want to make it clear that I do not support all of the actions of Israel, despite connecting heavily with my Jewish faith, and this executive order is harmful to people like me. Though it has the ability to be overturned by the next president takes office, I have already begun to feel the effects of this executive order. Trump’s actions have created a sense of unrest and fear among the Jewish community, and it is the responsibility of every American citizen to listen to what the Jewish people are telling you when we say that this is not the kind of advocacy or legislation that our community needs. Just days ago, mass unrest broke out in Iran as society increased the rise in fuel prices. Most of these protesters were young, typically ranging from 19 to 26. As many protests do, this one began to grow outside of its inciting issue to encompass more deep-seated problems, namely frustration with the current regime. This frustration only intensified as Iranian security forces opened fire on crowds of unarmed young people who were participating in peaceful protests, and culminated in Iran shutting off the internet to over 80 million people.
This dramatic action raises questions concerning ethics and our own internet-dependence as a society. At this point in history, internet usage is so ingrained in our daily lives that its removal may constitute the removal of a right rather than a pleasure. Access to the internet provided by a country should be characterized as a right. Without it, people within the country have no means of contacting other people across the globe. Without this, there are no people from the global community to check the government’s actions or put a stop to other abuses of power. It also blocks people from communicating with their family, friends, and coworkers. Many countries are attempting to further create internet infrastructure that would allow them to have the same complete control over the internet that Iran just exercised. China engineered its infrastructure with this goal in mind, and countries like Russia have been retrofitting networks and implanting technical devices in order to give them greater control over the internet. In countries like Ethiopia and Iraq, technological blackouts like the one that just occurred in Iran have become the norm. As the world becomes more and more technologically integrated, it is crucial that actions are protested that we believe infringe upon human rights, even when those human rights are something as abstract and intangible as internet access. Recently, the international community has been focused on Lebanon’s uprisings and protests. These protests began after the government proposed a tax on WhatsApp calls. After recognizing the backlash, the government scrapped the proposal for the tax. Yet, it did so at a point by which the movement had taken on a cause greater than protesting a tax.
The Lebanese people are fighting for a complete overhaul of federal programs in Lebanon. They feel the government has not done enough to counter the economic crisis the country is currently facing. Additionally, the people believe that the government is ignoring women’s rights on multiple levels. Though Lebanon is a country where politicians once dominated every single aspect of the media, certain Lebanense channels have recently yielded their programming to the people through an “open mic”. By doing this, they give the Lebanese populus a platform to express their grievances with the government. However, though certain small changes have been made in an attempt to further the rights of workers, the government has failed to change one of the most oppressive institutions in Lebanon: the Kafala system. The Kafala system makes it extremely difficult for Lebanese workers, especially women, to hold a job and criticizing their employers. According to Al-Jazeera, “under the country's Kafala system, or co-sponsorship system, the legal status of migrant domestic workers is in the hands of their employers. If the employer terminates their contract, the sponsorship gets automatically cancelled, turning these workers into illegal aliens and putting them at risk of arrest and... deportation.” The impassioned chants of “all of them means all of them” continue to fill the streets, expressing the Lebanese people’s commitment to the rights of the people, especially workers. The Kafala system is standing directly in the way of the rights of the over 250,000 foreign workers living in Lebanon. In order for the protests to halt, the Lebanese government must abolish the Kafala system that oppresses many at the expense of their livelihood. Abu Bakar Al-Baghdadi’s name is that, even after his death, continues to strike fear into the hearts of many. Notorious for being referenced in 911 calls from terrorists who claimed to perform certain acts in his name, Al-Baghdadi was not just the leader of ISIS, but was the embodiment of the spirit they claimed to possess.
Though the death of a leader with the same power and significance as Abu Bakar Al-Baghdadi should have a massive impact on ISIS’s drive to attack and their organization as a group, ISIS has actively come out and warned Americans and the rest of the world not to celebrate Al-Baghdadi’s death prematurely, claiming that they plan to come back stronger in the face of this assault. This dichotomy provokes the question: Will Al-Baghdadi’s death topple ISIS, or re-energize their vanishing base? To answer this, we have to look at both sides of the debate. According to a BBC article on this same subject, “IS is likely to use the death of Baghdadi to rally its supporters in the name of revenge.” The death of a leader with the strength and power that Baghdadi had will anger many within ISIS, but the more difficult question to answer is whether or not that will catalyze further attacks. Other evidence suggests that ISIS is going to come back stronger. Having just appointed new leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashemi al-Qurayshi, ISIS is ready to continue fighting. Amidst the chaos in Syria as a result of the American troop withdrawal, it appears as if ISIS will rise from the ashes of Al-Baghdadi’s death and re-emerge under al-Qurayshi. Chaos and mayhem have always brewed disaster when without a power to keep them in check. History teaches humanity this profound lesson repeatedly. The formation of ISIS resulted almost directly from the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. When American troops withdrew, ISIS was allowed to prosper. In Afghanistan, the United States gave the group that later became Al-Queda weapons to fight the Soviets during the war of 1979-1989, and withdrew. Al-Queda was allowed to form under Osama bin Laden and Abdulah Azzam due to the lack of another significant power to keep them in check. |
AuthorNatalie Goldberg, Vice President Archives
May 2020
Categories |
RSS Feed
|
International Youth Politics Forum, Est. 2019
All arguments made and viewpoints expressed within this website and its nominal entities do not necessarily reflect the views of the writers or the International Youth Politics Forum as a whole. Based in the United States of America |