Letter From the Editor Thursday, December 21st, 2023 Dear Readers, I would like to welcome you to our second issue of volume 20 of The Observer: “The Paradox of the Past”. The Print team has once again worked diligently throughout the fall semester to bring you a temporally expansive issue reflecting past and present political dynamics. I cannot wait for you to join me in reading their reflections on this incredibly relevant theme! This issue delves into dynamics of the present and past, looking at how continuities and changes within the international political landscape come together and fall apart in our current political climate. The past is important to understanding our present and future, and the writers have demonstrated this understanding within their respective articles and as a collective issue. From Alysha Ahmad, we have a piece on the imperialist nature of white feminism. Eli Lang then focuses on continuities between the United States and Iran, and the way the past of their relations affect the present. From Caitlin Elrick, a piece about propaganda and fake news, followed by Kaiwen Tee’s analysis on the evolution of the model minority myth. From Alexander Ezquerra, we have an article on legacies of Chile’s lithium nationalization. Lastly, an article from me regarding the changes in presidential accountability through a comparison of Trump and Nixon. I hope that you enjoy reading these diverse and thoughtful articles. Once again, I would like to extend my immense thanks to my team of writers and editors, with whom this issue would not be possible. I look forward to continuing to foster a community of academic scholarship with them in the new year. If you have any comments or questions, please contact The Observer at theobserver@qiaa.org. If you would like to contribute to future issues or join our team, follow us on X (formerly twitter) (@observerqiaa) or Linkedin (The Observer) for further updates, as well as our organization’s instagram (@queens.iaa). Now, there is nothing more to say beyond enjoy the second issue of volume XX!
Giuliana Iacobucci Print Editor-in-Chief, The Observer
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
2.
Table of Contents 04
Gaslight, Gatekeep, Girlboss: How White Feminism Advances Imperialism •
07
Alysha Ahmad,, Assistant Editor
The Hypocrisy in the U.S. Demonization of Iran •
Eli Lang, Staff Writer
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##
10
If Not Now, When? An Attempt of Justice for the Indigenous Peoples in Canada
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## • Lauren Hood, Staff Writer Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##
Fiction? Propaganda in a Brave New World Lorem doloror sit..........................## 13 IpsumFact Caitlin Elrick, Staff Writer Lorem Ipsum• dolor sit..........................## Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##
Minority”: Compliment or Curse? Lorem Ipsum“Model dolor sit..........................## 16 • Kaiwen Tee, Staff Writer
20
Lithium Nationalization in Chile: A Continuation of the Allende to Boric Legacy •
24
Alexander Ezquerra, Assistant Editor
Presidentgate! Trump vs. Nixon: Changes and Continuities in Presidential Accountability •
Giuliana Iacobucci, Editor-in-Chief
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
3.
Gaslight, Gatekeep, Girlboss: How White Feminism Advances Imperialism
By: Alysha Ahmad
Tank. Canva.
I wish my elementary history lessons taught me about the reality of the Famous Five; that they only advocated for recognizing the rights of white women and were actually really racist. Murphy, one of the Famous Five, blamed Chinese immigrants for the increase in drug addiction in Canada at the time, arguing that Chinese immigrants in Canada were secretly conspiring for the downfall of the white race. Using racist ideas as justification, she and the other four of the Famous Five only advocated for the personhood of white women to be protected by the Canadian government. This is not the only instance of white women’s complicity in the colonial project. Another version of this phenomenon is apparent today. Women in the West, particularly white women, are essentially taking away the agency of women in the Global South, through a THE OBSERVER
lens dirty with hegemony and geopolitical interests. Although white women may believe that they have good intentions when thinking of the liberation of women in the Global South, particularly the Middle East, their intentions tend to be informed by Orientalist views. These biases lead to the advocacy of issues that resonate with Western values and interests; subsequently taking away the agency of otherized women. Gaslight – Ignoring Racism in Canadian History Let us go back a few decades for some context. The Famous Five are so highly regarded in Canadian history, without any direct mention of the fact that they only fought for the rights of white women. Actually, it wasn’t until after the Second World War that Chinese women (and men) in Canada and Indigenous women (and men) were granted rights as people XX.2
4.
– almost 20 years after white women! Chinese people and Indigenous peoples had to advocate for themselves since white women chose not to. As mentioned above, the Famous Five held racist ideas about members of the BIPOC community, viewing them as threatening to the white race. But weren’t the Famous Five merely a product of their time? Things that are considered bigoted now were commonplace back then, right? No. Advocating for the sterilization of Indigenous peoples will always be unforgivable, regardless of the time period. Furthermore, bigoted ideas were commonplace amongst which groups in Canada exactly? From what I’ve read, Chinese immigrants and Indigenous populations were not advocating for the whole eradication of other races... When people use the “racism was normal back then!” argument, they are ignoring the agency, ideas and well-being of marginalized groups during this time, and continue to sweep the core issue at hand under the rug. Racism is uncomfortable to talk about, yes, but it’s important to talk about, particularly in the context of feminism. Gatekeep – Undermining the Wants of BIPOC But what does this have to do with white women – or women in the West more broadly – today? After all, women in the West have evolved; both in their racial demographic profile and political views. This evolution isn’t too apparent though. White women continue to be complicit in the oppression of marginalized people. A direct example of this is the 2020 Presidential Elections, for instance; 55% of white women THE OBSERVER
voted for Donald Trump, who was so blatantly repressing women in marginalized communities, particularly through reproductive injustice. One of the many examples of reproductive injustice under the Trump administration includes its “zero tolerance” policy wherein immigrant women who were detained at ICE detention centres forcibly underwent sterilization. It is clear that many white women, as demonstrated by their support of Trump, are not entirely allied with racialized people. This also extends into the West’s attitudes regarding women in the Global South, particularly women in the Middle East. For instance, feminists in the West view the Muslim woman and Middle Eastern woman as a monolith; to them, she is submissive and oppressed and must be liberated from barbaric Islamist notions. They assume that because she is veiled, she is oppressed. So, white feminists support intervention in Muslim-dominant countries, under the justification that Muslim women need help. This is imperial feminism in action; the advancement of the western empire under the guise of facilitating women’s rights. Imperial feminism does not listen to the women of the country being dominated, which is how women imperialists come about. Girlboss – Women Imperialists “Feminist icon” Hilary Clinton advocated for (and continues to advocate for) the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq on the grounds of advancing women’s rights. This is especially paradoxical since Clinton currently refuses to support the
XX.2
5.
call for a ceasefire in Palestine, wherein all schools had to close due to them no longer being safe for children. However, instead of liberating women in the Global South, feminist imperialism dominates them by worsening their vulnerability through neoliberal policies purported by the West. These neoliberal policies include liberalization laws and cross-border integration, which particularly marginalize women by pushing them to partake in unsafe labour. Additionally, the action of imperialism at the literal hands of women is quite prevalent today. By looking at the demographics of the United States military over the last few years, it is clear that there has been a steady increase in the number of women who have enlisted. Women in the military are praised for joining the ranks, but they are still only proprietors of imperialism. Additionally, “girlbossing” imperialism doesn’t make sense. Middle Eastern men, women and children being killed by bombs don’t know the gender of the person sending them, so what’s the point of celebrating this? To justify their imperialism, imperial feminists wear an Orientalist lens when thinking of these women and assume that these women must adhere to Western values for liberation. Orientalism posits that Western media helps build a hostile image of Eastern cultures. Accordingly, these representations are used to justify imperialist policies in the Middle East. This is what we’re seeing in the Palestinian genocide. Western media reports are spreading misinformation about the nature of the people in Gaza; positing them as dangerous to women and as having barbaric values. With millions of THE OBSERVER
people believing this rhetoric, people begin advocating for their erasure. On a related note, Muslim women and women in the Middle East are not viewed as allies to be worked alongside with, rather they are merely viewed as people in need of rescue, despite many protests in the Middle East being led by women. Their desires are not considered and decided for them by Western feminists. According to Frantz Fanon, this was used as a method in colonized Algeria to destabilize the country. Ultimately, imperial feminism is another tool used to advance Western hegemony and interests. It is the practice of Orientalism in the West which makes this possible. Rather, feminists in the West need to challenge their own biases and listen to the women who are experiencing colonial violence as opposed to deciding what they need.
XX.2
6.
The Hypocrisy in the U.S. Demonization of Iran By: Eli Lang
Shah with FDR. Wikipedia.
own foreign policy in the fall of Iranian secular democracy.
America’s foreign policy and political rhetoric demonize Iran more than any of their other state adversaries. Iran’s leadership is unquestionably authoritarian, and the state’s security apparatus does have an atrocious human rights record. However, as American lawmakers and Presidents harp on Iran above all other autocratic regimes, they do so from an oblivious stance of self-righteousness which ignores the history of U.S. policy in the Middle East, and in Iran itself. U.S. lawmakers' criticisms of specific Iranian human rights abuses are admirable. However, they often describe Iranian authoritarianism as a natural phenomena, or the clear result of Islamic fundamentalism. For American criticism of Iran’s authoritarianism to carry true legitimacy and clarity, U.S. officials must recognize the historic role of their THE OBSERVER
In October of 2022, The White House released a statement in response to the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on the Mahsa Amini protests, it included this line: “For decades, Iran’s regime has denied fundamental freedoms to its people and suppressed the aspirations of successive generations through intimidation, coercion, and violence.” President Biden’s statement ignores America’s history of compliance with and contribution to Iranian oppression. Iranian regimes have practiced political intimidation for generations, but America has only stood with the victims since the Iranian Revolution of 1979, and the rise of an anti-Western regime under Ayatollah Khomeini. XX.2
7.
Prior to 1979, a dynastic monarch named Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi ruled Iran. Pahlavi’s political police were a symbol of terror, known for beating protesters, holding hundreds to thousands of untried prisoners, and torturing or killing many. Under Pahlavi, Iran was among America’s closest allies in the Middle East, in large part due to The Shah’s intentions to westernize Iran and his regime’s friendliness to Western business interests.
North Korea in a global “axis of evil”. Other notable examples of flagrantly aggressive comments made towards Iran have included Hillary Clinton’s 2008 claim that America would “totally obliterate” Iran, or John Bolton’s recently stated opinion that Iran is the “principal threat to peace and security in the Middle East”. Bolton’s opinion of the threat posed by Iran has been shared, and amplified by U.S. officials for decades. In a 2012 presidential debate, Mitt Romney went so far as to identify a nuclear capable Iran as the single greatest potential threat to U.S. national security. Iran is in fact a theocratic and authoritarian state, however, American official’s vilification of Iran sees no bounds, and is absurdly lopsided.
Throughout the 1940s Iran saw the brief appearance of democratic parliamentarianism, and democratic power which rivalled the Pahlavi Shah’s. Mohammad Mosaddegh was the Iranian Prime Minister, and held significant power until 1953. Mossaddegh wrote and passed a bill to nationalize Iran’s oil industry in 1951. Mossadegh’s bill dealt a major blow to Western influence in Iran. Until nationalization, Britain controlled the lion's share of Iran’s oil through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. In 1953, the Eisenhower administration became paranoid of Mosaddegh’s speculated communist sympathies, and the CIA joined Britain’s covert efforts to remove the Prime Minister. U.S. officials provided substantial logistical support for a coup, putting up at least $60,000 of funding, and contributing to finishing a blow against Iran’s greatest hope for secular democracy.
As Iran pursues a nuclear program, U.S. figures have promoted a horrifying notion that Iran’s leaders are simply religious zealots, uncompromising and unable to reason like Western politicians. The unrestrained rhetoric that America reserves for Iran is dangerous in itself, as it encourages reciprocal Iranian descriptions of the American state. Notably, the U.S. focuses an inordinate amount of anti-authoritarian and anti-theocratic criticism toward one country, while others slip responsibility due to their political or economic importance. For reference, one could compare the vitriol spat in Iran’s direction with the restraint of American politicians regarding the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s crimes. Saudi Arabia displays similar theocracy and autocracy to Iran, and yet faces
America has brought the villainization of Iran to new extremes throughout the last two decades. In his 2002 State of The Union address, George W. Bush made one of the most infamous statements about Iran’s place on the world stage, when he included Iran alongside Iraq and THE OBSERVER
XX.2
8.
much softer rhetoric when caught red-handed committing gross abuses of human rights.
around Iran is all the more confusing. It would not be pragmatic for U.S. lawmakers and officials to constantly point out their historic guilt in Iran, but American self-righteousness before Iranian authoritarianism can change. The United States can pursue effective policy in response to Iranian human rights abuses without promoting narratives which stoke hatred, totally otherize Iran, and ooze hypocrisy. Iran’s leaders are unquestionably unpredictable and authoritarian, but not to the extent that the U.S. can justify diplomatically alienating them, especially given U.S. contributions to said leader’s authoritarianism.
Even if Iran’s regime is as sinister a force as American dialogue has painted it out to be, the U.S. owes the oppressed people of Iran some humility in discussion of the matter. In order to properly support the people of Iran, and in order to understand the Iranian regime’s origins, U.S. discussion needs to address the American history of support for Iranian oppression when convenient, and properly own up to the mistake that it made in 1953. America has ultimately failed to fully reckon with its past Iran policy, but it did for at least one presidency shift contemporary policy in a reasonable direction. President Barack Obama’s policy toward Iran was not perfect, but it was possibly the most progressive, and certainly the most productive. Both the tone and aims of American leadership throughout the Iranian nuclear deal represented an acknowledgement of Iran’s potential for reasonable cooperation on the world stage. Prior to Hamas’ Oct. 7th attack, Iran even displayed a willingness to make peace with its “sworn enemy” of Saudi Arabia. America however, had no place in the diplomacy between the two states in their potentially region-altering negotiations, as its government has returned to policies of rigid alienation since the Obama years. America’s role in democracy’s collapse in Iran is no longer a secret, and America’s support for Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was never hidden, so the absence of that past in U.S. narratives THE OBSERVER
XX.2
9.
If Not Now, When? An Attempt of Justice for the Indigenous Peoples in Canada By: Lauren Hood
National Indigenous Day Celebration. Ian Kaufman.
The existing relationship between the Canadian Government and the Indigenous communities that were affected by colonization is a complex issue that must be carefully considered. Indigenous peoples of Canada have faced many systemic challenges, including the impact of colonial policies, forced assimilation, and the horrific aftermath of the residential schools that were set in place. These incidents are more than just incidents, as the aftermath has played a notable factor in the lives of Indigenous peoples today. This being said, while the relationship between Indigenous peoples and Canada is an ongoing one, the recognition of its progress should be taken into account. THE OBSERVER
XX.2
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) defines reconciliation as the process of establishing and maintaining a mutually respectful relationship between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples in this country. In other words, in order for reconciliation to happen in Canada, there has to be awareness of the past, and acknowledgement of the harm that has been inflicted, to change our actions and behaviour. The following article intends not to just reiterate the atrocious acts that Canada has perpetuated, but to establish a more comprehensive understanding of the lives that have been profoundly affected. Decolonization in Canada can only occur when Indigenous peoples and Canadians face each other across their past and historic divides, 10.
deconstruct their shared past, and engage critically with the realization that their present and future are similarly tied together. It was only twenty-eight years ago that the last federally-funded Canadian Residential School closed, and sixteen years since Canada’s former Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, issued an apology for the institution. Since then, the Canadian government has worked towards implementing amendments, such as Bill C-45, to assist with the reconciliation of Indigenous peoples and communities. Bill C-45 can be referred to as “a second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures,” which is seemingly very vague. Four women questioned the impact of this Bill on the ‘aboriginal and treaty rights’ protected by s.35 of Canada’s Constitution Act, 1982. From here, Nina Wilson, Jessica Gordon, Sylvia McAdam, and Sheelah McLean came together and created ‘Idle No More,’ challenging the influence of Bill C-45. It was later discovered that others were wary of Bill C-45, and soon Idle No More had received enough attention; “Idle No More wanted Canada to amend the ominous bills, withdraw legislation threatening Indigenous lands and waterways, restore funding that had been cut from communities and advocacy organizations and set up Nation to Nation processes to manage long term implementation of treaties and resource sharing.” Rallies, round dances, and other forms of peaceful protest occurred, shifting the relationship between Indigenous communities and the Canadian government by sparking a renewed dialogue. Recognizing the THE OBSERVER
XX.2
desire for reconciliation and the efforts that have been set in motion to address past injustices and improve the relationship between the people and its state have been made, yet this is only a step forward in the healing journey. Putting in more effort towards an equitable relationship, this consists of more than respecting the rights of Indigenous peoples, promoting cultural reconciliation, and addressing the socio-economic factors that have been affected. The policies and acts of change that the Canadian government strives to do must actively be considered to mend the relationship and injustices that have taken place. Over the past summer, I worked alongside the Office of Indigenous Initiatives here at Queen’s University. As a woman of colour, who does not identify as a person of Indigenous descent, I was able to learn from my coworkers and gain further understanding of the disparities that still exist, especially here at Queen’s. One of the elders, Al, advocated for the recognition of ethno-stress. Ethno-stress comes from the formation of two words, ethnicity and stress; it can be recognized as the confusion or stress an Indigenous person may feel due to their ethnicity and development in their upbringing. Ethno-stress impacts many Indigenous people, a condition which non-Indigenous Canadians must recognize. So yes, Queen’s is situated on Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe land and yes, Queen’s ensures all extracurriculars and syllabus’ acknowledge the Land Acknowledgement, but what does Queen’s actually do? If actions 11.
speak much louder than words, what more can and should Queen’s University be doing? As a matter of fact, what more can and should we be doing? Education is a focal point in the healing relationship between the Indigenous community in Canada and the actions enforced by Canada’s institution; yet, this does not mean the only change that can occur should occur in this way. As I sit in Stauffer Library, a building situated on land that I cannot recognize as my own, I type away my final thoughts with the mere hope that reconciliation will still persist.
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
12.
Fact or Fiction? Propaganda in a Brave New World By: Caitlin Elrick
United States Army Poster. James Montgomery Flagg
certainly been a major contributing factor in shaping historical world politics.
At one point or another, we’ve all heard someone say, “I try to stay out of politics”, but the reality is that “politics” is all around us. Historically, “politics” has been infused into our social, academic, and personal lives through the media we engage with and consume. As much as one might try to abstain from engaging in debates at the dinner table or in the Instagram comments section, you cannot avoid politics.
During World War I, propaganda infiltrated every aspect of culture. Globally, the objective of media manipulation became to convince every member of the public to believe in their government’s objectives. In 1915, the French army created a branch dedicated solely to war cinematography, which had the role of creating ‘newsreels’ to spread information both domestically and abroad. The filmmakers from this branch would be specifically guided while filming and were tasked with the objective to “give a strong impression of physical power or morality of the French Army and of its discipline”.
Propaganda has been consistently turned to by governments, corporations, and political groups to disseminate information that is in the best interest of whoever is spreading it. When used effectively, it can sway public opinion and alter perceptions of events subtly and without detection or openly and obviously. However, regardless of the approach taken, propaganda has THE OBSERVER
Similar methods were used by the British, American, and German XX.2
13.
governments to sway public opinion in favour of the war effort. Propaganda campaigns infused famous nationalistic and patriotic sentiments such as “your country wants you” and “step into your place” into their material to garner the support of the public, convince citizens to enlist, and justify war spending. The success of wartime propaganda demonstrates the role that controlling the narrative has in shaping world history, as many of the patriotic phrases from the war period are echoed today.
much more technology has infiltrated daily life. Now more than ever, it is critical as individuals and as a society to stress the significance of media literacy and critical thinking. With the advent of new technologies and the widespread use of digital media, information has never been easier to manipulate.
Similarly, during the Cold-War era, the “us versus them” rhetoric between the United States and the USSR was solidified through calculated media choices in both blocs. In the Eastern Bloc, the media was entirely state-controlled, making it easy to share widespread criticism of the US. The USSR blatantly criticized American capitalism in efforts to convince its citizens that the conflict was justified. In the Western Bloc, the enemy was “the red menace”, a personification of Soviet communism and anti-Americanness. This era produced a boom of pro-American literature, film, and television that promoted American values and the threat of Soviet communism. Manipulated media sensationalized the conflict and solidified a culture of mistrust and hatred between citizens of the two blocs. These historical examples demonstrate that society is no stranger to the influence of misinformation, propaganda, and the manipulation of reality. Events throughout history have been shaped by those who have had the power to construct the narrative. This becomes a cause of even greater concern when considering how THE OBSERVER
Not only have governments been perpetrators of spreading misinformation and propaganda to achieve their own objectives, but increasingly, misinformation has found a new audience in social media conspiracy theorists. Online platforms such as Facebook, X, and Instagram have become dominated by users looking to profit off of spreading false information. Conspiracy theorists see significant online engagement because the claims they make often possess a huge shock-value. Users prey on the ill-informed and trusting public to generate ad-revenue with posts filled with lies and deceit. In the digital age, it can be both highly lucrative and influential to successfully infiltrate social media spaces to manipulate the public. Since 2017, Facebook has identified and removed over 150 organizations on its site who had spread propaganda online as “coordinated efforts to manipulate public debate for a strategic goal where fake accounts are central to the operation”. While technology and the digital age have resulted in incredible advancements in information accessibility, social media has given a platform to anyone who is so inclined to seek one. This has resulted in a culture
XX.2
14.
whereby tweets and Tiktoks are believed to be fundamental truths without any fact-checking. While some false online claims are mundane and relatively inconsequential, others can have serious consequences. The COVID-19 pandemic, where there was a direct correlation between countries with the most pervasive online misinformation campaigns and deaths from the virus, is a recent example of the destruction that can result from uncontrolled online misinformation.
daily life has allowed traditional forms of propaganda to transform completely. While decades of reflection have made it appear as though the misinformation campaigns used in the First World War and the Cold War are obvious and transparent, at the time, they were believable enough to shape the narrative for millions. One might think it is easy to decipher fact from fiction, but that is not always the case. We must see a shift toward a society that teaches effective tools to catch misinformation and prioritizes media literacy. People deserve to know the truth when forming opinions and beliefs, especially when those beliefs can have real-world impacts. As much as it might appear as though ignorance is bliss when it comes to navigating modern global affairs, ignorance is also becoming increasingly dangerous.
Increasingly, perception of world events is directly correlated with how events are portrayed in the media—including both formal media sources and social media platforms. In the aftermath of the Hamas attack on October 7th, 2023, the disinformation machine has been in full swing. Mainstream media, including trusted news outlets, have shared contradictory and unsupported claims about the way events have really unfolded, and social media discourse has been plagued by islamophobic and antisemitic rhetoric. The misinformation has even entered the White House—with President Joe Biden falsely claiming he had seen “pictures of [Hamas] beheading children”, a statement which a spokesperson later confirmed was untrue. Although it is important for news sources to share information freely and for citizens to engage in political discussion, this cannot be equated with flippantly uplifting unverified claims, which have real-world consequences. Technological advancements and the widespread integration of media into THE OBSERVER
XX.2
15.
“Model Minority”: Compliment or Curse? By: Kaiwen Tee
Model Minority word cloud. USC Pacific Asia Museum.
The prevalence of Asian Americans and their accomplishments have been increasing in mainstream media for the last few decades. Accompanying the notoriety are stereotypical labels, ranging from “covid spreaders” during the pandemic to “chinks”, and the so-called glamourisation of Asian Americans as a “model minority”. Although such a term may seem beneficial on the outside, there are deeper, potentially harmful implications associated with the idea of a model minority, especially in educational, particularly, postsecondary institutions.
In fact, these perceptions can do more harm than good. Firstly, they place pressures on Asian Americans to produce results, without the leeway afforded to other ethnic groups. Additionally, the ideology of a “model minority” is harmful to other minorities, since it scapegoats Asian Americans to undermine the struggles that different minority groups experience, potentially
Although Asia is the largest continent, with hundreds of diverse cultures and ethnic groups, this article will focus on the perceptions related to those associated with East/Southeast Asian heritage and appearance. THE OBSERVER
The perceptions surrounding Asian Americans have changed drastically over the past years. In the past, we were often segregated and viewed as dirty, loud, and unemployable. Now, common words used to describe us are “hard-working”, “intelligent”, and “rule-abiding”, with expectations to reach high levels of success both academically and professionally. This seems like a good thing, right?
XX.2
16.
contributing to the hindrance of these groups’ successes. If a Chinese immigrant can do it, why can’t you? Affirmative action, a highly contested topic that was banned in the U.S. this June, was yet another hindrance to progressing racial equity. A recent survey from the U.S. National Bureau of Educational Research that ran from 2015 to 2023 found that when comparing competitively identical Asian and white university applicants, Asian Americans are 28% less likely to get accepted than their white counterparts. Suicide rates for Asian Americans are disproportionately high compared to other ethnic groups in America, with Asian American university students accounting for 46% of student suicides in 2000 — a number which has likely risen in the two decades since. Although multiple factors influence such a worrying statistic, societal and institutional factors play a dominant role in the lack of care afforded to the mental health of Asian students. Teachers, for example, can place unrealistic expectations based on generalisations of students, leading to disregard for individual weaknesses and struggles. Although self-reliance is a positive attribute perpetuated by many Asian cultures, there is still a need for institutional resources and intervention in certain cases. The comparison between Asian and white Americans is a dominant point of contention in debates surrounding the topic of minority achievement, but an
THE OBSERVER
underrepresented comparison is that between Asian Americans and other minority groups. The term “Asian American” already forms a seemingly homogenous group from an extremely heterogeneous population, almost always excluding South Asians from the narrative. Indeed, there is a large disparity between East/Southeast Asians and South Asians, especially regarding university admissions. The 28% disparity found between East/Southeast Asians and whites almost doubled to 49% of a disadvantage against South Asians. However, in many cases, this kind of issue would be largely ignored due to both the recurring neglect of South Asian issues and the unfair grouping of different minority groups. While these concerns are valid, and the first step is spreading awareness, there is no easy solution to such a widespread and nuanced topic. The myth of a model minority permeates into Asian American and African American relationships as well. In a sense, the success of Asian students (and professionals) is used to diminish the struggles faced by Black citizens. A 1966 article, of which contents are still relevant today, is an example of how Asian achievement can be twisted into a divide and conquer strategy against minorities. It reads, “Like the (Black population), the Japanese have been an object of colour prejudice… When new opportunities, even equal opportunities, are opened up, the minority's reaction to them is likely to be negative…” Such a direct comparison discounts the major struggles and history unique to African Americans that resulted in systemic oppression that Japanese Americans did XX.2
17.
and do not face. However, as always, racism is grouped into a singular entity, leaving out key differences between groups as a way to belittle African Americans, providing an excuse against racial equity policies and other social progress initiatives, from which African Americans benefit.
Instead of promoting fair admissions, some believe it has led to superficial “niceness” and puts Asian Americans at a disadvantage, since for Asian Americans to “stand out”, applicants are required to be even more extraordinary than before. However, there is a large dissensus within the Asian American opinion on affirmative action, with a U.S. national survey showing that 53% of those aware of affirmative action support it, 19% are against it, and 27% remaining unsure about it. This same dissensus extends past educational institutions and into the workforce, with over a quarter of Asian American adults feeling disadvantaged in their career by equitable diversity related policies. If these policies are made to help, it is key to wonder, why do they still fall short or even backfire? One potential way would be for post-secondary institutions to stop viewing minorities as a quota to fill or a diversity box to check, and rather, view applicants as holistic people with unique struggles affecting their identity and experience. Unfortunately, in the current reality, this appears to be a pipe dream.
Affirmative action was originally created, by definition, as a “set of procedures designed to eliminate unlawful discrimination among applicants, remedy the results of such prior discrimination, and prevent such discrimination in the future”. It first became a concept in American legislature in 1961 due to an executive order from President Kennedy, and stayed in place until a ban this June from the Supreme Court. However, as previously mentioned, although the law originated from good intentions, it quickly became controversial. While on one hand, there is the argument that affirmative action provides a helping hand to those who may have started lower on the opportunistic ladder, another argument is that the policies designed to help may do more harm than good. For one, university applicants often have to fill out self-identification forms for race/ethnicity, and these forms may not always be comprehensive. Often, as mentioned before, various groups are “lumped” together — I myself have previously had to select “Asian” as my racial group on such a form, which although technically correct, once again ignores the vast differences between different Asian ethnicities. THE OBSERVER
In conclusion, the change in perception of Asian Americans from dirty and unwanted foreigners to upstanding high achievers is not a signal of racism ending, but rather, a new form of harm and discrimination with ramifications affecting more groups than just the Asian diaspora. Like the majority of social issues, this is both a controversial topic with multiple viewpoints, and one that has no easy solution. However, understanding the nuances and
XX.2
18.
historical context behind the problem can lead to more implementation and discussion of equitable policies and intervention measures, along with the personal responsibility of dispelling internal prejudice.
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
19.
Lithium Nationalization: A Continuation of the Allende to Boric Legacy By: Alexander Ezquerra
President Boric at the Allende memorial. La Tercera.
The national lithium strategy was announced by President Boric in June of this year and detailed how the Chilean government would regulate and become involved in lithium extraction after much uncertainty following his electoral victory. Leftist Boric was elected in the context of the 2019 “social explosion” which entailed months of protests against inequality and calls for ditching the dictatorship-era constitution. The Boric campaign portrayed itself as a continuation of the same left-wing politics of 1970-1973 Marxist president Salvador Allende. In Boric’s lithium strategy, this legacy remained clear as in a speech where Boric evoked the 1971 nationalization of copper by Allende as inspiration. But what is this legacy?
The rise and fallout of Salvador Allende is the spectre which haunts Chilean politics, especially today. The 1973 coup and subsequent 17-year dictatorship continue to affect Chilean politics and memory and in 2023 this remains unchanged as many of the tensions and aspirations of the early 1970s have come back to the forefront under the young president Gabriel Boric. Only a few months before commemorating the 50th anniversary of the September 11th, 1973, coup, President Boric announced a national strategy for lithium extraction, which quickly drew attention from social activists, industry giants and political actors. Lithium is a natural resource which will only grow in demand as it has become a key mineral for the highly touted green technology central to climate action. THE OBSERVER
XX.2
20.
Salvador Allende was the first democratically elected Marxist in the Western hemisphere and vowed to lead the country on a democratic transition to Socialism rather than a violent deconstruction of existing political structures, or as he called it “ A Chilean Way to Socialism”. The Allende, Popular Unity coalition government sought to break foreign dependence and landowner power through economic planning and nationalization of key industries. The country’s economy had become dependent on the mining industry and the Socialist government sought to break this dependence by pushing forward a full takeover of the copper industry, rather than the slow process of past governments called “Chileanization”. In 1971, this came to fruition as Congress passed the expropriation of foreign mining companies without compensation. The move was celebrated by the leftist coalition and its supporters as an act of national sovereignty and dignity which had been hindered by these powerful foreign investors. The nationalist policy brought with it immediate domestic and international imperialist reaction as the United States strengthened its economic blockade which as President Nixon put it, sought to “make the economy scream” and intensified already existing covert action against Allende. Economic and political crises unfolded soon after and following 2 years of US intervention as well as right-wing political action and a military coup, resulting in the death of Salvador Allende and his government.
THE OBSERVER
For the next 17 years, Pinochet would govern the military dictatorship, killing, torturing and arresting perceived leftists leading to the deaths of over 3000 and exile of over 200 000. The military junta quickly sought to reverse the policies of Allende and past governments through a wave of privatization reforms as per the advice of the “Chicago Boys”, a group of Chilean economists trained by Milton Friedman at the University of Chicago. Specific to the nationalization of copper under Allende, the Chicago boys fought vigorously to overturn the policy and privatize the Allende-created state copper company “CODELCO”, however, the military enjoyed the billions of dollars it contributed to the armed forces annually and in 1980 it became codified that CODELCO would remain state-owned with allowances for foreign private investment. Fast forward to this year, where the impacts of and reactions to Allende’s nationalization of copper and subsequent political developments leading to the Pinochet dictatorship are evident in the proposed national lithium strategy. Firstly, the proposed lithium strategy path to nationalization is focused on increasing state control of lithium extraction through public-private partnerships. Boric is following the gradual approach to nationalization deemed the “Chileanization” stage of nationalization, specifically, the state will negotiate contracts with foreign investors in which projects will be majority-owned by the state, instead of the current state of lithium extraction in which the Chinese owned SQM and US-owned Albemarle dominate the industry. Boric announced he would respect existing contracts with the two XX.2
21.
companies however would make it a priority to renegotiate state involvement and ownership demonstrating how the current government has taken lessons from the past as the strong-arm approach of expropriation may cause heightened tensions domestically and internationally. Furthermore, the Allende legacy can also be found in the national lithium strategy’s goal of breaking dependence on raw materials. Just as Allende sought to diversify the economy and break dependence on foreign investors through expropriation and nationalist policy, the proposed lithium strategy seeks to move Chile up the value chain. Specifically, Chile will focus on moving lithium processing plants to the country to produce lithium goods with value-added rather than the raw lithium which is processed mostly in China. Just as Allende sought to break dependence on raw materials, this lithium strategy seeks to place Chile higher up the lithium value chain. Lastly, the similarity between the two eras can be seen in the reactions to and political tensions surrounding the strategy. Boric seeks to establish a state-owned lithium company, however, this will need congressional support, which his government does not have as right-wing members of Congress have vowed to vote against it, forcing Boric to give Allende kickstarted CODELCO the tasks of the lithium strategy. Boric needed Congress to establish the state company and defeat the same domestic political actors which rallied against Allende’s expropriations and subsequently supported the economic liberalism of Pinochet. Beyond the lithium strategy’s connection to the past, it also has the possibility of THE OBSERVER
confirming Chile’s position as a major beneficiary of what many are calling the ‘energy transition’. By nationalizing the industry, Chile can lead the world in making the energy transition truly ‘just’, by ensuring social and environmental concerns are met and that the fight against climate change is not at the expense of Chilean citizens, as it has been so far for countries with much-needed resources for renewable technology. Suppose Chile does not push forward with this strategy. In that case, it will severely limit its policy choices as reversing privatization has become increasingly difficult with the strong property protection built into trade agreements and domestic law. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, a nationalization strategy can confront the neocolonial nature of current environmental policies like the Green New Deal and stop foreign investors from pushing forward on extraction without consulting and compensating Indigenous populations in the Atacama. Boric explicitly states his goal of balancing environmental concerns from Indigenous and environmental groups with economic development targets with this new strategy and can be held accountable by the citizenry in ways that multinationals cannot. Overall, the monumental national lithium strategy of Boric brings to light the long history Chile has with resource nationalization and its centrality to the 1973 coup and bloody dictatorship. As Boric moves forward with the strategy, it will bring to the surface political tensions which have led the country down tumultuous economic and political XX.2
22.
conditions, however; for the sake of Chilean development and people, the success of this strategy should be seen as a success for a just energy transition and a burial of the traumatic legacy of the 1973 coup.
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
23.
Presidentgate! Trump vs. Nixon: Changes and Continuities in Presidential Accountability
By: Giuliana Iacobucci
The White House. iStock.
Trends always have a habit of coming back - razor flip phones, bell bottoms, side parts, and presidential accountability. Often when we think of trends, we’re more likely to think of fashion cycles rather than political trends - but in the face of former President Donald Trump’s criminal charges, this case of accountability is eerily similar to another former president, Richard Nixon, rather than a style making a comeback. Drawing a comparison between Watergate and the current “Trump trials”, these two cases bring up important issues regarding the rule of law and accountability for political elites, as demonstrated by the actions taken against two former presidents. As a global hegemon and the shining example of democracy around the THE OBSERVER
world, the United States holds an important place in global politics and illuminates how the rule of law has progressed and withered in contemporary politics while informing how the past has impacted the way we hold leaders accountable today - all while the rest of the world is watching it as a captivating spectacle. Former President Donald Trump is the first U.S. president to face criminal charges, being indicted on four cases while also leading in the Republican presidential primaries. The cases include the Georgia election interference case (thirteen counts), the January 6th attack on the Capitol (four counts on indictment), improperly storing and retaining classified documents (37 counts), and falsifying business records. The most notable charge is the January 6th case, wherein it is the first time a XX.2
24.
president has ever been charged by way of indictment for falsifying business records. This trial is occurring after Super Tuesday. If convicted, Trump could still run for president. Former President Richard Nixon undermined the Constitution, aiming to win the 1972 election through covering up foul play. In 1972, five men were caught and arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters at the Watergate Hotel in Washington, D.C. Nixon had investigators, known as “plumbers”, who would investigate Democrats and intelligence officials and report back to the White House. The White House’s involvement in the matter was revealed due to a $25,000 check being sent from the Nixon campaign to fund one of the burglar’s bank accounts. Nixon was surveilling the White House without the knowledge of his staff, and the “smoking gun” of the scandal was a recording in which Nixon and an advisor, days after the break-in, discussed using the CIA to hamper the FBI’s investigative efforts. Shortly after Nixon resigned. Nixon was never prosecuted for his role due to a blanket pardon from President Gerald Ford, his former Vice President. During his impeachment trials, both Republicans and Democrats across the aisle voted in favour of Nixon’s impeachment. There are three modes of accountability that are utilized by democracies: elections, structural governmental arrangements, and socialization processes, as well as separation of powers and a balance of powers. Although accountability occurred differently in each case - through the courts, Congress and the Senate - democratic THE OBSERVER
XX.2
accountability measures were carried out against the two former presidents with varying degrees of efficacy. Both presidents, Nixon and Trump, have received various trials in the court of public opinion, but institutions have had limited success in bringing both perpetrators to justice. Trump’s active running for the 2024 presidency and Nixon’s pardon show that the political elite, while somewhat being subject to accountability as demonstrated by legal measures carried against them, are quite resilient when the rule of law is used; in that it is weak against the might of the elite. However, the polarization of today’s current political climate is starkly different from the political climate in the 70s. Many Republicans reached across the aisle during impeachment trials in the Nixon era, but this isn’t necessarily the case in the 2020s. Many Republicans are decidedly loyal to both the former president and the Republican party, which was the opposite during Watergate. This polarization is important in shaping the public opinion of the States, as the more affluent and elite personas endorse behaviours that violate the rule of law, the more rule of law becomes an elusive concept for both lawmakers and citizens themselves. The elite buying a lack of accountability harms institutional processes of accountability because Congressional and Senate members should be the ones proceeding with processes of accountability. These two scandals illuminate the importance of accountability and the rule
25.
of law, but most importantly, they show why these processes should come to fruition. The fact that Nixon got away mostly intact besides losing the presidency and nearly being impeached - set a bad precedent for the future, of which we are seeing the effects today. The fact that Nixon was not held accountable demonstrated to the elite - those who initiate the processes of accountability that an individual can get away with undermining and circumventing processes of democracy, accountability, and the will of transfers of power. These implications are detrimental not only to American democracy but to democracies around the world. As a shining example of democracy and hegemony, the United States is supposed to be the defender and upholder of democratic values. The fact that their democracy has withered away because of a lack of presidential accountability looms darkly for democracies everywhere. If the model for many democracies withers away, what does this mean for everyone else? The answer to this question is uncertain, but it holds important implications for how proponents of democracy everywhere should be defending the values it proposes to spread, and it starts with holding leaders accountable to the fullest extent. Trends are an important part of everyday life, shaping how people dress, talk, act, and move through life. The parallels between Watergate and the current Trump trials hold in balance the principles of democracy, the rule of law, and accountability. The wither to democracy rings true in both cases, with a lack of trust in institutions and elites overall. These trends are ones that I hope die out and fast.
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
26.
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
27.
THE OBSERVER
XX.2
27.