The Emory Journal of International Affairs - Winter 2018

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

WINTER 2018

THE

GLOBE

masthead CONTACT US emoryglobe@gmail.com emoryglobe.com

EDITORS-IN-CHIEF Zoe Robbin Namrata Verghese

PUBLICATION The Emory Globe is a studentrun publication published for and distributed to the Emory community.

The statements and opinions expressed in this publication are those of the individual writers and do not necessarily reflect those of the entire staff or those of Emory University, its students, faculty, staff, or administration.

MANAGING EDITOR Cameron Hall

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS The Emory Globe staff welcomes letters to the editors but reserves the right to edit all submissions for length, grammar, libel, obscenity, and invasion of privacy.

ADVERTISING The Emory Globe does not host advertisements in its issues.

DESIGN Cover: Emma Joseph & Mileen Meyer

PUBLICATIONS EDITORS Andrew Teodorescu Presley West ASSOCIATE EDITOR Jake Gore TREASURER Tejas Kashyap DIGITAL EDITOR Camilo Moraga-Lewy

contents 03 06 08 11

ACKNOWLEDGING ABKHAZIA CAMERON HALL

U.S. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP MULTIPLE AUTHORS

BIRTH CONTROL POLICY IN THE U.S. SARAH MINELLA

TRUMP & THE MIGRANT CARAVAN MADI STEPHENS

05 07 09 12

THE BRICS ALLIANCE: POTENTIAL DANGERS AMBIKA NATARAJAN

THE NEW NAFTA: WHAT IT LACKS ISABEL SLINGERLAND

FRANCE'S VILE PROTECTION OF STATUTORY RAPE AARON GILCHRIST

AMERICAN DOMINANCE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ROSE PORTER

13

TRUMP & IRAN ZOE ROBBIN

15

MEET THE EDITORS

16

AFTERWORD

17

WORKS CITED

THE GLOBE | 2

ACKNOWLEDGING ABKHAZIA CAMERON HALL, Managing Editor

T

his past September the Republic of Abkhazia celebrated1 25 years of independence. Those who have never heard of this country can be forgiven.

If you look on most modern maps you won’t find any mention of it. De jure it is considered part of Georgia, but it has been de facto independent since 1993. The region is but one example of the Caucasus region’s prevailing method of dealing with ethnic minority populations: division of territory into ever smaller nation states.

In the West, this trend is often portrayed as merely an instrument of Russian expansionism, and while this is true to a certain degree, the long-standing ethnic animosity between Georgians and Abkhazians cannot be overlooked. As this would-be country celebrates a quarter century of independence, it is worth taking a closer look at its history and its relationship with Georgia in order to work toward improving relations.

The cultural position of the Abkhaz people has traditionally reflected 2 its geographical location, interacting in equal measure with the Georgians and the peoples of the North Caucasus. Though incorporated into the Kingdom of Georgia in the Middle Ages, Abkhazia retained a large degree of autonomy and the Abkhaz language was considered2 equal to the Georgia (Kartvelian) language. This was also initially3 the setup under the Soviet Union.

However, once under Russian control, the actions of the authorities in Moscow ultimately set the stage for ethnic conflict between Georgians and Abkhazians.

During the period of the Russian Empire, the Georgians, seeking protection from the Ottomans and Persians, essentially accepted annexation by Russia voluntarily. The Abkhazians, however, were less cooperative, and were eventually defeated by Russia militarily. Following this defeat, thousands of Abkhazians were forcibly deported to Turkey. The Russians granted the Georgian language and culture supremacy in the region, and since this process was supported by the Georgians, the Abkhazians blamed 2 them, the nearer and more visible enemy, for their plight.

Similar suppression of Abkhazian culture followed during the Stalinist period of the Soviet Union with the goal of erasing Abkhazian cultural identity. Abkhazian schools were shut down and their language was banned.

The head of Stalin’s secret police, Lavrenty Beria, likely poisoned4 the head of the Abkhazian government in 1936

3

and the following year the entire government was arrested4 and executed in show trials. However, since Moscow pursued a policy of Georgianization directed through Tbilisi rather than Russianization directed through Moscow, the Georgians were again blamed for what transpired.

As the Soviet Union began to collapse tensions reignited. As Georgia began to push for independence, Georgian nationalism increased while the Abkhazians, preferring to remain in a country that at least nominally considered itself multiethnic, continued5 to back a reformed Soviet Union (paradoxically given the Russian

core’s traditional attitude toward Abkhazia). This fear was fueled by a 1989 law stating 5that Georgian was to be the sole language spoken in the Supreme Soviet of Georgia. Violent clashes between Georgians and Abkhazians occurred5 throughout the year.

In 1992 Abkhazian secessionists began an armed revolt to drive Georgia from the region, and in 1993 they succeeded with support from Russia, which hoped to combat the much more anti-Russian Georgians.

Ironically, mass deportation of Georgians from Abkhazia followed4.

With the election of Mikhail Saakashvili in 2004,

already bad relations became even worse. Saakashvili vowed 3 to reassert control over Abkhazia and another breakaway region: South Ossetia. In 2008 this escalated into all out war, with Abkhazia and South Ossetia supported by Russia. Russia promptly defeated3 Georgia and recognized the independence of the two separatist regions. Further deportations of ethnic Georgians followed, and the situation has not change much since then.

But as Abkhazia celebrates 25 years of independence, it is time for the international community to reexamine the issue of Abkhazia and separatism in the former Soviet Union more broadly. The region can only remain in limbo for so long, and in practice, it has operated as a country for a long time now. However, that is not to say that granting Abkhazia de jure independence is necessarily the best strategy. One need look no further than the breakup of Yugoslavia to see the disastrous effects of giving every ethnic minority its own country. At a certain point people must learn to live together.

Abkhazia’s portrayal of itself as a victim is also clearly false and should not be considered a reason to grant it statehood.

Two wrongs do not make a right, and its actions against ethnic Georgians should not be validated, regardless of what previous abuses it endured. Instead the two sides should move toward reconciliation along a model similar to that seen in South Africa after the end of apartheid: allow grievances to be aired but forgive crimes so that both sides can move forward.

The matter of Russian involvement in Abkhazia also complicates things. Russia will never willingly relinquish what has essentially become a puppet state. However, all sides could likely get behind some normalization of relations mirroring what has occurred recently between Serbia and Kosovo. Such action would provide a first step toward further dialogue and increase stability and economic growth in both Abkhazia and Georgia. Ultimately, though, a solution that is able to reconcile the pro-Russia Abkhazia and pro-Western Georgia will be needed.

Just because Abkhazia does not appear on most maps does not mean the international community can afford to pretend like its conflict with Georgia is nonexistent. The conflict may remain frozen for now, but such a status quo is unsustainable in the long term. The world has plenty of historical models, some that worked and others that produced disastrous results, to look to for resolving ethnic conflict. As Abkhazia celebrates 25 years of existence, its time the world paid it some attention.

THE GLOBE | 4

THE BRICS ALLIANCE: POTENTIAL DANGERS AMBIKA NATARAJAN, Staff Writer

O

n November 11, 2018, President Macron warned that progressive progress has not been made1 in the century following World War II. As many nations experience a shift to the far right, it seems difficult for established alliances to progress without strained relationships. Nationalism implies competition and the cooperative world that the end of WWI seeked to restore is moving out of reach. However, the growing nationalist movement proves that regardless of political ideology, nations are interlinked. Right-wing nationalism is rapidly becoming a necessity to form alliances with certain powerful nations, but the influence of major left-wing countries such as China cannot be ignored. Countries with strong economies have strong political influence, and the BRICS countries represent a particularly vulnerable alliance, llikely to break as a result of this global uptick in nationalism, in the wake of Jair Bolsonaro’s election.

Nothing exemplifies the global nationalistic trend better than Bolsonaro’s rise to prominence: on October 28, 2018, he became the president-elect of Brazil2. An fervent adherent to alt-right principles, Bolsonaro’s platform has been condemned as highly controversial. He has elucidated his views against the LGBT+ community3, his military-enforcing strategies4 for cutting down on crime, and his plans to destroy much of the Amazon rainforest.5 His political success aligns with the overall rising interest in ethnic nationalism, which is resurging potentially as a result of the frustration that the world’s growing middle class6 experiences as their income increases but their quality of life does not. Bolsonaro garnered 55% of the Brazilian vote7 by appealing to the economic interests of the citizens of Brazil as well as to their sense of pride as a nation.

But Bolsonaro is not an isolated example. The resurgence of the far right is becoming commonplace. In conjunction with Trump’s accession to the role of United States President, a wave of nationalism has swept across Europe8), as revealed by Brexit9 and Catalonia’s attempted withdrawal from Spain.10With major economic players such as the United States and Great Britain making clear of their political preferences, such a move by rapidly growing countries such as Brazil makes complete sense.

It is no secret that Bolsonaro’s political strategies align11 with some of Trump’s notable policies and successful strategies, such as the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the use of politically incorrect rhetoric. Enacting similar behaviours and policies can strengthen political ties.

5

Brazil’s actions must be viewed within the framework of its allies other than the United States. The BRICS alliance, made up of Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa will be affected

by Brazil’s nationalist stance. Brazil’s new nationalism could be particularly taxing on its relationship with China, which has a Communist government, and with South Africa, which is still dealing with the economic consequences of apartheid12.

For current allies with economic leverage, such as China, disagreements are more likely to result in broken ties than in compromise. Bolsonaro has clearly stated his disapproval of China,13 claiming that “the Chinese are not buying in Brazil.

They are buying Brazil.” He references the investments of China in several primary areas, such as the mining, energy and oil sectors,13 and expresses his concern about this economically hurting the people of Brazil. Bolsonaro has gone so far as to visit Taiwan13 to strengthen ties in a gesture that clearly aims to test the patience of China, which does not recognize Taiwan as an independent nation. Additionally, these actions mimic the current sentiments between China and the United States.14 However, China has a sufficiently strong economy and government to refrain from joining the current trend of rightwing nationalism to maintain alliances.

South Africa, another BRICS country that has less political and economic leverage, might need to choose one side of the debate. Currently, 1% of South Africans own 70.9% of the wealth12 of the country. In the last 3.5 years, only 2.5% of companies have succeeded.15 In a country where success seems to imply political connections, there is instability as President Zuma recently stepped down16 amidst ties to extreme corruption.

In order to appeal to its allies, South Africa might be left with no choice but to follow in the footsteps of the more powerful economies, especially to finance much-needed development projects. Given China’s history of giving large loans17 to several African countries including South Africa, it is highly likely that South Africa would cut ties with Brazil to retain a relationship with China.

While nationalism appears to turn one nation away from the rest, it has so far succeeded in defining political alliances that contradict traditional modern alliances; as nations with powerful economies take a strong stance, others must choose a side to maintain alliances and ensure security for their own people. In a classic snowball effect, the power consolidated in the far right will increase dramatically.

WHY THE U.S. NEEDS BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP WHITNEY FORBIS, Staff Writer SARAH MINELLA, Staff Writer ZOE ROBBIN, Co-Editor-in-Chief

I

n the lead-up to the 2018 midterm elections, Donald Trump announced a proposal to end birthright citizenship in the United States. Although his proposal was informal, ending birthright citizenship would have far-reaching negative implications for Americans and the world. By examining countries that do not provide birthright citizenship, including Germany and Japan, Americans can begin to understand the social and economic impacts of this change.

Before evaluating the elimination of birthright citizenship, it is relevant to first reflect on the policy’s origin. Passed as a constitutional amendment in 1868, the 14th Amendment initially worked to extend citizenship to African Americans who had lived in the United States for generations. It was later used by immigrants seeking legal status1.

While the United States and Canada are the only two economically developed countries with a policy of birthright citizenship, nations with high barriers to legal citizenship suffer economically and socially. Germany and Japan both witnessed the implications of their stringent citizenship regulations. In the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of Turkish immigrants worked in Germany to address the labor shortages. While the government extended temporary residency permits through its guest worker program, Turkish migrants were never granted full citizenship. Following the expiration of this program, nearly half of the Turkish immigrants remained in the country illegally. As the grandchildren of these Turkish workers grow into adults, the government’s failure to extend citizenship to these workers has created a separate, underprivileged class that has largely failed to integrate. Today, Turks are more likely to attend poor-quality schools, and have lower median incomes.2 Korean immigrants face similar hardship in Japan. Koreans living illegally within Japan’s borders were denied equal treatment under the law and suffered through a process of acculturation. Barred from voting and most employment opportunities, Japan’s Korean population suppressed their culture and heritage for decades, fearing legal consequences.

While Japan has rolled back some of these restrictions, many Koreans continue to face discrimination3.

Central and South Americans in the United States will face similar barriers to integration if voters decide to eliminate birthright citizenship. As illegal immigrants in the United

States have children, repealing birthright citizenship would create a class of people who are routinely excluded from social and legal recognition. This policy change would perpetuate the cycle of living without legal documentation across generations, without providing this population with a reliable path to obtain citizenship. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that ending birthright would increase the unauthorized population by 4.7 million people.4 Birthright citizenship serves as a bridge for this population to gain status and become contributing members of our society.

Like other developed countries who have eliminated their birthright citizenship, the United States will see a loss in economic productivity5 as a result of this policy change. Immigrants living illegally in the United States are barred from long-term, stable jobs due to the unstable status of their residency. Birthright citizenship increases economic well-being because it enables immigrants to obtain the legal right to work, helping them find employment at the appropriate skill level. Additionally, granting residents legal status gives them a greater capacity for economic participation. Not only will they pay taxes, but will also make long-term personal investments in goods and services, such as houses and education.

Fortunately, repealing birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment to repeal the 14th Amendment. This modification would be unlikely to pass due to the complex amendment process dictated by Article V6 of the United States Constitution. In the United States, only one amendment has been successfully eradicated.

The 18th Amendment was repealed with the passage of the 21st7 in 1933, ending the national prohibition of alcohol.

The amendment process is rightfully complicated, as ending policies such as birthright will have major societal repercussions.

Repealing birthright citizenship may serve as a great sound bite during campaign season, but it is the wrong path for the United States. By erecting barriers to citizenship, the United States is likely to increase the number of illegal immigrants who are excluded from national benefits. In addition to having a detrimental impact on the lives of undocumented immigrants, ending birthright citizenship will impede the United States socially and economically.

Ending birthright would increase the unauthorized population by 4.7 million people.

THE GLOBE | 6

THE NEW NAFTA: WHAT IT LACKS ISABEL SLINGERLAND, Staff Writer

O

n Sunday, September 30th, the U.S., Canada, and Mexico agreed upon a new version of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The new deal— renamed the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement— will go into effect in 20201. Major amendments to the former NAFTA agreement include tariffs regarding the production of cars; the revised deal requires that 75% of car parts be made in either the U.S., Canada, or Mexico to qualify for zero tariffs. Further, workers making these parts must also be paid a minimum of $16 an hour, which is three times what the average Mexican automaker currently makes1. The new deal also aims to benefit the average worker in Mexico through increased union organization and accessibility rules as well as stricter safety regulations in industries such as trucking1.

Many are claiming that this “New NAFTA” will mend Mexico’s suffering economic system, but in reality, this new agreement fails to acknowledge the economic struggles faced by the rural poor that were caused by the original NAFTA agreement.

The proposed “improvements” in the new NAFTA agreement focus on building up industrial centers in urban Mexico, but fail to expand manufacturing and educational opportunities in rural areas that are critical to Mexico’s economy. In many urban areas of Mexico, economic opportunities are widespread.

[Mexican] farm employment fell by 58% between 1991 and 2007.

However, outside of these well populated areas, economic opportunities are few and far between. Rural Mexicans are struggling to stay afloat because of poor economic conditions caused in part by the original NAFTA agreement.

The original NAFTA agreement, implemented in 1994, threw Mexico into an economic crisis and ultimately cause many of the issues regarding the amount of migration from Mexico to America today. In 1995, the local-currency GDP fell by 9.5% and emigration to the U.S. skyrocketed2.

NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to import cheap corn and vegetables from America, which had an adverse effect on Mexico’s rural farming population. As seen in the 2010 documentary “The Other Side of Immigration,” farm employment fell by 58% between 1991 and 20072, as Mexican farmers, unable to compete with lower costs offered by Canadian and American corn and fruit producers, had little choice but to close their farms.

There is no unemployment insurance in Mexico, so rural workers are forced to find work wherever possible to support themselves— often resulting in migration to the U.S. The majority

7

of the people migrating for work consists of rural workers who lack the opportunities for upward mobility that their urban counterparts possess. In rural areas, 13.6% of laborers report having little to no schooling compared to 3% in urban areas3.

Both universities and specialized work opportunities are sparse in rural areas, leading to a large disparity between household incomes in rural versus urban homes. Annual household incomes in urban areas average around 37,000 pesos compared to 15,000 pesos in rural homes. Rather than improve economic conditions in Mexico, the updated NAFTA agreement will further exacerbate this disparity by focusing on factories and industries based in urban centers. The new NAFTA may be able to address some of these infrastructure issues by requiring larger hourly pay for those working in manufacturing in Mexico, but jobless and unspecialized workers in rural areas will not receive the same support.

The updated NAFTA agreement also fails to address the current political situation in Mexico that continues to oppress the rural poor. Enrique Peña Nieto, the current president of Mexico, houses a 6% approval rating, the lowest seen in 20 years, and for good reason4. Nieto’s presidency has been focused on centralizing power which has led to an increase in corruption4. Under his influence, government spending has risen to unprecedented amounts and the government debt now constitutes over 50% of the GDP4. However, this spending was not accompanied by economic growth and was not spent on public investment but rather cronyism.

Corruption is widespread in the marketplace; government officials can employ enormous state taxes for the advancement of a wealthy few. Many local government leaders also hold on to these taxes for personal use and do not allocate funds for public advancement. It is supposed to be the case that Mexican citizens can borrow money from the government to start their own manufacturing businesses, but many Mexicans are unaware of these opportunities as the money is not made available to them. Though the revised NAFTA agreement seeks to benefit all parties involved, if the agreement allows the Mexican government to continue centralizing attention, funds, and resources to those associated with the power and money often found in urban city centers, the economic condition of rural workers in Mexico will only further deteriorate.

Though the revised NAFTA will offer improvements for worker populations in urban Mexico, it fails to address the crumbling economic situation in rural Mexico and enables ongoing corruption within urban power centers. Revisions are needed to support the development of businesses and job opportunities in rural Mexico. The original NAFTA agreement exacerbated poor economic conditions in rural Mexico and contributed to increased immigration to the United States. Rather than building a wall, the United States should work together with Canada and Mexico to ensure that the agreement helps, rather than harms, the economic prosperity of the citizens of all three countries of whom the agreement is intended to benefit.

U.S. BIRTH CONTROL POLICY: IN NEED OF CHANGE SARAH MINELLA, Staff Writer

The benefits of expanded access to contraception vastly outweigh the concerns.

D

espite the financial and social benefits of family planning, the United States lags behind many developed nations in providing women with access to birth control. Following the success of countries including China, Brazil, and Portugal, the birth control pill should be made more accessible in the United States by offering it as an over-the-counter (OTC) drug. Providing women with increased control over their health and lives would increase the economic well-being of Americans, while promoting healthy relationships.

The pill is a highly effective form of contraception.

According to Planned Parenthood, the pill is up to 99% effective when used perfectly.1 Advocates for restricting contraceptive access often argue that the costs and health risks of making hormonal birth control an OTC medication are too high. However, the benefits of expanded access to contraception vastly outweigh the concerns.

Fear of health risks is a primary factor that has prevented the pill from transitioning to an OTC drug.

Though this concern is valid, the pill is low in risk. Several countries have already had success in making hormonal birth control an OTC medication, without negative health implications. These countries include Brazil, China, Greece, India, Mexico, Portugal, Russia, South Africa, South Korea, and Turkey. The general trend among these countries is the liberalization of contraception policies over time, just as it has been in the United States.

During the 1970s, Mexican celebrities argued that birth control is key to a better quality of life. The government determined that in order to solidify their pro-birth-control message, it was essential to make birth control not only legal, but easy to obtain. The government made family planning—vasectomies, condoms, oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices— temporarily free, even for those without insurance. As a result, the birth rate, maternal mortality rate, and infant mortality rate all dropped, and the economy improved. In fact, 47% of Mexican households moved into the middle class.2 Mexico’s ability to promote birth control use by making it more accessible, as well as its economic successes, should serve as an example to the United States to make its oral contraceptives OTC.

The results of policy shifts suggest that access is a key determinant of contraceptive continuation.

Another country that provides the birth control pill OTC is Brazil. In Brazil, contraceptives are legal and do not require a prescription. They are also affordable for women of all classes. Consequently, fertility rates are sharply declining. Whether they life in urban or rural areas, women of every class and region of Brazil, are making informed decisions about the size of their family.

This choice is feasible because birth control is easily accessible.

Declining fertility has had enormous financial and social implications on Brazilian society. More women are in the workforce, and more women define themselves as ambitious. 92% of Brazilian women in the early stages of their careers aspire for executive/senior leadership ranks, (in comparison to the United States’ 66%)— the highest percentage among all countries surveyed. 3The availability of oral contraception, in addition to urban migration, the expansion of the female workforce, better health care, and the popularized ideal of small, affluent families, make the ambition of Brazilian women possible.

Altogether, these countries provide strong evidence to support the argument that making birth control OTC would provide women with increased control over their health and lives, and would increase the economic wellbeing of Americans. Some states, such as California and Oregon, have already enacted state laws allowing pharmacists to prescribe hormonal birth control. The United States should continue with its trend of making hormonal birth control pills more accessible to women by providing them over-the-counter. This will give women the autonomy to choose if and when they experience a pregnancy.

THE GLOBE | 8

PROTECTIONS FOR PREDATORS: FRENCH LAW ENABLES STATUTORY RAPE AARON GILCHRIST, Staff Writer

O

ne day in Montmagny, France, a 29-year-old man ran into an 11-year-old girl named Sarah. After striking up a conversation with her, he insisted that they go to his apartment. Sarah recognized him from around the neighborhood, so she said yes. Though this story might gleam with red flags to the average adult—their age difference, his insistence that they go to a private location etc.—to Sarah, this initially seemed like an innocuous encounter. By the time Sarah realized she was in danger she was already in the apartment, where the man had oral and vaginal sex with her1. At 11, a child’s developing mind often prevents them from reading into the context of situations in the same way an adult would. Though French law recognizes many of the mental differences between adults and children with laws barring underage voting2 and unaccompanied driving3, the same consideration is not extended to statutory rape victims.

In France, there is no official statutory rape laws and no firm age of consent4. France’s stance on statutory rape suggests two things: that children can consent to sex with adults, and that adults have no responsibility to question that child’s decision.

But modern child psychology and France’s other laws contradict this stance. To rectify this, France needs a law barring statutory rape that corresponds with modern understandings of children’s psychology, other French laws, and victim’s rights.

France’s laws regarding sex with minors exist in a dangerously liminal space. In France, it is illegal5 for an adult to have sex with someone under the age of 15. But, there is a caveat. Sex with a someone under 15 is only considered rape when the minor does not consent and in particular, if circumstances surrounding the intercourse involved “violence, coercion, threat, or surprise4” (the same rules apply to adult victims.) Otherwise, the act is considered a sexual assault5 or, in Sarah’s in case, a ‘sexual infraction4.’ While formal statutory rape laws condemn any sexual act with a minor, regardless of “whether or not the sexual act is against that person's will6,” minors in France have an unregulated ability to consent to sex with adults. This is not typical of the European union as countries like Belgium, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark all have a firm age of consent7. France’s recognition of statutory rape has a complex history. In 1832, article 331 of the Law of April 28th 18328 censured any sexual act with someone 11 years or younger—setting the age of consent at 11. In the 1860s8, the age of consent was raised to 13, and raised again to 15 in 19458. In 1994, the law of April 28th 1832 was revoked8. But recent cases like have sparked renewed controversy9 around France’s lack of statutory rape laws.

France’s decision to allow children to consent to sex with adults clashes with the psychological understanding of children’s mental capabilities. This ideological interest in children’s right to consent peaked in late twentieth

9

century, when France’s intellectual elite framed pedophilia as a form of sexual liberation, unfairly ostracized by French conservatives. In 1977, French writers, Jean-Paul Sartre, Roland Barthes and Simone de Beauvoir signed a petition4 condemning the arrest of 3 men accused of pedophilia to combat what they saw as a the criminalization of children’s sexual liberty. “French law recognizes in 13- and 14-yearolds a capacity for discernment that it can judge and punish,” they said, “But it rejects such a capacity when the child's emotional and sexual life is concerned.” Psychological studies suggest that these intellectuals fought to defend an advanced decision-making capacity in children that scientists contest. In the human brain, the frontal lobe and prefrontal cortex help us make considered and logical10 decisions. But these parts of the brain do not fully mature until you are in your mid twenties10. Instead, children and adolescents utilize parts of their brain in decision-making that primarily regulate emotional and impulsive responses10.

In a study by Dr. Deborah Yurgelun-Todd, it was found that while adults use the prefrontal cortex to answer questions, children aged 11-17 use the amygdala10. As Yurgelun-Todd stated10, though adolescents can be “...physically mature, they may not appreciate the consequences or weigh information the same way as adults do.”

Other French laws reflect an understanding of the differing mental capabilities of adults and children in a way that their stance on statutory rape does not. In France, one must be 18 years old to vote1 and drive3.

Driving and voting require one to make considered and logically-informed decisions that French law seems to think children are only able to process in regards to sex.

French laws also frequently holds adults responsible for helping children make good choices in ways that similarly contradict their stance on statutory rape. An exception to the driving law in France for example, is the “accompanied driving” law3, which allows 15-year-olds drive, as long as they are accompanied by an adult. And although there is no legal drinking age in France, alcohol vendors are not allowed to sell drinks to those under 1811. If they do, their liquor license is revoked and they must take a course on ‘parental responsibility’ 11. France’s “accompanied driving” and “parental responsibility” laws suggest that France understands the differing mental capabilities of children and adults, as well as the importance of holding adults responsible helping children make thoughtful decisions.

This directly contradicts the decision to allow children to consent to sex with adults, as well as the refusal to hold adults accountable for going along with it.

France’s lack of recognition for adult responsibility often works to blame victims for their assault. One of France’s principal concerns with establishing an age of consent is that it “could be seen as violating an adult's presumption of innocence and as a result it could have declared the new law unconstitutional” 5. Presumption of innocence is important to a democracy12 because when a person is accused of a crime, the state is in a position to potentially deprive them of their constitutional right to freedom. Presumption of innocence prevents the government from abusing this power. Statutory rape laws do not deny the accused of this right, as the accuser must prove that sex between them and the accused took place before a jury. But in French courts, instead of questioning whether or not the sex happened, lawyers tend to question its significance. Sandrine Parise-Heideiger, the defense lawyer for Sarah’s assaulter, insisted that just because a child has "sexual expressiveness and...an attitude of putting yourself in danger...it doesn't necessarily mean the person on the other side is a sexual predator"13. The idea that a child’s ‘attitude’ determines whether or not sex between a her and an adult is predatory, and works to perpetuate rape culture (or the societal normalization of rape). In a society that condemns female sexual expression14 with terms like “slut” and “whore,” statutory rape defense lawyers often use a girl’s sexuality to rationalize an adult man’s attraction to her. Instead of seeing someone who has sex with children as a mentally ill pedophile, this tactic frames attraction to a child as a product of a girl’s perceived sexual appeal—a widespread perception immortalized with slang terms like “jailbait” and “lolita.”

Because statutory rape laws condemn sex between adults and minors regardless of such circumstances, they lessen the power of these claims—making whether or not an 11-year-old is “sexually expressive” immaterial to her rapist’s verdict.

Due to the heavily gendered quality of many of these cases, the fight for an age of consent in France has been taken up by French feminists, and gained fire in the #metoo era1. In addition to this case, the acquittal of a 30-year-old man accused of raping an 11-year-old girl in Champs-surMarne15, and France’s safe harboring of Roman Polanski (a film director who admitted to raping a 13 year old girl in 1978 and fled to Paris to escape arrest16) speak to larger issue of the normalization of rape and those who commit it. Though France is frequently considered a sexually progressive country for its comprehensive sexual education courses17, its democratization of birth control18 and its more recent law against street harassment19, the country’s flawed stance on statutory rape has often allowed for sexism and sexual violence to slip through the cracks.

THE GLOBE | 10

THE MIGRANT CARAVAN: TRUMP'S MISHANDLING MADI STEPHENS, Staff Writer

I

n late November, thousands of migrants arrived at the US-Mexico border fleeing their home countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador. According to a BBC report1, over 7,000 Central American Migrants fleeing persecution, poverty, and violence are travelling to the U.S. in hopes for better opportunities.

However, they have been met with more persecution and violence enacted by the federal government of nation which was founded on the principle of equal opportunity.

President Trump demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the motivations many of these migrants have. The president’s accusations labeling these migrants as “gang members” is unfounded as many have cited gang violence as a reason for their departure.

The President has deployed around 5,800 additional troops to police the border1, in addition to existing border patrol. This preemptive militaristic response displays Trump’s true stance not just against illegal immigration, but all immigration as it denies migrants the opportunity to even pursue legal avenues to citizenship or simply residence in the US. As if this militaristic response is not severe enough, the rhetoric hurled by the President has equally has disastrous consequences. Continuing to refer to migrants as criminal illegals perpetuates a sense of otherization that allows his administration to justify their actions because they have positioned migrants as less than humans and therefore not deserving of basic human rights.

This dehumanizing rhetoric extends even further as the President refers to the caravan as an “infestation”.

His calls to “catch and detain” 2 are eerily similar to the hunting phrase “catch and release”, furthering the image of migrants as non human and animal like. However, President Trump did not coin the term “infestation”; rather, it was also used by Hitler as justification for the Holocaust as well as Joseph Stalin in Russia in order to

11

dehumanize marginalized people by identifying them, categorizing them, and comparing them to vermin.

As though a commonality to Hitler is not enough, President Trump shares views with modern dictators as well. The Nigerian Army, part of a military regularly criticized as perpetrating human rights abuses, harkened back to the words of the U.S. President when justifying the shooting of protestors throwing rocks in early November. According to a report by the New York Times3, after firing into a march of around 1,000 Islamic Shiite activists outside the capital, “The army’s official Twitter account4 posted a video, “Please Watch and Make Your Deductions,” showing Mr. Trump’s speech on Thursday in which he said rocks would be considered firearms if thrown toward the American military at the nation’s borders.” This post has since been deleted from the army’s account. While Trump himself may not have pulled the trigger that day, the sheer fact his rhetoric was utilized to justify it makes him accountable to some extent for the deaths.

President Trump along with many others tout the idea of American Exceptionalism and boast of the U.S. position as a world leader. That is true. The U.S. is a world leader with the capability to exert worldwide influence. This is why the rhetoric wielded by our President is a weapon in of itself. This example of violence is not unique in the modern world and has set a precedent. Not only will the U.S. not condemn violence against marginalized populations, but the land of the free and home of the brave now endorses and inspires it at its own borders and abroad.

AMERICAN DOMINANCE IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY ROSE PORTER, Contributing Writer

T

he position of the United States since the mid-twentieth century is undoubtedly a remarkable one. We have sustained incredible global dominance since the end of World War II, a level of power and control over the affairs of the world that is unprecedented in human history. Knowing that, it is our responsibility as Americans, particularly as American civilians to assess the performance of our mighty nation over the past several decades.

The common framing over U.S. performance in recent history is one of heroism. We stand as the defenders of democracy and freedom, as the enemy of dictators, terrorists, and tyrants. Now, if we are to assess responsibly, we should know not to take that at face value. Testing this framework of American Heroism is a simple matter of consistency. Have we consistently opposed tyranny and dictatorship? Have we consistently supported freedom? Most importantly, have we improved the lives of people in all the areas where our influence is enacted?

Unfortunately, even a fairly brief perusal of history shows that this is not the case. Latin America, that region which we have wielded powerful influence over since the Monroe Doctrine, is an excellent case to demonstrate this. In 1964 both the Kennedy and Johnson Administrations supported a Military Coup in Brazil that overthrew the democratically elected president of the time and initiated the Branco Military Dictatorship; this lead to the dissolution of democracy and widespread campaigns of torture and human suffering in the country. Now to ensure that we do not read this as a unique case or as a simple mistake of U.S. policy, let’s look at another coup from the same continent. This time in 1973.

Chile’s democratically elected leader Salvador Allende, a hopeful beacon of democracy and progress in the region, was deposed in a U.S.-backed coup and replaced by the Pinochet Dictatorship, possibly the most egregious Latin American regime in the later half of the 20th century. Under Pinochet there were massive campaigns of torture and execution, which, by the way, did not deter U.S. support for the military junta.

Honduran President Manuel Zelaya is credited with social reforms that accomplished many goals including the significant reduction of poverty and the expansion of sorely needed social programs. He too was exiled by military coup, in 2009. The U.S. was quick to go against the the will of other powers in the region and negotiate with coup leaders to establish a new regime.

Although Latin America is perhaps the region most

dominated by U.S. policy, it is by no means the only region.

Take the case of Iraq. The U.S. invasion in 2003 and continued war through much of the past two decades has not improved conditions in the region, and has quite possibly allowed worse situations to develop. What U.S. policy in Iraq has accomplished is giving Western private interests lucrative control over the region’s oil resources.

This is only a selection of U.S. policy. The pattern demonstrated here can be found all throughout recent history all over the world. The idea that U.S. policy is guided by defense of ideals of freedom and democracy is completely fraught.

Instead we can see a different narrative. A Dominant global power using military and economic intervention to secure the interests of global capital, in the process inhibiting development and progress and allowing untold human suffering.

Will we remain a dominant global power? Perhaps. Our economic and military strength are not fading away anytime soon. But as justifying narratives about countering Communism and terrorism lose their effectiveness, the U.S. will face more and more direct challenges to its power. Other states, like China in particular, have developed into powerful competitive agents despite U.S. efforts to keep them constrained to role of the periphery. These actors may challenge U.S. dominance in the twenty-first century.

But ultimately, the question of continued U.S. dominance should not be our chief concern. Perhaps, if we believe that U.S. hegemony means a better quality of life for a even just our own citizens, maybe there would reasons to preserve our dominance. But the vast majority of wealth generated by the core-periphery economic structure the U.S. has developed and protected has gone to a small fraction a elite beneficiaries.

The big picture of all of this is that U.S. global dominance has tended to accumulate wealth in the hands of a few by extracting it from regions around the world. In the future we must be prepared to deal with the fact that U.S. dominance on the world stage and the well-being of ordinary people living all over that stage are fundamentally opposed to each other.

This piece was originally delivered as a speech by Rose Porter at the 2018 Atlas Speech Competition, which was co-hosted by the Emory International Relations Association and The Emory Globe on Nov. 27, 2018. Rose was awarded first place for her speech at the competition.

THE GLOBE | 12

TRUMP & IRAN: BAD BLOOD ZOE ROBBIN, Co-Editor-in-Chief

I

n August, 2018, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo expressed the Trump administration’s support for anti-regime protests in Iran1. The latest round of demonstrations, which began this July in cities throughout the country, are a national outpouring of disaffection with the government’s strict Islamic laws and outrage over its large-scale failure to provide basic resources like water2. With the reinstatement of U.S. sanctions looming over the already-feeble Iranian economy, the regime fears that conditions may go from bad to worse.

Although the United States has a longstanding political and moral interest in undermining the anti-American theocratic government of Iran, the Trump administration’s rhetorical support for the demonstrators is a dangerous strategic blunder. American regional interests, and the Iranian people, are best served by a United States that listens and watches more than it talks.

American belligerence towards the Islamic Republic of Iran stretches back decades and is not unfounded. The United States attempted to subvert Iranian domestic affairs in 1956, when the CIA orchestrated a coup ousting Premier Mohammad Mosaddeq, a fierce Persian nationalist, and reinstalling the pro-Western Shah. The following year, the Shah signed over the rights to 40% of Iran’s oil fields3 to U.S. companies.

However, two decades later, the arrangement backfired dramatically when the Iranian people rose up to reclaim their independence. During the Iranian Revolution of 1979, antiWestern Islamists toppled the monarchy of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Students from the University of Tehran then took hostage over 50 Americans in the United States Embassy.

For 444 days, the hostage crisis dominated American media

13

and fueled disdain against then-President Carter, who many saw as cowardly. The crisis proved to be a major factor in his failure to win reelection.

The hostages were released minutes after the inauguration of President Reagan, yet the damage to American-Iranian relations was irreparable. Today, the United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran. Expanding Iranian military capabilities, in addition to its suspected funding of regional terrorist groups, has contributed to American antagonism.

The Obama administration endeavored to lessen tensions by negotiating a 2015 agreement to preclude Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. However, a poll by Pew Research Center showed a 21% approval rating for the Iran Nuclear Deal, demonstrating continued American distrust4. President Trump has since pulled out of the deal.

In addition to a buildup of tensions between the United States and Iran, the hardline theocracy is under threat domestically as its people grow angry with a government that routinely abuses their human rights and fails to perform basic services. The most recent protests against the Rouhani government are the largest since the Iranian Green Movement of 20095, a political movement which challenged the legitimacy of former-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election victory.

However, the Green Movement protests of 2009 and the current demonstrations in Iran are fundamentally different.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi, who many Iranians believed to be the true election victor, coordinated the Green Movement, which primarily encompassed middle and upper-class professionals living in metropolitan Tehran. Their demands were clearly enumerated: overturn the election of Ahmadinejad, install Mousavi as president, and expand social freedoms.

In stark contrast, current demonstrations are amorphous and comprise primarily working-class Iranians. The unrest began spontaneously over a spark in egg and poultry prices in Mashhad5, a city long considered a conservative stronghold.

While their movement lacks a clearly enumerated mission, many of their demands seem to be economic, targeting corrupt clerics and wealthy politicians. In some videos, protestors chant, “Death to the dictator,” a sign that today’s demonstrations are more radical and subversive than those of 2009. As the reimposition of U.S. sanctions pose another major blow to Iran’s economy, the country may be nearing revolution.

The United States and its Western allies are paying close attention, given their economic interest in the Strait of Hormuz, the main maritime route through which Persian Gulf exporters such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE ship oil to external markets. The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) estimates that 17 million barrels of oil pass through the straits each day, comprising 35% of all seaborne oil exports6.

If a radical government comes to power in Iran and closes the Strait of Hormuz, energy analysts predict oil prices to rise7 over 50%.

Despite its instinct to publically capitalize on the latest showing of Iranian unrest, the Trump administration should first allow the movement to organize and grow in legitimacy among the people. Given Iran’s fraught struggle to cast off Western control, its people are suspicious of movement tainted by overt U.S. support. Long-term Western interests are best served by allowing a popular and independent Iranian government to materialize.

The Iranian political and religious establishment has already attempted to undermine the protests by alleging

links between them and the West. Earlier this year, Ayatollah Ali Kamenei claimed that popular demonstrations were orchestrated by the “enemies of Iran.”8 While the United States should use diplomatic channels to weaken the global position of an abusive Iranian regime and sanction its corrupt officials, the Trump administration must anticipate and forestall allegations that Americans are pulling the strings.

In addition, perceived U.S. support for the revolutionaries may undermine the movement’s long-term organization. Mike Pompeo’s declaration of support for the Iranian demonstrators is hardly the first verbal intervention leveraged by the United States to subvert an adversarial regime. Two recent examples include President George H. W. Bush’s 1991 verbal support for Shia and Kurdish protests in Iraq9, and President Barak Obama’s 2011 red-line statement verbally backing Syrian revolutionaries. In both cases, verbal expressions of support from the U.S. motivated disorganized demonstrators to make dramatic stands against brutal dictators, with the expectation of substantial American military and financial support. And in both cases, the revolutionaries were left to fight and die alone.

Given the American public has little appetite for a war in Iran10, the administration should not make promises it cannot support militarily. Particularly in Syria, the failure of the United States to deliver on the administration's promises strengthened the legitimacy of fundamentalist rebel groups, many of which painted American politicians as deceitful.

The Iranian people are clearly disaffected with their corrupt theocratic government. While a relationship with the United States would likely benefit the Iranian people, political and economic agreements must be reached through partnership and mutual respect, rather than domestic interference.

THE GLOBE | 14

MEET THE EDITORS JAKE GORE, Associate Editor, is a senior from Bakersfield, California majoring in International Studies and Russian and Eastern European Studies.

His main interests are the current defense and security topics surrounding Russia, China, and India.

CAMERON HALL, Managing Editor, is a junior from Bexley, Ohio majoring in International Studies and minoring in Economics. He is particularly interested in separatist movements, press freedom and freedom of speech issues, and European politics, specifically the EU. TEJAS KASHYAP, Treasurer, is a senior studying math and economics major at Emory. He is primarily interested in capital markets and global finance, and is an avid listener of Slate Money and the Wall Street Journal.

CAMILO MORAGA-LEWY, Digital Editor, is a junior studying Political Science and Economics at Emory University. His primary interests are foreign and domestic United States policy, peace-building and human rights advocacy.

ZOE ROBBIN, Co-Editor-in-Chief, is a senior in Emory College pursuing a double major in Quantitative Sciences and Arabic Studies. With an interest in global health, she has conducted field research throughout the Middle East and North Africa.

ANDREW TEODORESCU, Co-Publications Editor, is a junior majoring in Economics and Mathematics. He is from Johns Creek, Georgia and serves as the Publications Editor for the Globe. Andrew is particularly interested in Eastern European politics, international trade, and education rights.

NAMRATA VERGHESE, Co-Editor-in-Chief, is a senior in Emory College, pursuing a double major in Psychology & Linguistics and English & Creative Writing. On campus, she's a research assistant and honors thesis student in the Fivush Family Narratives Lab, an IDEAS Fellow, and an undergraduate teaching assistant in the Interdisciplinary Studies Department.

PRESLEY WEST, Co-Publications Editor, is a junior majoring in International Studies and Media Studies from Oneida, Tennessee. She plans on combining her interests in storytelling and current affairs into a career in journalism.

15

AFTERWORD Dear Readers, We at the Globe are thrilled to present our Fall 2018 print journal, which highlights topics ranging from nationalism to birthright citizenship. In our increasingly tumultuous sociopolitical climate, we are prouder than ever to serve as Emory University’s premiere undergraduate journal of international and foreign affairs. The Globe features a team of dedicated staff writers who produce regularly produce opinion pieces for our website and our semesterly print publication; this journal is a testament to their thoughtfulness, talent, and engagement with the world around them.

This year has seen an unprecedented, global rise in farright victories, anti-migrant sentiment, and nationalist rhetoric and policy. From Jair Bolsonaro’s election in Brazil to Mahinda Rajapaksa’s return as Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, our world has never been so bitterly divided. In the “post-truth” era of “fake news,” the members of the Globe believe it more critical than ever to produce researchbased journalism that is unfailingly honest, relevant, and urgent. With your support, we are excited to continue telling the stories that most need to be told.

Thank you for reading, Namrata Verghese and Zoe Robbin Co-Editors-in-Chief of The Emory Globe

THE GLOBE | 16

works ACKNOWLEDGING ABKHAZIA

1 http://www.apsnypress.info/en/news/september-30-indepen dence-day-of-the-republic-of-abkhazia/ 2 https://web.archive.org/web/20100706111108/http:/www.cdi.org/russia/ johnson/8226.cfm#4 3 https://www.britannica.com/place/Abkhazia 4 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/how-stalin-

created-some-of-the-post-soviet-worlds-worst-ethnic-conflicts/273649/ 5 http://www.c-r.org/downloads/Accord 07_14Chronology_1999_ENG.pdf THE BRICS ALLIANCE: POTENTIAL DANGERS

1 https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/11/politics/donald-trump-macron-national ism-paris-armistice/index.html 2 https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/28/americas/brazil-election/index.html 3 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/ more-than-fear-brazils-lgbt-community-dreads-looming-bolsonaro-pres

idency/2018/10/26/c9e7ac26-d890-11e8-a10f-b51546b10756_story. html?utm_term=.43688413532a 4 https://www.newsweek.com/guns-are-answer-violent-crime-says-brazils-

far-right-president-elect-jair-1193272 5 https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/09/brazils-bolsona ro-would-unleash-a-war-on-the-environment 6 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/upshot/whats-behind-a-rise-in-eth nic-nationalism-maybe-the-economy.html 7 http://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-brazil-election-20181028-story.html 8 https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/02/in-europe-national isms-rising/ 9 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/brexit-eu-national

ism-uk-european-commission-populism-a8504691.html 10 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/does-catalonia-want-indepen dence-spain/ 11 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45746013 12 https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south-africa/2018-04-04-poverty-shows- how-apartheid-legacy-endures-in-south-africa/ 13 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-election-china-insight/bolson

aros-anti-china-rants-have-beijing-nervous-about-brazil-idUSKCN1MZ0DR 14 https://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/countingthecost/2018/09/end

game-china-trade-war-180922074957099.html 15 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/24/business/south-africa-econo my-apartheid.html?mtrref=www.google.com 16 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/14/world/africa/jacob-zuma-re signs-south-africa.html 17 https://thediplomat.com/2018/09/are-chinese-loans-to-africa-good-or-bad- thats-the-wrong-question/

U.S. BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP

1 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 2 https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/colloquium/article/down

load/10242/8926 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/02/news/japanborn-kore ans-live-in-limbo.html 4 https://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/demographic-impacts-repeal ing-birthright-citizenship 5 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-30/trump-s-birthright- citizenship-ban-could-pose-risks-for-economy 6 https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html 7 https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/prohibition-ends

THE NEW NAFTA: WHAT IT LACKS

1 https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2018/10/01/us-canada-mexi co-just-reached-sweeping-new-nafta-deal-heres-whats-it/ 2 https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/north-american-free- trade-agreement.asp 3 https://www.nass.usda.gov/mexsai/Papers/ruralyouthp.pdf 4 https://clas.berkeley.edu/research/mexico-why-mexico-fell-apart-and-how-

fix-it

cited BIRTH CONTROL POLICY IN THE U.S.

TRUMP & IRAN

1 https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/birth-control-pill/

how-effective-is-the-birth-control-pill 2 https://mexiconewsdaily.com/news/mexicos-middle-class-47-of-house holds/ 3 https://www.egonzehnder.com/what-we-do/diversity-inclusion/press-re

leases/egon-zehnder-leaders-daughters-global-survey-reveals-professional- ambitions-rise-throughout-early-career-fall-as-women-strive-to-reach-c-suite

1 https://www.timesofisrael.com/%E2%80%8Bpompeo-to-urge-irani ans-abroad-to-support-anti-regime-protests/ 2 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/04/world/middleeast/iran-pro tests.html 3 https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-over throws-government-of-iran 4 http://www.people-press.org/2015/09/08/support-for-iran-nuclear- agreement-falls/ FRANCE’S VILE PROTECTION OF STATUTORY RAPE 5 https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/01/03/2009-vs-2018- 1 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/europe/france-minors-sex-consent- how-irans-new-protests-compare-to-the-green-movement-of-the- rape.html past.html 2 http://www.elections-legislatives.fr/en/voting.asp 6 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnmauldin/2017/04/17/2-choke- 3 https://www.thelocal.fr/20140328/plan-to-lower-allow-15-year-olds-to-drive-in- points-that-threaten-oil-trade-between-persian-gulf-and-east- france

asia/#2e0387e84b96 4 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/03/frances-existen 7 https://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/business/oil-price-would- tial-crisis-over-sexual-harassment-laws/550700/ skyrocket-if-iran-closed-the-strait.html 5 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-sex-age-consent- 8 https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/2/iran-prot minimum-national-assembly-vote-15-rape-a8355516.html

ests-differ-2009-green-revolution/ 6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statutory_rape 9 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/adst/a-lost-opportunity---- 7 https://www.ageofconsent.net/world the_b_8234644.html 8 https://blogs.mediapart.fr/amelie-meffre/blog/271017/le-non-consentement- 10 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-american-public-really- des-mineurs-inscrit-dans-la-loi-en-1832

does-not-want-to-go-to-war-with-iran_us_5b59fd19e4b0b15aba968fca 9 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/05/france-to-raise-the-age-of- consent-after-men-escape-charges 10 https://jjlp.law.ucdavis.edu/archives/vol-10-no-1/consent.pdf 11 https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=18ED9AC9EF67D

77F5A2C0373B8E6B783.tpdjo08v_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000020895233&cidTex

te=LEGITEXT000006072665&dateTexte=20090920 12 https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/victims-rights-proposals-marsys- law-undermine-due-process 13 https://www.wthr.com/article/french-trial-on-sex-with-11-year-old-fuels-debate- on-consent-0 14 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/09/elizabeth-smart-pu rity-culture-shames-survivors-sexual-assault 15 http://www.leparisien.fr/fait-du-jour/viol-sur-mineurs-justine-victime-sans-coup able-11-11-2017-7386477.php 16 https://www.theguardian.com/film/2018/jan/30/hollywood-reverence-child-rap ist-roman-polanski-convicted-40-years-on-run 17 http://ecosalon.com/american-sex-education-needs-to-catch-up-to-france/ 18 https://www.npr.org/2012/12/18/167253336/in-france-free-birth-control-for- girls-at-age-15 19 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/france-street-harassment-crime_

us_5b634939e4b0b15abaa0f552

TRUMP & THE MIGRANT CARAVAN

1 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-45951782 2 https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1065359825654169600 3 https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/02/world/africa/nigeria-trump-rocks.html 4 https://twitter.com/HQNigerianArmy

THE GLOBE | 18

emoryglobe.com