ACE

Category: ACE Research

  • Maternal Mortality in the United States

    Maternal Mortality in the United States

    The International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) defines maternal death as “[the] death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes.” Maternal Mortality is a global issue; around the world every minute a woman dies during labor or delivery. According to the World Health Organization, two regions, sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia, account for 86% of maternal deaths worldwide. The United States is an outlier whose maternal mortality rate (MMR) is high compared with other developed countries. 

    Amnesty International released a report in 2010 which explained that global maternal mortality was down 34% (1990-2008) but “the US was among just 23 countries to see an increase in maternal mortality” during that time. In the United States, 18 women die per 100,000 live births—a ratio more than double that of most other high-income countries. In addition, women of color at all income levels are 3 to 4 times more likely to die from childbirth-related complications than white women.

    The literature points to various reasons why the United States has the highest MMR in the developed world. But it focuses specifically on:  

    1. Shortcomings of the US healthcare system.
    2. Implicit racial bias in the medical field which results in a higher maternal mortality rate for BIPOC women in the United States. 

    The American Healthcare System

    American citizens have vastly different experiences with healthcare depending on which state they live in. Some states expanded Medicare through the Affordable Care Act while others opted for a more limited public health program. Abortion policy also varies by state, with states permitting it at different stages in pregnancy and at clinics versus hospitals.

    Low income women who rely on Medicaid face several obstacles in receiving care. In 2019, 20% of obstetricians and gynecologists would not accept new Medicaid patients because of low reimbursement rates and bureaucratic delays. Postpartum care is not covered beyond sixty days of giving birth, and complications can arise up to a year after giving birth. Medicaid provided coverage for 43% of births in the US in 2018, disproportionately covering young women, women of color, and those in rural communities.

    Reducing legal access to family planning services can lead to increased maternal mortality. When abortion is limited, women are more likely to turn to unsafe abortion methods which create a higher risk of maternal death or lifelong health complications. Unsafe abortions are the cause of 13% of maternal deaths globally. 

    Implicit Health Provider Bias

    Louisiana is the state with the highest MMR in the country with 58.1 deaths per 100,000 births. In Louisiana, “59% of black maternal deaths are preventable, compared to 9% of white maternal deaths.” This is the result of both the challenges discussed above, as well as implicit bias in healthcare providers. Healthcare providers frequently hold false beliefs about black people’s pain tolerances, which influence the pain treatment they are prescribed. In addition, black mothers often find that they are not listened to or believed while reporting symptoms, and are pressured into health decisions they don’t feel are in their own or their unborn child’s best interests.

  • Intro to Nuclear Related Sanctions Against Iran

    Intro to Nuclear Related Sanctions Against Iran

    The international community implements sanctions against Iran to discourage their development of nuclear technology. These sanctions mainly target the Iranian economy and individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear development program. Sanctions come from three major actors: the United States of America, the United Nations and the European Union. In international diplomacy, sanctions, especially economic ones, are utilized by countries or organizations to coerce, deter, punish or shame other international actors that might endanger their own interests or violate international norms of behavior. Iran has become the target of economic sanctions since they were suspected of developing uranium enrichment in violation of the Nonproliferation Treaty in 1967. 

    United Nations Sanctions

    The United Nations led the first set of sanctions related to Iran’s development of nuclear technology. The UN adopted Resolution 1737 in 2006, which prohibited countries from transferring nuclear and missile related technology to Iran and required all countries to freeze the assets of Iranian organizations and individuals involved in Iran’s nuclear and missile programs. Sanctions were levied after Iran refused to suspend uranium enrichment activities after warnings from the International Atomic Energy Agency. The UN Security Council further expanded its sanctions against Iran in 2008 by adopting Resolution 1803, which required UN member states to actively prevent Iran from acquiring sensitive nuclear or missile technology and added thirteen people and seven entities to the UN blacklist. The additional resolution was adopted because Iran continued to oppose IAEA inspections of their nuclear facilities. In 2010, Iran, Brazil and Turkey came to a joint agreement to provide fuel for the Tehran Research Reactor. In reaction,  the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1929 which tightened proliferation-related sanctions and banned Iran from carrying out nuclear-capable ballistic missile tests. The resolution also added an arms embargo on the transfer of major weapons systems to Iran. In 2016 the UN acknowledged Iran had complied with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and passed a new resolution which lifted some sanctions. 

    European Union Sanctions

    Similar to the UN, the European Union levied sanctions to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. In a 2007 measure, the EU froze the assets of individuals and entities related to Iran’s nuclear and ballistic-missile programs. Further measures like visa bans, frozen assets, and actions against Iranian trade, financial services, energy and transport were implemented by the EU in 2010. The EU lifted their sanctions in 2016 when Iran signed onto the JCPOA and began adhering to those regulations.

    United States Sanctions

    Compared to the UN and the EU, the United States has a more complicated history of sanctions against Iran. The US began to impose sanctions on Iran in 2009 in response to then-Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s stated aim to build 10 uranium enrichment facilities. The U.S. House of Representatives passed sanctions on foreign companies that helped supply gasoline to Iran.

    In 2011, the IAEA released a report detailing how Iran’s current nuclear program could lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. Following this report, the US designated the Government of Iran and all financial institutions in Iran as entities of money laundering concern and warned global financial institutions that doing business with Iran was risky. That same year President Obama sanctioned the Central Bank of Iran and other financial institutions for processing transactions related to oil and petroleum products on behalf of Iranian companies and the government. Despite continued talks between Iran and the international community, negotiations for an agreement fell through as both sides were unwilling to make concessions In 2012, the US signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act which banned insurance, reinsurance, and other shipping services involved in nuclear proliferation. Congress further limited Iran’s oil exports and access to foreign currency reserves in 2013. President Obama added sanctions against foreign financial institutions that conducted transactions with Iranian currency or had accounts outside of Iran. When the JCPOA was implemented in 2015, the US slowly began to lift sanctions However, President Trump withdrew from the JCPOA and brought back all previous nuclear-related sanctions against Iran. Similar to the previous set of sanctions, these new sanctions were made against the Central Bank of Iran and required U.S. companies to sever contracts with Iran within 180 days.

    Impact of Sanctions

    Sanctions have greatly affected Iran’s economy but failed to deter Iran’s development of nuclear technology. Before the JCPOA, Iran’s GDP decreased by 20% and unemployment rose. Oil exports decreased from 2.5 mbd (thousand barrels) in 2011 to 1.1 mbd in 2014 and Iranian currency depreciated. The economic sanctions discouraged international banks and firms from engaging in commercial and financial transactions with Iran. With the return of sanctions and withdrawal from the JCPOA during the Trump presidency, similar economic consequences have impacted Iran’s economy. The reimplementation of sanctions have further damaged the oil industry in Iran with oil exports plummeting in mid-2020. Even with the new sanctions, the Iranian government refuses to slow down their nuclear development. Citing Trump’s backing out of the JCPOA, the Iran government sees the JCPOA as useless and believes it is in their right to push for higher uranium enrichment. As a result, Iran has begun to develop new centrifuges to accelerate uranium enrichment and has placed restrictions on the IAEA’s ability to inspect Iranian nuclear facilities. 

  • Key Policymakers of the Russian Federation

    Key Policymakers of the Russian Federation

    The Russian political system centers itself around a presidency that is seldom held accountable by other branches of the government. President Vladimir Putin, who is currently serving his fourth term, is a testament to this. His regime consists of his closest allies—former security and military officers, coined siloviki. The siloviki not only form Putin’s elite inner circle but also hold the highest positions in government. The Putin regime also depends on the knowledge of technocrats, who are policymakers appointed based on their expertise in a particular area.

    This article aims to look into these top officials’ government positions and ideologies to represent the kinds of policymakers that make up the Russian political system.

    President Vladimir Putin

    After graduating from Leningrad State University, Vladimir Putin joined the KGB as a foreign intelligence officer and served for over a decade. He began his political career in 1991 when he became a top aid for Anatoly Sobchak, a former mentor, and mayor of Leningrad. He later held other political roles including as Director of the Federal Security Service (FSB) and Prime Minister for two terms. When unpopular President Boris Yeltsin resigned on in 1999, Putin finally reached the presidency.

    Putin was quickly popular among Russians, winning the 2000 presidential election with 53% of the vote. Putin’s first term sought to strengthen the weakened Russian state and set out a series of reforms to raise Russia as a competing power with the West. Although there is debate about the success of Putin’s initial reforms, he won re-election in 2004, 2012, and 2018. 

    In 2020, Putin supported a constitutional referendum that introduced over 200 changes. One of the amendments allows him to stay in power until 2036 if re-elected for two more terms. Nearly 78% of Russian voters supported the amendments to the constitution, which has spurred a debate on the legitimacy of the vote. Putin’s well-known critic, Alexei Navalny, described the results as an inaccurate depiction of public opinion. Furthermore, the other recent amendments to the constitution reflect Putin’s ideology of economic liberalism and conservative Russian nationalism. Some examples of the other amendments include a ban on same-sex marriage, a ban on top government officials from holding foreign papers, and stipulations for the minimum wage. Many also argue that the recent amendments reform the balance of power in the Russian political system due to the change in the role of the State Duma, regional governors, and the State Council. As a result, the changes could curtail the influence of the presidency.

    Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin

    Mikhail Mishustin came into his position in early 2020, after Dmitry Medvedev resigned from office. A long-time bureaucrat, Mishustin was the former Director of the Federal Taxation Service for ten years. He is a technocrat who is popular amongst business circles due to his modernization of the Russian tax system. Mishustin’s background in systems engineering and economics allowed him to spearhead efforts to technologize the federal tax service, which increased the country’s tax revenue. 

    Some argue Putin handpicked Mishustin for his management skills and pro-Kremlin allegiance, leading to speculation that his experience will enable him to influence Russia’s economy. In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, Mishustin approved the creation of a coronavirus task force, declared a state of emergency, and allocated funds to support businesses.

    Minister of Defense Sergei Shoigu

    Sergei Shoigu began his political career in the early 90s. He held minor positions in the Communist Party and was the Chairman of the RSFSR State Committee for Emergencies in 1991. Shoigu was also Minister of Civil Defense: Emergencies and Disaster Relief and Governor of the Moscow Region. Putin appointed Shoigu to his current position in November of 2012, naming him General of the Army and Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Defense of the Commonwealth of Independent States in addition to Minister of Defense

    Ahead of the upcoming 2021 parliamentary elections, Putin added Shoigu to the United Russia elections list, leveraging Shoigu’s popularity to stir up voter enthusiasm. Much of Shoigu’s popularity stems from his hardline military positions and apprehensions about the West and NATO. Most notably, Shoigu had a role in directing military operations during the annexation of Crimea and the subsequent Ukraine crisis. 

    Director of FSB Alexander Bortnikov

    Alexander Bortnikov started his career in 1975 as an officer in the KGB. By 2003, Bortnikov became Head of the FSB Directorate of Russia for St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region. Other positions he held include Head of the Economic Security Service of the FSB and Deputy Director of the FSB. Former President Medvedev appointed Bortnikov Director of the FSB in 2008. The FSB is one of the most powerful security agencies in Russia. In many ways, it is the successor of the KGB and deals with national security matters. 

    Although appointed by Medvedev, Bortnikov is considered one of Putin’s loyal siloviki due to his background in security services. The European Union imposed sanctions on Bortnikov and other government officials for his connection to Alexei Navalny’s poisoning. He was also sanctioned by the EU for shaping Russia’s policy in Ukraine through his role in the Security Council, which led to the annexation of Crimea and the crisis in Eastern Ukraine. Recently, Bortnikov announced that the FSB would follow agreements reached by Putin and Biden to cooperate on cybersecurity issues. 

    Director of Rosneft Igor Sechin

    Igor Sechin is the President and Chairman of the Management Board for Rosneft. Rosneft is one of Russia’s largest state-owned oil companies. The company holds significant political and economic influence, particularly in Russian foreign policy. 

    Sechin served as a deputy of Putin’s early in his political career, where they developed a close relationship. Some argue that Sechin is one of the most feared men in Russia, as he is one of Putin’s main advisers and a prominent figure of the siloviki. Although the faction follows conservative and nationalist ideals, Sechin has publicly portrayed himself as a champion of the market economy. During the 2016 US presidential election, the Steele Dossier named Sechin in its accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government. Sechin was also one of the officials affected by US sanctions after the annexation of Crimea. 

    Former Prime Minister Victor Zubkov

    Victor Zubkov is the Chairman of the Board of Directors for Gazprom. Gazprom is a state-owned oil and natural gas company and Russia’s largest corporation. Putin and Zubkov formed a relationship when Putin was chairman of St. Petersburg’s committee on external relations in the early 90s while Zubkov served as deputy chairman. Zubkov’s political career also involved positions at the Federal Tax Service and Federal Financial Monitoring Service before becoming Putin’s First Deputy Prime Minister from 2008 to 2012. 

    A subsidiary of Gazprom owns the Nord Stream Pipeline 2, which has been the center of media and political controversy. The proposed pipeline would run from Russia to Germany. The issues surrounding Nord Stream 2 stem from environmental and geopolitical concerns, as many world leaders found it to conflict with the EU’s interests. Some also argue that the Russian government favors the project because it would limit dependence on Ukrainian transit. Recently, the project has resumed after a deal between the US and Germany was reached. 

    First Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration Sergei Kiriyenko

    Sergei Kiriyenko is the First Deputy Chief of Staff to Putin. Before his current position, Kiriyenko served a short term as prime minister under Yeltsin, right before the 1998 Russian financial crisis. Kiriyenko also headed Rosatom, the state nuclear corporation. Kiriyenko’s political and business experiences make him a technocrat.

    Recently, the US imposed sanctions on Kiriyenko in response to the poisoning and imprisonment of Alexei Navalny. The US Department of Treasury referred to Kiriyenko as a “domestic policy curator”. In addition, Kiriyenko subscribes to the political philosophy of  Georgy Shchedrovitsky. Shchedrovitsky founded the Moscow Methodology Circle, which some describe developed a theory of social engineering that suggests that one can manipulate society.  

    Secretary of Security Council Nikolai Patrushev

    Nicholai Patrushev began his career as an officer for the KGB and eventually became the Director of FSB from 1999 to 2008. Putin appointed Patrushev Secretary of the Security Council in 2008, a position that allows him to consult the president on matters of national security. Due to his security background and advisory role, Patrushev is considered a member of Putin’s siloviki faction. He has been influential in foreign policy decisions and played a role in the annexation of Crimea. Patrushev has also been a proponent of a security strategy that ensures Russia can both withstand sanctions and respond in kind. 

    In 2018, the US Department of Treasury issued sanctions against Partrushev and other Putin allies for “malign activity”. These allegations included supplying the Assad regime with weapons and participating in cybercrime. Tensions have increased between countries, and Patrushev has become a vocal critic of the West. 

    Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov

    Sergei Lavrov began his career in diplomacy, serving in several different positions in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Lavrov was appointed to his current position in 2004 and is the longest-serving foreign minister of the Russian Federation. 

    In recent years, China-Russia relations are strong as the nations have cooperated on BRICS, the SCO, and on the UN Security Council. When the Biden Administration imposed a series of sanctions on Russia, Lavrov compared current US-Russia relations to Cold War tensions. Lavrov also recently wrote an article heavily criticizing the US, EU, and NATO.

    Chairman of State Duma Vyacheslav Volodin

    Vyacheslav Volodin is the current Chairman of the State Duma and previously served as Putin’s First Deputy Chief of Staff from 2011 until 2016. Volodin was a top advisor to Putin, once stating “no Putin, no Russia.” As Putin’s Chief of Staff, Volodin helped shape domestic policy. Many argue that Volodin assisted in maintaining the appearance of a “managed democracy” by embracing the media and ensuring that the Kremlin-approved candidates won elections.

    As speaker of the State Duma, Volodin has assumed a greater role in parliamentary politics. This year, Volodin announced that China-Russia relations continue to grow stronger. He also accused the US of promulgating the notion that multiple world powers cannot coexist. Volodin made a statement against the European Court of Human Rights’ decision on same-sex marriage, maintaining Putin’s amendments to the Constitution of Russia. Similar to other powerful Putin allies, both the US and the EU imposed sanctions on Volodin. 

    Former Presidential Advisor Vladislav Surkov

    Vladislav Surkov held many positions in the executive branch of government, including Deputy Prime Minister under both Medvedev and Putin. Most notably, however, Surkov was a top advisor to Putin until he resigned in 2020. Surkov was nicknamed the “Grey Cardinal” for his significant influence at the Kremlin, particularly in its policies on Ukraine. Many credit Surkov as the architect of Putin’s political strategy called “sovereign democracy”. The concept of a sovereign democracy or managed democracy alludes to authoritarianism disguised by democratic institutions. In addition, Surkov became known for intimidating the media, enabling him to censor journalists and disseminate propaganda.

  • Introduction to U.S.-Brazil Relations

    Introduction to U.S.-Brazil Relations

    Source: Map Resources, adapted by Congressional Research Service 

    Brazil: A Rising Power

    With the fifth largest landmass in the world and the largest population in Latin America (home to roughly one third of the region’s total population), Brazil is a prominent regional power. The country has become a cornerstone of South American growth, which can be attributed to its vast resource-rich territory, which contains most of the Amazon rainforest. With the world’s eighth largest economy, Brazil has been recognized as an emerging world power. Brazil is part of BRICS, the acronym used to designate the world’s most influential emerging economies (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). Brazil has also asserted its growing international influence by advocating for better representation of developing nations in international bodies; for example, Brazil has claimed it has a right to a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. As Brazil’s role in hemispheric and global affairs becomes more prominent, so does the influence the country exerts on international policy issues that affect the United States. 

    Fact sheet

    • Population: 213,445,417
    • Capital: Brasília
    • System of Governance: Federal Representative Democratic Republic, under a Presidential System
    • President: Jair Messias Bolsonaro
    • Majority Language: Portuguese 
    • Majority Religion: Roman Catholic (64.6%)
    • GDP Per Capita: 6,796.8 
    • Global Freedom Score: 74/100
    • GINI Index: 53.5

    Brief History with the U.S. 

    U.S.-Brazil relations are characterized by unsatisfactory efforts to establish a so-called ‘special relationship’ based on the features these countries share: both are young, multi-racial democracies with open economies. For the most part, Brazil has largely avoided this special status and replaced it with cautious distancing. Still, and despite mutual misunderstandings and tensions, the United States enjoys a friendly relationship with Brazil. The U.S. was the first nation to recognize Brazil’s independence from Portugal in 1822. After breaking off from Portugal, Brazilians established a constitutional monarchy and retained its slave-based plantation economy. It was not until 1888 (23 years after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued in the U.S.) that Brazil finally abolished slavery and put an end to its longstanding monarchy by founding a constitutional republic. 

    The first decades after independence were characterized by the rule of an authoritarian oligarchy. Coffee plantation owners remained in control of Brazil’s economic and political power. This oligarchical rule came to an end with the rise of the populist Getúlio Vargas from 1930-1945, who devised a unique development model known as Estado Novo, or “New State,” characterized by a combination of union participation and industrialization projects. This model, which endured for much of the 20th century, propelled Brazil to become a South American giant. Brazil sided with the Allied Powers during World War II, ultimately sending 15,000 troops to support the U.S.-led military campaign in Italy. Brazil was the only Latin American country to send military personnel to the battlefield. However, the relationship frayed after the US allocated most of its resources to Europe’s reconstruction under the Marshall Plan, leaving Latin Americans virtually unaided. 

    Brazil’s democratic rule came suddenly to an end in 1964, following a military coup that was encouraged and welcomed by the United States. The military government indirectly advanced U.S. interests in the region during the Cold War. For example, the dictatorship actively repressed urban guerrillas and targeted leftist leaders as part of what is known as “Operação Condor,” a secret multi-country counterinsurgency campaign carried out by several military governments in the region and backed by the United States. However, there was no direct coordination between Washington and Brasília; during the Cold War, Brazil sought to pursue an independent foreign policy to distance itself from the United States. This distancing approach became a characteristic element of Brazilian foreign policy for decades to come. The military regime in Brazil was highly repressive, killing more than 8,000 people and at least 434 political dissidents, and detaining and torturing an estimated 30,000-50,000 others. The military rule lasted for more than two decades, until the civilian rule was restored in 1985.

    Brazil’s record high inflation during the 1990s triggered political instability and culminated with a set of market-oriented reforms known as “Plan Real“. The government privatized many state-run industries and opened the Brazilian economy to foreign investment. In 2003, center-left President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva expanded welfare programs and, by 2010, poverty rates had fallen from 28.2 to 13.6%. Although President Lula maintained a traditionally distant relationship with the United States, he became an important ally for George W. Bush, which was advantageous in a moment when the anti-American sentiment in the region grew, embodied by figures like Hugo Chávez in Venezuela.

    In 2008, as the U.S. economy shrank due to the global Great Recession, the Brazilian economy withstood the economic blow, catapulting the South American nation as a prominent voice in global macroeconomic discussions ever since. The result was an assertive Brazilian foreign policy that often soured relations with the United States during the center-left administrations of Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff. For example, Brazil’s decision to support Iran’s nuclear program was resented by Washington. The U.S. has also been hesitant to support Brazil’s membership to the United Nations Security Council. Conversely, Brazil criticized the U.S.’ role in Honduras’ 2009 political crisis, and expressed opposition to Washington’s embargo to Cuba and to the U.S.-Colombia security agreements. 

    After Brazil fell into an economic recession in 2014, and a series of corruption scandals led to President Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment, Brazilians elected Jair Bolsonaro. A far-right conservative, he has departed from his predecessors’ traditionally independent foreign policy by deliberately moving Brazil towards alignment with the U.S, especially during the Trump administration. Nevertheless, President Bolsonaro has proven to be a controversial figure. He defended the crimes committed by the dictatorial rule of 1964 and has expressed prejudice towards marginalized communities in Brazilian society. Bolsonaro has also been criticized for his handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, after the healthcare system collapsed. The death toll has surpassed half a million, only overtaken by the U.S. and India. Although the Brazilian president was among the few leaders who refused to recognize Biden’s electoral victory, he has expressed interest in cooperating with the new White House. 

    U.S. Strategic Interests:

    • Trade: Although U.S. trade relations with Brazil have been robust, (mutual trade amounts to $103.9 billion), they have been a major source of controversy. Unlike most Latin American countries, who have heavily relied on U.S. trade, Brazil has turned south and eastward by prioritizing trade through the Southern Common Market, or Mercosur (a free trade agreement between members of the Southern Cone) and the World Trade Organization. In fact, Brazil blocked U.S. efforts to establish a hemispheric-wide free trade agreement in the 1990s and 2000s. In addition, Brazil’s strong trade ties with China have led to animosity between Brasília and Washington. Brazil’s main trading partner is China, not the U.S. The Brazilian economy has benefited from accessing China’s populous market. Chinese presence in Brazil has interfered with U.S. interests in this country. For example, China’s imports of Brazilian soybeans are devastating the Amazon rainforest, threatening U.S. investments in environmental protection. China is also set to install a 5G network in Brazilian territory, a prospect that has raised concerns among the intelligence community in Washington, since intelligence sharing with Brazil might be less secure. Yet, trade with Brazil has given the U.S. a $12.2 billion trade surplus.
    • Military and security cooperation: Brazil has coordinated humanitarian assistance efforts alongside the U.S. military. In 2010, the Brazilian government began to work more closely with U.S. intelligence agencies by facilitating and sharing classified information. Intelligence cooperation was further strengthened in 2017 with the implementation of the Master information Exchange Agreement, which allowed both countries to pursue defense-related military technology. The U.S. has also appropriated $666,000 to train the Brazilian military and strengthen coordination efforts between both military forces, as well as selling Brazil military equipment worth $11.2 million dollars. President Bolsonaro aligned Brazilian defense strategy with the U.S., particularly during the Trump administration, which designated Brazil as a major non-NATO ally. The Biden administration has endorsed the designation. 
    • Environmental conservation of the Amazon: Because of its tremendous size and biodiversity, the Amazon rainforest plays a crucial role in regulating the globe’s climate. The Amazon Basin absorbs 560 million tons of carbon dioxide per year and holds 76 billion tons of carbon—an amount equivalent to seven years of global carbon emissions. The U.S. government has supported environmental protection of the Amazon since the 1980s. The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has implemented comprehensive conservation programs through the establishment of the U.S.-Brazilian Partnership for the Conservation of Amazon Biodiversity (PCAB). The U.S. has also provided technical assistance to Brazilian authorities on fire prevention, and NASA offers close monitoring of the rainforests.

    • Human rights concerns: The U.S. Congress has expressed interest in ensuring that the U.S.-trained Brazilian forces strictly comply with human rights standards. In a 2020 report, the U.S. government also expressed concerns about the standing of human rights in Brazil under the Bolsonaro presidency, including extrajudicial killings of Afro-Brazilians at the hands of police, mass incarceration and inhumane imprisonment, extreme violence against journalists, Jews, women, and LGBTQ+ individuals, as well as violence and threats against environmental, indigenous and black activists. The killing of human rights defender Marielli Franco in March of 2018 shocked the country and revealed how hostile Brazil is to activists. A couple of years later, after the killing of George Floyd in the United States, the Black Lives Matter movement became widespread in Brazil, pushing back against police brutality and racism.
  • Intro to Vaccine Hesitancy

    Intro to Vaccine Hesitancy

    Vaccines are a simple, safe, and effective way to protect people from harmful diseases by using your body’s immune system to build resistance. However, a large portion of people in the United States are hesitant to receive vaccines for various and complex reasons. Vaccine hesitancy is a term used to refer to the reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines. Hesitancy exists on a wide spectrum, as the image below illustrates. 

    Today, the main reasons for vaccine hesitancy can be grouped into 3 C’s: confidence, complacency, and convenience.

    These 3 C’s and data about COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy can be used to explore the complex reasons behind vaccine hesitancy. 

    Black people are the most hesitant, with 41% of poll respondents reporting hesitancy about the COVID-19 vaccine. This is due to both confidence and convenience issues. There is a long history of medical abuse of Black bodies from slavery to the present day, ranging from the Tuskeegee Syphilis Trials to everyday racism as Black peoples’ symptoms are continuously not taken seriously. As a result, confidence in the healthcare industry is understandably lacking. Additionally, convenience is an issue as many Black people work frontline jobs and often can’t take time off to get vaccinated. This is why it’s important for employers to give paid time off to allow employees to receive vaccines. There is also still some confusion about who is eligible to receive the vaccine. According to the KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor, lack of information about the vaccine, including eligibility, is still a determining factor of whether Hispanic adults get vaccinated or not.

    Republicans are the most hesitant, with 44% indicating so when polled. This is seen as a result of vaccinations becoming politicized. Counties with the most vaccine-hesitant people generally also voted for Donald Trump. Concerns are mostly around confidence and a sense of complacency. There’s uncertainty about side effects and whether the vaccine is effective. Some also don’t think COVID-19 will impact them and thus don’t see a need for getting the vaccine. Confusion about mask mandates at the beginning of the pandemic helped spread misinformation about the virus and vaccine mandates are being pushed against with concerns over individual rights.

    The 18-34 age group is the most hesitant. According to KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor, around ¼ of 18-29 year olds want to wait and see how the vaccine is working. Furthermore, a lot of information has been circulated about how harmful COVID-19 is to older adults. Complacency is part of this, as less concern about younger generations leads to thinking that vaccines aren’t necessary for younger age groups. As a result, young adults are more receptive to the vaccine if friends have taken it, so peer networks play a large role. Lastly, a lack of public messaging about the vaccine on social media, where Gen Z and Millennials get most of their information, is a missed opportunity to spread important information about vaccines to younger age groups. 

    According to the poll, people who make less than $50,000 are the most hesitant. This is mainly due to convenience issues. People with lower income brackets often don’t have the time to go to a vaccination site. They often also have poorer access to transportation, which is needed to get to a vaccine center or doctors office. Some people also have health issues, disabilities, and experience language barriers which, combined with jobs and family duties, makes getting vaccinated a daunting ordeal. These lower-income jobs are also not as flexible and typically remained in person throughout the pandemic, limiting the time that could be used to receive the vaccine.

    Rural residents are the most hesitant. About 60% of rural residents in the poll said they already got the vaccine or were going to as soon as possible, compared to 71% of urban residents. This hesitancy falls into the complacency and convenience categories. For rural residents, getting the vaccine is more of a personal choice.  39% say they aren’t worried about someone in their family getting COVID-19, compared to 23% of urban residents. Additionally, rural communities tend to have a high percentage of people who are older, who lack health insurance, and who have limited access to healthcare facilities, which can all be barriers to vaccination.

    Non-college graduates are more hesitant, with 43% reporting hesitancy in the poll. Adults with a bachelor’s degree or higher see the vaccine as safer and more effective. The Understanding America Study, found that people with less than a college degree believe in a higher risk of a serious side effect from the vaccine. Adults with college degrees are also more likely to know someone who is vaccinated, which helps to encourage their own vaccination.

    How should we continue the conversation about vaccine hesitancy? It’s important to listen to people’s concerns and not shame those who are vaccine hesitant or anti-vaxx. Correcting misinformation about vaccines and possible side-effects is also very important. Personal healthcare providers are who the majority of people turn to for advice about vaccines so they are at the forefront of communicating accurate information. Speaking in a nonbinary dialogue, rather than limiting it to people who get vaccines versus people who don’t is imperative in order to understand the broad continuum of vaccine acceptance. A person doesn’t have to and likely won’t go from skepticism to acceptance right away but any shift along the spectrum towards vaccine acceptance is still valuable. It’s also important to recognize the role that medical institutions have played in historic racism to gain a better understanding of how Black and Brown people have been mistreated and why it results in hesitancy and skepticism today. Lastly, perhaps ‘vaccine hesitancy’ is the wrong phrase to use as accessibility, convenience, and institutional problems in the healthcare field are huge contributors to why people don’t get vaccines. 

  • Housing Policy in the Netherlands

    Housing Policy in the Netherlands

    The Netherlands has one of the highest proportions of government housing in Europe, with approximately 1 in 3 Dutch homes subsidized by the government. Although the Netherlands faces the challenge of being a densely populated country, they have successfully expanded available housing by 7.6% in the last few decades. While there is significant social stigma around public housing in the United States that poses obstacles to solving the housing crisis, there is less social stigma regarding government housing in the Netherlands because public housing is much more common. In the Netherlands, public housing is built to the same standards as private housing with the intention of creating cohesive, integrated neighborhoods.

    Public Housing in the Netherlands

    Housing that is subsidized by the government is known as social housing. Approximately 30% of the Netherlands’ national housing stock is social housing. This percentage is higher in big cities like Amsterdam, where nearly 50% of housing is social housing. Compared to the United States, where only approximately 3% of the population receive government housing assistance, the Netherlands has a much greater proportion of its citizens living in government subsidized housing.

    Rent in social housing is determined by a points system, where points are awarded based on the size and amenities of the property. The number of points determines the rent of the property, with a higher number of points translating to higher rent. Local housing associations are responsible for setting a maximum rent for social housing each year. In addition, 80% of social housing must be rented to households that fall below a certain income threshold. 20% of available social housing must be available for households with two tiers of higher income thresholds. These income thresholds are adjusted yearly. 

    Housing associations are responsible for maintaining homes and neighborhood parks, facilities, streets, and parking. They also organize activities and events for the neighborhood and prevent crime by removing graffiti, encouraging a close-knit community among residents, and monitoring houses and facilities. Tenants in social housing can bring complaints about rent, service charges, maintenance, and nuisance to the housing association complaints committee or the Rent Tribunal, a neutral agency which settles disputes between tenants and landlords. To apply for social housing, individuals must be within the income thresholds for social housing and register with the local housing association. Households apply for properties they are interested in, but there are often long waitlists. Factors including income, family size, time spent on the waitlist, and urgency are all considered when allocating housing.

    Private Housing

    The private housing market in the Netherlands is called free-sector housing. Unlike social housing, there is no cap on rent, no cap on increases in rent, and no point system for determining home value. Owner-occupied homes in the free-sector consist of approximately 60% of the national housing stock, privately owned rental homes make up 8% of housing stock, and the remaining 32% are government owned rental homes. In contrast, 65% of homes in the US are owner-occupied. 

    Public-Private Partnerships

    The Netherlands utilizes a private-public partnership (PPP) to expand housing affordability. PPPs require both the government and private companies to invest financial resources and expertise in a development project. Co-investment on projects is more cost-effective and lowers risk for both investors. Additionally, PPPs allow the government to complete projects more quickly and efficiently than projects funded by the government alone. 

    VINEX

    Between 1995 and 2005, the VINEX housing program increased housing stock in the Netherlands by 7.6% by producing 450,000 homes. The project was a combined effort of national, regional, and municipal governments to expand housing around populous cities in locations that were accessible by public transportation. Land acquisition and infrastructure costs were subsidized by the Dutch Central government and new neighborhoods were built with sustainability in mind. Many neighborhoods feature open canals and waterways to collect run-off, incorporate outdoor spaces and parks, and are designed to promote walking and biking.

    Opzoomeren

    Opzoomeren involves initiatives such as street festivals, Dutch language classes for immigrants, and the creation of community rules which reduce conflict. The Opzoomeren policy began in Rotterdam, a city heavily populated by migrants, as a city-wide policy. Initially organized by citizens to improve integration and connection in their communities, it has since spread throughout the Netherlands as a national policy. Actions are initiated by the community and may be funded or by the municipality if the project is successful. The Opzoomeren policy has successfully bridged cultural gaps in neighborhoods that are ethnically, socio-economically, and generationally diverse.

    Takeaways

    In comparison to the United States, the Netherlands provides government-assisted housing for a greater proportion of its citizens and has less social stigma regarding living in public housing. Although the Netherlands still faces housing affordability and supply concerns, its policies provide examples for how housing supply, specifically public housing, could be increased in the United States. Additionally, the Netherlands serves as an example of how public housing can be effectively integrated among higher income households to create more diverse, accepting neighborhoods.

  • Housing Policy in Japan

    Housing Policy in Japan

    Why Consider Japan?

    Like many OECD countries, Japan became a world economic power following World War II, spurred by aggressive government-led development. Japan’s housing market, as with the rest of its economy, is grounded in a complex dynamic between the public and private sectors. This reality lends itself to direct, data-driven comparisons with the United States. Japan is distinctive in the international scene for two important statistics. First, there is a near-zero level of homelessness, which indicates effective provision of shelter for the worst-off, and second, Japan boasts a very high level of satisfaction with housing. Both enviable characteristics make Japan a useful case study. 

    A Brief History of Japanese Housing Policy

    Facing a large shortage in available units after World War II, Japan made homeownership more attractive to citizens by lowering mortgage interest rates and extending the terms on mortgage loans through a three-pronged approach. First, the Government Housing Loan Corporation (GHLC) was established in 1950 to support the financing of housing construction and to provide liquidity to mortgage markets. Second, the Public Housing Act of 1951 authorized local government units (LGUs) to construct public rental houses for low-income people Third, the Japan Housing Corporation (JHC) was established in 1955 to promote collective construction of housing and the large-scale supply of residential land for middle-income people, mainly in major urban areas. 

    Importantly, Japan avoided some of the exclusionary results experienced in the United States by targeting more of the monetary benefits to the bottom two-thirds of the income scale. Interest rates were lower for low-income people and increased proportionally for the wealthy. Across the board, interest rates were capped at 5.5%, which prevented predatory lending, as it has come to be known in the United States. In 1986, Japan supplemented their homeownership policies with a tax deduction clause. Unlike the policy in the U.S., where it is the largest subsidy in terms of size and scale, the deduction is uniformly set at 1%, rather than being tied to the marginal tax rate. This structure, combined with the fact that it is income-capped at 30 million yen (about 270,000 USD) means it is much less regressive.

    The most notable economic event in Japan’s housing history was the 1992 housing bubble collapse. A sharp downturn characterized by rising unemployment, a decline in income, and a chain reaction of enterprise bankruptcies, was devastating for the national economy, but had positive downstream effects on the housing market.  Zoning was relaxed to drive up construction and drive down prices. The recession also induced a whirlwind of social, demographic and cultural change that led to detachment from the standard-life-course model, so Japanese homeowners became more amenable to the prospect of living in small apartments in urban centers—a reversal from the prevailing trend towards suburban sprawl. The average dwelling in Japan is 125 square meters, only a little more than half the size of the average American home at 247 square meters. 

    Current Policy Landscape and Key Characteristics

    Japanese has rates of homeownership vs. rental and public vs. private ownership that are comparable with other OECD countries. Homeownership has long hovered in the low 60s, and currently sits at 62%. About 36% of households rent, 80% of which consists of private rentals and 7% of which is publicly operated. Renters on average have a lower income than homeowners—5.15 million yen for homeowners and 3.51 million yen for renters. 

    Publicly operated housing is built or rented by local governments using grants from the central government and constitutes a total of 2.17 million units. The rents for these units are set each month to flexibly align with the needs of occupants. While public units share some of the same stigmas as they do in the U.S., they were constructed with more aesthetic intention, both to normalize occupancy and to appeal to the middle-class. Currently, Tokyo boasts a 6.5% acceptance rate for public housing applicants, and a 99% occupation rate of available units—both of which reflects a high level of desirability. One potential demerit of this desirability is that residents choose to stay longer than necessary, even after they find a new higher-paying job or raise enough money to move out; people who especially need provision are thus occasionally excluded from provision by those who could afford to live elsewhere. 

    Lessons to Learn

    1. Zoning and the virtues of central planning

    The focal point of Japanese housing policy is the city of Tokyo, which is one of the densest and most productive cities in the world. The 13.6 million residents of Tokyo live in newly constructed high-rise apartments that have replaced older, smaller buildings to meet rising demand. To accommodate density, Tokyo streets are narrow which discourages driving and encourages the use of public transportation, which urban planners have ensured is fast, efficient, and reliable. Compared to dense American cities like New York or San Francisco, Tokyo has managed to keep rents low. Tokyo avoided the problems of exorbitant rent that afflicts urban America with relaxed zoning and central planning. 

    In Japan, the central government has control over building codes and is the ultimate arbiter of construction plans and zoning proposals, which are initially crafted by localities but approved or rejected at the national level. When facing a shortage of affordable housing, the policy action plan is simple: build more in places where people want to live. In contrast, residents of American cities in homogeneously single-family neighborhoods are equipped with the power to obstruct new construction by attending local meetings to plead their case. These advocates—often affluent homeowners—seek to preserve certain qualities of their neighborhoods (such as low-density, minimal traffic, green spaces, safety etc.), but which in effect exclude large swaths of the population from living there. 

    While there are some anti-density obstructionists in Japan, the federal government has gradually consolidated the ability to override these interests. Half of Japanese metropolitan land allows for residential development without height limits, which leads to mixed-income neighborhoods, accelerated growth near transit, and sturdy tax bases. One lesson here is that federal oversight can, in effect, lead to less regulation, because local interests are constrained. The result is that fewer low-income Japanese residents are “cost burdened”—a measure which looks at whether a household spends more than 30% of their income on housing expenses. The ratio of housing expenditures to annual income has climbed in recent years, from around 10% in 2001 to 13% in 2018, but has remained lower than in the United States, which hovers around 20-25%.

    1. Environmental efficiency

    In the past twenty years, Japan has experienced 20% of all high-magnitude earthquakes across the globe. Such an unrelenting natural force requires careful planning and development to armor buildings against the threat. With extensive experience on this front, Japan can provide guidance on how to manage the economics of housing prices in areas hit particularly hard by climate change. As building code imperatives change, units that fall behind depreciate in value and often come to be occupied by lower income residents. This creates a situation in which the most vulnerable individuals reside in the least protected buildings, which despite being a somewhat natural economic turnout, could be preempted by government action. 

    One consequence of the need to constantly update buildings is that new construction is usually outfitted with the newest, most energy efficient technology. Unlike in the U.S., where homeowners and property owners are incentivized to retrofit buildings due to the procedural hurdles of new construction, demolition is commonplace in Japan. The earthquake threat has also encouraged people to gather densely in areas, such as Tokyo, that are less at risk, and to live in taller buildings with strong metal scaffolding. The strongest and safest buildings are also the most environmentally friendly. Strong central planning has made Japan one of the most energy-efficient industrial structures, which is aided by their innovative “Eco-points” voucher,  where up to ¥300,000 is given to people who buy or renovate a house to meet certain criteria.  

    1. Tenant protection laws

    The United States has weak tenant protections, and gives power and discretion to landlords. In contrast, Japan has put into place a set of laws that reconfigured this relationship. To refuse renewal or terminate a lease—to evict a resident—landlords must file a lawsuit and successfully establish just cause. Additionally, multi-year leases are standardized, whereas American landlords prefer one-year leases. This puts landlords at heightened risk, but affords some measure of stability to low-income people who face uncertainty in other economic realms. Increased protection for the least well-off flows from the fact that national laws are not subject to local variation. While the U.S. delegates landlord-tenant law to state governments, the national government in Japan sets the policies. Stronger protections for tenants, however, come with their fair share of consequences— unintended side-effects to beware of, especially those that advocate for policies like rent control and eviction moratoriums. This is because investors looking for opportunities do not constrain themselves to one type of development nor to any given industry; corporate investors in Japan have shied away from rental housing because of risks related to empowered tenants. In effect, this erodes the supply of affordable rentals. American policymakers should therefore be warned that any effort to strengthen tenant power must be accompanied with other policies to ensure the provision of affordable housing.

  • Failures and Successes of the UN

    Failures and Successes of the UN

    Introduction

    76 years and half a trillion dollars later, the international community is divided on the effectiveness of the United Nations. Overall, the UN has a positive international image but the partisan divide over supporting the UN has widened, particularly in the United States. The United States’ perception of the UN is important since the United States is the largest donor to the UN and accounts for roughly 20% of the UN’s collective budget. 

    Successes

    1. Material assistance: the United Nations provides a lifeline to millions of people across the world. The World Food Program provides food and cash assistance to over 80 million people. The United Nations provides aid to nearly 69 million displaced people who fled their home due to persecution, conflict, or human rights violations. Furthermore, UN agencies supply 45% of the world’s children with vaccines, saving an estimated 2 to 3 million lives each year from preventable diseases. 

    2. Human rights: the United Nations established the first comprehensive framework for human rights law. The organization defined human rights through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the subsequent International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Together, these documents defined the rights to equality, free movement, education, religion, and asylum, along with many others. The UN also established mechanisms to promote and protect the rights it outlines. The Human Rights Council, composed of 47 representatives, conducts a review every four years where it assesses the human rights record of all UN member states and presents nations with recommendations. The Council recently came under scrutiny for allowing China to become a member following reports of flagrant human rights abuses against Uyghur Muslims. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights coordinates the oversight bodies which are responsible for enforcing treaties after they are ratified. Although it is unclear whether recommendations and oversight result in legislative changes, the UN’s efforts at the very least create an international standard for nations to strive towards. 

    3. Decolonization: when the UN was founded in 1945, 750 million people lived in territories controlled by a colonial power. Less than 2 million people live under colonial rule today. A key feature of the human rights framework of the United Nations involves every nation’s right to sovereignty and self-determination. The General Assembly passed multiple resolutions on decolonization, including its landmark Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples and four International Decade for the Eradication of Colonialism resolutions. The Special Committee on Decolonization regularly reviews the list of non-self governing territories and invites representatives from these territories to issue statements at its annual sessions. The UN played a major role in decolonization efforts following WWII and continues to provide a forum to discuss international objectives like decolonization.

    Limitations

    1. Enforcement mechanisms: a recurring criticism of the UN is its inability to effectively enforce mandates. The UN is only as effective as member states allow and members go to great lengths to ensure national sovereignty. Therefore, General Assembly resolutions are typically considered to be recommendations. The Security Council is able to enforce its resolutions by means of sanctions or military force, but any one of the five permanent council members can veto a bill so harsh mechanisms are not frequently used.

    2. Security Council inaction: the Security Council is tasked with taking action to maintain international peace and security, however the veto poses an obstacle to action. P-5 nations ultimately determine what conflicts constitute actionable threats to international peace and security by exercising their veto power. Unsurprisingly these nations have advanced their national interests since the Council’s inception. Following the political and humanitarian crisis in Venezuela, the P-5 nations were in a deadlock. The United Kingdom, United States, and France presented a resolution declaring the Venezuelan election illegitimate and calling for new elections. Russia and China proposed a resolution condemning outside intervention in the election process and called for dialogue in Venezuela. Both resolutions failed and the deadlock delayed the delivery of critical aid. P-5 nations disagree on how most conflicts should be handled causing frequent inaction in the UNSC. 

    3. Western domination of UN institutions: despite its mission emphasizing inclusion and representation, the UN is typically viewed as a Western-oriented organization. From the UN’s inception, European and American interests have prevailed. One example is developmental aid. Institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank are primarily responsible for coordinating economic development efforts while the UN provides guidelines for sustainable development and oversight. Together, they implement the UN’s economic development framework. Both the IMF and World Bank condition loans on neoliberal features like trade liberalization, private enterprise, and an overall reduction in public spending (i.e. the size of government). These practices were especially controversial during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic when the IMF conditioned loans on tight austerity measures like reductions in public health spending and unemployment benefits. 

    Peacekeeping: The Intersection of Success and Failure

    While the UN has successfully led a number of peacekeeping missions and promoting peace and security is integral to its mission, it failed to intervene in a timely manner and prevent genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. Institutional shortcomings contributed to grave UN peacekeeping failures in both Rwanda and Bosnia. First, UN peacekeepers are held to a strict mandate to only use force in self-defense or to help evacuate foreigners. Second, the UN failed to train peacekeepers to negotiate with perpetrators of violence against civilians. Similarly, there existed a cultural disconnect between the training peacekeepers received and the reality of local communities. 

    More generally, peacekeeping is limited in that intervention requires the consent of the host government and other parties to the conflict which makes swift action more difficult.

    Future of UN Operations

    The UN is currently facing large financial constraints in light of the pandemic and the growing number of individuals in need of assistance across the globe. As of September 2020, member states only paid 60% of their contributions to the UN’s general budget. As a result, some UN-appointed human rights experts who work under the Human Rights Council were unable to carry out their mandate to monitor and address human rights abuses. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees operated with 47% of its $9.1 billion budget and cut back on programs providing emergency shelter, water, and food to refugees. UN operations as we know it are at risk if nations fail to bolster financial support for the organization. 
    Furthermore, the UN is still recovering from Trump’s presidency characterized by an isolationist approach to foreign policy. During the Trump era, the United States left the Human Rights Council, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), threatened to withdraw from the World Health Organization, and ended its commitment to numerous international agreements like the Paris Climate Accords. The UN heavily relies on the United States for funding and assistance with key programs. Although President Biden recommitted the United States to the UN, US reliability and credibility took a hit.

  • The Impact of COVID-19 on Other Global Health Initiatives

    The Impact of COVID-19 on Other Global Health Initiatives

    The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply impacted other international and domestic health initiatives. Although COVID was undoubtedly the most imminent threat to global health, there were inevitable setbacks to other initiatives which had been making significant strides to improve the health of people across the globe, specifically in the developing world. International health initiatives previously at the forefront of the international health conversation have been forced to take a backseat to the coronavirus.

    In recent years, significant progress has been made in disseminating measles and polio vaccines. The COVID-19 pandemic has imposed significant obstacles on global vaccination campaigns in places where these diseases have yet to be eradicated. Twenty six countries have suspended their measles vaccinations as resources have been redirected to combat the coronavirus. This has put 94 million people at risk, with the World Health Organization (WHO) projecting that more children will die from measles than from COVID itself. Polio vaccination campaigns have also been halted in twenty eight countries. In previous years, polio was close to being eradicated entirely due to these campaigns.

    The coronavirus has impeded recent progress in the fight against malaria. This can be seen in decreased access to supplies such as mosquito nets and reductions in preventative information dissemination. While Sub-Saharan Africa already experiences 90% of global malaria cases, this region has endured an increase in cases as a result of the pandemic. According to the WHO, efforts to reduce malaria cases and deaths will fall significantly short this year.

    HIV treatment has not faced as many setbacks as public health officials feared. Although testing capacity has declined, access to treatment has not suffered as much. In a study conducted by the UNAIDS organization, of the twenty two countries which provided sufficient treatment data, only five – Sierra Leone, Zimbabwe, Peru, Guyana, and the Dominican Republic – experienced declines in treatment accessibility. Meanwhile, countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia, and Botswana were able to maintain a steady treatment regimen while simultaneously battling the coronavirus.

    COVID has had a noticeable impact on world hunger, which was on the rise before the pandemic, and has only been further exacerbated in 2020 and 2021. World hunger is caused by conflict, socio economic issues, and climate change. Climate change can increase food prices, and decrease access to nutritious food. This decreased access to food leads to malnutrition which serves to weaken people, therefore making them more susceptible to other illnesses. The introduction of COVID-19 to the equation has disrupted global supply chains and contributed to inflation, making food less accessible to lower income families. The World Food Programme (WFP) estimates that the coronavirus has caused over 200 million people to experience food insecurity. The World Bank is cooperating with local governments to bolster programs and provide financial support to countries struggling with enhanced food insecurity.

    In the United States, the coronavirus has drastically increased mental health issues such as depression and anxiety, as well as rates of alcohol and drug abuse. In June 2019, 1 in 10 American adults reported experiencing mental illness, compared to January 2021 during which 4 in 10 adults reported experiencing mental illness. This spike can be attributed to stressors driven by the pandemic such as isolation and unemployment. The rates of mental illness have been even higher for young adults between the ages of 18 and 24. This demographic reports a 56% rate of depression and anxiety due to isolation, the inability to attend school, and job insecurity. While these rates of mental health problems are shockingly high, it is also important to note they will not simply disappear with the end of the pandemic.

    The increase in COVID vaccine availability has provided a possible light at the end of the tunnel. As more people gain access to the vaccine, coronavirus will be better controlled which will allow other world health issues to return to the forefront. The reallocation of supplies and attention to more endemic global health concerns will ensure millions of people are able to improve their standard of living in an effort to promote a healthier world.

  • Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    Intro to Nuclear Treaties with Russia

    1968 marked the first major shift towards nuclear disarmament on a global scale with the creation of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). The NPT is a landmark international treaty whose primary objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology and to achieve international disarmament. The treaty itself has culminated in a “grand bargain” between nuclear powers and non-nuclear powers to ensure that no new nuclear weapons can be acquired, nuclear energy use remains peaceful, and nuclear materials stay secure. The creation and enforcement of the NPT by the United Nations prompted talks between the United States and Russia, formerly known as the Soviet Union, in regards to the creation of mutual arms control agreements and the reduction of nuclear stockpiles. The two nations would go on to engage in more than half-a-dozen nuclear-focused disarmament treaties, beginning in November of 1969 with SALT I which limited each countries’ strategic missile defenses.

    The New START Treaty between Russia and the United States was renewed in 2021. This is significant because it assures continued commitment to the regulation and limitation of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, but it is also important in light of the upcoming review of the NPT that is anticipated to occur in August of 2021. Despite the success of the NPT over the past 50 years, there is a growing concern that existing agreements, including the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, are unraveling. Experts hope that because of the transparency in U.S.-Russian strategic relations that New START has provided, the rest of the world will follow suit and the NPT review conference will be a space to promote stability and strengthen commitments by signatories of the NPT. 

    The New START treaty, which was signed on April 8, 2010 by the U.S. and Russia, legally binds each state to limit their strategic nuclear warheads to 1,550 on 700 strategic delivery systems as well as limits each side to 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers. This limit is 30% lower than the previously allowed 2,200 nuclear warhead amount agreed upon in the 2002 SORT Treaty and 50% lower than the 1,600 vehicle delivery limit established under the 1991 START 1 agreement. In addition to major limits on each country’s physical nuclear stockpiles, the treaty also commits each state to mandatory, on-site inspections of nuclear storage and production facilities, data exchanges, and notifications related to strategic offensive arms and facilities covered by this treaty. New START entered into force on February 5, 2011, after both parties had signed and gained Senate and parliamentary approval in their respective governments, and both parties recently agreed to extend the treaty by five years in January of 2021. 

    New START provides invaluable national security information to the U.S. by providing insights on the Russian nuclear arsenal, as well as maintains an international standard for nuclear non-proliferation by the world’s two largest nuclear powers. In a larger sense, the treaty creates a stable base on which to uphold the major international arms control treaties such as the NPT, Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). The renewal of New START by the U.S. and Russia is particularly important for the continued support and upholding of the NPT because although its global support is strong, statements by members of civil society confirm that its long-term viability needs to be continually addressed. The U.S. and Russia have had contentious relations dating back to Soviet-era politics, and the constant imbalance between competition and cooperation perpetuates their struggle to coexist. START is significant for what it aims to achieve in terms of international arms control measures, but also because it is one issue that the U.S. and Russia have been able to work together and agree upon. Although bilateral relations have sharply deteriorated when it comes to other international security issues such as offensive cybersecurity, counter-space, and hypersonic weapons, nuclear non-proliferation remains an issue that the U.S. and Russia actively cooperate with.