Letter From the Editor Thursday, March 31, 2022 Dear Readers, I would like to officially welcome you to issue XVIII.3 of the Observer, entitled “Now or Never: A Post Pandemic Future”. Our team has been working hard this past semester to put forward a thoughtful compilation of considerations for the years ahead. I am very excited for you to read what they have to say. While we may not yet be at the end of the pandemic, there is one question starting to gain popularity: what now? Countries are beginning to come to terms with their situations, and trying to figure out how to move forward - whether that be COVID-19 related policies and subsidies, or more broad issues that have come to light since the pandemic began. Throughout this issue, you will find reflections on a whole range of foreign policy issues within this broader theme. From Vanessa Ellia, Naomi Derfel, and Claire Parsons, we have varying perspectives on COVID-19 policies going forward. From Alexandra Paul, a fascinating tale of a group of Irish fishermen standing up to the Russian army. From Adham Elsherbini, a detailing of the 2022 Olympics, and its political implications. From Gabriel Korth, a critique of the Biden Administration’s decisions on Cuban embargoes. From Rachel Hierholzer, a discussion on the precarity of migration in the face of the increasingly securitized EU borders. And finally, I wrote a piece on Canadian international and domestic spending in light of pandemic federal debt increases. I hope you enjoy reading the articles from our talented group of writers, and hopefully learn something from them as well. I’d like to thank the team for their hard work this past semester, and am excited for future issues to come! If you have any comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us at theobserver@qiaa.org. If you’d like to contribute an article in the future, or apply to join our team, follow us on Instagram (@theobserver.qiaa) or Facebook (The Observer - Queen’s University) for updates. Hope you enjoy the issue, and thank you for reading!
Noor Yassein Print Editor-in-Chief, The Observer
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
2.
Table of Contents 04
Dàithi and Goliath: What Irish Fishermen Reveal About Russia in the Ukrainian War •
07
Alexandra Paul, Assistant Editor
So, What Now? COVID-19: The Aftermath of Pandemic Policies •
Vanessa Ellia, Staff Writer
The Effects of Externalization and Securitization of EU Borders on 10 Ipsum Migration Precarity Lorem dolor sit..........................## Rachel Hierholzer, Assistant Editor • dolor Lorem Ipsum sit..........................##
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## We Can Do Better: The COVID Lorem Ipsum 13 • dolor Clairesit..........................## Parsons, Staff Writer
Policies That Should Stick Around
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## A Moral Failure of the Biden Administration 15 Lorem Ipsum sit..........................## Gabriel Korth, External Submission • dolor Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## Inequality of Vaccine Rollout Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................## Naomisit..........................## Derfel, Staff Writer • dolor Lorem 19 Ipsum
is Prevent the End to the Pandemic
Lorem Ipsum dolor sit..........................##
22
The Political Olympics •
Adham Elsherbini, Staff Writer
The Budget Cannot Balance Itself: Lessons From Pandemic Debt
25
•
Noor Yassein, Editor-in-Chief
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
3.
Dáithí and Goliath: What Irish Fishermen Reveal About Russia in the Ukrainian War by: Alexandra Paul
Protesters outside the Russian embassy in Dublin in solidarity with Ukraine on Feb. 28th 2022. Neill Carson (PA Images via Getty, People Magazine) Without a doubt, the most discussed international issue of 2022 is the recent Russian invasion of Ukraine. The seemingly endless back and forth of accusations and stockpiling finally culminated in an all-out war in late February. Many of us worry about Vladmir Putin’s next move, especially his threats of nuclear war, the Russian advance on Kyiv, and the possibility that other countries could be invaded. While the focus has largely been on the world’s major powers, primarily the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Russia, there was one country that quietly claimed a victory amid the early chaos: Ireland – more specifically, the Irish fishers who decided to disrupt a Russian naval exercise in their traditional fishing territory. In a David and Goliath story, or Dáithí and Goliath, THE OBSERVER
a small group of working men and women challenged the military might of Russia and bent the country to their will, successfully defending their waters. But the question remains – why did Russia comply? What did it gain from threatening to stage the exercise then giving into a country with little military might, especially a non-NATO member? After the invasion of Ukraine, the motive is clear: optics. Since the beginning of the crisis, Russia has determinedly campaigned to disguise its imperialist intentions and reframe NATO, especially the United States, as the aggressor. Military conflict between Russia and Ukraine is hardly new. In XVIII.3
4.
2014, Russia invaded and annexed Crimea, a territory that has changed ownership several times over several centuries, claiming to protect the Crimean people’s freedom to express their will, especially their will to rejoin Russia. The current chapter of conflict began in late 2021, when images of thousands of Russian soldiers along the Ukraine border circulated. In December, Russia demanded that NATO cease all military activities in eastern Europe, including Ukraine, and refuse membership to all former Soviet states. NATO was famously created during the Cold War as a political and military alliance between North American and western European countries, but the organization has outlasted the original conflict and remains in opposition to Russia. NATO countries, especially the United States, were vocal in their rejection of these terms and the organization bolstered its military presence in eastern Europe. Russia accused the United States of pushing it to conflict by being so aggressive, blatantly exposing the first element of its optics campaign. By attempting to shift the blame onto NATO and the Americans before invading, Russia created plausible deniability for causing the war, at least domestically and with its allies. One event before the invasion that has largely gone unnoticed internationally is Ireland’s victory over Russia in the Atlantic Ocean. Russia intended to engage in naval military exercises off the shores of Cork within Ireland’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ). While international law permitted the training to take place, the tensions between western Europe and Russia made the decision worrisome. And though Ireland condemned the activities, the Emerald Isle, which is not a member of NATO, hardly has the military might to forcibly prevent Russia THE OBSERVER
from doing so. Quickly, a group of Irish fishermen announced their intention to peacefully disrupt the exercises with their fishing boats during the 5-day period. They expressed concerns about the effects of the exercises on their ability to fish in their traditional grounds. While the Irish government vocalized its worries for the safety of the fishermen and wrote to the Russian defence minister to move the exercises, the Russian ambassador to Ireland claimed the concern was overblown and part of the West’s propaganda against Russia with the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. Later, the ambassador announced that, as an act of goodwill, Russia would move the exercises out of Ireland’s EEZ. Where some of the world’s greatest powers failed to negotiate with one another about the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a small group of Irish fishermen were able to defy the Russian navy and have the state alter their plans. While the victory of the fishermen is astonishing, it is also fascinating. Russia had no legal obligation to move the exercises and there was no imminent threat of Ireland retaliating. What compelled Russia to change the location? By bending to the will of a small number of defiant civilians, Russia presents itself as a reasonable party. Russia maintained for weeks that its military presence near the Ukrainian border was not intended XVIII.3
5.
as an invasion force, but instead a reaction to NATO aggression. It follows that Russia made the decision in Ireland to show the world that it is capable of negotiation with a non-NATO country and respecting its sovereignty, which in turn helps its narrative of NATO being the aggressor in Ukraine. It also sends a message to Ukraine that it doesn’t need to be part of NATO to be protected from Russia’s military might, and that it might be safer without membership. Russia is ultimately concerned with NATO expansionism, especially into former Soviet states. Some even believe that Putin wants these countries to remain weak and dependent on Russia to emulate a long-lost Russian empire. It’s essential, then, that Russia can justify to its people and to other states its actions in Ukraine.
peoples. While the Irish fishermen may feel a sense of victory and the Russian mission failed, there are no winners in these scenarios, only varying degrees of loss.
Of course, this means very little if Russia’s playacting in Ireland wasn’t convincing. Quite frankly, it was not. The Irish people had no greater sympathy for Russia after it agreed to move the exercise and Ireland has not been any kind of ally to Russia since the invasion. In fact, as a member of the European Union, it has handed down sanctions against Russia for its actions. In the battle for global sympathy, Russia is soundly losing. Its optics campaign is completely ineffective when this war is a sequel to the annexation of Crimea in 2014 and follows a long history of subjugating surrounding states and
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
6.
So, What Now? COVID-19: The Aftermath Of Pandemic Policies by: Vanessa Ellia
As we hit the 2 year mark of the pandemic, a growing number of people have begun to accept that it is time to move forward and learn to live alongside COVID-19. With countries all around the world lifting restrictions and COVID-19 related policies, the question that a skyrocketing number of Canadians are asking is: when is it our turn to move on? Despite Canada’s goals of overcoming this pandemic and taking steps towards returning to normalcy, many people have shown great dissatisfaction with how the country has approached these plans. People have openly berated the federal government and their regulations, and this has especially become prominent in the recent Ottawa trucker protests. Thousands of THE OBSERVER
truckers have participated in these “Freedom Convoys” in an effort to put an end to vaccine mandates and other COVID related regulations. CTV News shares that these protests have been growing for weeks and as of March 11, it has been confirmed that police officers have issued more than 393 charges against 122 people all related to the protests. Besides getting in trouble with authorities, these protests have been extremely disruptive and dangerous with people blocking roads, restricting access to three US border crossings, and overall causing chaos. These protests have attracted support from thousands of Canadians, both vaccinated and not, who all share the sentiment that they want COVID-related regulations to be dropped. Canada has enforced some of the strictest pandemic restrictions in the world and while almost XVIII.3
7.
4 of every 5 Canadians are vaccinated, provincial and territorial governments continue to enforce strict policies and mandates. It is obvious that people are experiencing “pandemic fatigue,” and frustration with this fatigue is only exacerbated as there is an uneven divide between how Canada is going about its next steps in comparison to other countries. Within Canada, the majority of provinces and territories continue to maintain strict regulations like 50% capacity limits for indoor and outdoor gatherings as well as requirements for proof of vaccination in order to access most indoor facilities. It was only recently that provinces began to slowly lift vaccine passport and masking requirements, and this greatly falls short compared to other countries that acted much earlier. In the United States, New York was firm and took action to drop its indoor mask mandates for businesses at the beginning of February and quickly after this, nine other states sensibly followed suit and announced their plans to reduce mask-related policies as they take measures towards returning to normalcy. As of March, nearly all states have been declared as fully open with no gathering limits, mask requirements, or even vaccine passports. Several European countries also made moves towards loosening their pandemic policies much earlier. Sweden was bold in being among the first countries to lift its restrictions for THE OBSERVER
travellers entering the country, including vaccination and recovery status. Norway has followed this example as well, announcing in January that the quarantine requirement for travellers was removed as well as self-isolation rules regardless of vaccination status, with France rationally following shortly thereafter. Countries like Ireland also removed all COVID-related requirements for both citizens and even travellers, allowing people to move much more freely within the country. Besides the differences in policies regarding COVID mandates, Canada has significantly lower vaccination rates when it comes to the booster shot. In Denmark, more than 60 percent of the population has received their third doses and in the U.K, 65 percent, both compared to just over 40 percent in Canada. This substantial difference between Canada’s rates and those of other countries is one of the many reasons behind the increasing loss of trust in how the federal and provincial governments are handling the country’s next steps. Unlike other places around the world which have addressed recovering from this pandemic in much more solid and substantial methods, Canada has not been as consistent nor stable with its attempts to immunize its population and lift restrictions. Even now as of XVIII.3
8.
March 1 that provinces like Alberta, Ontario and Saskatchewan have lifted most mandates, including masks and vaccine proof, many health officials have expressed their concern that it may be too soon. Consequently, this has only added fuel to the fire of a growing number of dissatisfied Canadians who feel the country’s leaders are not confident in their decisions, causing the divide on what our ‘what now’ really means to only grow amongst citizens. I think when it comes to this pandemic, we have all been so hopeful to return to normalcy that we have turned a blind eye to the reality that many people are losing their patience and becoming increasingly frustrated with the lack of advancements in how Canada is handling this pandemic. While this frustration does not justify violence or impeding on other people’s lives, it is a very important issue to discuss when it comes to any questions of ‘what now?’ Is what we are currently experiencing our ‘what now’ or are the inconsistent decisions made by provincial governments around the country faltering our next move? In the words of Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam, “Canada needs to find more sustainable ways to deal with the pandemic and all existing public health policies.” Rather than further fueling the loss of confidence of Canadians in their decisions, this country’s governments need to find ways to ensure we are united in our plan of action to move on and return to THE OBSERVER
normalcy. It is only when Canada is able to make firm and bold decisions to take action as a collective that we will be able to enter in the series of recovery stages other countries have been working through. While in a perfect world COVID-19 would just disappear overnight, we need to recognize that all of these issues may just be part of our ‘what now.’ These past 2 years have been nothing like we have ever experienced and it is impossible to think that it will all go away in a moment. As a country, overcoming challenges like the protests and doing our part to keep numbers down and follow health mandates is all a part of slowly but surely getting to something beyond ‘what now’ - our next step towards our future. Perhaps this means following the examples set by other countries in an effort to progress past this standstill and work towards a future not restricted by COVID-19.
XVIII.3
9.
The Effects of Externalization and Securitization of EU Borders on Migration Precarity by: Rachel Hierholzer
Migration to the European Union (EU) is an ongoing issue to international relations that has drastically changed in recent years. Migrants are coming to the EU to flee crises in their country of origin, such as poverty, political conflict, war, or climate induced displacement. COVID-19 has only exacerbated the push factors for migrants from North Africa and the Middle East to attempt to enter the EU through the Mediterranean. Due to the enforcement of stricter immigration policies, migrants are increasingly seeking out irregular routes into the EU. Frontex measured that there was a 64% increase in irregular migration from January to August of 2021. There THE OBSERVER
are many issues present in the EU’s border migration policies, all of which have been exacerbated by COVID-19. However, the pandemic also provides an opportunity for reform and could be a positive catalyst for change. Over the past few years, the EU has greatly focused on increasing its border security. This increased securitization is evident with Frontex, a European border security regime that seeks to manage and surveil the external borders of the EU and prioritizes citizens and European values. Part of Frontex’s mission is implementing surveillance technology, XVIII.3
10.
such as camera systems and sensors, to strengthen border security and minimize illegal migration. Frontex is an agency of the EU and therefore operates under its governance. The EU has also increased its control over borders by externalizing their enforcement through making deals with Libya and Turkey. With these deals, migration can be deterred before entrance to the EU and migrants can be kept in those countries rather than the EU. The rise of Frontex as a border security powerhouse combined with stricter border regulations because of COVID-19 and externalization have forced migrants to take increasingly precarious routes in attempt to enter the EU. A shift has happened in migration where the majority of migrants coming to the EU enter through the Mediterranean and arrive on the shores of Greece and Italy; these two countries see hundreds of thousands of migrants a year. Migrants are now taking longer and more dangerous sea routes to try enter the EU without being turned away. With the increase of illegal border crossings, migrant deaths en route to the EU have risen dramatically with one statistic suggesting 619 migrants died at sea in 2020, whereas in 2021 that number increased to 1,163. Despite COVID-19 border restrictions decreasing, Frontex and other aspects of the EU border regime are still cracking down heavily on migration. Despite COVID-19 border restrictions decreasing, Frontex and other aspects of the EU border regime are still cracking down heavily on migration. Migration is projected to continue rising
THE OBSERVER
despite mobility restrictions, so migrants who do journey to and enter the EU will be faced with high levels of precarity. The EU and Frontex have been accused recently of using illegal measures to push back migrants. These measures have increased throughout COVID-19 given the onset of potential health risk to European citizens. It is estimated that 40, 000 asylum seekers have been pushed away from the borders using illegal measures, in both the phases of detention and transportation. I believe the deliberate choice to increase the securitization and externalization of EU borders reflects the protectionist political strategy in the EU that seeks to maintain a European way of life, often rooted in ideas of Europeanness equating to whiteness. The migration crisis has been defined in the EU by Eurocentric ideals that blame the racialized ‘Other’, or the migrant, for societal problems. This discourse is often reiterated in the media and by governments by equating migration to illegality to get the public’s support in justifying stricter immigration regimes. Europeanness and European values are a sociopolitical construction that are often juxtaposed with foreignness and foreign values to allow for the policing, penalization and disciplining of migrants. The border politics of the EU has resulted in a racialized migration regime that has marginalized migrants and their increasing illegal status in the EU. Consequently, this has pushed many migrants into extreme precarity. In these states of precarity,
XVIII.3
11.
migrants enter exploitative work arrangements where they are forced to accept poor wages and standards of living. For example, undocumented Bangladeshi migrants in Greece work on strawberry farms where they are subject to harsh working conditions and forced to live in unsafe living conditions. Because of their precarious status as illegal migrants, these men have limited bargaining power to gain access to rights because employers have the power to report them and get them deported should they speak up. As the world transitions away from strict COVID19 policies, borders in the EU will begin to become more porous. However, that porosity will be saved for citizens, and those who are ‘Other’ and not white will still face heavy policing. With the racialization of migration, migrants wear the border on their body; their race or ethnicity prescribes their exclusion from Europe. The securitization and externalization of borders highlights how the EU has become more nativist and prioritized whiteness, and in turn Othered racialized migrants. The pandemic has exposed many issues within society, and migration has been exposed as exclusionary and dangerous for migrants. However, the uncertainty and unprecedented circumstance associated with COVID-19 provides the opportunity for the EU to reanalyze and reform their migration policy. I believe these changes should recognize the rights of migrants and seek to create more inclusive immigration standards in order to stop the protectionist and racist policies implemented by the EU. THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
12.
We Can Do Better: The COVID Policies That Should Stick Around by: Claire Parsons
I know that the thought of keeping any COVID related restrictions around is a repulsive thought to the mass population. However, I mean well when I think about what is ahead for the country and the world after the pandemic settles down. The pandemic has offered an opportunity to explore our morals, but also what we are willing to tolerate as a generalized society. The past two years have been unbelievably difficult and the hardships experienced have been tragically universal as people have lost their jobs, their outlets, and for some their lives and loved ones. On the flip side, during these past two years we have seen a betterment of the world we live in and the policy that has been put in place THE OBSERVER
to help people cope should stay in place to help people thrive. When referring to the continuation of restrictions, I am not talking about the mask mandates, the gathering restrictions, and border closures. I think we all agree that it will be nice to go to big weddings, have your friends around, and be able to hop across the border to shop or see other friends and family: These are the restrictions that have appeared on and off. What should stick around are additions to protocols and structures we already have in place within our institutions. The increased incorporation of welfare XVIII.3
13.
support to the public from the state is one of the main COVID induced policies that should continue. Canada, as an example, has offered a variety of financial support to both individuals and businesses when things got hard. In Ontario specifically there are remaining supports for individuals suffering from being unable to meet rent or pay their utility bills. There is remaining aid for those who are influenced by things they cannot control. Instead of relying on insurance, the government took ownership of the unpredictable to ensure that people did not suffer. Pandemics fall into that category, sure, but so does being laid off, getting sick, or being subject to crime. States tend to rely on insurance to fill these gaps but they cannot possibly fill them all. It is argued constantly that we do not have the money to pay for these failsafes but clearly in a time of crisis we found the money somewhere. I am not saying that every state can afford or could easily implement a widespread welfare system to help the suddenly unemployed, sick, and unfortunate; that is something that governments have been trying to do since the beginning of time. Though, through the presence of an international crisis it has become easier to push these policies forward politically and the momentum garnered from political decisions should be promoted and encouraged past a pandemic era. Another piece of policy presenting its best foot forward is hybrid learning. Katherine Boyarsky has presented a fascinating case against the common narrative that online learning has zero benefits to students and teachers. It is a narrative that is easy to understand as a student who has THE OBSERVER
personally felt burnt out by the endless Zoom calls, but Boyarsky argues convincingly for a blend of in person and online learning. For one, school is more accessible and can provide a more catered learning style for students. It allows teachers to offer far more accessible “office hours” to children to be enriched and tutored in a way that fits them best. More so, it also aids children who need to stay home often due to illness, either physical or mental, or who are overstimulated by constant social engagement. This way children are still adjusting in the proper socialized environments, getting outside, making friends, but also being able to step away from an unbelievably stressful environment. Hybrid learning is something we stumbled upon by accident but could be a blessing to the students of the future. The best part about Hybrid learning is the flexibility and its optional status. Children who need to be in school for affordable childcare or because they do not have WiFi at home would still absolutely be able to go into class. Though, the best solution for all would also be affordable or, better yet, school funded technology for older kids to have Hybrid days when they need them and can stay at home alone. The last policy measure that XVIII.3
14.
should stay is likely my most controversial idea -- travel restrictions. The pandemic has clearly highlighted how necessary travel restrictions can be. They have been extremely effective at stopping the spread of COVID, that is just science, but there is so much more that we should be looking at. The idea of requiring a vaccine to travel is not a bad thing. In fact, it would likely prevent the spread of disease to areas of the world where the whole population has not been immunized in full. Though, there is something to be said for continuing to implement the mass immunization efforts of governments. We require vaccines in schools, why not for a plane, especially if you are to be trapped with someone for hours at a time. When looking back at the SARS crisis which occurred 20 years ago, there could have been many lives saved if the proper precautions had been taken. Why put lives at risk for a vacation? Scientists from the World Health Organization regularly look back at the simple hygienic practices that governments could have put in place to avoid a second SARS epidemic, the COVID pandemic was beyond their worst nightmares. Worse were the governments not heeding their advice for cleaner farms, better communication, and the cooperation of the public.
or will it require another before we focus on our communities instead of our personal interests?
We have stumbled upon a goldmine of good policy to protect individuals, and as we step away from the pandemic world and back into a semblance of reality there is an opportunity to make reality better. We should take all the precautions we can to protect people from harm, but why not also take this time to improve their lives? Have we not learned enough from this pandemic,
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
15.
A Moral Failing of the Biden Administration by: Gabriel Korth
Just over 60 years ago, John F. Kennedy signed into law the United States trade embargo on Cuba. In a conflict culminating in the Cuban missile crisis, these countries have long been unable to normalize relations with one another. Cubans themselves are fed up with bearing the burden of sanctions supposedly aimed at their government. Obama let up on embargoes, but Trump only strengthened them, and now we are left in a peculiar position. Why hasn’t Biden loosened his policy on remittance despite his promises? In the wake of recent events, Biden’s THE OBSERVER
lack of meaningful action seems puzzling. The people of Cuba have suffered for an incredibly long time, and a continued thawing of relations between these two countries should be in order by now, right? Well, it hasn’t, and the Biden administration could have done better by this point. The aims of the original trade embargo still subsist to this day, upheld through continuous political action. To understand this issue, we need to take a couple of president-sized steps back in time. Upon Obama’s election, the United States began to loosen policy on Cuba. Among XVIII.3
16.
various changes, remittance restrictions were eased up drastically, serving as an important source of income for many Cubans. This coincided with a liberalization of Cuba’s economy led by Raul Castro that greatly improved the freedom of the country’s citizens. In 2014, Obama ordered that diplomatic relations with Cuba be restored, and the years that followed were relationally prosperous. The feud between these two countries seemed to be coming to a close, but with the election of Trump, the thaw was halted. Trump’s administration followed through on their campaign promises to reinstate previous prohibitions on Cuba, targeting travel, the embassy in Havana, and controversially allowing U.S. citizens to sue those who benefit from property confiscated by the Cuban government. Now, it would seem that Biden’s election, given his pledges to reverse Trump's policies, would allow for the improvement of relations between Cuba and the U.S. to resume. However, this president has been dealt a much different hand than those before him. The pandemic has created circumstances that have further complicated the politics at hand, straining Cuba’s already limited pool of resources. Struggling beneath sanctions, the country erupted in protest in July of 2021 as food and medicine ran short of demand, COVID19 cases rose, and help did not seem to be on the way. The Cuban government was under fire for failing to afford its citizens basic human rights. Their brittle economy was shattered by the pandemic, which destroyed tourism in the nation. The United States, though dealing with their own issues surrounding COVID-19, was in a position to help. However, instead of providing direct support, the Biden THE OBSERVER
administration only furthered sanctions on Cuban officials, saying that they were helping to lead the Cuban people towards democracy. This all reminds me of the terrifying goals of the original embargoes, which were, as stated by Lester D. Mallory, to “bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” It is these kinds of sanctions, targeted at officials but in actuality affecting citizens, that perpetuate the states of despair in places like Cuba. In light of Biden’s continued reluctance to instate improved remittance policies, the position held by the administration is contradictory. If they wanted to support Cuban people in actualizing their goals, why would they not afford them influxes of capital? How is a sick and starving person supposed to achieve success? Certainly, the issue is not black and white, as the Cuban regime has many issues of its own, but the simple failure to provide remittance is telling. Cuba does not necessarily need a paradigm shift in order for its citizens to have improved quality of life. Before political affairs and governmental overthrows for democracy should come basic humanitarian issues. In December of 2021, 100 House Democrats urged for change. It XVIII.3 17.
looks as though changes may be on their way, but time is truly of the essence. The Omicron variant has exacerbated COVID-19 in Cuba as much as anywhere else and the citizens of the country cannot deal with the issue in the same way as their northern counterparts. They cannot isolate effectively while remaining productive, with their infrastructure failing and their communication limited. US embargoes mean that even Zoom and Microsoft teams are banned from use. It is disappointing, and Cuban’s deserve better on a simple, moral basis. Despite overwhelming support from U.S. voters to the United Nations, promises made before and after election, and dire circumstances for millions, the Biden administration has failed to lift Cuban trade embargoes. It’s an example of how the political implications of war last for decades, in this case causing many to unduly suffer. The horrifying goals of the original trade embargoes on Cuba are unfortunately still being carried out, and it is unclear when change is coming, but it is necessary.
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
18.
Inequality of Vaccine Rollout is Preventing the End to the Pandemic by: Naomi Derfel
The COVID-19 pandemic is a perfect case study in virtue signaling, proving that the nations that preach “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” the most, practice it the least. During the initial vaccine rollout, wealthy Western countries stockpiled vaccines despite pleas from scientists and doctors to share with underdeveloped nations. THE OBSERVER
Experts claimed that national immunity was not enough to stop the spread; the only way to beat the virus was by ensuring international immunity. Wealthy nations dismissed these pleas, an internal image of strength taking precedence. Vaccine nationalism became the primary mode of asserting dominance and appeared to be more enticing than XVIII.3
19.
protecting global interests. Nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Japan secured enough vaccines for multiple times their population long before the pharmaceutical companies were done with their clinical trials. While nearly 20 million of Canada’s shots sat in freezers for months and eventually expired, most African countries had hardly vaccinated 5% of their population due to inaccessibility. To reach a better equilibrium of immunity, COVAX was established in April 2020. COVAX is an alliance between major medical and aid organizations (such as WHO and UNICEF) to ensure equal access to COVID-19 testing, treatment, and vaccination globally. COVAX coordinates vaccine and monetary donations from wealthy countries and helps distribute these vaccines to the underdeveloped world. COVAX’s attempt to improve vaccine equality has been largely unsuccessful; it intended to provide two billion doses to underdeveloped and developing countries by December 2021, a goal that was only half achieved. Underdeveloped nations rejected over 100 million doses in December alone for two main reasons. First, many of the vaccines received were expired or nearing their expiry date, leaving insufficient time for distribution. Second, these nations do not have the infrastructure to distribute massive amounts of vaccines with short shelf lives before they expire. WHO adviser Dr. Peter Singer provided the following analogy: “If I was delivering a bottle of milk to you every day… you drank that bottle of milk. If one day I showed up, without any warning, with 100 bottles of milk that expired at midnight, you wouldn’t be able THE OBSERVER
to drink them.” COVAX is not entirely innocent in their failed equality campaign. The organization has been accused of essentially being a PR stunt, failing to properly coordinate shipments and facilitate communication between the donating and receiving countries. COVAX’s model of solving vaccine equality via collecting vaccine and monetary donations was doomed to fail from the start. Unusable vaccines and a general lack of funds are hardly the primary barriers to vaccine equality: supply is. Even if lower-income countries could purchase their own vaccines – which many of them can – there are just not enough doses to go around. This makes donations like that of $4 billion from the United States useless because there were no vaccines to purchase. Wealthy nations paid for their greediness with the Omicron variant, which proved the early scientists’ warnings to be true: global vaccine equality is the only solution to the pandemic. Experts believe that Omicron mutated in underdeveloped southern Africa, likely South Africa. The Duke Global Health Innovation Center describes the entire continent as essentially a “superincubator” due to low vaccination rates. In unvaccinated populations, the XVIII.3 20.
virus spreads and mutates at exponential rates. Therefore, the only way out of this self-induced problem, and to avoid future mutations, is for the West to paradoxically lean into its solipsistic philosophy and adopt a more altruistic vaccine procurement policy. There are multiple ways this can be done. Of course, developing a more efficient way of donating stockpiled vaccines is one. COVAX is unequivocally a failure thus far but it can be improved. Wealthy countries can cooperate properly by donating usable vaccines, and COVAX can streamline its own administration by putting funds toward advancing the infrastructure of developing countries in areas such as healthcare and transportation. Lineswapping may be a practical solution, as it simply involves wealthier countries giving up their spot on the distribution list to underdeveloped countries. Last, lobbying pharmaceutical companies to relinquish their rights to intellectual property is a viable option. Doing so would end the monopoly that these major drug companies have on the vaccine rollout, and more importantly, end the profiteering of the production and sale of vaccines. Unsurprisingly, Western countries and most pharmaceutical companies have opposed this idea, claiming it will squash incentive for innovation. This position is disingenuous. The pandemic is a once in a century event, it is not as though these pharmaceutical giants are being asked to give up the patents on all their medications. Given Pfizer and Moderna’s tremendous profits for vaccines, it is ironic that companies are advocating for the protection of patents on drugs for which the development was paid for by governments, and the product was THE OBSERVER
purchased by governments, but the profit was kept by the companies. How many pharmaceutical billionaires need to be created before underprivileged nations receive what is a human right? France declared its motto, “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” when the world felt like a much bigger place. Of course these values could only be upheld within the nation's borders: globalization and interconnectedness were nonexistent at the time. But isolationism is no longer the norm, nor is it even feasible. The pandemic has illuminated the West's inability to accept globalization as not merely an economic, political, and, needless to say, public health phenomenon, but one that involves moral connectedness as a byproduct of these new relationships. Globalization does not occur in a vacuum and can not only be recognized when convenient. The successive mutations of the virus caused by heedless nationalism and capitalism have proven that dedication to unity is the only way to move forward in a time of global crisis.
XVIII.3
21.
The Political Olympics by: Adham Elsherbini
The Olympics serve as one of the closest events to global unification, and yet despite this and the approaching 100th anniversary of the Winter Olympics, the Beijing 2022 Olympics are expecting a downfall in viewership. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) holds a majority rule election with its members to decide upon a host country for each Olympic games. The purpose of hosting the Olympics is typically to depict the amelioration of the country. However, in the Beijing 2022 Olympics, no amount of artificial snow or stadiums can shadow the political tension that persists. The Olympics have historically found trouble in the erroneous perspectives that host countries portray to the tourists. In the case of Rio 2016 Summer Olympics, walls were built, civilians were evicted, and the economy experienced losses in the THE OBSERVER
attempt to hide the harsh realities of mass inequality in the city. Also, nearly a decade after former president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, justified his spending as better infrastructure, billions of dollars have gone to waste. Similarly, China has spent over 10 billion dollars in an attempt to cover its disheartening truth. In the north-west of Xinjiang, China’s largest provincial division, over 1 million Ughyurans have been forcefully placed in camps with plausible human right abuses. This genocide has captivated the eyes of world leaders and initiated a diplomatic boycott for the Olympics, including but not limited to the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. To add, the politicization of the Olympics deepened when the Beijing Organizing Committee Spokeswoman was offended by a question regarding Taiwan's appearance in the ceremonies. To put matters worse, the Olympics have faced criticism over the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong XVIII.3
22.
during the “zero-covid” policy. To add to the criticisms, this is the first ever Olympic games to contain 100% artificial snow. This was estimated to require 49 million gallons of water, although others predict it is more like 490 million gallons. In a country that suffers from reduced drinkable water and a large occurrence of droughts, this is especially problematic. Water controls have been applied to agriculture or paused to preserve groundwater and over $60 million was spent on the artificial snow equipment alone. The political tension was also increased as many believe that it's China’s Olympics that are stalling Vladimir Putin's potential invasion in Ukraine. Should the invasion commence, Xi Jinping will be in an uncomfortable diplomatic position that is unfavorable during a time where the Chinese president is trying to build the country's image. Although no evidence of such agreement exists, Xi and Putin’s relationship makes this a plausible opportunity. Nonetheless, the tension of the conflict has made for an unpreventable awkward Olympics, as evident through the hugging of Ukrainian and Russians skiers which sparked criticism in the news. In addition, there have been numerous reported incidents of unjustified disqualifications that may have been triggered with a political bullet. Norway, Austria, Japan, and Germany's ski jump teams were all disqualified for having a lack of tightness in their ski suits, leading to Russia winning silver. More notably, in the 1000m speed skating event, South Korea was disqualified for an illegal pass after winning the event, leading to the Chinese speed skater winning the race. In THE OBSERVER
the final, the Hungarian skater was also disqualified, making the same Chinese skater, Ren Ziwei, the winner of the event. Experts in the sport claimed that Ren Ziwei should have also been disqualified for grabbing one of his opponents, but no actions were pursued. Beijing 2022 is not the first time that the Olympics have faced numerous backlashes for the political activities behind the screen. From the Nazi Olympics, to the Montreal Olympics boycott from African nations, the IOC has a fathomless history of repeated mistakes that were not acknowledged until public pressure. It's difficult to find a progressive perspective of the Olympics as a 3000-year-old tradition continues to host such countries. While the diplomatic boycott is exceptionally beneficial, it goes against what the Olympic wishes to stand for, uniting human beings and world peace. Unfortunately similar to previous Olympics, the IOC chooses money and business over awareness and morale. To cut it clean, the treasure is in China. Luckily the critical analysis of this winter Olympics, through diplomat boycotting, reduced viewership, and decreased profit can hopefully serve as a learning moment for the IOC to factor in XVIII.3
23.
current world issues. In terms of certain concerns raised, such as gratuitous disqualifications and artificial snow, the development of a subspeciality for the IOC that places more efforts into analyzing the conditions of the country before choosing those that are in the election can be an effective solution. However, frankly for the listed political reasons, the IOC is a corporation that will stick to the money. With that being said, if the consumers are uncomfortable with the chosen location, the measures taken in this Olympics have been proven to be successful. As a result, it's likely that the IOC is going to approach the situation differently for 2036.
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
24.
The Budget Cannot Balance Itself: Lessons From Pandemic Debt by: Noor Yassein
“The budget will balance itself.” When Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said this early on in his career as Canada’s leader, he likely didn’t know it would be repeated relentlessly by his opposition throughout their own campaigns. Was it taken out of context more often than not? Definitely. He was originally talking about focusing government spending on programs to stimulate economic growth that would in turn increase government revenues and balance the budget. However, this is clearly not something his government has lived up to thus far in their three terms. Even prior to the pandemic, the budget did not balance itself; more often than not, Canada’s national debt grew each year. And most recently, many of the decisions Trudeau’s government has been making involve significant amounts of spending. The question is: does such deficit spending have a limit? Clearly, the Canadian public benefits from new THE OBSERVER
government programs. But given increasing the national debt means borrowing from future generations, at what point is such ample spending too much? At a time when we are coming out the other side of a pandemic and dealing with massive amounts of uncertainty in the world, significant investments in new programs (such as the new dental coverage program proposed by the NDP and Liberal Party, which I will discuss later on) is not something which we can afford. Melanie Joly, Canada’s foreign affairs minister, has declared that, in light of everything going on in the world including and especially the Russian invasion of Ukraine - she wants Canada to increase defence spending, which is currently at 1.38% of Canada’s GDP (with a goal of 2%). It makes sense that, along with the defence minister (who has made similar suggestions), the foreign affairs minister is the advocate for this increase. XVIII.3
25.
And while her request does not necessarily equal action, the possibility is concerning. To reach the 2% of GDP goal would mean spending around $12.4 billion more each year. Additionally, as a result of the current war in Ukraine, the Trudeau government has placed sanctions on Russia which has resulted in a hit to Canada’s energy sector. These impacts will continue so long as the sanctions persist. And this increase in spending isn’t only related to international issues. In March of 2022, the NDP and Liberal Party announced what can effectively be called a power-sharing agreement. NDP members of parliament will support the Liberal government, and in exchange, the Liberals will implement a few programs at the NDP’s request. One of these programs involves provision of dental care for all Canadians. It is hard to argue against the benefits of such a program given the positive health effects from consistent dental care. However, the budget it requires is not trivial. According to estimates cited by CBC News, this proposed program will require $4.3 billion for the first year, and following that, $1.5 billion each year. Clearly, there is a significant cost. Looking at the Canadian government’s debt management report, in 2020, the total market debt amounted to $765.2 billion. By the end of 2021, it had increased to approximately $1.1 trillion. This means that in the past year, we have increased the debt more than we have in the last ten years combined. While it can be argued that this increase was necessary in order to offset the economic impact of COVID, the question remains: is now the time to be making costly investments in new social programs? At what point does THE OBSERVER
the government stop funding new programs and start making decisions that lead to a reduction in public debt? A few weeks ago, the Bank of Canada increased their interest rates by a relatively small amount - this is only the first of several expected increases over the next couple years. As a result, the current debt will be much more costly to service. I’m not advocating that we try to wipe out our national debt completely by the end of Justin Trudeau’s term. However, the devil-may-care attitude of continuing to spend without acknowledging the massive amounts of debt accumulating over the course of his term is not only unwise, but irresponsible. These programs are beneficial to many, but the government’s job includes management of its finances as well as its programs. Just because we can spend this much doesn’t mean we should. If the last two years have taught us anything, it is that the future is very unpredictable, and more challenging (and costly) events are nearly inevitable in the coming months and years. As the new federal budget is released, having the financial reserves to deal with future uncertainties is important to all Canadians. When the next event happens, will we be prepared? Adequate preparation needs to include having the financial resources XVIII.3 26.
available to mitigate the negative economic impact for Canadians. After all, crises aren’t free - and they definitely aren’t convenient.
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
27.
The O
bs er v
e
O r
Facebook: The Observer - Queen’s University
Instagram: @theobserver.qiaa
Website:
https://theobserver-qiaa.org/
THE OBSERVER
XVIII.3
28.
