By: Jason Rosenzweig A decades-long fight has come to an end in baseball. Not a rivalry between two teams, but a labor fight. This is the fight to unionize Minor League Baseball (MiLB). This ending came just a few weeks ago as the Major League Baseball (MLB) commissioner’s office announced that the MLB would represent the Major League Baseball Players Association (MLBPA) as MiLB players’ collective bargaining representative. So, how did we get here, and what does this mean for the future of baseball in America? To understand what this decision means, you need to understand what has happened prior to it, and what MiLB is, of course. The MiLB is a collection of many leagues at different levels. Each level has at least one affiliate team for each of the 30 MLB teams. When you are drafted, you go to one of these Minor Leagues and, over time, you get promoted as you develop until you reach the MLB. When you reach the MLB, you are paid a minimum salary of around US$700,000 for 3 years before you go into arbitration when you are paid based on your worth decided by an arbitrator. After 3 years of arbitration, you become a free agent and any team can offer you a contract. This all sounds great, but the road to the MLB is rocky. One of the biggest issues is that being in MiLB, you are considered a part time employee. If your team’s season lasts 3 months, you are paid for 3 months, no more. If you are in one of the Rookie Leagues (where almost every new draftee goes for one season), you are paid just $4,800 per year. At the highest league, AAA, you are paid only $14,000 per year. This is the only level which brings you above the poverty line in the USA. Players can try to get jobs during the off-season and even part time jobs during the season, but when a sport requires you to stay at peak physical condition, it is incredibly difficult to have a job in addition to playing baseball. The only thing that makes players able to even come close to surviving is this: the signing bonus. In a draft, there is a slot value for every pick through the 10th round ranging from (for the 2022 draft which happened this July) US$8,846,900 for the Orioles’ first overall pick to US$149,500 for the 10th round pick. However, there are 20 rounds to the draft so half of all players drafted have a very low chance of being paid anything. These slot values are merely recommendations — a team may choose to pay one player a signing bonus more than their slot value and another player less to compensate for it — however if you add up the slot values of a team’s picks, that is a hard limit for how much they are allowed to pay in bonuses. Additionally, these signing bonuses are mostly going to 17 or 18 year old teens just out of high school who are not unlikely to squander the money. Even if they don’t, this money needs to last for a minimum of around 3-4 years assuming they develop extremely quickly and if they even make the MLB. The only round in which most of the players drafted make the MLB is the first round. You might spend 5 or 6 years living off a signing bonus and a near poverty salary before you decide to call it quits. This issue has been alleviated slightly because, starting with the 2022 season, every MLB team is providing housing for their MiLB players but this isn’t enough for MiLB players. In late August, the MLBPA sent authorization cards to every MiLB player for the MLBPA to represent MiLB players. Within a couple of weeks, it was announced that over half of all MiLB players had signed their authorization cards, and the only question was whether the MLB was going to try to delay unionization with an election. The MLB decided to agree to voluntarily recognize the MLBPA as the bargaining representative of the players of MiLB. It is, as of yet, unclear why this is happening. It may be because they want to have as long as possible to negotiate with the MLBPA and avoid a work stoppage in MiLB like happened in the MLB before the 2022 season, delaying the season by about a week and almost canceling Spring Training. However, not all is good. The MLB could threaten to shrink MiLB like they did in 2020. However, that decision is facing scrutiny and the MLB may not want to shrink MiLB to avoid having to participate in Congressional hearings and having to fight against the National Labor Relations Board to justify this decision All in all, this is a massive victory for the players in the Minor Leagues which has been in the works for decades. There are many things that could come when the new MiLB Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) is created before next season. For example, they may demand that MiLB players are given the freedom to become free agents after a certain number of years of playing in the Minor Leagues, something which Curt Flood fought for and sacrificed his career to achieve for MLB players decades ago, ending in the Seltz decision, a decision by an arbitrator which got rid of the reserve clause (a clause allowing teams to renew contracts in perpetuity without the player’s consent) and just a year later, the new MLB CBA included free agency. This fight will be considerably easier for the new MiLB union because it wouldn’t be unprecedented and they have a powerful union fighting for them. This development could vastly improve retention of players because they will almost certainly be paid a good salary that they can easily survive on. Even with the potential risks, this decision will almost certainly bring about change for the better. Sources: "Each Club's 2022 MLB Draft Bonus Pools and Pick Values." MLB.com, 20 July 2022, www.mlb.com/news/mlb-draft-2022-bonus-pools-pick-values. Accessed 18 Oct. 2022. Walker, Ben, and Jake Seiner. "AP Exclusive: MLB Raises Salaries for Minor Leaguers in 2021." AP NEWS, 14 Feb. 2020, apnews.com/article/1512f5a4cf9a65f16a2641244e0c00fd. Accessed 18 Oct. 2022.

Disastrous floods are leaving millions desperately seeking help to survive in Pakistan. By: Mihika Yadav and Anjo Chu Children in Pakistan being hauled in an unconventional manner as a result of the floods The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has described the recent Pakistan super floods as a ‘climate catastrophe’. More than 33 million people have been impacted by the recent Pakistan floods, among which are over 3.4 million children that require urgent support. Apart from that, around 650,000 of those impacted are said to be pregnant women. The death toll has surpassed 1,600 people, exacerbated by the remote nature of these villages. Towns have been cut off, making it difficult for family members to get medical attention for ailing members of their family, especially children. Aadarsh Leghari, UNICEF's Communication Officer in Pakistan, has said that "many children are not even reaching hospitals because the medical facilities they could access are either underwater or just not accessible." Image depicting the extent of Pakistan’s floods The number of malnourished kids suffering from unpleasant skin disorders, diarrhoea, malaria, and dengue fever continuously increases. Steady sources of clean drinking water and food are rapidly depleting, completely inaccessible to those who are impoverished. These children are all suffering as a result of a climate and political disaster that they are not to blame for. Pakistan has recently suffered intense heat, with summertime highs that consistently reached well over 45°C. Paired with record monsoon rains, sediment from melting glaciers from the Himalayas has made its way into Pakistan's river systems. Apart from climate-related factors, the government’s unpreparedness is to blame as the severity of the flooding has been aggravated by inadequate infrastructure and floodplains. People have criticized the construction of major infrastructures, such as highways and embankments, without taking into account the natural drainage system or the slope of the ground. This crisis has also exposed many inequalities in the agriculture sector. The Indus River has historically provided water to adjacent fields to facilitate irrigation system expansion and agricultural growth. These embankments have been provided government support to protect farm sites from unanticipated flooding. However, this is typically only applicable to wealthier farmers, leaving underprivileged farmers highly susceptible to crop damage and loss of livestock. Around 8 million animals have been wiped out by the floods, and 2 million acres of crops ruined. To put this into perspective, approximately 90% of Pakistan’s crops are compromised and this number is only projected to grow. In addition, given that agriculture employs around 40% of Pakistan's workers, inflation is anticipated to intensify and underemployment to rise. The fallout of this is likely to reach the healthcare and education sectors as food sources deplete and mobility lacks. Image of flooded farmland in Pakistan In Pakistan's 75-year history, this year's floods are the worst and deadliest on record. Although Pakistan generates less than 1% of the world's carbon and greenhouse gas emissions, it was listed as one of the top 10 countries most prone to the consequences of climate change by the Global Climate Risk Index. Although this situation only discusses the climate crisis’ detrimental effects on Pakistan, it should be duly noted that this is beginning to impact many other countries as well. Cases like the Pakistan floods further evoke the urgency of the climate crisis and how the people who are least to blame get affected the highest by these ever changing conditions. CNA states that in order to find meaningful solutions for this inequality, “science and policy must connect climate change risks and mitigation measures in an actionable way”. Links: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/commentary/pakistan-flood-disaster-relief-climate-change-infrastructure-planning-2960761 https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/17/asia/pakistan-flood-death-roll-rise-dengue-fears-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/09/25/asia/pakistan-floods-children-water-borne-disease-intl-hnk-dst/index.html https://www.dec.org.uk/appeal/pakistan-floods-appeal https://thediplomat.com/2022/09/pakistans-floods-are-a-man-made-disaster/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/21/pakistan-floods-big-oil-gas-bill

By: Aditeya Das Political battles are everywhere! We have the republicans against the democrats, the BJP against Congress, and the tories against the labor party, all of which have repercussions on a national and global scale. However, this article is about politics in a sport. An ongoing battle on who represents the ‘Gentleman’s Sport’ better. A political fight between the Saudis of LIV golf, and the Americans of the PGA. The problem with this battle is that it is destroying golf. It is as if LIV and the PGA are 2 different parties fighting for seats in the parliament that is the sport of golf. The players are the politicians fighting for seats in parliament. Using this visual it is possible to understand how this political battle is happening in action. The PGA tour is the conservative party. They want to retain the historical part of the Gentleman’s sport. Sophistication, serenity, and etiquette, are all the staples of the PGA tour. Historically, they have always been the namesake of skill and class. Only the best of the best play in the PGA, allowing them to have an overwhelming majority in the sport of golf. LIV can be thought of as the liberal party. It wants to make golf loud, fun, and suspenseful. Their slogan “the future of golf” is reminiscent of trump's “make America Great Again”. Unlike the PGA it is fast-paced. There is a shotgun start where players quickly rush to begin. There are different teams all fighting for places on the leaderboard. Finally, there are massive stakes with 4 million dollars up for grabs for who gets first place. All of this is supposed to appeal to the younger generation and there is nothing wrong with that. Like every political party, they want to get votes from the electorate, and saying that they aren’t a real political party is like saying any liberal party is not a real political party. Winning in the LIV (Left) Vs winning in the PGA: You tell me which one is liberal and which one is traditional However, just like some real parties, their finances are somewhat controversial. LIV as said before is backed by Saudis. And when we talk about Saudis there are only 2 words: “Oil Money”. Currently, LIV has prize money that is valued much more than the PGA tour. This money is effectively turning into a bribe that is being paid to opposing party members or golfers to turn to the liberal party. Along with this, the fact that this money is coming from a country with massive discrimination against women, and a highly controversial monarchy is bringing down criticism upon the morality of LIV. This hate against LIV, although somewhat justified, is also ruining the fabric of the gentleman's game. Just like what everyone says, politics ruin everything. If there is politics, we can see a future of dirty tactics, corruption and so much more just like what we see right now. The gentleman’s game may not be very gentlemanly anymore. Along with this players or the party members are not being respected as well. Some of the best players in the world have been criticized and shamed for joining LIV, stating that they are joining because of the money. Not only is this possibly just a way of the PGA strong-arming players, but it could potentially ruin the careers of the many players who have worked so hard to be where they are. This is one of the clear starting bases for an ugly battle between the PGA tour and LIV and the future looks bleak. Without a conclusion, we could see golf divided through the middle for the rest of its life. However, all is not lost. In fact, LIV golf is beginning to be a formidable opponent that even PGA tour fans like me are enjoying. If this keeps up we could see LIV as a potential equal to the PGA where the best players have a chance of joining either one. That way those who watch golf can enjoy it the way they want to. Sources: https://www.golfdigest.com/story/pga-tour-liv-golf-future-saudi-arabia-royal-family-greg-norman-jay-monahan-phil-mickelson-rory-mcilroy-tv-streaming-rights https://golf.com/news/liv-pga-tour-inside-story/https://golf.com/news/liv-pga-tour-inside-story/ https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/09/01/sports/liv-vs-pga-is-heavyweight-battle-soul-golf/ https://www.espn.com/golf/story/_/id/34508592/phil-mickelson-says-feedback-liv-golf-pga-tour-competitors-appreciative-new-windfall-sport https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/golf/article-11247963/I-hope-regret-Ian-Poulter-SLAMS-Swedish-Golf-Federation-axing-Henrik-Stenson.html

By Ishaan Patel On February 27th, Germany announced a stunning reversal of previous foreign policy; German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that it had increased the defence budget to 100 billion euros, or above 2% of its GDP. Such a feat is groundbreaking, to say the least. A few weeks earlier, Germany was dovish on the Russian buildup on the Ukrainian border compared to their more aggressive allies such as the UK and the US. Opting for a diplomatic solution, perhaps due to its close economic ties to Russia, including important gas and oil pipelines, which supplied a third of its gas and oil. And in addition, German companies are closely tied to Russia - Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest lender, has an exposure of about 2.1 billion SGD. Germany was also somewhat reluctant to provide military aid to Ukraine, infamously offering 5000 helmets for its armed forces. At the same time, other western countries like the UK and the US sent Anti-Air defence systems and anti-tank weapons like NLAWs and Javelins. And while it seemed like Germany would offer a milder punishment to Russia in the event of a Russian invasion, the result was far from it. The reaction to the invasion was far from a strongly worded letter asking Putin to stop; no, what instead occurred was a tectonic shift of Germany's foreign policy and a complete overhaul of the values of a modern German Republic. The Origins of Pacifism One can argue that Germany was an extremely militaristic nation for most of its lifetime. The origins of Germany, in fact, came from the Kingdom of Prussia, a nation highly revered for its acumen of its armed forces(Voltaire famously described the nation as 'an army with a state'). However, as the hyper-martial and bellicose Nazi regime fell in 1945, the allies did not simply rebuild Germany into a modern republic(or, in the Soviet's case, a socialist puppet regime). They destroyed any chances of Germany becoming a true, sufficient military threat to the fabric of Europe, crushing any prospects of military revivalism. The allies didn't just shape a state resistant to militarism and jingoism, but one where pacifism was cemented into its foreign policy mindset. And despite moves to federalisation in Western Europe and Germany's increasing geopolitical importance in Europe, pacifism remained deeply ingrained in German society. Reversal of Policy Following the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the emergence of a unified German state, which turned Germany into the most robust economy in Europe, there was still great hesitation from Germany to turn into a European leader - at least militarily. Germany refused to help NATO operations in Bosnia - despite widespread reports of Serbian ethnic cleansing. Germany refused to lend support in Syria with the NATO coalition there, despite the atrocious crimes committed by Bashar-Al-Assad - including gassing his civilians. And despite multiple attempts by a new belligerent Russian state to disrupt the fabric of Europe and bring former soviet states under Russian influence, Germany continued to be more dependent on Russian gas. Germany didn't seem all too certain to take up the mantle - and assert the rights and importance of democracy and liberalism in Europe. But the invasion of Ukraine completely reversed that. In an instant, decades of ingrained passivity evaporated. The first real war in Europe since the destruction of WW2 hit Germans hard - and evoked deep memories of burnt-out cities and destroyed lives. But this war didn't create echoes for peace and mediation - it created the punishment for a response instead. Faced with an event that completely tore apart the fabric of Europe, the German government acted swiftly and in an unprecedented manner. Hard-hitting sanctions, provisions of military aid and the cancelling of the Nordstream 2 pipeline. And the German public seems to agree as well. A mere 14 per cent feel like the German response is too far - and 27 per cent believe it doesn't go far enough. Before the invasion, just 20 per cent were in favor of German aid - that number has skyrocketed to 61 per cent. There has been a surge in approval for the SWIFT exclusion, military aid to Ukraine, and crucially, the 100 billion euro budget The Impact The seemingly overnight reversal's implications are a turning point for the rest of Europe. Germany, the dove of Europe, is now a country ready - and willing - to be at the forefront of Europe. Gone is the nation that was unwilling to use its potential and importance for the security of Europe, the protection of its values; the Russian invasion has ensured that Europe's most populous country, its largest economy, is now finally ready to be its bulwark. Ironically, while the shocking devastation of war turned Germany into a pacifist state, it is another atrocious, bloody war that has snapped it out of nearly three-quarters of a century of its non-aggression. Whether Ukraine falls or survives, the reality of the invasion means Russia - and any other external threats to Europe, face a hardened opposition. Works Cited Bittner, Jochen. "Opinion | The World Used to Fear German Militarism. Then It Disappeared. - The New York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, US News, World News and Videos, July 23rd 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/23/opinion/the-world-used-to-fear-german-militarism-then-it-disappeared.html. Eckert, Vera, and Kate Abnett. "Factbox: How Dependent Is Germany on Russian Gas? | Reuters." Reuters, Reuters, March 8th 2022, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/how-dependent-is-germany-russian-gas-2022-03-08/. Ellyatt, Holly. "Germany's Offer to Send 5,000 Helmets to Ukraine Provokes Outrage." CNBC, CNBC, January 27th 2022, https://www.cnbc.com/2022/01/27/germanys-offer-to-send-5000-helmets-to-ukraine-provokes-outrage.html. Sheahan, Maria, and Sarah Marsh. "Germany to Increase Defence Spending in Response to 'Putin's War' - Scholz | Reuters." Reuters, Reuters, February 27th 2022, https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/germany-hike-defense-spending-scholz-says-further-policy-shift-2022-02-27/.

By: Ananya Jain and Maya Kumar Dangerous. Dirty. Criminals. These are labels that have been seared onto refugees. In the past, we’ve often heard harrowing stories about people escaping terrifying fates, only to be turned away, passed from one reluctant country to the next, or even turned around and shipped back to where they face certain death. These dehumanising experiences are the all too painful reality for many refugees worldwide. Countries have claimed that they did not have the systems to support influxes of people. But this has now been proven to be completely untrue, and as European nations fling their borders open, many are left wondering the justification for such a stark difference in treatment. Apparently, politicians do have some form of reasoning. As the Prime Minister of Bulgaria says, “These are not the refugees we are used to… these people are Europeans. These people are intelligent, they are educated people.” He says they are not used to intelligent refugees; So every other one he has come across has been stupid? This hurtful, and frankly offensive characterization of refugees has predominantly been pushed onto people of colour, who were deemed too uneducated to provide any real benefits of substance to society. Did he take the time to sit down with every person of colour who was forced to leave their home and conclude they are uneducated? Certainly not. Instead, he made a blanket statement, showing the not-so-subtle racist undertones that influence decision-making. These are people in power, and they are letting their bias greatly influence well-being and safety. To be fair, there is something to be said about geopolitical factors making it harder to assimilate. 18% of Ukrainians speak English, compared to 6% of Afghans, for example. Most of Europe identifies as Christian, whereas Islam is the predominant religion in Syria - the country where most refugees come from. But the point is, countries did not try. These potential host countries view the wars and persecution these refugees face as an inconvenience to them. They fail to take into account and understand the level of fear and danger experienced daily, or they simply do not care. Poland’s response to people fleeing due to fear of persecution and death? The Prime Minister said that “We will not be receiving migrants from the Middle East and North Africa.” Keywords: “We will not.” It’s not that they don’t have the capacity, infrastructure, or money. They just chose that some lives are not worth the effort of saving. Which then begs the question, how do politicians decide which lives are more valued than others? From what we can see, it all comes down to race. This statement was made mere weeks before they opened welcoming arms to Ukrainian refugees. So what changed? Is it simply the geographic location, or the fact that these refugees bear some physical similarities to them? Either way, the same protection should be applied to all refugees, as they all are equally escaping harmful and dangerous persecution. All in all, the disparity between different kinds of refugees has been clearly highlighted over the previous few months, and what we need as a society is to maintain the energy and compassion given to Ukrainian refugees for all refugees. Crisis transcends race, language, and religion, and people in need are people before anything else. The recent war in Ukraine has reminded people that tragedy can happen to anyone, no matter what you look like, and we have the means to help others. Works Cited: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/articles/2020-09-23/countries-less-accepting-of-migrants-study-finds#:~:text=Gallup's%20updated%20Migrant%20Acceptance%20Index,least%2Daccepting%20countries%20for%20migrants. https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/not-the-refugees-we-re-used-to-europe-welcomes-ukrainians-others-less-so-1.10642516 https://medium.com/coffee-times/departing-ukraine-bb7c7e9c0632

By: Jason Rosenzweig Our electronics break constantly. Your battery isn’t as good as it used to be. Your screen breaks. Your keyboard deteriorates. Because of all of these things, you have to go to the manufacturer of your device so they repair or replace it. These repairs, if available, cost an arm and a leg, so you may be left wondering whether or not there is a better option. That is where the right to repair movement comes in. Right to repair is a movement that has been gaining traction over the last decade that has two major philosophies. The first is that companies should provide official parts for their products and that they shouldn’t design their products in ways that intentionally hinder repair. The second is that they should provide product schematics as well as repair guides that are readily available to all consumers. Part of the reasoning behind this is the environmental effect that unnecessary electronic waste from replacing repairable products causes, and another part of the reasoning is to protect consumers from spending too much. However, manufacturers of these products believe that the right to repair movement will cause harm for the image of their business and also for consumers. They argue that repairing products is an incredibly dangerous job that can only be achieved safely by technicians trained by the company themselves. They also argue that third party repair companies will repair devices poorly, hurting the reputation of the original device manufacturer with the consumer believing that the repair part provided was faulty. There are many responses given to these points and you could go on and on about the details of these debates but that isn’t exactly useful. Instead, I am going to look at various right to repair legislative efforts on national, international, and state scopes. One of the jurisdictions most friendly to the idea of right to repair is the EU. In March of last year, new rules took effect in the EU that required manufacturers of washing machines, hair dryers, refrigerators, and displays such as TVs to provide support to repair products for 10 years. While this is far from what right to repair activists would prefer — smartphones and laptops are what contribute the most to unnecessary electronic waste — this is still a massive step in the right direction and the EU parliament is working on expanding this requirement to cover more consumer electronics such as laptops and smartphones. In the US, there have been many state initiatives in support of right to repair. For example, in the 2020 election, ballot initiative one in Massachusetts was about the right to repair cars. The idea was to provide diagnostics data to independent repair shops with the consent of the owner of the car. However, car manufacturers lobbied hard against the initiative, making attack ads saying that sexual predators would be able to easily stalk their victims if this initiative passed. In the election, voters approved the measure with 75% of the vote. You cannot talk about the right to repair movement, especially in the US, without talking about Louis Rossmann. Rossmann runs an independent repair shop in New York City and posts videos voicing his opinions on right to repair on YouTube. He has also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for initiatives and testified in front of multiple state legislatures in support of right to repair legislation. Right to repair is clearly a movement that is gaining traction amongst many consumers. However, many lawmakers aren’t overcoming the lobbying pressure of massive companies which is why right to repair legislation has been moving so slowly. Even without this legislation, companies are starting to take steps in the correct direction. While Apple’s authorized repair program is seen as flawed by many and heavily criticized, Apple announced a self service repair initiative where they would release parts and manuals for some of their laptops and iPhones. It remains to be seen how expensive these parts will be or if there will be some catch, but this is one of the biggest wins the right to repair movement can get. As time progresses, we may see more companies follow suit and we will in all likelihood see more countries pass right to repair legislation, so keep your eyes peeled. Bibliography: "Apple Announces Self Service Repair." Apple Newsroom, 17 Nov. 2021, www.apple.com/newsroom/2021/11/apple-announces-self-service-repair/. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022. Hughes, Owen. "Right to Repair Moves Forward for Your Broken Devices. But Campaigners Want to Go Much Further." TechRepublic, 4 Mar. 2021, www.techrepublic.com/article/right-to-repair-moves-forward-for-your-broken-devices-but-campaigners-want-to-go-much-further/. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022. Young, Colin A. "New TV Ad Makes Link Between Mass. Question 1 and Predators." The Herald News, 28 July 2020, www.heraldnews.com/news/20200728/new-tv-ad-makes-link-between-mass-question-1-and-predators. Accessed 21 Mar. 2022.

By: Mihika Yadav Image of Ketanji Brown Jackson making a speech backed by US President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris In late February this year, US President Joe Biden nominated Ketanji Brown Jackson to serve on the Supreme Court. Now confirmed, Jackson will be the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. In doing so, Biden is following through on his 2020 presidential campaign promise to diversify the judicial system. Jackson aims to help those who did not have the financial means to do so and would be the first former federal public defender to serve on the Supreme Court. This confirmation means a lot to marginalised people throughout the world, especially Black women. Jackson is able to offer a unique perspective on politics and law, based on her experiences and the challenges she has experienced as a Black woman and mother. As per the White House official page, Jackson has always been a high achiever, part of the speech and debate teams, and elected as ‘mayor’ for her high school. Image of Ketanji Brown Jackson with her classmates at Harvard University Despite her high school guidance counsellor urging her to be ‘realistic’ about her goal of getting into Harvard, Jackson graduated from Harvard University magna cum laude and then Harvard Law School, cum laude. She was even an editor for Harvard Law Review. From this success story arises the question as to why it has taken an alarming 233 years to see a Black woman confirmed to serve in the Supreme Court. Despite getting a look into Ketanji Brown Jackson’s prosperous career as a part of the American Judicial System, it is important to acknowledge that this is unfortunately a very unlikely outcome. Women in male-dominated professions, especially those of business and law, tend to lose support as they make headway in their careers. There is an unsaid yet indisputable bias for men in higher positions, giving women insufficient opportunities for advancement. Women of colour, especially Black women, are much less likely than white women to be promoted into management. Also, they are more susceptible to rude comments and harassment in the workplace as per McKinsey and Company surveys. Black women claim they are bullied at work and in courtrooms, and that when they speak up about inappropriate behaviour, they are retaliated against. They also mention they faced stereotypes about being aggressive and loud, having to continuously prove themselves to clients and colleagues. Image of chart highlighting inequalities faced by Black women in law As per Michele Bratcher Goodwin, a Chancellor’s Professor at the University of California Irvine, Black women have to climb ‘very steep mountains in order to dismantle historic patterns of discrimination, segregation and exclusion’. Jackson addressed the challenges she encountered being a mother and a Black woman in law in a 2017 lecture at the University of Georgia School of Law. “The hours are long, the workflow is unpredictable, you have little control over your time and your schedule — and you start to feel as though the demands of the billable hour are constantly in conflict with the needs of your children and your family responsibilities,” Megan Byrne, a supervising attorney and director of the Racial Justice Project at the Centre for Appellate Litigation, who mainly defends underprivileged criminal defendants, expressed her appreciation about the news of Jackson’s confirmation to serve on the Supreme Court. “It’s sad that this is a rarity and so groundbreaking, but it’s made me more hopeful for the future.” Useful Links https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/21/politics/what-to-expect-ketanji-brown-jackson-confirmation-hearings/index.html https://www.whitehouse.gov/kbj/ https://www.bloombergquint.com/onweb/why-it-took-until-2022-for-a-black-female-supreme-court-nominee-brown-jackson

By: Bodhi Ghoge A peaceful protest over recently increased petrol prices turned revolt in the country’s largest city, Almaty, ended with the city hall ablaze, the glow of the flames, devouring, shining through its windows, lighting the city in a faint amber incandesce. The revolution, if that is what it was, was as brief as it was bloody, leaving 225 civilians, including children, and 16 police dead. What led to the protests? When the government lifted price caps for liquefied petroleum gas — frequently referred to by its initials, L.P.G. — a low-carbon fuel that many Kazakhs use to power their cars, anger spread across the nation. However, the protests have more deep-seated roots, including anger at social and economic disparities, aggravated by a raging pandemic, as well the lack of ‘real democracy’. The average salary in Kazakhstan is the equivalent of $570 a month, according to the government’s statistics, but many people earn far less. These protests first began in Zhanaozen, a town in Kazakhstan’s western oil region Within days they had spread to neighbouring towns. Next, the spark raced eastward across the vast steppe to Almaty, Kazakhstan’s commercial hub, and even to the tightly policed capital, Nur-Sultan. Along the way cost-of-living grievances morphed into demands for political change. And then, suddenly, violence: a statue of Nursultan Nazarbayev, the 81-year-old “father” of the nation, after whom the capital is named, was pulled down. Almaty’s city hall (pictured) was torched. A mob stormed the airport. The Strongman’s Dilemma Autocrats like Mr. Nazarbayev who stand alone at the top, as opposed to those who rule on behalf of a larger party apparatus, face a tricky challenge. They must strike a balance between all of their country’s internal factions, ruling elites, security services and military brass, guaranteeing each enough power and spoils to keep them bought in, but without letting any grow powerful enough to challenge them. As a result, strongmen-led dictatorships tend to be more repressive and more corrupt. And their leaders frequently obsess over potential rivals, whether a regional leader who grows too popular or a security agency with too much autonomy. In his 29 years of rule, Mr. Nazarbayev was, like many such leaders, notorious for shuffling his government, promoting and demoting deputies to keep them off balance. But stifling rising stars, hollowing out power centres and stuffing institutions with loyalists (often chosen because they are too weak to pose a threat) leaves the government barely able to stand on its own. And it creates what some scholars call the strongman’s dilemma: how to set up a successor without creating a rival, and how to leave a government able to outlast the leader without making themselves redundant and vulnerable. Some try to solve this by grooming family members. Two of the rare successes followed this model: Azerbaijan and Syria, where dying autocrats passed power to their sons. Still, children often prove unable to win the necessary support, inviting challengers to try to take power themselves. North Korea is the only modern non-monarchy to have reached a third generation of family autocratic rule. Appointing flunkies or other easily controlled subordinates creates a similar problem. But staying in office indefinitely is a little better. As the leader’s health inevitably falters, rivals or even allies may be tempted to grab for power before someone else can take it first. Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe was 93 and visibly declining when he was deposed in a coup. This is why despots tend to hide from public view when they have health problems, to avoid any appearance of frailty that might set off a race to replace them. It’s also why the disappearance of a dictator tends to produce panicked rumours as citizens fear the consequences of a power vacuum. When strongman rule works, the leader is the keystone holding it all together. But any keystone is also the point of greatest weakness. If it falls away, the whole thing collapses. Which is precisely what often happens. “The moment of transfer has almost always been a moment of crisis,” the scholar Andrew Nathan has written, “involving purges or arrests, factionalism, sometimes violence, and opening the door to the chaotic intrusion into the political process of the masses or the military.” This dilemma has especially hung over the former Soviet world, where autocrats have held on two or three times the average strongman’s tenure, which is about a decade. But longer rule means a longer fall, for the leader and their country, once they inevitably depart. This has heightened the stakes, with many post-Soviet leaders extending term limits. Vladimir V. Putin of Russia recently pushed his to 2036, when he will be 83. With every passing year, it becomes harder for autocrats to hand off power, while the risks rise of disaster if a crisis should force them out. “The odds of regime survival are very dim if the leader’s departure was forced,” said Erica Frantz, a Michigan State University scholar of authoritarianism. This is much more than a problem for strongmen. Such leaders are increasingly common worldwide, a point of convergence for both calcifying dictatorships and backsliding democracies. At least two sit in the heart of Europe. Some experts consider China, where Xi Jinping is building a cult of personality and has paved the way for lifelong rule, to now qualify. And the more of the world comes under this style of rule, the more millions of people are exposed to the dangers of a catastrophically failed succession. Mr. Nazarbayev had seemingly addressed this problem by stepping halfway out of power as a loyalist nominally took over. In theory, he was to be just present enough to keep the system together, but absent enough to allow it to coalesce around a new order. But even in such rare cases where it looks like a transition has worked, Dr. Frantz said she has found in her research, the new government tends to collapse within an average of about five years. “Their successors often face serious challenges in governance,” she said, citing Venezuela, where President Nicolás Maduro has faced ever-mounting crises since taking over from Hugo Chávez in 2013. Kazakhstan now looks like an example of this, too. It casts doubt on Mr. Nazarbayev’s supposed solution and suggests that the problem of strongman succession may be, on some level, irresolvable. Until recently, Mr. Tokayev, the current president of Kazakhstan, had sought to promote a somewhat softer image than his predecessor and mentor. But his latest language and actions suggest a strongman desperate to cling to power in a country that has descended into chaos. Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/world/asia/kazakhstan-protests.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-60058972 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Kazakh_unrest https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59927267 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/16/kazakhstan-authorities-raise-death-toll-from-unrest-to-225 https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/kazakhstan-unrest-explained

By: Raina Lath Over a month has passed since Russia invaded Ukraine. As tensions escalate many wonder how exactly this war will play out. So what are some possible scenarios? Pro Russian government The first possible scenario is Russian President Vladimir Putin implementing a pro-Russian government in Ukraine. Putin despises Ukraine's existing pro-Western administration. And due to its ambitions to join the EU and NATO, many anticipate he will establish a pro-Russian government in Kyiv. It's unclear how or when/if that will happen, but Eurasia Group's base-case scenario for the next three months is for Russia to obtain "patchy control of eastern Ukraine, up to the Dnipro River," take Kyiv after a lengthy siege, and install a "Russian-backed puppet government." As the conflict unfolds and Russia pulls out all the brakes to grab additional land, resistance against Russian soldiers is expected to become increasingly difficult. Most commentators believe that once in power, Russia would replace President Volodymyr Zelensky's government with a pro-Russian one. Partition of Ukraine Some analysts believe that if Russia maintains only sporadic control over Ukraine, the country could be partitioned, especially as Russia becomes more ingrained in eastern Ukraine, in particular in the Donbas region, where it recognized the independence of two pro-Russian republics ahead of its invasion of the rest of the country. Taras Kuzio, a research fellow at the Henry Jackson Society had written in an article that Moscow has indicated that it is aiming at “the complete military conquest of Ukraine followed by a partition and a massive purge of the civilian population.” Complete insurgency Most experts predict that Ukrainians will continue to oppose any puppet administration. This struggle would eventually develop into an insurgency, with those Ukrainians who remain in the nation aiming to overthrow any such dictatorship using all methods at their disposal. Tim Ash, an emerging markets strategist at BlueBay Asset Management, is among those who keep a close eye on Russia. "Even if the formal military engagements finish, Ukrainians will fight long and fiercely." Putin's cruelty will be exposed for everyone to see on the news 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and on the internet." Of course, there's a chance that a Ukrainian counter-offensive won't represent a substantial threat to Russian forces. After all, thousands of fighters are civilians who picked up guns and were ill-prepared. The strategists emphasised that a Ukrainian insurrection may emerge in this situation. NATO vs. Russia Some officials warn that the violence in Ukraine may not be controlled. They caution that Nato member states' arms transfers to Kyiv, as well as Moscow's punishing sanctions, have increased the possibility of spillover to neighbouring countries, putting Nato in direct conflict with Russia. Putin threatened countries seeking to "interfere" in the conflict with "consequences larger than any you have encountered in history," a statement largely interpreted as a threat to deploy nuclear weapons. Following that, Putin decided to raise the readiness level of Russia's strategic nuclear forces. Meanwhile, Nato has bolstered force deployments in the Baltic states and other nations close to Russia, and alliance officials have warned of the potential for conflict. The best possible solution? Analysts believe that a complete withdrawal of Russian armed forces from Ukraine would be the greatest conclusion for the nation in its current predicament. According to the Scowcroft Centre, Ukraine's defensive capabilities might be strengthened by NATO, allowing its military and civilian opposition to "overcome the odds and grind Moscow's advance to a halt" in their "rosiest" potential scenario for how the Ukraine conflict could end. According to the Atlantic Council's strategists Pavel, Engelke, and Cimmino, in this hypothetical scenario, Putin would be prevented from overthrowing Kyiv's government and installing a puppet regime, while "the determination and skill of the Ukrainian resistance forces a stalemate on the battlefield that favours the defenders." But of course, this is the best possible solution and a miracle to say the least. Sources: https://www.ft.com/content/e2663cb2-d1ad-4c67-bbbf-dda0330da075 https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/08/how-will-russias-war-with-ukraine-end-here-are-5-possible-outcomes.html https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/09/opinion/ukraine-russia-invasion-west.html https://www.deseret.com/u-s-world/2022/3/8/22967444/russia-ukraine-war-predictions-outcomes

By: Aditeya Das 76 years! 76 years with no war in Europe. The continent of stability, democracy and altruism has now changed. The moment Russia invaded Ukraine on February 24th, these 3 values were demolished. In response to these actions, we have heard statements from many world leaders. The EU has placed sanctions, the G7 has condemned the Russians, the UK has placed sanctions over many important oligarchs, but where is the US? Where is the country that has been the epitome of intervention? The country that is the symbol of aid. The country that has stepped into several conflicts before but is now just spending its time placing sanctions all over Russia? Where the hell is the US? The US as said before has had a history of intervention. From the times of the Vietnam war and Korean war, to their invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now there is something similar about all of these past conflicts. And it is the fact that they were meaningless and did not have a good effect. When the US intervened in the Korean Peninsula in 1950, they said they wanted to beat communism. This was, however, a pointless war. All that happened was a back and forth battle that ended up with a stalemate . Paired with this, a total of 5 million people died in the war, and 100,000 injuries. However I feel that being recent is more important. Showing how the US has evolved is more important. Because of this let’s talk about Afghanistan and see how much the US has evolved. In 2001, when the US invaded Afghanistan their main intention was to kill Osama Bin Laden and punish the Taliban. This war had however lasted for 20 years, despite the fact that the US reached its goal of killing Bin Laden. Shortly after leaving Afghanistan in August of last year, punishment against the Taliban was deemed ineffective as the Taliban now has near full control over the country showing how the US really has not learnt much from the Korean war. These 2 cases of Afghanistan and Korea show how the US can intervene without being provoked. They were willing enough to hold their ground for so long even though it ended up with a stalemate on both attempts. However, how about now. How about when it really does count? Well, all we have seen is a bunch of empty words and phrases. We are continuously hearing news of ‘Sanctions’, ‘Aid’, and many others, but have any of them really stopped the issue. No! Vladmir Putin has barely even taken note of these sanctions and has gone on with his huge onslaught over Ukraine. Now as a writer I do understand the other side. There is a massive risk when it comes to deploying troops on the ground in Ukraine. Putin had even said that “anyone who would consider interfering from the outside” will “face consequences greater than any of you have faced in history”. This is obviously alluding to the fact that he has 6000 nukes holed up somewhere in Russia. However, what is the point of doing the same thing that you have been doing for so long and still not making a dent in the proceedings. And even if we take into account that these sanctions have hurt Putin, what about Russian civilians? What about the innocent people currently living in Russia, where they are facing massive food shortages, massively high prices, and a failing currency! All that has been said is just a pile of empty promises and statements with no proper action. What needs to be done is that the US and President Biden need to take a step back and assess the situation. Rather than going through just previous attempts at quelling conflicts, what they should do is look at what has not been done. They need to figure out an alternative that has not been used before, but is enough to make Putin stop the war. As a grade 9 student, I don’t know what this alternative could be. All I know is that for peace in Ukraine, for the stability of Russian civilians, for peace in Europe there must be a new way to tackle the problem. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/world-europe-60685883/page/3 https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-14-22/index.html https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/-longer-wait-worse-will-ukrainian-americans-push-stronger-us-intervent-rcna19674 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/russia-ukraine-invasion-putin-war-warning-us-nato-rcna17497 https://www.smh.com.au/world/north-america/a-direct-us-intervention-in-ukraine-is-still-off-the-cards-20220301-p5a0qd.html https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/24/world-reaction-putin-orders-military-operation-in-ukraine

By: Kaira Karmakar The Past Two years ago, the World Health Organization declared Covid-19 a worldwide pandemic. To prevent the transmission of the virus, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recommended that the United States wear face masks to supplement basic hygiene and appropriate social distancing. With over one million deaths across the United States on January 4, 2022, New York maintained strict Covid-19 restrictions such as mandatory masks and vaccination proof to enter places such as restaurants. However, with the receding number of Omicron cases and Covid-19 cases in the United States, mask mandates are rapidly being lifted across the country. Mask usage has become optional in big states such as California, New York, New Jersey, Oregon, Illinois, and Connecticut - all states with Democratic governors. CDC’s Recommendations The CDC recently suggested that most civilians do not require wearing a mask, resulting in more officials eliminating mask requirements. Around two-thirds of the country’s school districts have also lifted mask mandates. Furthermore, the CDC now suggests masks only to be worn in places with a high risk of Covid-19 transmission even if the person is fully vaccinated. New York Currently According to federal data, Covid-19 cases in New York City have dropped 38 percent in the past two weeks, and hospitalizations rates have decreased 46 percent. In addition, about 78 percent of all residents are fully vaccinated. With the CDC’s advice, Mayor of New York, Eric Adams, ceases the city’s mask mandate in schools and vaccination proof in restaurants, gyms, and movie theaters. Regardless, there are still several locations in the city where masks are required, such as the subway and broadway shows. Public’s Viewpoint After signs of declined Covid-19 cases and deaths, even states with the most stringent restrictions have started to lift them. For a large proportion of Americans, this has stirred relief and lifted stress, but has also caused frustration and anxiety. After the stringent regulations during the peak of the pandemic, many Americans are alleviated by the mask mandates. Furthermore, scientists believe that relaxing restrictions ‘give people hope’ while also motivating them to get vaccinated to prevent catching the virus. While many Americans are relieved about the loosened restrictions, enabling them to revert to ‘normalcy’, the sudden shift in Covid-19 restrictions has been a source of anxiety for many. Several are scared that lifting mask mandates may increase the Covid-19 hazard to older people and those with weakened immune systems and disabilities. As a result, many Americans have still decided to wear masks in indoor public facilities because they feel unsafe going unmasked as they are worried about infecting and offending family and friends. Moreover, a few people also feel uncomfortable going to supermarkets as most people would not be wearing masks, forcing them to stay at home. Global Perspective Seeing as many states in the United States have lifted Covid-19 restrictions, it is likely that soon, these restrictions will be lifted from other countries around the world as Covid-19 cases drop globally. However, would the lifted mask mandates lead to another Covid-19 outbreak in the US, or would the cases stay under control? Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/12/us/covid-pandemic-vaccines-mandates.html https://www.nytimes.com/article/nyc-mask-mandate-rules.html https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-04/u-s-sets-new-global-daily-record-of-over-1-million-virus-cases

By: Jiansheng Zhang A belated absolution “History will absolve me,” in 1953, the 27-years-old Fidel Castro declared emphatically in court in a national outcry over the right-wing dictatorship under Cuba’s Fulgencio Batista. True to his words, in a few years the Marxist revolutionary launched an armed revolt, overthrew the autocrat, and succeeded in turning Cuba into one of the world’s most equitable societies. All the while the rest of his native Latin American continent bemoaned US-backed, neo-liberal military autocrats who came to power in CIA-staged coups and perpetually oppressed their populace with fear and violence. An oligarchic economy, coupled with the lack of political representation from the minorities, meant that poverty is transmitted from generation to generation, turning Latin American societies into vicious cycles of economic inequality. Much has changed throughout the continent since the end of the Cold War as the United States loosened its rein. Leftist, and, for the first time in history, socialist candidates were elected to office in many countries around the turn of the century, signalling hopes of transformation. Notwithstanding the progress of democratization, however, much of Latin America remained economically stagnant and hierarchical. Today, Latin America has the highest levels of income inequality in the world. In Chile, one per cent of the population owns more than 25 per cent of the wealth. For Latin Americans, enough was enough. In 2021, voters in Peru, Honduras, and Chile stood firmly behind progressive candidates in presidential elections, extending “a decisive shift to the left” across the continent. Indeed, Latin American leftists are making an overwhelming resurgence following decades of neo-liberal rule, reminding analysts of a similar “pink tide” movement that was most active a decade ago. Only this time, changes appear to be far more abrupt, profound, and ubiquitous. This is best exemplified by the Chilean riots of 2019. Protests triggered by a subway fare increase quickly snowballed into a nationwide uprising that resulted in five months of political mobilization, the drafting of a new constitution, and the election of a former student leader, Gabriel Boric. Boric, who campaigned for a youth-led inclusive government have, at 35, sworn in as the country’s youngest-ever president in March 2022. From a broader time perspective, the “Pink Tide 2.0” of Latin America had had its roots even before the Covid-19 pandemic. Kickstarted by Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico in 2018, who trounced his conservative opponents by promising to end corruption and reduce violence, the movement expanded to Panama, Argentina, Bolivia, and Peru, where voters favored leftist challengers over rightist incumbents. By the end of last year, Honduras and Chile, two more of the region’s neo-liberal strongholds, turned “pink”. Furthermore, polling suggests that if elections are being held at the moment, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Gustavo Petro would become the presidents of Brazil and Colombia respectively, where said elections are scheduled to take place in mid-2022, potentially placing the number of left-wing leaders in Latin America to an astounding total of 18. “It is a social explosion,” said Nicole Martínez, a student leader in the Chilean protests. A social explosion Why are Latin Americans all becoming so progressive all of a sudden? A single factor that stands out is, of course, the impact of the pandemic, which considerably exacerbated the economic disparities across the region. Latin America has long been a region with a large informal economy and crowded settlements, making it easier for the virus to spread and more difficult for governments to intervene, all the while running on health supply deficits. It is, therefore, no coincidence that Covid-19 entails the highest death rate in Latin America than anywhere else. Low-wage workers, more than anyone else, were hurt by the pandemic due to suspensions of essential services, mounting unemployment, and rocketing price levels. Low disposable income, coupled with rising food prices, can translate to harsh food insecurity and, in some cases, famines. Children from lower-income families lacked access to education during school closures due to the general lack of electronic infrastructure in many regions. As the most vulnerable communities were disproportionately affected by the pandemic and the consequent economic crisis, they had no choice but to cast their votes to radical reformers who seemed to offer solutions of last resort. The “social explosion” started over economic issues, observed Alisha Holland of the Harvard Gazette, but it did not just end there, for the people simply aren’t satisfied with a few pesos’ drop in subway fees. Instead, they demand a complete overhaul of the neo-liberal capitalist system that reigned supreme ever since the continent’s invasion by US corporations and remained untouched after the democratic transition. As the commodity boom came to halt, however, the kind of economic policies responsible for economic growth during the early 2000s is no longer working in 2022. Instead, they hindered social mobility, hurt employment, and occasionally if not frequently culminated in corruption scandals that diminished people’s faith in the government. As the political establishment failed to address the looming crises, their popular support collapsed. It should be noted that not only the extreme left but also the extreme right benefited from surging poll numbers. “There’s a sense of ‘Just throw all the politicians out.’' Holland said. Why, then, did leftist parties, but not their rightist counterparts, come out victorious in most of the cases? An interesting comparison can be drawn between Latin America and Eastern Europe, a region where political extremism is also on the rise. Unlike Latin America, though, it was the right-wing extreme of the political spectrum that seemed to have gained an upper hand, whether it’s the Hungarian Fidesz Party under Viktor Orban or the Polish Law and Justice Party. History offers explanations. Like Latin America, much Eastern Europe saw the discrediting of dictatorships after the Cold War had ended. While Eastern Europeans spent forty years living under the yoke of Soviet communism, for most Latin Americans the most traumatic memories were none else but that of during conservative dictatorial rule. The most obvious example, of course, belongs to the infamous General Augusto Pinochet of Chile, who was notorious for tossing his political opponents from helicopters into shark-infested oceans. Even after the country became a democracy, many defects of dictatorial rule remained unscathed in Latin America. For instance, Chile’s current right-wing government was able to clamp down hard on the protests by imposing a toque de queda as mandated by the 1980 Pinochet constitution. The country is also the only place in the world where water is privatized, another legacy of Pinochet. In 2021, therefore, Gabriel Boric was able to gain sympathy from centrist voters by skillfully portraying his ultra-conservative opponent, José Kast, as “an heir to Pinochetismo”. It won him the election. An uncertain future Perhaps it would be premature to conclude what the renewal of the Pink Tide would bring for the Latin American people. Like their predecessors, the newly installed socialist governments in Latin America faced numerous difficulties. The previous administrations have already exhausted their limited fiscal firepower as they struggled to contain the spread of the virus, leaving few options for political newcomers to fix the economy. While increasing spending on social welfare might sound great on a ballot, it is hard to imagine if it could do any good to long-term economic growth. Moreover, anti-incumbent sentiments, the very force that aided left-wingers’ coming to power, remained strong, and could very well backfire against them should voters remain frustrated over public health and the economy. Peruvian and Chilean left-wingers pulled off only a narrow victory in the previous election. If they want to adopt radical policies to change the system, they will be met with limited support from other parts of the government. In Peru where Castillo became president half a year ago, for example, the union leader’s reforms made negligible progress as a result of political infighting and legislative resistance. Is “Pink Tide 2.0” going to be a lasting ideological shift, or might it be no more than a few ephemeral electoral victories? We do not know. Still, there are several things that we know for certain. Firstly, the leftward shifts come in the form of peaceful reforms, not violent revolutions like the one in Cuba, and will remain so in the foreseeable future. No one offers a better example of this than the radical left politician Gustavo Petro, the current favourite for the Colombian elections this year. A guerilla fighter of the M-19 organization in the 1980s, Petro chose to lay down arms and engage in democratic elections, winning his current position of the mayoralty of Bogotá, the capital city. “The necessities of Colombian society are based on building democracy and peace, period,” he explained in a recent interview. Petro said this because there is already a formidable democratic consensus among Latin American voters, and any attempts to overturn them would likely prove futile. A United Nations Development Program report suggests that “[Latin America] is the most violent on the planet” and violence could “increase inequality” by disproportionately affecting the poor. It is therefore inspiring to see left-wing leaders consistently employ peaceful tactics when rallying for support. Secondly, the left has become a lot “softer”. Some commenters in the United States tend to equate Latin America’s newly leftist leaders with the kind of authoritarian Marxists like Castro or Maduro. In truth, the “millenial left” is no more than a progressive wing of social democrats, what their people call amarillos — the Spanish word for “yellow.” Anti-imperialist rhetoric has long been replaced by promises of progress and hope. Instead of vowing to turn their countries into proletarian dictatorships, they campaign to reduce income and gender inequalities, increase spending on social welfare, and combat climate change, all of which an average US Democrat voter would gleefully appreciate. A striking feature of the new “Pink Tide” leaders is how environmentally committed they are. For example, the exploitation of mineral resources, a crucial economic policy of Chávez and Morales, is now under heavy criticism in the speeches of Castillo and Boric. The advent of leftist governments should be seen as a sign of hope for Latin Americans and people abroad, as they will strive to improve situations at home while committing their respective countries to solve global issues. They enjoy cordial relations with China and Russia, all the while sharing similar endeavours as the Biden administration on areas such as social justice and climate change. If done correctly, Latin America’s leftist leaders could serve as a bridge between the increasingly divided United States and China. Furthermore, the success of social-democratic leaders in Latin America helps eliminate the caricature of socialism that inevitably morphs into a brutal dictatorship. Destigmatisation of socialism, and leftist ideologies in general, would come in great help by inspiring democratic struggles elsewhere against conservative autocrats. “Pink Tide” leaders might not offer perfect solutions, and we probably shouldn’t expect them to. Their governments will make meaningful changes for the Latin American people so long as they are in power. Whether it’s for the better or for the worse, only time could tell. History has absolved Fidel Castro of his charges; one day it shall, too, absolve the Latin Americans of all of their sufferings. Referred works: General NYT: Leftists Are Ascendant in Latin America as Key Elections Loom Al-Jazeera: How left-wing forces are regaining ground in Latin America ING: LATAM FX Outlook 2022: Return of the Pink Tide? Latin America’s Leftists Aren’t Who You Think The Harvard Gazette: From bad to worse in Latin America World Politics Review: After the End of the ‘Pink Tide,’ What’s Next for South America? Inequality in Latin America UNDP: Trapped: High Inequality and Low Growth in Latin America and the Caribbean World Bank: How COVID-19 is exacerbating inequality of opportunities in Latin America Mind the Gap: How COVID-19 is Increasing Inequality in Latin America and the Caribbean Chile Jacobin: Chile Awakens ‘Chile Woke Up’: Dictatorship’s Legacy of Inequality Triggers Mass Protests Putspace: Commemorating Chile’s Social Explosion and Its Origins in Public Transport The Guardian: Leftwinger to become Chile’s youngest president after beating far-right rival Chilean election offers stark choice: a leftist or an admirer of Pinochet Colombia El Pais Gustavo Petro: ‘Colombia doesn’t need socialism, it needs democracy and peace’ Peru The Economist: Pedro Castillo, Peru’s new president, tries to seem less left-wing The Economist: Peru’s left-wing new president pushes for a new constitution Eastern Europe Populist Leaders in Eastern Europe Run Into a Little Problem: Unpopularity