By: Aditeya Das The unorthodox candidates of the Philippines elections. The Philippines election is not something that is broadcast all over the world. Not many people know who the people running are. Not many people see it broadcasted all that much. However, this year, the list of candidates for the upcoming elections is not conventional candidates. There is a UFC champion, a former dictator’s son, and an actor all running for the top spot. Our first candidate in this presidential race is Ferdinand Romualdez Marcos Jr, who many may know as Bongbong. Bongbong is very famous in the Philippines solely because he is the son of former dictator Ferdinand Marcos. Marcos was regarded as a dictator due to his signing of Proclamation no. 1801, placing the Philippines under martial law. This law prevented free press and free speech, enraging domestic human rights organizations such as OpenGlobalRights and even the citizens of the Philippines. Along with this, he also used violence and oppression to shut down political opponents and activists fighting against him. 49 years and one day after the signing of Proclamation no. 1801, Bongbong announced his candidacy for President. Almost immediately, he faced a lot of backlash from human rights groups, with OpenGlobalRights member Cristina Palabay saying, “The Marcoses remain scot-free from jail, they haven't returned all the money that they got from the nation's coffers. Now they are making a comeback for the highest position in the land, that is just plain, shameless gall”. The second person that is being mentioned is Manny Pacquiao. Manny Pacquiao is regarded as one of the greatest boxers of all time, being the only man ever to hold world titles in eight different boxing divisions in his 26-year career. It is evident that whilst his boxing skills are unquestionable, his skills as a politician are not of the highest caliber. Pacquiao was first elected to the Philippines senate in 2016. Many believe that however, During his time as a senator, many believe that he was quite unimpressive, due to his strange comments on sensitive topics such as the death penalty, which he defended by invoking the bible. Sources say that the main factor keeping Pacquiao as a contender in this election is his popularity among the poor because he was born into a very low-income family and grew up to become a boxer who puts a lot of money into helping Filipinos in poverty. However, factors that have decreased his popularity are his controversial words about the LGBTQ community and his lack of political experience. 2021 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Maria Ressa even stated, ‘Whoever will become President next will have real problems to deal with, and they’re going to have to have competent people to deal with it’. People in the photo from left to right: Bong Bong Marcos, Mayor Isko moreno, Senator Manny Pacquiao Source: photos by AP, Reuters and EPA/Jij The third person is Manila Mayor Fransisco Domagoso, more commonly known as Isko Moreno. He is a famous actor, who is similarly well-known for his rags to riches story. Moreno started as an actor as said before, and then moved into politics as the city counselor of Manila in 1998. From there he was elected as vice mayor of Manila, and then became Mayor in 2019. He is, however, criticized for not having enough experience in the big stages because he was not a senator and that he did not have enough experience with the international community. On the other hand, he also has popularity among some of the lower class in the Philippines. This is because, just like President Duterte, he aims to rule the Philippines as a populist meaning that he wants to care more about the poorer people of the country and protect them from the elites and upper-class. Finally, let’s conclude by talking about the favorite to win. Out of the three listed above, the current favorite to win is Bong Bong Marcos with a 15% chance of winning according to polls currently. This is simply because of his experience and ability. Unlike the other two candidates, Bong Bong is the only one who has had a much more evolved and continuous involvement with politics. He also has support from President Duterte and is even favored by the parliament. The Philippines election, although not something that stirs up a lot of global attention, is exciting and rich. Although Marcos Jr. is currently the favorite, we can wait and see who will end up being the President of the Philippines. Sources: https://www.news18.com/news/world/a-dictators-son-a-former-actor-a-champion-boxer-inside-the-manic-race-to-replace-duterte-as-philippines-leader-4306397.html https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/philippines-presidential-race-marcos-and-the-specter-of-martial-law/ https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/philippines-rights-groups-denounce-presidential-bid-by-marcos-2021-10-06/ https://edition.cnn.com/2021/10/09/asia/philippines-election-president-duterte-marcos-dst-intl-hnk/index.html

An op-ed about China's response to the Taliban government By: Yuyu Fu Disclaimer: This is a subjective, biased, and opinion-based article. On August 21, the CCP’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Wang Yi met Baradar, who is in the second-in-command for the Taliban in Tianjin, China. The meeting was harmonious. The CCP claimed that China would never intervene in Afghanistan or other country’s politics and China forever believes the fate of Afghanistan is in the hands of the Afghan people. The Taliban also claimed that it will never let anyone use the land of Afghanistan to do anything to harm China's interests. Moreover, the Taliban promised that it will help to clear “Uighur terrorists” on the border. To a certain extent, the CCP has already acknowledged the Taliban as the legal government of Afghanistan. A subtle appellation that appeared in Chinese media to refer to the Taliban is “Ah Ta ''. In Chinese, a name that starts with “Ah” is very intimate. Two things are revealed here: first, China will likely be one of the first countries to completely declare the legality of the Taliban as a national government and it will benefit more from its trades and intercourses with Afghanistan. Second, to create effective propaganda, the Chinese media uses the appellation “Ah Ta” rather than “Taliban” to give the Chinese public a sense that “Ah Ta” is different from “Taliban” because it is okay for the CCP to support the new “Ah Ta” who kicked the US army out of Afghanistan but not the old “Taliban” who destroyed the Bamiyan buddha and forbidden girls to go schools. Even for people who understand the new “Ah Ta” is the “Taliban”, Chinese media still managed to create the impression that this “Ah Ta” Taliban would be much more inclusive, mild, and secular. A professor from Fudan University (the third top university in China and the best university in Shanghai) commented:“ We (China) do not care who rules the country, as long as it doesn’t affect China, we basically do not care about other countries’ politics.” He was being a bit too radical…… For five thousand years, China has cared about the Middle East as it established the Silk Road. China cares about the West, as every local Chinese student is required to learn English for 12 years... It just never cared as much as the US did. Personally, “thanks” to the recent events in Afghanistan, I can finally see some key differences between the world’s current two “superpowers”: the US and China. No matter for what purpose, modern imperialism, financial support, building allies, human rights affairs, the US has intervened in many countries’ politics in the past century. It helps the US to become the figure of “world’s policeman” but the cost it has on the US treasury and manpower is unimaginable. However, China makes vague claims and stays away from all the chaos. China is always China. It did not like to intervene in the issues of others (Central Asia, West Asia) during the Han and Tang dynasties. Today is no different, it only wants peace and prosperity at home. Sources: Grossman, Derek. "China and the Taliban Begin Their Romance." Foreign Policy, 21 July 2021, foreignpolicy.com/2021/07/21/china-taliban-afghanistan-biden-troop-withdrawal-belt-road-geopolitics-strategy/. Accessed 9 Oct. 2021. Wong, Catherine. "China to Support Taliban in Afghanistan, but Demands End to ETIM Ties." South China Morning Post, 28 July 2021, www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3142826/taliban-leader-arrives-china-talks-foreign-minister-wang-yi. Accessed 7 Oct. 2021. "China to Support Taliban in Afghanistan, but Demands End to ETIM Ties." South China Morning Post, 28 July 2021, www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3142826/taliban-leader-arrives-china-talks-foreign-minister-wang-yi. Accessed 8 Oct. 2021.

By: Tanvi Kothari and Nirupama Kalyanaraman The old legend stays fresh in the minds of many; a curious girl opens a forbidden box, unleashing dark sins and misfortune into the world. This mystical tale of Pandora's box holds great relevance in today's world, emulated by the new trove of classified documents anonymously leaked to the public eye. The aptly titled 'Pandora Papers' - the leak of nearly twelve million files to public discretion, exposes the lucrative methods employed by the ultra-rich to guard their coveted wealth. Laundering, tax evasion and avoidance, and hidden wealth are just a few of the myriads of lucrative methods used by the rich to shelter their prized monetary possessions from the rest of the world. Yet, much like the legend, these papers have revealed the dark and hidden parts of the lives of our world's most affluent and influential as the public desperately questions and loses trust in the equity and morality of many governments and worldwide financial systems. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a US-based non-profit organisation that comprises independent journalists, reporters, and other media organisations, obtained these documents. It is the 'largest investigation in journalism' that history has ever known to date and aims to expose 'a shadow financial system that benefits the world's wealthiest and powerful (source: icij.org). With the members largely anonymous, the authors of the Pandora Papers have shaken the world by storm as they expose the inner financial workings of many powerful individuals (such as world leaders and media personalities). Most notably, the consortium did this without the political influence or financial incentive that many media journalists have been accused of having. Whilst mentioning one's name in the papers does not always constitute that they have committed illegal events such as tax evasion and money laundering, the paper still maintains its shocking significance; the notion that potential tax money has not been collected is riveting enough for the general population. The leak of 2.94 TB of data, 6.4 million documents and 11,903676 files is the largest known leak to reveal the supposedly lucrative lives of powerful individuals. Those listed include over three hundred and thirty politicians from ninety countries who have used secret offshore companies to hide their wealth to siphon money away from the prying eyes of taxation. What is meant by "offshore companies", and is it easy to hide money there? The pandora papers have uncovered numerous complex networks of international firms known as offshore companies, which hide the ownership of financial assets. Simply put, offshore companies are firms located in a different jurisdiction -i.e., nation- from its base. Whilst it is a term widely mentioned in the pandora papers, the existence of offshore companies is not illegal per-se. In most cases, companies set up branches in "tax havens" -nations with low tax rates- to have a lower corporate tax imposed upon them and potentially receive tax benefits. It is imperative to note that such companies only become problematic if there is a facade of an offshore company (known as shell companies, which exist only on paper) used for tax evasion, laundering or fraud. They also make it incredibly easy for wealthy individuals and corporations to work around the law by using shell company funds for illicit activities, such as continuously shifting profits to make it difficult to track the sources and their legitimacy. The Pandora Papers depict this perfectly - the erstwhile Prime Minister of the UK, Tony Blair, who purportedly saved around three hundred thousand pounds in property taxes when acquiring a London office building from an offshore company. To hide money 'offshore', all one has to do is set up a shell company in one of the countries with great anonymity. Behind the aforementioned shell companies, there is usually a large and complex network of skilled individuals who help manage the finances. Lawyers, investors, accountants, and consultants are a few who may be involved to create the facade of legitimacy and leave no trail of the owners or sources. The Papers exposed the English accountant that worked with lawyers in Switzerland to help Jordan's Monarch, King Abdullah II, secretly purchase 14 luxury homes that amounted to over 100 million USD and set up at least thirty-six shell companies within the last two decades. So, what are nations doing about this? The Papers have increased the momentum for ending the decades-long corruption and power discrepancies. Many ordinary people who are appalled at these findings are working to hold lawmakers, corporations, and politicians accountable to address their actions. Such public outrage can be seen in Brazil, where Brazilian people and organisations are enraged by the 'Minister of Economy's offshore mass investments amid rapidly rising poverty in Brazil during the pandemic. These individuals and firms are calling for 'higher levels of transparency' pertaining to the beneficiaries of offshore companies so that the public can view the transactions and economic decisions being made by the people in power. Although there are similar situations in countless other countries, there are no definitive statements, let alone changes governments and world leaders address the concerns of the masses. As much of the papers include those who followed perfectly legal means to save their money -albeit there are questions about its equity and ethnicities-, 'investigations' taking place. As a result, to verify the allegations made in the Pandora Papers and the individuals charged. But one thing is for sure - today's rich may be able to squander vast amounts of wealth with the backing from the law, but with greater exposure and outrage, laws may change, and trust may decrease. It may be that the elite would have lost their most valuable asset of all. Sources: https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/ https://www.icij.org/investigations/pandora-papers/global-investigation-tax-havens-offshore/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-58780561 https://www.theguardian.com/news/2021/oct/03/pandora-papers-biggest-ever-leak-of-offshore-data-exposes-financial-secrets-of-rich-and-powerful https://www.offshore-protection.com/what-is-an-offshore-company https://www.transparency.org/en/news/pandora-papers-10-countries-investigations-policy-reforms

By: Shehzeen Alam 2017 Graduation Ceremony at United World College South East Asia ‘Mufti’ days were a time when people would be allowed to step out of the restrictive guidelines of uniform/work attire, and wear whatever they want. United World College (UWC) is no different. At UWC we have free-dress days to allow students the right to demonstrate self-expression and identity. We would refer to these non-uniform days as ‘mufti’ days. Many schools, worldwide, use this word to describe free-dress days or home-clothes days. However, this word is deeply rooted in serious colonial discrimination and derogation. At the start of the new academic year of 2021/2022, UWC decided to stop using the word ‘mufti’ to describe non-uniform days. While some believe this decision should have been done a long time ago, many students are unaware of the harmful and disrespectful context behind the word. Students at UWCSEA come from over 100 countries What does ‘mufti’ mean? The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘mufti’ as “a Muslim legal expert who is empowered to give rulings on religious matters.” The question is: what is the link between mufti and free-dress? The use of this word goes way back to the height of British imperialism. When the British Army was posted in India, many of them would dress in robes and slippers during their off-duty time that resembled the garments worn by Muftis. Originating from colonial times, the British army started using the word ‘mufti’ for their out of uniform days. British troops would often refer to the mufti clothing in a manner of problematic cosplay. Many use the example of ‘mufti dress’ to indicate the detrimental impacts of cultural appropriation in our seemingly progressive world. As a colonial term, ‘mufti’ was later used throughout the British empire by the military. However, it was still widely used in many industries ranging from the police to the education system. In fact, educational institutions, throughout the British empire, were founded on such militaristic language and values. As early as 1906, students were attending school in so-called ‘mufti’ clothes. As time went on ‘mufti’ was mechanised towards all aspects of life. To the point where it was commonly used as slang for informal attire. Students dressed up in their national dress to promote diversity and cultural inclusion What does this mean for UWC? In a school like UWC - which is founded on the values and ideologies of a diverse and peaceful future - the use of appropriated words like “mufti” for 50 years leaves a bitter stain of the impact of colonisation upon the world. The extensive use of this derogatory phrase in postcolonial countries, makes individuals desensitised and moreover, ignorant to it’s bigoted origins. Sources: https://www.pedestrian.tv/news/origin-mufti-day-problematic/ https://thespinoff.co.nz/society/12-02-2020/a-mufti-day-is-enormous-fun-but-time-to-give-it-a-new-name/ https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/mufti?q=mufti

By: Mihika Yadav Japan’s Former Princess Mako and her husband Kei Komuro. On the 26th of October, former Japanese princess Mako Komuro married her college sweetheart Kei Komuro, thus losing her royal status. This is because most Japanese women are obligated to renounce their own family names upon marriage due to a law that requires only one surname per married couple. She skipped the customary rites of a royal wedding and also turned down a 140 million yen payment to which she was entitled upon her departure from the imperial family. She is the first royal family member to decline the payment since World War II. This was a decision made because of the relentless criticism that the young couple face. The excessive media coverage of the two was said to be the reason that Mako was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) a few months prior. On the topic of the public vitriol, the former princess’ psychiatrist said in a news conference that “[Mako] felt like her dignity as a human being had been trampled on.” Most of the negative remarks made against Kei Komuro have been based on his mother’s financial dispute that came to light 4 years ago, postponing the marriage. It was revealed that his mother had received over 4 million yen from her ex-fiancé and had not repaid him, however, details about this dispute have remained unclear. “For me, Kei is irreplaceable - marriage was a necessary choice for us," Mako said, according to an NHK report. To which Kei Komuro responded, “I love Mako. I live only once and I want to spend it with someone I love.” The two have emphasised that they wish to build a warm family and create an environment in which they can spend their time calmly. However, as aforementioned, Mako continues to tackle a lot of mental stress surrounding the pressure that is put onto women in the royal family. Her struggles have highlighted a pattern based on other women in the imperial family. Former Empress Michiko Around 20 years ago, her grandmother, Empress Emerita Michiko collapsed on her birthday after which she temporarily lost her voice. According to The Diplomat, she was the first commoner married to a monarch in modern history and she collapsed due to the stress of being heavily criticised by the media; who claimed she was unfit to be an empress. Empress Masako, the wife of Emperor Naruhito, suffered depression after she was blamed for failing to produce a male heir, which she found became her main duty. It is clear that women in the Japanese royal family are pitted against stringent guidelines and are faced with harsh backlash if they fail to meet expectations. However, it is becoming more clear that they will be under public scrutiny regardless of what they do. Empress Masako Newbery Honor-winning author Kathryn Lasky of the book Kazunomiya: Prisoner of Heaven put things into perspective when she brought up Empress Masako’s troubles in an interview, discussing how her life changed so drastically upon joining the royal family. From a cheerleader in a suburb in Boston and then a Harvard graduate to being hounded by the public for something out of her control. She ends by saying that, “In terms of the Japanese royal family, they were considered the direct descendants of a God. They are regarded as all powerful and possessors of unimaginable wealth, and yet they are, more often than not, literally prisoners of tradition.” Sources: https://thediplomat.com/2021/10/japans-princess-mako-marries-commoner-loses-royal-status/ https://time.com/6111145/princess-mako-women-japan-mental-health/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-59046476 https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/east-asia/japans-princess-mako-marries-college-sweetheart-in-low-key-affair-and-becomes https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/24/world/asia/japan-princess-mako-mental-health.html

Why the president of Brazil may be facing charges due to his handling of the pandemic. By: Raina Lath President of Brazil - Jair Messias Bolsonaro Jair Messias Bolsonaro is a politician and a retired military officer who was elected as Brazil’s president from January 1st of 2019. He was elected in 2018 as a member of the conservative Social Liberal Party. He has now been Brazil’s president since then. However, recently the Brazilian Senate committee advocated President Jair Bolsonara for facing charges regarding crimes against humanity and for his response to COVID-19. His crimes against humanity include organising large gatherings of his supporters along with degrading scientists, constitutes a “crime against public health”. Whilst the president still believes he is “guilty of absolutely nothing," his rapid drop in popularity amongst the people of Brazil says otherwise. The 11-member Brazilian Senate panel voted 7- 4 on the 27th of October to implement the charges. The investigation on how the government handled the pandemic lasted six months. Its rapporteur, Senator Renan Calheiros, asked for Bolsonaro’s indictment on allegations ranging from charlatanism and encouraging crime, the misuse of public funds and crimes against humanity. Along with this, he promoted the use of an anti-malaria drug long after it had proven not to stop the spread of covid 19. This, therefore, encouraged people to not wear masks and created doubt about vaccines. Bolsonaro had thwarted local authorities' limitations on activities aimed at slowing the virus' spread since the outbreak began, claiming that the economy needed to keep thriving so that the poor did not endure further suffering. An inquiry report that was produced by Brazilian lawmakers stated that he went after a policy of herd immunity. As a result, he let the virus spread across the nation, which the report later stated led to many unnecessary infections and deaths. The 1,300 page final report recommends charges against two companies, making it 78 people in total. Charged include Bolsonaro, administration officials, dozens of the president’s allies, and the president’s three sons, who are politicians. However, the final decision on whether to proceed with most of the charges will be in the hands of Brazil’s prosecutor general named General Augusto Aras, a Bolsonaro appointee who is widely viewed as protecting the president. President Bolsonaro with Donald Trump Throughout this entire process, Mr. Bolsonaro has insisted that his government "did the right thing from the first moment." On top of that, a short while after the inquiry came to an end, former U.S. President Donald Trump mentioned in a statement that he supports the Brazilian leader.“President Jair Bolsonaro and I have become great friends over the past few years. He fights hard for, and loves, the people of Brazil, just like I do for the people of the United States,” Trump said. “Brazil is lucky to have a man such as Jair Bolsonaro working for them. He is a great President and will never let the people of his great country down!” Regardless of whether the charges are filed, the president has received a lot of backlash with the current report. His approval ratings slumped ahead of the 2022 reelection campaign, largely because of the numerous deaths regarding Covid 19. So even if the charges are not placed, the president of Brazil will still have to face the elections next year. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-59051105 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/27/brazil-senators-recommend-jair-bolsonaro-face-charges-over-covid.html https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/10/27/1049619752/brazil-bolsonaro-covid-senate-recommends-charges

By: Shehzeen Alam Nicaragua is going through a period of political turmoil and authoritarian rule, with scheduled elections in November 2021. As a precursor to elections, Daniel Ortega, who has been ruling Nicaragua since 2007, stated that his administration was arresting and prosecuting criminals who are believed to have been plotting a coup d'etat against him. His administration has previously been known to file money laundering, tax, and other criminal charges to raid groups it disagrees with. On the 12th of August, Nicaraguan police raided the office of the country's main newspaper, La Prensa, as they claimed they were investigating money laundering and fraud. The recent police raid of La Prensa is following a long crackdown by the current Nicaraguan government against its political rivals. La Prensa has been the country's only opposition newspaper with a print edition since 2019. La Prensa has been very critical in their articles concerning the current president referring to him as a ‘dictator’ after he used the police and paramilitary groups to crush a nationwide civil uprising demanding his resignation in 2018, where 326 people died. La Prensa is owned by the family of Cristiana Chamorro, Nicaragua’s most popular opposition leader. Recently, the newspaper reported that it would only be publishing online content moving forward as the authorities had impounded their ink and paper, resulting in a suspension in the printing of the paper edition. Pro-government outlets reported with counter statements implying that the newspaper had no reason to halt the print version while releasing images of the newspaper’s warehouse, although the La Prensa staff have continued to insist that there was not enough paper in the warehouse to print even one edition. Cristiana Chamorro, daughter of the former Nicaraguan president and vice-president of La Prensa, was expected to run in the November 2021 government elections, however, in June she was detained and barred from running or holding public office. A court in Managua, the capital of Nicaragua, says this is due to what they term ‘abusive management and laundering of money, property, and assets’. Christina's brother, Pedro Joaquin was also detained, while her older brother, prominent Daniel Ortega critic, fled abroad. Ortega’s government has arrested more than thirty opposition leaders including several challengers for the presidency. Antony Blinken, the US Secretary of State said on Twitter: “Arbitrarily banning opposition leader [Chamorro] reflects Ortega’s fear of free and fair elections. Nicaraguans deserve real democracy.” Nicaraguan citizens are predicting that in the coming near future until the elections take place, this state of affairs will likely escalate and continue as the Ortega administration continues to emit possible opposition candidates to maintain power and control of the country. Sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/nicaraguan-police-raid-la-prensa-newspaper-charge-directors-with-fraud-2021-08-13/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-58212024 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/aug/14/nicaraguan-police-raid-opposition-newspaper-la-prensa https://www.vaticannews.va/en/world/news/2021-06/nicaragua-opposition-politician-christina-chamorro-arrest.html

By Niru Kalyanaraman What is going on? Australia and Facebook recently had a dispute, blocking Australian citizens from accessing all news sources on Facebook around the 17th of February. Proposed laws by the Australian government made Google and Facebook pay for journalism (i.e. the news media bargaining code). In addition to this, the law would penalise Facebook if it allowed news from publishers which were not part of the code to be accessed on their website whilst blocking others who were also part of the code. This effectively resulted in the blockage of all news content. Facebook's Side of the Story Facebook believed that it was more of an undue advantage for news companies, than Facebook itself. The firm's head in Australia and New Zealand, Will Easton, mentioned in a blog post that new content makes up less than 4% of the aggregate content people see on their news feeds. On the other hand, however, Facebook did account for the massive viewership of 5.1 billion on Australian news websites in 2020 alone. Google Joins the Party Facebook and Google have one thing in common in this situation; both argued that the law "fundamentally" misunderstood the internet's workings. Google has fallen privy to the news code, forcing them to commit millions of dollars in local digital content. Both tech giants (Google and Facebook) lobbied the Australian government to amend the legislation while pursuing contracts with local news sources such as Mr Murdoch's News Corp to access the content across its media empire. As Google has threatened to remove its search engine from Australia (if the legislation passes), Google has made deals with multiple Australian media outlets, including Nine entertainment. Google has been able to gain the support of firms like News Corp through "significant payments. Nevertheless, it is still unclear what the steps will entail. Power, Pride and Forsaken Claims On Tuesday the 23rd of February, Facebook returned news to Australian users after an eight-day blackout. Facebook stated that it 'had been reassured by recent discussions with the government". Campbell Brown, vice president of global news partnerships at Facebook, mentioned that in the future, "the government has clarified we will retain the ability to decide if news appears on Facebook so that we won't automatically be subject to forced negotiation". However, critics are perplexed about this contradictory move and call this to be undemocratic as Facebook's temporary shutdown of credible news access has resulted in a spike in fake news. Food for Thought Some commentators have said that this ordeal has showcased how legalities have the power to undermine the intrinsic web principle of free connection. These tech corporations' commercial restriction opens the question of what web principles can be regulated if the web is an ocean home to a plethora of information, both malignant and benign. Through this situation, it appears that the Australian government exposed the inadequacies of such legislation. One could derive this conclusion as it adequately highlights that people's undesirable outcomes will override the moral motive for access to credible news due to the problematic choices firms such as Facebook take. It also brings an important question about how the conflicted world of the internet can sustainably integrate journalism. However, the proof still lies in the puffing that the monopolisation of Facebook will decrease the incentive for it to make news more readily accessible as 4 out of 5 of the most downloaded news apps were owned and controlled by them. Facebook has many avenues - don't expect much from them.

By Aditi Pangam Israel has made global headlines as their ambitious national vaccination campaign put them in first place in the international race of vaccination and immunisation against Covid-19. Israel began their intensive campaign in late December, just as they entered their third nation-wide lockdown. In hopes of it being their last, Prime Minister Netanyahu is betting on the vaccine-oriented strategy that would allow the nation to be done with the virus by March. As Netanyahu said, “As soon as we are done with this stage, within 30 days we can emerge from the coronavirus, open the economy and do things that no country can do,". The program has so far proved to be effective and has worked impressively well; Israel now has the highest proportion of citizens vaccinated against Covid-19 in the world. Thus far they have given 74 doses for every 100 people and on a whole, Israel has inoculated more than 4.6 million people - 50.4% of their population. Moreover, the number of cases, hospitalisations and deaths have fallen 21 days following the vaccination campaign. As things are on the up and up for Israel, they are left not only in quite a comfortable position but are also left with a surplus in vaccines. This is where the debate begins. Whilst Israel may be the first in the global race, Palestine is concerningly far behind. This is because Palestinian authorities in the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip cannot independently fund vaccines and distribution, thus relying on global aid, particularly multilateral co-operation programs such as COVAX. Since much of Palestine is under Israel military occupation, Israel is expected to uphold their international duty of responsible sovereignty. According to international humanitarian law and as per Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is obligated to “the duty of ensuring and maintaining the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics.” But instead of fulfilling this expectation, Netenyahu wants to use the excess surplus as diplomatic leverage, offering the extra vaccine doses to Israel’s allies. He plans to distribute doses to 15 countries, including Italy, Chad, Honduras, and Hungary - essentially, countries which have either renewed their diplomatic relations with Israel or have plans to move embassies to Jerusalem. Netenyahu exemplifies how nations have come to politicise the pandemic, demonstrating how vaccines have come to act as a kind of diplomatic currency, with countries using the distribution of vaccine stock for political gain. This extent of politicisation was seen by global superpowers China and Russia as well, with their respective SinoVac and Sputnik vaccines being used to form new diplomatic relations and widen global influence. Whilst Netenyahu most likely would’ve followed the same route in using the vaccines as political leverage, extensive pressure from the US, Israel’s biggest ally, led Netenyahu to temporarily suspend the vaccine distribution program and additionally, sign off on the delivery of thousands of vaccines to Palestinians.

By Niru Kalyanaraman and Shehzeen Alam The Burmese military staged their second coup d'etat on February 1st 2021. This has resulted in tens of thousands of enraged Burmese citizens taking to the streets. The first time the military staged a coup in 1962, thousands of Burmese lives were lost at the hands of the Tatmadaw (the army), and Myanmar faced its most significant economic depression. "Myanmar is a bird learning to fly, but now the military has broken our wings." Shin Thant, a Burmese student in UWC, talked about the frustration and hardships that Burmese people are facing due to the Myanmar military. He stated: "The military are harming and suppressing the voices of the Burmese citizens. Many health care workers, firefighters, teachers etc., stopped going to work to practice the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) to stop the military dictatorship." However, we must look to the past to fully understand Myanmar's current situation. What is Myanmar’s history with the military? In January 1948, Myanmar gained full independence from British rule under the Burma Independence Act, followed by three elections held between 1950-1960. However, when non-Burmese ethnic groups pushed for autonomy, the military leadership staged a coup d'etat in 1962 and overthrew the democratically elected government. In early 1990, the government finally held free and fair elections for the first time in 30 years. The party of Aung San Suu Kyi, the National League of Democracy (NLD), won 80% of the seats. However, once the election results were finalised, the military refused to cede power. The restoration of democracy occurred on March 30th 2011, with the NLD assuming power after the democratic elections and military regime dissolution. What is happening right now in Myanmar? In the 2020 elections, NLD won again by a landslide gaining majorities in both houses. However, the army alleged fraud (which was declared on November 8th 2020) and threatened to "take action", due to a few incidents of fraudulent voting. On the morning of February 1st 2021, the day parliament was set to convene, the military detained state counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi and other party members. The military declared a state of emergency, overtaking power for the next year. Shin Thant, a Grade 9 student at UWCSEA Dover, says that the NLD "inspires and gives strength to the majority of Burmese citizens." Ever since February 1st, the military rule has been revoking the rights of Burmese citizens by "shutting off the internet and making laws which enable the police to open fire on the citizens of Myanmar when protesting." What does this mean for the people of Myanmar? As of now, power has been handed to the military commander in chief Min Aung Hlaing. He has garnered significant political influence over time as he successfully maintained the control of the Tatmadaw (Myanmar's military) despite the nation's shift to democracy. The power which the army currently holds has caused prominent discontent amongst Burmese people. This discontent can be seen in the protests, which are the largest since the 'Saffron revolution' of 2007, driven by Monk discontent towards the military. As of now, the military has imposed significant restrictions in certain areas, including curfews and limits to gatherings. In addition to this, the military further suppressed freedom by seizing the country's infrastructure, suspending television broadcasts, telephone and internet access in major cities. In addition to this, domestic and international flights were cancelled by the military. Overall, the coup has severely restricted the freedom of people in all aspects. Elements of brutality are also seen by the frequent gassing and violence rampant on the streets of Yangon. Calls for foreign intervention As of now, international speculation is rife amongst many nations. The UK, EU and Australia are significant factors for the condemnation of the military takeover. Although there is no direct foreign intervention, debates are constant in the UN, leading to the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stating that it was a "serious blow to democratic reforms". Coupled with this, American President Joe Biden has threatened to intervene by reinstating sanctions. However, Myanmar's long term ally China blocked a Security Council statement condemning the coup. There is much ambiguity about China's role in this conflict, with China attempting to dismiss it by stating that it is an 'internal matter'. What could this mean in the future? Experts appear unsure of the reason for the current military uprising, which seems futile in containing the rampant discontent. There is a consensus that the current system is incredibly beneficial to the army, allowing them to consolidate their autonomy over their political interest. After the alleged fraud, which was declared on November 8th and a forceful one-year emergency (though the interregnum is expected to last longer) and raging protests, it's hard to say what the future holds for Myanmar. Min Aung Hlaing has promised that elections will be held after the emergency, but there is still uncertainty in the future of Myanmar due to the spontaneous escalation of the protests. Myanmar's lack of international support jeopardises the future of democracy that hangs loosely by a thread. Sources: https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/myanmars-anti-coup-protesters-plead-for-international-support https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-12992883 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55902070 https://www.nytimes.com/article/2021-myanmar-coup.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/world/asia/myanmar-military-protest.html https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-55882938

By Sadie Moore During former US President Trump’s campaign and administration, we often heard descriptions of massive immigrant caravans from Mexico and the Northern Triangle in Central America bringing thousands of “bad hombres” to the country. However, in actuality, thousands of refugees from these countries are fleeing extreme danger, crime, economic instability, hunger, and homelessness to arrive in the United States or elsewhere for a better life. During the COVID-19 pandemic, immigration has grown increasingly complicated due to exacerbation of these existing issues coupled with other problems such as natural disasters like tropical storms, flooding, and landslides. The Trump administration was famous, or infamous, for their policies and rhetoric against immigrants, especially those from Latin America. The border wall, the child separation policy, you know it. However, new leadership in the United States promises change with regards to immigration. President Joe Biden has pledged to provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, encourage legal immigration, and address the root causes of mass migration. However, this change is not consistent across the entire continent; in December 2020, a caravan containing 9,000 immigrants from Honduras was brought down by the Guatemalan government while en route to the United States. The Northern Triangle of Central American countries (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) are legally obligated to respect other nations’ national sovereignty and detain illegal immigrants leaving those nations. This had led to massive crackdowns all over Central America of refugees no matter what they were fleeing from. During COVID, restrictions have only gotten more severe. Furthermore, despite the optimistic stance President Biden has taken, the US isn’t looking great for immigrants wishing to settle there during the pandemic. Mark Morgan, acting commissioner of the US Customs and Border Protection Agency, warned asylum seekers not to “waste their time and money.” Even for immigrants currently living in the United States, the US isn’t an option anymore; more immigrants have left the United States in 2020 than have in the past two decades. Thousands of immigrants have returned to their home countries in order to escape the US’ growing number of COVID cases and lack of support for immigrants, who are disproportionately affected by the pandemic. Not only do undocumented immigrants tend to be in lower socioeconomic classes, but many report feeling scared to receive treatment from public hospitals in which they worry their status will be revealed. Other countries, such as Mexico, offer some healthcare and unemployment benefits, but the United States has struggled for months to come up with a definitive plan for helping American as well as foreign workers through the pandemic with stimulus packages and the like. It is no surprise that immigrants are returning to their home countries for better care during these times. However, as COVID continues to wipe out hundreds of thousands of people in the United States, immigration is not the number one priority. We can expect to see immigration stay on the backburner for a while as we continue to combat this global crisis.

By Bobby Jung It seems like it was all a dream. Two weeks ago, the historically “unpresidented” Republican finally left the White House, seeming to lose everything in the process. His finances in ruin, critical historians already certain he wouldn’t be remembered fondly and even his social media taken away from him, denying him one of his favourite pastimes. The icing on the cake was a second impeachment and one passed barely before his farewell. Only a few days prior, hundreds of armed insurgents had stormed the US Capitol in a destructive effort to overturn the election. However, Trump had been on the offensive for months hoping to secure enough doubt about the election in other ways. Promoting baseless conspiracy theories and even asking the Republican Secretary of State of Georgia, Brad Raffensperger, to push his agenda, which backfired massively. In stark contrast to the first impeachment, the second one felt like a clinical process. While Republicans accused Democrats of partisan exercises and even many in the party doubted whether it could be effective in the first, the Democratic majority secured the second impeachment easily with a few Republicans voting with them in an unprecedented manner. To date, only Trump has been impeached twice and will be the first to have his trial after his term. Though many felt that a trial during Biden’s term could rob the administration of its momentum, after hundreds of scandals and difficult, dark days, this trial feels almost historic and as if it could finally shovel the last handful of dirt over the grave of the 45th’s public service career. Post Trump, the GOP seems to be facing more a crisis of conscience rather than a crisis of electability, especially on the back of their impressive House victories in November. Some are ready to move on beyond Trump but plenty are willing to attack those who seem to have abandoned the former president. Currently, it seems the GOP will undergo a slow transition to where political trends had them going before the Trump era as a right-wing neoliberal party but one that cannot commit itself nominally to actions as blunt and blatant in their motive as in Trump’s administration. Like many Senate leaders before him, McConnell has promised to use the filibuster but has not been too vocal and even Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley have toned down their recent rhetoric. It will be interesting how this moderation of the GOP will affect Trump’s hopes. Only a few days ago, it was announced that Trump’s legal defense team had quit and that he has had to find new lawyers willing to fight a battle they will inevitably win (through acquittal) but none are willing to stain their name with. It will be the legal battle of the new decade and though impeachment trials may seem consequential, their political nature means they tend to be about the right morals and only basic legal strategy rather than a revolutionary one seeking acquittal or conviction at all costs. Knowing Trump, few can imagine this trial will be ultimately consequential for him or the country. Trump’s thin skin may see him saddened by the news once in a while, but after four gruelling years and more consequences to be faced, it is likely he simply does not care anymore. His base will forever be loyal and the rest of the country will forever hold a grudge. In the end, his impeachment has been and will likely continue to not be the theatrical battle where right finally triumphs over wrong that many hoped for. It is a trial of decreased confidence, decreased motivation, decreased consequences and decreased importance. Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office, but his current fate of being loathed and living a heartbroken life seems rather fitting too