Tag: Politics & Geopolitics

Part 178- Geneva Conventions

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Politics and Geopolitics

Hello! Today’s post will be a geopolitical one and in this we will be discussing the Geneva Conventions. In today’s post we will delve into the significance of the Geneva Conventions and their impact on international humanitarian law. In times of armed conflict, these treaties play a crucial role in protecting civilians, prisoners of war, and wounded soldiers. We’ll explore the history, purpose, and key provisions of the Geneva Conventions, which have become the cornerstone of contemporary humanitarian efforts worldwide.

Our post will have these main factors:

  • The Genesis of the Geneva Conventions
  • A Code of Protection
  • A Growing Body of International Law
  • Ensuring Accountability for Atrocities
  • Global Adoption and Application

Followed by a conclusion to summarize everything we discussed. Let’s get started!

The Genesis of the Geneva Conventions

The idea for the Geneva Conventions was first brought up by a Genevan business man, Henry Dunant. After witnessing the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino, a gory battle in the Second War of Italian Independence, Dunant wrote a first-hand account of what he had seen; called A Memory of Solferino. Along with his observations, he had proposed a solution: ‘All nations come together to create trained, volunteer relief groups to treat battlefield wounded and offer humanitarian assistance to those affected by war.’ (As noted by HISTORY.com) 

The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of armed conflict, and are primarily designed to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part on hostilities. However, these apply to government who have ratified its terms. Every country has ratified all four Geneva conventions, but the protocols ratified varies. Countries who have ratified all four Geneva Conventions and three protocols include the majority of European and South American countries, the majority of Oceania, a few African Countries, as well as the Philippines and Kazakhstan. The United States has only ratified Protocol III in addition to Geneva Conventions I-IV. 

A Code of Protection

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols is a body of Public International Law, designed for the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war, and soldiers incapable of fighting. There are four Geneva Conventions and three Additional Protocols; and these are a major part of international humanitarian law adopted by all nations in the world.

The First Geneva Convention was in 1864, and was adopted to protect wounded and infirm soldiers and medical personnel who are not in active hostility against a Party. The first attempt to expand this treaty being unsuccessful led to a clarification of these ru;es, and extended them to maritime warfare. 

The Second Geneva Convention improved and supplemented the 1864 convention by extending its protections to victims of maritime warfare, including shipwrecked soldiers and other naval forces, as well as special protections to hospital ships. 

The 1929 conference yielded two conventions. One, for the protection of wounded and sick armies in the field, was the third version to replace the original 1864 convention, and the other was adopted after the experiences of WWI showed the deficiencies in the protection of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention required that ‘belligerents treat prisoners of war humanely, furnish information about them, and permit official visits to prison camps by representatives of neutral states.’ It replaced the 1929 Geneva Convention that dealt with prisoners of war. 

In addition to these three conventions, a Fourth Geneva Convention was added with protection of civilians. It gave civilians the same protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded to sick and wounded soldiers in the first Convention. This was added after WWII due to the horrific acts on and off the battlefield performed by the Germans. 

With two Geneva Conventions revised and adopted, and the second and fourth added in 1949, the whole set is referred to as ‘Geneva Conventions of 1949’ or just the ‘Geneva Conventions. The 1949 conventions have been further modified with three amendment protocols. 

A Growing Body of International Law

Over the years, the Geneva Conventions have evolved to address the changing nature of warfare and protect individuals from new threats. The three Additional Protocols, adopted in 1977, further enhanced the conventions’ protections, covering civilians, military workers, and journalists during international armed conflicts.

Protocol I increased protections for civilians, military workers, and journalists during international armed conflicts and blended the use of “weapons that cause superfluous injury  or unnecessary suffering,” or cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to teh natural environment.”

Protocol II stated that all people not taking up arms be treated humanely and there should never be an order by anyone in command for “no survivors.” It was also added that children should be well cared and educated for, prohibiting taking hostages, terrorism, pillage, slavery, group punishment, and  humiliating or degrading treatment. 

Protocol III was created to recognize the symbol of the red crystal, an additional emblem of humanitarian protection, in addition to the Red Cross, Red Crescent and Red shield of David as universal; emblems of identification and protection in armed conflicts. 

Ensuring Accountability for Atrocities

Grave breaches are the most serious crimes. Ensuring accountability for these breaches is essential to deter future atrocities and promote a more just world. Grave breaches of Geneva Conventions III and IV include:

  • Willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
  • Willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
  • Compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power
  • Willfully depriving a protected person of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime

Grave breaches of  Geneva Convention IV also include:

  • Taking hostages
  • Extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly 
  • Unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement

Global Adoption and Application

The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of armed conflict, and are primarily designed to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part on hostilities. However, these apply to government who have ratified its terms. Every country has ratified all four Geneva conventions, but the protocols ratified varies. Countries who have ratified all four Geneva Conventions and three protocols include the majority of European and South American countries, the majority of Oceania, a few African Countries, as well as the Philippines and Kazakhstan. The United States has only ratified Protocol III in addition to Geneva Conventions I-IV. 

Conclusion

Despite warfare changing dramatically over the years, the Geneva Conventions are still considered the “cornerstone of contemporary international humanitarian law.” These treaties have come into play in recent international; armed conflicts including the War in Afghanistan, 2003 invasion of Iraq, invasion of Chechnya, and even the non-international armed conflict of the Syrian civil war. The world would have been a much different, possibly less humane place, if these Conventions had not been adopted. 

Works Cited

(n.d.). American Red Cross | Help Those Affected by Disasters. https://www.redcross.org/content/dam/redcross/atg/PDF_s/International_Services/International_Humanitarian_Law/IHL_SummaryGenevaConv.pdf

Geneva conventions and their additional protocols. (n.d.). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols

Geneva conventions. (n.d.). Encyclopedia Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/Geneva-Conventions

History.com Editors. (2017, November 17). Geneva Convention. HISTORY. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/geneva-convention

International committee of the Red Cross. (2018, July 16). International Committee of the Red Cross. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/geneva-conventions-1949-additional-protocols

Protocol additional to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol 1). (n.d.). OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and

Part 177- Police Brutality and Social Injustice

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Social Responsibilities , , ,

There’s a line between ‘enforcing the law’, and ‘police brutality’. Enforcing the law is making sure the law is obeyed and punishing people who do not do so, while police brutality is the excessive and unwarranted use of force by law enforcement against an individual or group. We’ve seen these cases with the BLM movement in 2020 and now the recent one with Tyre Nichols. Back in 2020 we tried to come up with ways to end the police violence that caused these problems, yet we’re here once again, fighting. 

The reality is, we can’t just stop something like this by taking away power or certain methods. People will always find a different way to take a course of action. The way we can do something about this is something psychologically. We, as a society, need to change our mindset. We need to stop stereotyping and having a set prejudice about people. 
Stereotypes/prejudice is something set and rooted in our minds and our thoughts that is difficult to change. We may not see or realize it at first, but there are certain actions we do that shows it. Sometimes it’s a minor thing that isn’t a problem, while other times it’s a major issue. Let’s take a stereotype we are familiar with in the past year. Asian discrimination. Now, the stereotype towards Asians could be at a minor or a major scale. 
For me, I’m a fan of Korean groups like Seventeen and TXT, so whenever I see someone Korean or Asian, my mind goes back to that. I unknowingly associate the two together, leading to a stereotype. On a major scale, there’s Asian hate. Due to the fact that COVID came from China, people have started to discriminate against Asians and Asian-Americans. This has lead to Asian violence, hate crimes, and many other terrible incidences. The fact whether that person was actually the “cause” of a problem or whether they were actually Chinese or not didn’t matter. Violence/ hate was the immediate though towards an Asian because of the pandemic origins. 
Now, with the police, stereotyping can be seen with police brutality. People say police brutality is the human rights violations by the police, when reality, it’s more of a racism/stereotyping issue. It’s a social injustice issue. The police could be given less power, given fewer weapons, or something of the kind. But that won’t change the mindset. The given mindset is that people of color like black people are dangerous. They cause trouble. They commit crimes. This reasoning causes a stereotype to think that all people of the same color or ethnicity are the same- just as dangerous and troublesome. This, deeply engraved in the mind, causes one to act wary or take extra precaution around them. This ‘extra precaution’ could mean using more force than necessary in certain situations. This leads to police brutality. Here’s another example. After 9/11 Muslim-Americans or even people with brown skin- like Indians- were discriminated against. There are reports of increased police attacks against Muslim-Americans after the attacks, despite them being innocent. Today, in airports, people of brown skin are watched with extra caution, simply because of the stereotype they could be a terrorist. The brown skin color is what causes this stereotype. That’s racism.
In America, black people are more strongly discriminated against because of our history. Relating to what I said earlier, the discrimination comes from the perception they- black people- cause trouble. The bleak history of slavery and segregation in the United States is still faintly present in today’s laws, mindsets, and thoughts. Policies and laws are made ever so cautiously in a way to be against black people because of how we thought in the past. Although it’s not directly pointed out, it still exists. 
History and experiences cause these stereotypes, and they as a result get rooted in our inns over time until they become an unconscious perception or even mindset. It alters how we act, how we think, and how we react, leading to problems. Like I said before, this is not a simple issue that can be fixed by taking away power or access to things. It’s a psychological matter. It’s a matter of removing that stereotype from policies, laws, and even minds in order to prevent violence, racism, and discrimination against different races, genders, or ethnicities. Without this, we’ll never be able to change and actually make an impact. 

Part 174- The drama of politicians

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Politics , , ,

So there’s been some pretty intense dramas going on in the past week about the next speaker of the house. If you didn’t know, our new Speak of the House is Kevin McCarthy who gained this position after 15 ballots. Surprisingly, it’s not the highest as the most ballots ever is actually 133. But anyways, let’s indulge in this topic and explore why it took 15 ballots to elect Speaker McCarthy.

Firstly, and for one of my absolute favorite reasons, there’s drama. It’s the classic teenage high school drama, except with adults at higher levels and with more serious topics. One of the representatives who absolutely refused to vote for Speaker McCarthy until the 15th ballot was Matt Gaetz. So apparently there’s this little beef between the two that Mr. Gartz has not let go of. When Mr. Gaetz was accused with sex trafficking claims, apparently, Mr. McCarthy did not present a strong enough defense for Mr. Gaetz. For this reason, Mr. Gaetz absolutely refused to vote for him. If you ask me, I find it amusing how government officials who are respected adults and members still act the way my current peers do. It’s really funny.

In the end, he did vote for him, which is why Mr. McCarthy got the position. Why did it take so long though? What made Mr. Gaetz and the other representatives who refused to vote for him, suddenly changed their mind?

Two words. Back scratching. “I scratch you back if you scratch mine.” The price for Mr. McCarthy to become the next speaker required patience, determination, and a little bit of luck to get the right proposal for a vote.

According to CNN, some of the requirements for Mr. McCarthy to become speaker include:

  • Seventy two hours to review the bills before they come to the floor
  • Giving members the ability to offer more amendments on the House floor
  • More Freedom Caucus representation on committees, including the powerful House Rules Committee
  • A McCarthy-aligned super PAC agreed to not play in open Republican primaries in safe seats
  • Any member can call for a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair – this is significant because it would make it much easier than it is currently to trigger what is effectively a no confidence vote in the speaker. Conservatives pushed hard for this, while moderates are worried it will weaken McCarthy’s hand.
  • Restoring the Holman Rule, which can be used to reduce the salary of government officials
Now the most eye-catching is the Holman Rule. Perhaps you’ve never heard of it before and that’s why it stood out. In fact, I had never heard of it before. (As well as a few other things on the list but that’s for later) So you know what I had to do. I did a little research, and here’s what I found.
The Holman rule is a provision in the rules of the United States House of Representatives that allows for individual line items in appropriations bills to be targeted for reduction or elimination. The rule, which was first implemented in 1876 and has been used intermittently since then, allows for any member of the House to offer an amendment to an appropriations bill that would reduce or eliminate a specific item of spending. The rule is typically used as a tool to target spending on specific programs or projects that an individual member or group of members oppose.

Now, reading that, it doesn’t include anything about cutting salaries. I know. Let me explain. As a measure to make it easier for lawmakers to eliminate federal agencies or slash the pay of individual agencies, the House restored the Holman Rule. As part of this rules package. It will “allow individual lawmakers to reduce the number of federal workers at specific agencies or cut their compensation as a provision or amendment to an appropriation bill.” This rule also allows lawmakers to target specific federal programs or offices, such as the FBI. They can use this to target the FBI or to “zero-out funding for specific federal investigations”. Essentially, they can use this bill as a reason to specifically target and remove agencies they do not want. Sly isn’t it?

Another shady back scratching deal that took place includes a “one-member election trigger”. 20 Republicans held out on voting for McCarthy until the 15th ballot. Why? For different reasons, they all could dislike Mr. McCarthy. That’s why this one-member election trigger agreement must have been a really good deal. The concession gives the ability for just ONE legislator to trigger a vote on whether to remove the Speaker from office. So anytime a legislator, even for a second, doesn’t want Mr. McCarthy as Speaker, all they have to do is say so. (Of course there’s most likely a longer process, but you get the point) This motion has had a long history, but it was raised to a minimum of 5 people to trigger the vacate. This time, it just takes one person. It could be Mr. Matt Gaetz, or maybe Ms. Lauren Boebert. It could be any of those 20 who refused to do so. It could even be a Democrat representative.

One more major event that took place was the restraining of Congressman Mike Rogers. After the 14th ballot, Mr. Rogers- an ally of Speaker McCarthy- was physically restrained for bellowing and jabbing fingers at a fellow Republican who was not supporting Mr. McCarthy. The main reason I brought this up was because it reminded me of The Caning of Charles Sumner. Senator Charles Sumner, an abolitionist Republican, was caned by Representative Preston Brooks, a pro-slavery Democrat, in 1856. Charles Sumner denounced the Bleeding Kansas crisis in a speech. This speech argued for the immediate admission of Kansas as a free state. He talked about the hateful embrace of slavery and the hideous crime. A response to this from Mr. Brooks included a caning. If I remember correctly from my history class, Mr. Sumner was badly beaten. To be fair, Mr. Brooks asked his fellow Representative on dueling etiquette , to which they replied that Charles Sumner was no gentleman – and a drunkard- and did not merit honorable treatment which is expected in a duel. That’s why they believed a cane beating in public to humiliate him would be better suited. Now although the two situations are rather different, this event was the first thing I thought of when I heard about the restraint.
Anyways, that was just the main points I wanted to cover regarding the Speaker elections. I’m now curious to see how things will play out and how each of these new requirements will be used in the future. Bye!

Part 167- Washington D.C. Trip

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Vacations , , , , ,
Part 167- Washington D.C. Trip

Summer break ended a few days ago and so school has once again begun. However, today’s post is not about what high school is like or anything. Instead, I’m talking about my very last summer trip of the year.

A little more than a week ago, for the last trip of the summer, my family and I went up east to New Jersey as well as other states nearby such as Pennsylvania and New York. But, that still isn’t the main focus of today’s post. The main focus was in fact the highlight of the trip. A visit to Washington D.C.

Our trip included staying in D.C. and taking a tour of the White House as well as the Capitol building. Unfortunately, due to – I’m assuming- the weather accident with lightning in front of the White House, our White House tour was rescheduled to a later date we already had plans for. To sum it up, we could not visit the White House. We could see it from a barricade and see its white exterior illuminate the dark night sky, but we couldn’t go inside and tour the actual building.

Apart from that, we did get to tour the Capitol – which I am extremely grateful for- as well as visit many other places such as the Lincoln Memorial, National Archives, and the National Museum of American History. This post is about what D.C. was like, and what I thought of it.

I’ve wanted to go to D.C. for a long time. Okay maybe for a few years now, but I’ve still been really set on visiting it sometime soon. The main reason was because the last time I went was when I was still a toddler, and I have no recollection of doing so. But I also wanted to visit D.C. because of the show The West Wing.
If you don’t know what it’s about I’ll summarize really quickly. The West Wing is a political drama series on how fictional Democratic President Josiah Bartlet and his presidential advisers and staffers try to run the country. It shows different political scenarios such as working through two presidential terms, political threats, scandals, other possible scenarios, and even the election race to succeed President Bartlet. I’ve always loved The West Wing and it’s one of the things that have inspired me to become a lawyer or just someone who works in the political field one day. I dreamed of one day working in the West Wing or even in D.C. and that still remains as one of my goals for the future.

Another reason for wanting to visit D.C. was because I had taken U.S. History this year and was really interested in the subject. After learning about the struggles our founding fathers went through to create this government simply for the people, I wanted to see the buildings where the same principles are applied today, 300 years later. I think because of taking that course, I had become more appreciative of not only my country but also for what it was established on. That made me more perceptive towards what we saw, and also allowed me to make better connections to what I learned. Side note: I now cry when I hear the national anthem. I- Yeah. Oh the things one history class has done to me. I mean it’s not bad. I think it’s a good thing that I actually know more about my country and I really appreciate the principles for what it was built on as well as am proud as to how we got this far. If I cry by remembering all that then so be it.

Enough about how I cry during the national anthem. Let’s actually get into the overview now.

Honestly I’m not sure what I was expecting from D.C. Whenever I hear about it I always imagine the Capitol and White House only some distance from each other and then there are a bunch of other government buildings and monuments there as well. It is like that but also different. For example, I did not expect to be able to calmly take a walk under the shade of huge trees while drinking a slushy right next to the Department of Justice. I could just walk by and wave up at the windows and be like, “Oh hello Attorney General Garland, how are you today?” I doubt that’s even possible and I would look like an absolute fool, but the idea does amuse me. Please don’t misunderstand. I’m not trying to seem disrespectful towards a government official or the employees. I’m just saying it was really unexpected to be able to walk right next to such an important building as if it was normal. 

Me standing in front of the
Department of Justice
If you remember, I had visited India near the end of 2021 and early 2022 after 7 years. During that trip my parents and I visited New Delhi and saw the Parliament of India, Rashtrapati Bhavan, and many other government official buildings/houses from afar. That time I was surprised about how open and nearby it was. I think that was how I thought D.C. would be. Boy was I wrong. I only got to see the Parliament from a distance and yet I was walking right next to the White House. (Not that close but still a much closer distance than I could in India.)

Apart from D.C. being full of government buildings and monuments and museums, it does have a bit of life to it. We always think of these officials as powerful and they are always making decisions that we either do or don’t agree with when they are also human like us. People in D.C. may be officials or employees but they also have normal lives. They also like minimal spice Indian food and Starbucks as well. *Ahem*

First let’s talk about the Capitol tour. Huge thank you to Senator Cornyn for getting us the opportunity for this tour as well as having one of his staffers guide us around. I would say it was different from my expectations. From a Capitol tour, I was expecting maybe how the Senate or House works and what their daily basis is. That was what a Capitol tour first meant to me. Instead, we got a building tour. We learned about the architecture of the Capitol, the statues that decorate the interior, background to the many murals and paintings, as well as how different events in history have shaped it to how it is today. I’d say I was more relieved. I was expected to ask questions during the tour and I was extremely nervous on what to ask or share an insight if it was on how Congress worked. I do know how it works, but I was worried that the amount I knew wouldn’t be enough or I may ask something stupid or say something incorrect. I found the tour guide extremely impressive and I didn’t want to embarrass myself in front of her. I also felt this sort of pressure to impress her and ask really high level questions. I think that’s why I felt so nervous to ask a question at the beginning. But throughout the tour that pressure slowly reduced and it was easier to do so. I found myself wanting to know more and tried to let that fear go. I still do think I could have asked better questions and I am disappointed at myself for not doing so. But I am happy that I was able to gather the courage to do so.

The Capitol is absolutely beautiful. I love how everything ties back to history. It’s like the Capitol is a sort of temple to thank our founding fathers and historical figures for the impact in our country. Like, there’s George Washington almost everywhere. Statues, murals, paintings, etc. The more I think about it it does feel like a temple. Every small detail is built based on how our country started to grow, bad or good. There’s not much from current events except for some women’s rights statues and such. Everything else is designed with the idea of kind of thanking the things that made our country how it is today. For example, there are American tobacco plants carved all over the building. Tobacco was a major cash crop that was a driving factor in the economy as well as what increased the need for slavery. In the Rotunda, there’s a mural that shows everything from Columbus up to the Gold Rush. In the dome of the Capitol there is a fresco called The Apotheosis of Washington that shows George Washington becoming a god or apotheosis as he was the first U.S. president and commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the American Revolutionary War. I honestly think that’s kind of motivating. Everyday Senators and members of the House will come for work and they see these statues or paintings of President Washington and decide to work hard for the country. Maybe not everyone would think that way, but I think it would be a huge honor to do so. I mean, President Washington was the precedent president. He was the example of what a president should do for future presidents to come. To be able to work everyday for this country that he first led and helped fight for, now that would be motivating. 

The Apotheosis of Washington
Credit: eyeofthestrom.blogs.com
Considering that, I want to talk about the riots that happened in 2021. The Capitol breach and vandalization. I wrote a post on this about a year ago when it happened, and I have a different perspective on the situation. A proper explanation of the Capitol breach can be found from my post Part 126- Breach in the Capitol. In that post my general opinion of the situation was mainly anger and displeasure. I was extremely upset at Mr. Trump’s words and was disappointed with how people reacted in agreement to his words. This time, I’m more disappointed and ashamed.

I’ve said this many times, but I will state it one last time. In my opinion, I think the Capitol is designed like a place of gratitude and honor towards not only President Washington, but also many important figures who have shaped our country. President Lincoln, General Ulysses Grant, Sam Houston, etc. By this breach of the Capitol, not only are we disrespecting the building and work space, but also the grounds on which our country first started developing. President Washington gave a farewell address at the end of his presidency. In that address was one request for many others to not form political parties as he was afraid it would divide our nation further. Despite that request, we immediately split into two parties after he stepped down, and look how that has gotten to today.

It’s almost embarrassing to see the results of something our first president warned us about, in front of something that respects and thanks him. It’s embarrassing to think our own people would do such a thing over something small.

Other than that, the Capitol felt much smaller to me than I thought it would be. It looks huge from outside, but it’s pretty close together inside. But then again, I haven’t really seen the ENTIRE building so I may never know. 
Actual picture of me at the back of the Capitol. 
One of the interesting things about the Capitol were the statues inside. Each state is allowed to give 2 statues to the Capitol to which they can swap out whenever they want. Many other people can do so as well. However it’s not necessarily guaranteed that it would be put outside on display. I like how every state chose something unique based on what was important for them. They’re contributing their own pieces of history or even culture/traditions through these statues and the Capitol displays them proudly for everyone to see and learn about. Below are some examples. 
Helen Keller from Alabama
Credits: aoc.gov
King Kamehameha from Hawaii
Credits: aoc.gov
We also visited the Lincoln Memorial and National Archives. Being in the Lincoln Memorial felt…powerful. I can’t really explain it, but when you look at President Lincoln, there’s kind of a powerful aura that can be felt. It’s probably because the statue is huge and the expression is very confident, but you never know. A fun part of visiting was that I actually know the “history” in this. I don’t know the details of the building, but I do know about the Gettysburg Address and his second Inaugural Speech. They were written on opposite walls of each other. It felt really cool to immediately know where they came from, the background of which he said those words, and what the purpose of it was. Other than that there’s not really much I can say. It was extremely busy there and I don’t think I got to properly admire nor pay my respects in a way towards President Lincoln properly. 
Me sitting in front of
Lincoln’s second Inaugural Speech
The National Archives were pretty interesting as well. I have to say, I was mildly dissatisfied when seeing the Declaration of Independence. I think it was obvious it wouldn’t be super clear given it is 300 years old, but I was let down due to my over hopeful brain. I really liked the set up of explaining the details when writing or what happened around the documents. There were things about spelling mistakes, drafts, reasons the ink is faded, and letters that were put up beside the documents in order to have a better understanding. We didn’t spend much time in the National Archives to explore so I really only got to see the Bill or Rights, Constitution, and Declaration of Independence, as well as Public Vaults. The Public Vaults were pretty much just small collections of history such as info about the 3 documents, colonization, invention patents, and more. I think there is more to the National Archives, but based on what I got to see so far, it wasn’t as exciting as I hoped it to be. Hopefully next trip we can stay longer. 
We also got to go to the National Museum of American History. I think that was one of the more interesting parts of our stay. It was quite literally a living documentation of everything in history. There was everything from transportation to cooking to democracy and everything in between. There was even a section on currency that showed how different forms of currency were used and made over time. One of my favorite exhibits was on American democracy that basically showed everything from the start of our government to now. There was stuff on the evolution of voting, protests, elections, news segments, and many more. 
A little something I found amusing
I’d say the best part of the museum was the Star Spangled Banner exhibit. Inside they first show you a timeline of everything that led to the national anthem being written. That meant a timeline of the War of 1812. There was info about the events, what weapons were used, and what it sounded like. There were real life ruins of old missiles and such on display. Further into the exhibit is the highlight. They have carefully maintained and displayed the original American flag with 15 stars and 15 stripes, that was made at that time. After being held onto by the original maker’s family for generations, it was given to the museum to which it has and presents today. This was no ordinary flag. It was HUGE. The usual size of an American flag is 3’x5’. This flag was 30×42 feet which is also much larger than the modern garrison flags used today by the US Army which are a standard 20 by 38 feet. The flag displayed was not the entirety as several parts including a star were cut away and given as keepsakes. However, it was still remarkably large and quite beautiful to look at. 
The original Star Spangled Banner
Credit: battlefields.org
My parents and I outside the
Star Spangled Banner exhibit.
To sum it up, D.C. was an interesting experience. I certainly went through a lot of emotions, including a bit of nationalism, confusion, nervousness, excitement, disappointment, gratitude, and relief to name a few. But mainly I was more motivated to work there. I couldn’t believe that people were working in such a beautiful building everyday. It seemed like an honor to work inside one of the country’s most important buildings and to do something for our country and people. Also seeing how the staffers and employees worked and were able to have such amazing opportunities of assisting and working there as well made me determined to become one of them. It would be great to one day work alongside great people and to carry on what the founding fathers established. So yeah. Washington D.C. was a great experience for me, and I really enjoyed touring the Capitol and being able to make connections to what I learned in U.S. history last year. I will certainly try to work hard to go to D.C. again – hopefully for work- and yeah, I hope you have a great weekend. See you!

Part 166- Abortion rights

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice, Social Responsibilities , , , ,
Part 166- Abortion rights

Hello! Were you expecting me? I know it’s been a while- ok a really long while- since I’ve last posted, and I’m truly sorry about that. I’ve had a handful of things to do this summer and have been so busy I haven’t been able to do many other things. Although some would argue it’s not that busy compared to what others do, it has been extremely busy for me and so because of that I have not been able to work on posting. But enough about my busy summer, I have a new post over something recent- not really recent- but a major event within political history. The overturning of Roe v. Wade.

The main reason I chose this topic is because a) it’s a landmark Supreme Court Case – now overturned- that is used in so many other cases throughout the years, b) because it is something that can alter so many things in the upcoming future for so many people, and c) because me being a girl means I am one of those people whose lives are now changed.

Roe v. Wade:

Roe v. Wade is a legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (7-2) on January 22, 1973, that “unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional.” (Britannica: Roe v. Wade) It struck down many federal and state abortion laws, as well as fueled an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about, “whether, or to what extent, abortion shoudl be legal, who could decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be.” (Wikipedia: Roe v. Wade)

The case was brought by Norma McCorvey- legal pseudonym “Jane Roe”- who in 1969 became pregnant with her 3rd child. She wanted to get an abortion, yet she was living in Texas where abortion is illegal except when necessary to save the mother’s life. After a ruling in her favor from a special three-judge court of the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Texas, it was taken to the Supreme Court. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court issued a 7-2 decision holding that the Due process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental “right to privacy”, which protects a pregnant woman’s right to an abortion.

Before I start with what I think, I wanted to share a small opinion about the case itself. Not the decisions but rather the people involved. I feel like the basis on why Roe wanted to get an abortion is wrong. She had originally wanted an abortion, but since Texas says it is illegal to have one, many of her friends said that she should assert falsely that she had been raped by a group of black men in order to gain a legal abortion. Although it was never successful, I feel like making up a lie using something realistic and widely happening in our society isn’t right. Rape isn’t something to joke about, and in my opinion shouldn’t be used lightly. I don’t know the full context on the decisions and on what really happened so I can’t say much, but I do want to point out that using a false statement wasn’t right, and by doing so it felt as if rape was taken lightly to use for her own personal reasons. Probably not, but to me it feels that way.

Opinions:

For me, I would say I’m more pro-choice. I believe that it should be a woman’s right to decide what to do, especially since this is her body. Giving birth is a huge thing. Even just being pregnant is something huge within itself. It’s not easy, and requires full dedication towards the full time. Giving birth itself is very dangerous. It’s strenuous , painful, and can be a life-threatening thing.

However, it is proven that abortion is a safe medical procedure that protects lives. Compared to child birth, the death rate for legal abortions is 0.7 deaths for every 100,000 abortions, and 9 deaths per 100,000 deliveries. Medication abortion has a mortality rate of 6.5 deaths per one million patients.

Having an abortion in itself isn’t easy either. It’s not as if the mother/woman is so willingly going to give up her child. It’s not an easy decision for her as well. However, based on the circumstances of her situation or anything else, she has a reason why she needs to. It’s not a “convenience” and an “easy way out”. Abortions are often because of family obligations and concerns about future children. They base their decision mainly on the ability to stay financially stable and care for their current children. It’s not an easy way out, but instead a painful and difficult decision. They do this while considering what’s right for the baby. They look ahead at the kind of life the baby would have based on finances and the ability to care for other children and dependents.

According to verywellhealth.com, there are many, similar, reasons why a decision for an abortion is made.

  • Not financially prepared: 40%
  • Bad timing, not ready, or unplanned: 36%
  • Partner related reasons- New or bad relationship, would be a single parent, partner isn’t supportive, partner doesn’t want the baby, partner is abusive, partner is the “wrong guy”
  • Need to focus on other children: 29%
  • Interferes with educational or job plans” 20%
  • Not emotionally or mentally prepared: 19%
  • Health-related reasons: 12% – concern for their own health; concern for fetus’ health; use of medications, other drugs, alcohol, or tobacco
  • Want a better life for a baby than they could provide: 12%
  • Not independent or mature enough: 7%
  • Doesn’t want a baby or to place the baby up for adoption: 4%

Another reason is also disease and genetics. (Inherited diseases) According to theconversation.com, “…each of us is more likely than not to be carriers for a disorder that would be legal before adulthood. As carriers, we are not affected by the disease, but are at risk of transmitting the disease to children if a partner is also a carrier.” For families that have experienced a serious inherited disorder, subsequent pregnancies are traumatic. Abortions are a critical option and are a security feature that allows them to consider having children again. While there are other options such as adopting, sperm or egg donations, or pre-implantation diagnosis of embryos, these all can become financial, social, or even moral burdens that some women can find impossible. Abortion should be seen as an available option if necessary. It doesn’t necessarily ALWAYS have to be used, but in certain times when truly necessary, something that can be considered and done. It can help prevent watching children die of untreatable disease.

People who often oppose abortions often criticize people with unplanned pregnancies, saying it’s irresponsible and those people should have used birth control. And that’s partially true. However, even with birth control, there are more than half of pregnancies that still occur.

Adoption. People also say, if you don’t want the child just give it up for adoption. It’s not that simple. Although that could be an option, it’s still quite dangerous for a woman who is not fit (emotionally or mentally) to have a child, give birth.

Another thing I want to bring up is rape abortions. There was a recent article of a 10-year-old being raped and getting pregnant. 10-year-old. That poor child had to travel to another state to get an abortion, since her state doesn’t allow abortions. Are you seriously going to force a 10 year old child, someone who is still learning, still maturing, still is a child and is dependent on their own parents, to become a mother and raise a child themselves??? Do you not understand how bad this is? How much pain and trauma can this have on her? Do you seriously want this poor child to suffer and go through pain, and a life-threatening thing just because you think abortion is wrong and the fetus is a living person? What if she dies??? Who knows what could happen.

In short, it should be a woman’s decision on what they should do. Some politicians should not be given the right to put their own beliefs and opinions into a decision that affects my body. The thought of having someone who I don’t even know make a decision about my own body and choice is a bit uncomfortable. I should have the right to decide what I do to my body and why. (I refer to women/ me as a woman/girl) I’m the one who knows it best. Not only that, I’m the one who knows what happens in my life. Those mothers and women have the strongest connection with the fetus and baby. They are the ones who should decide. It’s not like they willingly want to for fun and because all of a sudden they don’t want a baby anymore. Sometimes they’re not ready for it. If they give birth, based on their current life/status, the baby may not have a happy life. Or maybe the baby may not get all the love they deserve. Those mothers/women don’t want the baby to go through that. They want to raise a child with life and care in a good, steady, comfortable part of their life where they can emotionally, mentally, and financially support the child and their needs. They look forward and try to hope for the best for their child. This decision they make is difficult, but often necessary.

Abortion should be a choice made by the person having one. I believe that they are the only ones who can make the best decision for themselves and the fetus/baby. They should be the judge on what to do, and apply their own morals, experiences, opinions, etc. into a decision for themselves. They should not be pushed nor forced by others to do something they don’t want to or prevent them from doing. It should be an available option when necessary, no matter what. 
The last thing I want to talk about is rights. After the overturn of Roe v. Wade, there have been so many claims and protests saying abortion is their rights. I agree as well. But, for how long will we continue saying this? Will we continue protesting and demanding for a change and that abortion rights are women’s rights until the decision is flipped again? And then what happens after that? What happens then if it is once again flipped? Will we continue going back and forth? Instead of blaming these politicians and governors for making these decisions, shouldn’t we instead try to make it an official declaration? Shouldn’t we make it final, make it an official law that abortion is women’s rights? The job of the Supreme Court is to interpret the meaning of the law, and decide whether a law is relevant to a particular set of given facts. That means, based upon the majority of what the judges believe in the Court at that time, the decision/law will be interpreted differently. You can interpret something differently based on your beliefs or opinions, and that changes the outcome of things. 
A Supreme Court Justice remains in office as long as they choose and can only be removed by impeachment. That means we probably won’t be able to flip the decision again until the judges change to become in favor of pro-choice. Who knows how long that will take. So instead of continuously blaming governors and so many other people for making a decision that a state can have abortions or not, why not go and make it a law. Put it into the Constitution. 
The Bill of Rights are the first 10 amendments added to our Constitution. They were made for us to have rights and the freedom to do things. For example, the right to speech or religion, the right to not incriminate yourself in court, the rights not written yet still given to the people, etc. The entire purpose of the Constitution is to guarantee certain rights to the people.

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

That is the exact wording of the Constitution. It articulates the rights of citizens that institutions, procedures or legislation must not infringe, and which the state must strive to ensure. This being said, if you want to have abortion rights, shouldn’t we make it an amendment to the Constitution? By doing so we could establish it is a right, and no one, not even the states can infringe our right from it. Make it official. 
Before Roe v. Wade was overturned, people were able to get abortions. This being said, now that it is illegal in some states, are those women who want an abortion, no longer equal to those who previously could? We believe and try so hard to promote equality, equity, and bring everyone to the same level as one another within our needs, yet by not giving these rights, aren’t the two not equal anymore? 
The United States is often an example for others. We’re seen as a role model, a country that supports our allies and is the land of the free and home of the brave. Our entire government was built upon establishing our rights and freedoms we were denied of in England. When we don’t give equal rights to women to have abortions, wouldn’t other countries follow suit? Wouldn’t they see us differently? Aren’t we pretty much contradicting what we stand for? So is it really fair to remove a woman of her rights to have an abortion, when this not only makes her less equal to those who have before, but also to those in other countries who can today? (I’m not trying to compare countries or other people living in them, but trying to show how by banning abortion rights women are no longer equal to one another as well as others-not just women- in the world as well.)
Below I’ve linked some sources that helped me during my research on this topic. They give both sides to the debate and were interesting to read though:

Part 165- Sri Lanka Crisis

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Economics, Politics and Geopolitics, Social Responsibilities , , ,
Part 165- Sri Lanka Crisis

Sri Lanka is currently going through the worst economic downturn faced since independence from Britain in 1948. Facing power outages, lack of food, bankruptcy, and overwhelmed by numerous loans, the island nation is struggling. However, it hasn’t always been this way. 

In the 19th and 20th centuries, Sri Lanka became a plantation economy famous for it’s cinnamon, rubber, and Ceylon tea, something that remains a trademark national export. The development of ports under British rule strengthened the island and made it a center of trade. It’s major economic sectors are tourism, tea export, clothing, rice production, other agricultural products, and overseas employment, especially in the Middle East. From 2005-2011, Sri Lanka’s per capita income doubled. 

However, in 2016, it’s debt started to accumulate as infrastructure started to develop. This led to a near state of bankruptcy. In the fourth quarter of 2016, there was an estimated debt of $64.9 billion. In 2018, China agreed to bail out the country with a loan of $1.25 billion to deal with foreign debt repayment spikes in 2019-2021. In September of 2021, Sri Lanka declared a major economical crisis. But how exactly did Sri Lanka fall into debt? How did such a thriving economy crash? There are three main factors that caused this. Infrastructure, COVID, and the previous ban of chemical fertilizers.

Toruism and overseas employment, both of which provided the country with an input of foreign currency, crashed due to the pandemic. People stopped traveling, during this period, and people were also losing jobs. Prior to the pandemic, the country had proudly achieved upper-middle-income status, yet today half a million people have sunk back into poverty.Apart from that, there was also a ban on fertilizers put in place, partly to save foreign exchange. However, this led to domestic rice production falling 20% in the first six months. As a result, they were forced to import $450 million worth of rice. The ban also devastates the nation’s tea crop, the primary export and source of foreign exchange. Although the policy has been suspended and the government is offering $200 million to farmers as direct compensation, it hardly makes up for the damage and suffering the ban produced. 

Today, they now heavily rely on imports from other countries. “Soaring inflation and a rapidly depreciating currency have forced Sri Lankans to cut down on food and fuel purchases as prices surge.” (foreign policy.com) This has led to power cuts lasting up to 13 hours a day. The Rajapaksa government also promised tax cuts, which were enacted before the pandemic. With less money from the taxes, the government was unable to make some of these necessary purchases. 

Sri Lanka has also fallen into debt due to loans from other countries. One of them is China. Sri Lanka, situated between the key shipping route between the Malacca Straits and the Suez Canal, which links Asia and Europe. However, the only major port in Sri Lanka is the Port of Colombo, and it is catered towards container handling and is unable to provide facilities for port related industries and services. Therefore, a new port near the city of Hambantota, which has a natural harbor and is close to international shipping routes, was proposed. With the help of the Chinese government and workers, this port was built.

This relates to China’s Belt and Road Initiative; a global infrastructure development strategy developed by the Chinese government to invest in nearly 70 countries and international organizations. It’s about improving the physical infrastructure through land corridors that roughly equate to the old Silk Road. This also includes a maritime Silk Road along ports. Hambantota was built with Chinese investment to become part of this. “But the billion dollar project using loans and contractors from China became mired in controversy, and struggled to prove viable, leaving Sri Lanka saddled with growing debts.” (bbc.com) In 2017, Sri Lanka agreed to give “state-owned China Merchants a controlling 70% stake in the export on a 99-year lease in return for further Chinese investment.” So basically, using a loan from China, Sri Lanka is paying Chinese workers to build this port, causing the money to go directly back to China itself. So they’ve pretty much fallen in what is called a ‘debt-trap.’ This has been seen in other parts of the world, where, “Chinese lending has also proved controversial, with contracts whose terms could give China leverage over important assets”, can be seen. Some examples include:

  • Pakistan
  • Ethiopia
  • Djibouti
  • Mongolia
  • Sri Lanka
Many more included. (These are countries listed part of the Belt and Road Initiative, and are in debt. Not all countries part of the Initiative essentially owe debt.) But what China does, is step in, offer some assistance through money/loans to solve a problem a country has. This is mainly related to large infrastructure projects like roads, railways, ports, and also the mining and energy industry. As of right now, there are more than 40 countries in this category whose debt exposure to Chinese leaders is more than 10% the size of their annual economic GDP. 
Apart from that, it’s interesting how this works. There’s not really any international law that says China cannot do something like this. There are laws for it being domestic, but not internationally. We have loan sharks domestically, and just foreign/international debt. 
Overall, I think that Sri Lanka made the mistake of doing something they couldn’t afford. At that time, during the agreement of building the port, Sri Lanka was already in debt. This was a huge risk they had to take. If it didn’t prove to be viable, as it didn’t, Sri Lanka ended up being in more debt. They shouldn’t have done something they weren’t sure about and weren’t stable to proceed with. Although China was helping them pay off some debt they had at that time, by doing so, they got themselves into a more deeper problem. Not only that, I think that the government was taking really hasty decisions just for the sake of getting money and trying to get out of the problem. This whole Hambantota port project was thought of for decades, but only now put in because China was offering to invest in it to pay off debts. I feel like they should have started this project much before instead of when they had a problem. I can’t really say much regarding the pandemic, as that was something no one could have expected. However, I think that at that time, when rice-production and other agricultural products were still going strong within exports, the government shouldn’t have done anything about it. Maybe waited until later to put in tax cuts and the chemical fertilizer ban. Wait until the country was able to pull itself out instead of doing it quickly. So pretty much, don’t do something you can’t afford to do. 






Part 163- Ukraine & Russia

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice , , , , ,

Big things are happening in the world right now. Specifically, Russia invading Ukraine. I want to talk about the major questions that have come in throughout these past few days involving this war. Why is Russia invading Ukraine? Why isn’t NATO or the UN helping? Why isn’t the US helping? These questions all go back a long way to WWII. From the midst of it up until now, so many events have accumulated, leading us to this problem today.

Let’s start with the main question.

 Why is Russia invading Ukraine in the first place?

The answer to this is a bit complicated. The main start to this begins a long time ago when the USSR was ending. After the Soviet Union was declared as no longer existing, many republics began to declare independence. Among these included Ukraine. After this, Russia remained. The USSR was heavily ruined after WWII. It faced a lot of damage in the aftermath, and with the republics declaring independence from the Union, Russia – after the collapse- lost many resources.

When making machinery or militia, not everything is made in the same place. Different parts are built in various places and then brought together in one place to assemble the final product. Because of this, Russia lost many weapons and nuclear arsenal when Ukraine declared independence. That’s one thing. Although Ukraine and Russia had an agreement and Ukraine gave up all the arsenal to Russia, there is another thing that Russia could be after. The reason why Ukraine had a nuclear arsenal in place. Ukraine sits on an abundant amount of Uranium. Uranium is used to make nuclear weapons. Although Russia does have Uranium, Ukraine has a plentiful amount of it, hence a reason to invade.

Another reason is oil. Ukraine is near the Black Sea, which leads to the Mediterranean Sea and then to the Middle East. What’s found in the Middle East? Oil. 

Source{Library of Congress}

Oil and Uranium are the most possible reasons why Russia is invading Ukraine. I’ve done some research on this incident and officials- or merely just reporters- are saying there are other reasons relating to why Russia is invading Ukraine other than the ones I’ve listed. So, we don’t know just yet.

Why isn’t NATO helping? 

Well, what exactly is NATO? Let’s backtrack.

During WWII, the heads of the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet had a meeting to discuss the postwar reorganization of Germany and Europe. This was known as the Yalta Conference, which took place near Yalta in Crimea, Soviet Union. Within a few years, the Cold War began.

The Cold War was a period of tension between two major superpowers at the time, Russia and the United States, and each of their respective allies. Although this conflict was never through any actual war, many proxy wars occurred between the two. One example is Afghanistan.

Afghanistan was used for one of the proxy wars that occurred between the US and Russia. Neither wanted to get into a war on their turf, as seen during WWII, so it was better to fight on another country’s land instead. The US helped a group grow to fight Russia. It’s one we’re very familiar with. The Taliban. However, Afghanistan isn’t surrounded by water. So, the US was pretty much bringing the Taliban through Pakistan, to Afghanistan. This led to Pakistan being on US’s side, as the US was helping them. Since Pakistan and India have many, many conflicts, Russia decided to help India. But anyways, the US was trying to grow the Taliban under their influence so they’ll fight against Russia. In the end, they left Afghanistan in ruins and decided they weren’t going to do anything with the Taliban anymore. This led to the group growing even more and becoming a terrorist group, which was led by Osama bin Laden to attack the Twin Towers. A bit ironic isn’t it?

Another proxy war was the Vietnamese war. Russians fought on Vietnamese land with Vietnamese people against the United States and ended up leaving Vietnam in ruins as well.

Anyway, the Cold War pretty much created a division between the continent. Germany was split into two parts, West and East Germany. East Germany was controlled by the Soviet Union, while West Germany was controlled by the US, Britain, and France. After this, the United States and its allies created NATO.
Russia, seeing this, forms its own “group” called the Warsaw Pact with Eastern European Countries, as an equal balance of power with NATO. 

Source {The Glass Files}

Now, as I said before, the United States is not surrounded by any other countries, except Canada and Mexico. Russia, on the other hand, is bordered by 14 countries. This is a problem for Russia, as they cannot get close to the USA as easily. The US, on the other hand, can. The entire Western border of countries that surround Russia- except for Ukraine- are all part of NATO. Why not Ukraine? Well, Ukraine is directly next to Russia. If Ukraine were to join NATO, that means the US would have access to have its missiles and troops directly at Russia. Ukraine is an aspiring member of NATO, not yet a member, and Russia wants NATO to promise to never accept Ukraine as a member. They said that Ukraine joining NATO would be a threat to Russia’s borders, as already there are 5 NATO countries currently bordering Russia. Because of this, NATO, unfortunately, cannot help Ukraine. 

Source { Quora}

What about the UN?

In the United Nations, there is something called a Security Council. In the Security Council, there are 5 permanent members and many temporary members which change. The 5 permanent members are the USA, UK, France, China, and Russia. These 5 members have veto power over UN resolutions. This means that a permanent member can block the adoption of a resolution without having to debate on it. So, if one member says no, then the resolution is vetoed, even if the others say yes. Everyone has to agree.

Source {Cambridge Global Affair}
Source {dw.com}
Council meeting to discuss Ukraine-Russia
Situation

When Ukraine came to the UN, Russia- a permanent member- vetoed the resolution to help Ukraine. Because Russia said no, nobody could do anything, which means that the UN cannot help Ukraine as well.
There is one country that could help Ukraine, but they have stepped back. India. India became the President of the Security Council, and could help Ukraine, but has already said that it will remain independent and balanced, and will not help. India has a very strong reason to do so.

When India was testing nuclear weapons, Ukraine thought of India as bad. Many times, Ukraine has always condemned India and said India was bad for many things, including its conflicts with Pakistan. Ukraine even sent tanks to Pakistan, which were then used against Indians. So, when Ukraine came to India to help them, India chose to stay out and remain independent.

What about other countries?

Many other countries in Europe can’t help Ukraine, as Russia controls an energy supply, which can be cut off by them.

One other question I’d like to talk about is about what was to happen if Ukraine ended up being taken by Russia.

First, let’s go back to the end of WWII- again- and start from there. When Germany realized it was going to lose the war, it started to crumble and was destroyed. However, there was still one country that was still fighting. Japan. At this time, the United States decides to finally stop this and dops two nuclear bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Seeing the effects of the bombs, the world was shocked. This was when they realized the United States was on a completely different level compared to them. At that time, the United States didn’t see Russia as a threat. Russia was left in ruins after the war, while the US was perfectly fine, as there was almost no fighting on US soil.

Slowly, over time, Russia began building itself up again, until it became a superpower as well. Soon the Cold War emerged, and Europe was divided between two sides. Pro-USA or Pro-Russia. As I mentioned before, Ukraine has an abundant amount of Uranium. Russia has already close to the level the US is at now, so there is some tension between the two. The US doesn’t want them to be the same, and so they don’t want Russia to get their hands on that Uranium. So, as far as I have heard, the US has troops ready and planned to send some, but they are still not sent just yet.

Overall, I think Ukraine might be the one to blame here. It got itself in its mess. Although Russia is wrong to just attack Ukraine like that and is using hostile force, Ukraine can’t do anything about it. Although the rest of the world is trying to help them, I feel like they should have planned or even seen this coming. I mean, Russia and Ukraine have been having problems since 2014. Ukraine should have been better prepared in case this happened. They also shouldn’t have been too hasty in taking sides. India could have helped Ukraine and talked with Russia about this issue If Ukraine hadn’t condemned India many times in the past. Ukraine was hasty to make a decision and jump to say that India was bad, without even thinking of what could have happened in the future. It’s practically karma. Not only that, Ukraine was aspiring to be part of NATO.

There are many requirements to joining NATO and Ukraine didn’t meet any of those at first. With the help of NATO, Ukraine was getting there. However, many European Allies were against Ukraine joining since it could affect their relationship with Russia. They hoped they could have a closer relationship with Moscow, and Ukraine joining NATO could be a problem. If those Allies could have overcome those thoughts, we possibly could have saved a lot of Ukrainian and Russian lives by now.

The UN is also at partial fault. I feel like their system is very slightly biased. Out of the 5 permanent members, there are three European members, one Asian member, and one North American Member. There are six continents, excluding Antarctica. More than half of the permanent members are from one. Not only that, these countries are all those big powerful ones, and they won’t give up their positions. Because of that, they don’t let countries that need voices to speak out have a chance. Yes, sometimes you need these stronger countries to lead and make decisions because they have the resources and can often make the best decisions to help, but it’s always biased. These big countries that have conflicts with other smaller countries- Russia or China- will use their power as permanent members to prevent those smaller countries to have a voice in decisions. They kind of overpower the others. The concept of the UN was made with good intentions, by a great man. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had a dream and decided that the United States cannot ever turn its backs on the world again. From this dream, the UN soon came to be. Although many beneficial things have come out of the efforts of the UN, sometimes the resolutions to certain problems are biased. Or the problems may not even be solved, like what’s happening with Ukraine. I believe there should be a better division of power between the permanent members. Maybe a member per continent or even an ally speaks on behalf of many other countries and is represented. I’m not sure how that could or even would complicate things, but it is a suggestion.

Anyways, that was my take on the Ukraine-Russia situation. I wonder how the other countries will assist Ukraine, and how Ukraine figures out a way to solve this matter. I also wonder if Ukraine will still be an aspiring member and if it ever will get to be a part of NATO.

Part 139 – The Invisible Hand

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice , ,

Hello! Today’s topic is on the Invisible Hand. I was meant to post this last week but it wasn’t completely finished so I’m posting it this week. (This post will kind of be in a research paper format, but this is my first time writing a research paper, so it won’t be the best paper.) Anyways, here it is! 

The Invisible Hand. 

 Similar to the name, the invisible hand is a metaphor for the unseen forces that move the free market economy or, the government. While it may be seen as interference, it actually is bringing order. The invisible hand is part of laissez-faire, meaning let us do it, approach to the market. Even though markets can succeed by themselves, they need to be nudged to work best. This nudge comes from none other than the Invisible Hand. Here’s an example: Let’s say a business was hiring. People would present themselves and say they would work for $10 an hour. Well, to get the job instead of that guy, another would say they would work for $8 an hour, and so on. Soon, the government steps in and says we shouldn’t be working for less. So, they put in a minimum wage. The minimum wage is the lowest amount a person can work for. It gives a limitation on how low wages can be, so people aren’t working for less, but for more. The Invisible Hand nudged people in the right direction so that they could work their best. Not only that, the Invisible Hand protects us, consumers, through acts and policies. For example, antitrust laws. Antitrust laws are developed by the government to protect consumers from predatory business practices and ensure fair competition. The practices include predatory acts to achieve and maintain a monopoly or price-fixing conspiracies. A common example is United States v. AT&T. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone in 1876, which started the foundation of the company that would soon become AT&T, American Telephone, and Telegraph. As the company began establishing a network of subsidiaries in the United States and Canada, it held a phone service monopoly. Since it was the only phone service, it could raise prices and sales freely. After all, what other company could they turn to if they disagreed with AT&T? In 1982, U.S. regulators broke up the company into 7 individual Bell companies. Now, not one, but multiple companies can compete with each other, bringing orders to the market. More examples of these acts and policies include the Equal Employment Opportunity ( EEO) or the Credit Card Protection (CCP). The EEO protects consumers/people from being discriminated against by race, color, religion, sex ( including pregnancy, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age, disability, or genetic info. This act applies to hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits. So, consumers cannot be discriminated against during any work situation. Let’s use a real-world scenario to see how the Invisible Hand would protect consumers. Let’s say there is a gay couple, and they want to get their marriage certificate. Let’s say there’s only one person who can issue these marriage certificates or is the only one there. What would happen if they decide not to because gay marriage is against their religion? The EEO says that employees cannot be discriminated against by religion during any work situation, so what would happen? They would get fired for not doing their job. They are working for the government to issue these marriage certificates. They aren’t doing it, but are acting as the government. It is their job to do that. They can be fired because they are not doing their job. The Invisible Hand doesn’t just protect consumers. They also protect businesses through similar acts such as the Paycheck Protection Plan ( PPP) or T.A.R.P ( Troubled Asset Relief Program). The PPP is a loan designed to provide a “direct incentive for small businesses to keep their workers on the payroll.” Finally, the Invisible Hand helps make taxes fair and efficient. Consider the term, Equality Among Equals. The most favored tax system is the progressive tax. This system claims that higher salaries enable affluent people to pay higher taxes, and lessens the tax burden of the poor. How does this relate to Equality among Equals? Well, equals of the same salaries will pay equal tax. So, millionaires will pay the same tax as other millionaires and people with slightly less salaries will pay the same tax as people with the same salary range as them. The Invisible Hand truly is what brings the market to order. It is everywhere and helps everyone, both businesses, and consumers in similar yet different ways. I have to say, for my first research paper, it went pretty okay. The first time I tried it I stressed out and spent such a long time on it, but now, I had a slightly easier time. Anyway, see you in the next post. Bye!

Part 133- Impeachment trial

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice , , ,

 So, President Trump’s Second impeachment Trial has just ended, and he was acquitted. Again. If I remember well, I think it was all 48 Democrats, both Independents and 7 Republicans that said Guilty, while the other 43 Republicans that said Not Guilty. There need to be 67 votes for a conviction, and they were 10 short. ( For 2/3 majority.) There are two sides to this. One, President Trump really is guilty. Two, he isn’t. Here’s why. ( Note: In my opinion, he is guilty. But, I wanted to share both sides- possible reasons- and it’s changed my perspective a bit. ) 

Guilty:

We all know how bad the Capitol riots were. People were trashing and destroying everything in the building. It was chaos. President Trump did tell his supporters to go, storm the Capitol, and stop the vote-counting. He did provoke the violence that occurred. He was constantly claiming how the election was a lie and how there was voter fraud many times over the months, and his supporters agreed. This kind of just built up into a balloon and President Trump popped it. It was foreseeable- the riots- and was a possible consequence of the false statements. Even though President Trump had the right to speak his mind, it provoked violence. Plus, he is a public figure, to which many look up to. 

Not Guilty:

Even though President Trump said to storm the Capitol, he had made some comments before the speech calling for peace. Michael van der Veen- one of President Trump’s attorneys- says, “…Trump had a First Amendment right to use what is largely commonplace political rhetoric, calling for his supporters to ‘fight’…” He also repeatedly claimed that President Trump’s language is almost indistinguishable from similar rhetoric used by Democrats and the media. ( From ABC news link) This is similar to saying, ” Oh, you’re killing me.” It’s metaphorical and isn’t taken literally. Senators have also said this saying they want their supporters to “fight” or they would “fight” on the Senate floor. President Trump may have been just metaphorically implying to fight but was taken seriously by his supporters. 

What do you think? I personally am in the middle. I feel that President Trump was at fault for building up the amount of voter fraud claims and then provoking violence by saying to storm the Capitol. But, he could have only been metaphorically saying to fight but got taken seriously. He could have been meaning to say that we should fight for what we believe in and was implying it peacefully. He could have been taken literally and people thought he meant to fight harshly. 

Anyway, I’ve got to go. I’ve just been really busy last, and this week with the DI tournament and getting the Mian and Instant Challenge solutions recorded and uploaded. Being virtual is really hard, and it really changed DI for me. This year, my team got delayed a bit and we were on a major time crunch so things were really nerve-wracking and stressful. We just submitted our Main Challenge video yesterday, and I am really tired of it. I’m hoping to catch up on relaxing and my video hours from this and last week today and tomorrow. ( I tried to make a short yet informing blog today.) Plus, it’s snowing!!!! In Texas!! It’s a flurry Valentine’s Day! I’m not sure why I wrote a paragraph on my own life in an impeachment blog, but, yeah. Anyway, Happy Valentine’s Day everyone, and have a wonderful long weekend!

ABC News: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/president-donald-trump-acquitted/story?id=75853994

CNN News: https://www.cnn.com/2021/02/14/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-republican-vote/index.html

NY Times: https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/02/13/us/impeachment-trial#impeachment-has-provided-the-most-comprehensive-account-to-date-of-what-happened-on-jan-6

The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/feb/13/donald-trump-acquitted-impeachment-trial

Part 131- Executive Orders

Rovija Khapre 0 Comment Law and Justice , , , , ,

  We have already started 2021 off with Capitol riots, our Commander in Chief getting Impeached for the SECOND time, and Inauguration Day. Yes, President Biden is now the 46th president of the United States of America. And as the current president, he has already started signing executive orders. Quite a lot, actually. Oh boy, here we go. 


The most basic question to ask at the moment is, “What is an executive order?” Well, here’s your answer. An executive order is just like what it sounds like. Orders produced by the President, head of the executive branch- that are generally directed to, and govern actions, by Government officials and agencies. Okay, maybe it’s not what it sounds like. To clarify, it’s a rule or order issued by the president to an executive branch of the government and having the force of law. Executive Orders are issued by the White House and are used to direct the Executive Branch of the U.S. Government. It states mandatory requirements for the Executive Branch and has the effect of law. Here’s an example of an executive order. ( Or two, or three)

Some of the most notable executive orders in the past include President Franklin D Roosevelt’s Executive Order 9066 ( February 19, 1942), which authorized the mass internment of Japanese Americans during WWII; President Harry S. Truman’s Executive Order 9981, which abolished racial segregation in the U.S. military; and President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Executive Order 10730, which dispatched federal troops to protect the civil rights of the Little Rock Nine during the integration of Little Rock’s Central High School. 

So far, as of today, President Biden has signed 30 executive orders. So, I’m going to list the top 5 which I think are the most important. This is for two reasons. One, it’s a better idea to point out the most important and key ones rather than all. Two, I don’t have enough energy to write about all 30.

  1. Executive Order on Organizing and Mobilizing the United States Government to Provide a Unified and Effective Response to Combat COVID-19 and to Provide United States Leadership on Global Health and Security

Section 1 ( Purpose):

  • ” The Federal Government must act swiftly and aggressively to combat coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).  To that end, this order creates the position of Coordinator of the COVID-19 Response and Counselor to the President and takes other steps to organize the White House and activities of the Federal Government to combat COVID-19 and prepare for future biological and pandemic threats.” – White House

Section 2: (  Organizing the White House to Combat COVID-19. COVID-19 Response Coordinator)

Reason: One word to sum up 2020 is, Coronavirus. When we look back to 2020, we will forever remember what the pandemic did to our lives. There were huge numbers of deaths, and every day there were more cases reported than the last. Seeing how bad the virus was this time, the one next time will very much be much, much worse. We need to make sure we have some sort of firm plan and strategy for next time so that we don’t go through something worse.

2.  Executive Order on Protecting the Federal Workforce and Requiring Mask-Wearing  

 

Section 1 ( Policy): 

  • “It is the policy of my Administration to halt the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by relying on the best available data and science-based public health measures.  Such measures include wearing masks when around others, physical distancing… Put simply, masks and other public health measures reduce the spread of the disease, particularly when communities make widespread use of such measures, and thus save lives.” – White House

Section 3: ( Encouraging Masking across America)

Reason: Even though a vaccine is out, we must still wear masks to protect ourselves from the pandemic. Even though it shouldn’t be forced, it should be HIGHLY encouraged. Hopefully, if we encourage people to do so, they will agree to wear masks. They should still have an option on whether they want to or not, but encouraging helps as well. Especially now. Now that we are slowly, very slowly, fighting back against the virus, we shouldn’t stop what safety measures we were doing. 

3. Executive Order on the Revision of Civil Immigration Enforcement Policies and Priorities

Section 1 ( Policy): 

  • “Immigrants have helped strengthen America’s families, communities, businesses and workforce, and economy, infusing the United States with creativity, energy, and ingenuity.  The task of enforcing the immigration laws is complex and requires setting priorities to best serve the national interest.  The policy of my Administration is to protect national and border security, address the humanitarian challenges at the southern border, and ensure public health and safety.  We must also adhere to due process of law as we safeguard the dignity and well-being of all families and communities.  My Administration will reset the policies and practices for enforcing civil immigration laws to align enforcement with these values and priorities. ” – White House

Reason: America is like a Melting pot. ( I think of crayons when I hear this.) America is America because immigrants from all around the world come together, sharing just a little bit of their culture, their style, their flavor, and blending it with other cultures. Everything comes together, and you have America. It’s where a small crayon shaving from each country gets added to this melting pot to create something truly amazing.  Without it, it doesn’t feel right. Immigrants shouldn’t be treated harshly when they come. They should feel safe when coming and not threatened or worried that something would happen to them.  

4. Executive Order on Supporting the Reopening and Continuing Operation of Schools and Early Childhood Education Providers

Section 1 ( Policy):

  • “ Every student in America deserves a high-quality education in a safe environment.  This promise, which was already out of reach for too many, has been further threatened by the COVID-19 pandemic.  School and higher education administrators, educators, faculty, child care providers, custodians, and other staff, and families have gone above and beyond to support children’s and students’ learning and meet their needs during this crisis… However, leadership and support from the Federal Government are needed.  Two principles should guide the Federal Government’s response to the COVID-19 crisis with respect to schools, child care providers, Head Start programs, and higher education institutions.  First, the health and safety of children, students, educators, families, and communities is paramount.  Second, every student in the United States should have the opportunity to receive a high-quality education, during and beyond the pandemic.”- White House

Reason:  When the topic of reopening schools first came up, the president decided to hand it over to the state governors and let them decide. The state governors then decide to give it to school districts. They both passed down such an important thing to school districts, and let them decide what they want to do. It may be a pro, but I feel that it’s more like a con. If the federal government had taken this matter into its own hands from the beginning, it wouldn’t have been a problem now. Cases of COVID are popping up in schools, one after the other, and I think it would have been better if the federal government had originally taken this into their own hands instead of handing it down, twice. 

5.  Executive Order on Strengthening Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act

Section 1 ( Policy): 

  • “ In the 10 years since its enactment, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has reduced the number of uninsured Americans by more than 20 million, extended critical consumer protections to more than 100 million people, and strengthened and improved the Nation’s healthcare system.  At the same time, millions of people who are potentially eligible for coverage under the ACA or other laws remain uninsured, and obtaining insurance benefits is more difficult than necessary.  For these reasons, it is the policy of my Administration to protect and strengthen Medicaid and the ACA and to make high-quality healthcare accessible and affordable for every American.” – White House

Section 2 ( Special Enrollment Period): 

  • “The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has triggered historic public health and economic crisis.  In January of 2020, as the COVID-19 pandemic was spreading, the Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency.  In March of 2020, the President declared a national emergency.  Although almost a year has passed, the emergency continues — over 5 million Americans have contracted the disease in January 2021, and thousands are dying every week.  Over 30 million Americans remain uninsured, preventing many from obtaining necessary health services and treatment…”

Reason: The ACA has helped many in the past ( not too long ago) for people who were in need of medical help and were uninsured. It helped reduce the number ( of uninsured Americans) by more than 20 million and was taken out. It’s a good thing that it will be reinstated and strengthened at this time, for COVID patients that are uninsured. Many, many Americans ( 30 mill. +) do not get the medical treatment and necessary health services required for COVID, simply because they are uninsured.  I think it will help to reduce the number of Americans dying from COVID if they get treated even without insurance. Yes, there will be more cases, but at least they will be treated and given the necessary health services to help them. 

I am truly sorry for posting this a week late. It just took a while to make sure I had everything in order and I had the right sources to update me and so on. I had to cut down the number of executive orders mentioned to save time, but I have linked a MarketWatch link with a list of key executive orders and a link from the White House with a list of the presidential actions and more details on it.  ( I have also added the link for each order listed after the first section.) I hope you are well, bye!

Sources:

Britannica- Executive orders

White House- Presidential Actions

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/all-of-president-bidens-key-executive-orders-in-one-chart-2021-01-21