As pandemic related shutdowns around the world have confined many people to their homes, one social media app has exploded in popularity. TikTok, which allows users to sync unique videos under sixty seconds to an ever-growing number of audio tracks, has grown by 800% from January 2018 and boasts 800 million active users globally.^[1] Despite its extreme success, the app has received significant backlash since its debut. Around the world, countries have contemplated or executed bans against the viral product of the Chinese company ByteDance. Many countries cite data privacy as the reasoning for the bans, but other factors have also come into play, such as relations with China and content concerns.

The app faced the possibility of losing a significant portion of its user base in the summer of 2020 when U.S. President Donald Trump threatened to ban the app, citing data privacy concerns as the primary motivation. Though the ban never came to fruition, it fueled the public perception of TikTok as potential spyware. Several U.S.-based organizations, such as Wells Fargo and the Democratic National Committee, cautioned employees against keeping the app on their phones.^[2] These same fears were echoed in Japan and Korea, both of which contemplated a ban in late summer. Korean officials stated that, contingent on the decisions of the U.S. and Japan, a TikTok ban was “likely.”^[3]

There are conflicting opinions on whether or not TikTok is truly a greater security risk than other social media apps. TikTok collects detailed geographic and demographic data, which cybersecurity expert Zak Doffman believes could be dangerous in the hands of an “adversarial foreign government.”^[4] For example, the head of the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, Akira Amari, warned that any partnership with Chinese firms could lead to data leaks.^[5]

The app has handled a series of security issues since its debut, many of which have put the reliability of the app into question. In 2019, TikTok violated the guidelines of the Google Play Store by storing user data even after the app is deleted, making it impossible for users to create a fresh slate.^[6] More recently, Korea fined TikTok for collecting the data of minors under the age of 14. Ashley Nash-Hahn, TikTok spokesperson, insists that the app “[has] not, and [will] not, give [user data] to the Chinese government.” TikTok stores user data on servers in the U.S. and Singapore, and there is no indication that the data is exported to another location.^[7]

There is little evidence to suggest that TikTok is more invasive than other social media apps when it comes to data collection, not that that is an exceptionally high bar. Facebook has amassed many domestic data privacy violations, and even received the largest Federal Trade Commission fine on record, requiring a $5 billion settlement.^[8] The consensus among cybersecurity experts is that such data collection poses little threat to the individual, but when it comes to national security, many nations are strongly opposed to the idea of China possessing such detailed data on their citizens if ByteDance’s data is leaked.^[9]

In late June 2020, the Indian government banned nearly 60 Chinese mobile apps, including TikTok. The move came after a deadly clash between the Chinese and Indian militaries in the remote Galwan Valley at the Indo-Chinese border in the Himalayas. The skirmish left 20 Indian soldiers dead and about a dozen captured, with an unknown number of Chinese casualties.^[10] Though it was difficult to assess the exact trigger of the clash, each side blamed the other for the violence, as this incident became the worst border conflict between India and China in over 40 years.

In response to such heightened military tensions, India decided to retaliate in the telecommunication sector. In a move labeled as ‘techno-nationalism’ by cyber analysts, India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology stated that Chinese mobile apps were “stealing and surreptitiously transmitting user data in an unauthorized manner to servers which have locations outside India.”^[10] The government cited China’s National Intelligence Law as the primary evidence for this claim, which holds Chinese companies legally responsible for cooperation when it comes to Chinese intelligence gathering. India thus views data as a sovereign national asset, and so has national security concerns with the data China can collect through apps such as TikTok. India’s ban on TikTok persists till today, even though before the ban, India constituted nearly 30% of TikTok’s 2 billion downloads.^[10]

Though India’s relations with China have led to the country banning TikTok, countries such as Pakistan have cited concerns with ‘indecent content’ as reasons for banning the app. In early October, the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority stated it was banning TikTok because of complaints “from different segments of the society against immoral/indecent content” on the app.^[11] The move was significant, because unlike India, Pakistan has very strong relations with China and was also the app’s 12th largest market. 

In 2016, Pakistan implemented a controversial cyber security law, the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, which gave the PTA the authority to block content in the “interest of the glory of Islam or the integrity, security or defence of Pakistan.”^[12] Since then, the country has heavily censored Internet access, with TikTok being its latest victim. However, just two weeks after announcing this ban, Pakistan reneged, announcing that “TikTok is being unlocked after assurance from management that they will block all accounts repeatedly involved in spreading obscenity and immorality.”^[13]

Across the world, TikTok has faced similar occasional bans. Last year, Bangladesh banned TikTok as part of a clampdown on pornography. Indonesia also blocked the app in 2018 over concerns about blasphemy.^[14] In Egypt, though TikTok was never banned, two female TikTok users with millions of followers were convicted on charges of violating family values and were sentenced to 2 years in prison in July.^[15]

As countries grapple with the unique implications of a digital age, TikTok appears to be at the center. From privacy to national security to moral probity, TikTok is a highly contested space that remains under intense scrutiny by governments around the world.

Works Cited

^[1] Sherman, Alex. “TikTok Reveals Detailed User Numbers for the First Time.” CNBC, August 23, 2020. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/24/tiktok-reveals-us-global-user-growth-numbers-for-first-time.html.

^[2] Doffman, Zak. “Is TikTok Seriously Dangerous?” Forbes, July 11, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/07/11/tiktok-seriously-dangerous-warning-delete-app-trump-ban/?sh=1370b2c62b0e 

^[3] Yoo-chul, Kim. “Korea Monitoring US, Japan for Possible Ban on TikTok.” The Korea Times, August 9th, 2020. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2020/08/133_294106.html. 

^[4] Doffman, Zak. “Is TikTok Seriously Dangerous?” Forbes, July 11, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/07/11/tiktok-seriously-dangerous-warning-delete-app-trump-ban/?sh=1370b2c62b0e 

^[5] “Japan Shouldn’t Ignore Potential TikTok Data Risks, Top LDP Official Says.” The Japan Times, August 16th, 2020. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/08/16/business/japan-tiktok-akira-amari-china/

^[6] Poulsen, Kevin, and Robert McMillan. “TikTok Tracked User Data Using Tactic Banned by Google.” Wall Street Journal, August 11, 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/tiktok-tracked-user-data-using-tactic-banned-by-google-11597176738

^[7] Fowler, Gregory A. “Is It Time to Delete TikTok?” Washington Post, July 13, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/13/tiktok-privacy/

^[8] Fowler, Gregory A. “Is It Time to Delete TikTok?” Washington Post, July 13, 2020. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/07/13/tiktok-privacy/

^[9] Doffman, Zak. “Is TikTok Seriously Dangerous?” Forbes, July 11, 2020. https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2020/07/11/tiktok-seriously-dangerous-warning-delete-app-trump-ban/?sh=1370b2c62b0e 

^[10] Abi-Habib, Maria. “India Bans Nearly 60 Chinese Apps, Including TikTok and WeChat.” NYTimes, June 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/29/world/asia/tik-tok-banned-india-china.html 

^[11] Wang, Selina. “Pakistan’s TikTok ban is about censorship, not China.” CNN, October 2020. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/13/tech/tiktok-pakistan-ban-intl-hnk/index.html 

^[12] Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, 2016. http://www.na.gov.pk/uploads/documents/1470910659_707.pdf 

^[13] Shah, Saeed. “Pakistan Drops TikTok Ban After App Pledges to Police Content.” WSJ, October 2020. https://www.wsj.com/articles/pakistan-drops-tiktok-ban-after-app-pledges-to-police-content-11603125824 

^[14] Masood, Salman. “Pakistan Rescinds TikTok Ban.” NYTimes, October 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/19/business/pakistan-tiktok-ban.html 

^[15] Walsh, Declan. “Egypt Sentences Women to 2 Years in Prison for TikTok Videos.” NYTimes, July 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/world/middleeast/egypt-women-tiktok-prison.html 

By Minahil Nawaz, TD’21

On January 28, 2020, Pakistani authorities detained two members of the Pashtun Tahaffuz Movement (PTM) in the northwest city of Peshawar. As Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir led hundreds of supporters across the country to protest the arrest of Manzoor Pashteen, the leader of PTM, police disrupted the protest and detained the two. 

Founded in May 2016 by eight students at Gomal University, Dera Ismail Khan, the Pashtun Tahaffuz (Protection) Movement has been campaigning for the rights of the nearly 35 million Pashtuns in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Balochistan for over four years now. Led by Manzoor Pashteen, a student of veterinary sciences, PTM seeks to highlight the struggles of the Pashtuns who fled Waziristan due to fighting between the Pakistani military and militant groups. In the words of Dawar: “The PTM emerged as a reaction to the death and destruction unleashed upon the roughly 50 million Pashtuns in Afghanistan and Pakistan for years.”

Waziristan is one of the poorest and least developed districts in Pakistan, and is also the region where the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) was born under the leadership of Baitullah Mehsud in 2007. From 2007 onwards, armed militias including the TTP, al-Qaeda, the Haqqani Network and others caused thousands of deaths in the region, and fought against local governance as terrorist groups. In response, Pakistan’s military undertook a series of operations against these militant groups, most notably Operation Zarb-e-Azb in 2014, to remove these groups from Waziristan. 

Though the Pakistani military was mostly successful in pushing many militants out of the region, it also implemented widespread enforced disappearances and extrajudicial killings in the region – actions that movements like the PTM have campaigned against. As stated by Dawar: “After the military finally moved into North Waziristan in 2014, about 1 million of North Waziristan’s residents were displaced, and our homes and livelihoods were ruined.”

In 2018, PTM became very prominent as they led protests against the killing of Naqeebullah Mehsud, a garment trader shot dead by police in Karachi, who claimed he was part of an armed militia group. Since the 2018 protests, many more Pashtuns have joined PTM, and Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir were even elected to the lower house of the Pakistani Parliament from North and South Waziristan respectively. 

As PTM came to represent the voice of Pashtuns from the northwest of Pakistan, a common rallying cry at PTM rallies was heard: “Yeh jo dehshat gardi he, isske peeche wardi he!” “This terrorism, the military is responsible for it!” In response, the military began to crack down against the PTM. 

In April 2019, the military alleged that PTM was being funded by foreign intelligence agencies. In May 2019, clashes between the military and PTM supporters in North Waziristan led to the death of three protestors. In September 2019, prominent PTM leader Gulalai Ismail revealed that she had moved to the United States after receiving multiple death threats from the military. In January 2020, the military arrested Manzoor Pashteen himself in a midnight raid in Peshawar, accusing him of sedition and criminal conspiracy. And most recently, Mohsin Dawar and Ali Wazir were detained by the police as well. 

The PTM’s protests has brought it into direct conflict with the Pakistani military, an institution so powerful in Pakistan that it is often considered a pillar of state. For nearly half of its existence, Pakistan has been under military rule. However, despite the threat from the Pakistani military, PTM continues to criticize, protest and fight for the rights of Pashtuns in Pakistan. 

In the words of Dawar: “My generation came of age amid bombs and bullets. We have seen our homes demolished and our elders killed. Our struggle will continue until we have the right to live, and until we win our right to live, threats to our lives are meaningless.”

Sources
“Two Pakistani lawmakers held after protests by rights activists.” Reuters, https://in.reuters.com/article/pakistan-arrest-activist/two-pakistani-lawmakers-held-after-protests-by-rights-activists-idINKBN1ZR1WB 

“Why Pashtuns in Pakistan are rising up.” Mohsin Dawar, The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/04/17/why-pashtuns-pakistan-are-rising-up/ 

“Why is Pakistan’s Pashtun movement under attack?” Al Jazeera, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/pakistan-pashtun-movement-attack-200128085744910.html

South and Central Asia Desk

Written by: Minahil Nawaz, Timothy Dwight College

At 10 AM on 30th October 2019, the Air Quality Index (AQI) in Lahore, Pakistan reached 484. According to Amnesty International, the threshold that determines “hazardous” levels of air quality is 300, when people are asked to “avoid all physical activity outdoors.” Despite this warning, business continued as usual in the city of 11 million people. 

On 7th November 2019 though, when the Air Quality Index increased to 551, the provincial government was forced to announce the closure of all schools in Lahore. A thick blag smog engulfed the region as driving any kind of vehicle became impossible and the city became virtually unbreathable. The situation had escalated to a severe public health crisis. 

For most of the year, levels of air quality in Pakistan’s most populous province of Punjab were rated “near unhealthy” and “very unhealthy,” according to reports by US Consulate air quality monitors and crowdsourced data from the Pakistan Air Quality Initiative (PAQI). But from October onwards, the city of Lahore has been experiencing “smog season”: air quality has reached hazardous levels and has been worsened by poor fuel quality, uncontrolled emissions and agricultural stubble burning as farmers clear their fields. Furthermore, with the results of climate change, warmer temperatures have caused the resulting smog to hover over the region for months. 

In particular, low-income workers such as laborers, construction workers, and marginalized groups are most vulnerable to the health-related impact of air pollution, as the nature of their work leads them to be exposed to unhealthy air quality throughout the day. These are also the Lahoris with little access to appropriate health care, or the ability to afford such health care. 135,000 deaths are attributed to air pollution each year, making it the leading cause of sickness in Pakistan and reducing life expectancy by 60 months. 

In the realm of politics, blame for this air quality continues to be shifted to India. Most recently, according to a tweet by Pakistan’s Minister of State for Climate Change, Zartaj Gul Wazir, crop burning in India was the main source of smog in Lahore. Meanwhile, a BJP politician in India, Vineet Agarwal Sharda, appeared to blame both Pakistan and China for air pollution in India: “There’s a possibility that poisonous air could have been released by a neighboring country.”

As pointed out by Rimmel Mohydin, South Asia Campaigner at Amnesty International, though: “There is something very wrong when the air becomes so toxic that you cannot breathe without hurting yourself. The government can no longer afford to waste time while people are choking to death.”

South and Central Asia Desk

Written by: Minahil Nawaz, Yale College ’21

On 6th October 2019, Mauritius’s Prime Minister, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, dissolved Parliament, and announced that the country would hold general elections on 7 November 2019.

Mauritius, an Indian Ocean island nation, is one of Africa’s most stable nations, as well as a popular tourist destination. With a population of 1.3 million people, it is a steady democracy with economic growth that has led to its rise as a middle income country. 

Since Mauritian independence from the British in 1968, politics have been dominated by a few large Hindu families, as Mauritius has a multi-party system. The Mouvement Militant Mauricien (MMM) is led by Paul Berenger, the Labour Party (PTR) is led by Navin Ramgoolam, and the Parti Mauricien Social Démocrate (PMSD) is led by Xavier-Luc Duval. The current Prime Minister, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, leads the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM). Over the past few decades, political power has shifted between these four large political parties, as parties have had to form strategic alliances during election times and work together to form coalition governments. 

Mauritius holds elections every five years, and the last elections were held in 2014. In 2016 however, Anerood Jugnauth stepped down as Prime Minister at the age of 86. He had been President, Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition since 1976, and so was known as Rambo, a seemingly unbeatable character. Jugnauth is credited with Mauritius’s ‘economic miracle’ of the 1980s, in which Mauritius established itself as a leader in textile production, and a hub for tourism and financial services. 

In 2017, Anerood Jugnauth’s son, Pravind Kumar Jugnauth, took over from his father as Prime Minister and leader of the Mouvement Socialiste Militant (MSM). While constitutionally possible under the Westminster system of government, this move was highly controversial. It was viewed as undemocratic and immoral, particularly among opposition parties.

With the dissolution of Parliament, by law, the country has between 30 and 150 days to organize elections. Jugnauth will now seek another term as leader of the MSM, while the remaining parties shall contest him heavily. 

It remains to be seen how the country will sway in these elections – the first since 1976 without their Rambo.

Written by Minahil Nawaz

In February of 1979, the tide of Middle Eastern history turned forever as a theocracy headed by Ayatollah Khomeini was established in Iran. 40 years later, Iran remains a nation of interest in the international community, calling for “Death to America” and supporting militant proxies across the Middle East. Yet, inside Iran, society has changed in often imperceptible ways, with Iranians carving out spaces for themselves and subtly defying rules and customs imposed by the regime.

On Thursday, February 7th, a panel of five experts on Iran convened as part of the MacMillan Center’s Iranian Studies Program, bringing fresh perspectives on Iran 40 years down the road.

Moderator Abbas Amanat, the Sumner Professor of History at Yale, began the discussion by outlining how domestically, the composition of Iranian society, economy and culture changed in 1979. Today, we can gauge the results of the revolution by analyzing the situation in the US. The revolution triggered Anti-Americanism in Iran, and such sentiments contributed to President Trump’s victory.

Professor Asef Bayat, the Bastian Professor of Global and Transnational Studies at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, continued the conversation by discussing the key slogans of the revolution: independence, freedom and an Islamic Republic. In that regard, the most important achievement of the revolution was that it allowed Iran to gain independence from the US. However, eventually, this idea of independence became the government’s pretext for restraining freedoms. To Iranian citizens, azaadi (freedom) meant the freedom of expression, the freedom to be included in political processes, and to be free from fear. The spring of 1979 was the spring of azaadi, but it ended soon with the hostage crisis and invasion of Iran by Iraq. Following these events, a broader process of individuation in Iranian society began, as people began to prioritize individual liberties over strict adherence to faith and loyalty to the concept of an Islamic Republic.

Following this discussion of the historical details of the Iranian revolution, Professor Mohsen Kadivar of Duke University focused on what went wrong in Iran due to the implementation of a theocracy with a misunderstanding of Islam and law. According to Kadivar, Iranian theocracy so far has been based on the ruler’s command, not the rule of law. As a result, the regime has used the slogan of Islam as the solution to everything. They have denounced the ideals of democracy, human rights, social science and empirical decision making as products of the West, and thus inapplicable to Iran. To Kadivar, Islamic thought in Iran needs deep reform, as Shariah law should be understood in a ritual-based, not law-based framework.

Focusing on the cultural shifts in Iranian society due to the revolution, Nahid Siamdoust, a cultural historian and journalist, spoke about the societal results of Iran’s independence from the West. She pointed out that 98% of the Iranian population voted in favor of establishing an Islamic Republic in a referendum back in March 1979. Since the referendum though, an exodus of nearly 5 to 6 million Iranians has taken place, large segments of the population have been disenfranchised, cinemas have been burnt down, professors have been fired from universities, and women have been marginalized. However, despite 40 years of Islamic governance, Iranians have managed to create new spheres for themselves in Iranian society, outside of the theocracy’s influence. One example is the recent campaign on social media that began with the hashtag #WhereIsYourChild, calling out Iranian leaders for chanting “Death to America” while their children study and work there. Social media in particular has become an alternative public sphere, allowing citizens to engage on a national level, but outside of state control. A new cultural revolution is taking place, as according to Siamdoust, the “politicization of Islam has damaged it as a way forward for Iran.”

These personal perspectives and understandings of Iranian society were then followed by Robin Wright’s commentary on the United State’s relationship with Iran today. According to Wright, for Iran, the US will continue to be a subtext for what plays out in domestic politics. The deepest diplomatic split in the world since World War II, is our policy on Iran. As a result of such tensions, particularly the reversal of the US stance on the Iran Nuclear Deal, Iran’s presence in the Middle Eastern region is much wider and deeper than it was before 2003. For the past four decades, the US and Iran have been completely out of sync, and as Wright points out, Iran has been a nemesis for seven US Presidents, and in turn, the US has been Satan for 7 Iranian Presidents.

40 years down, though Iran has achieved independence from the US and established an Islamic Republic, it has come at the cost of individual freedoms, as well as a dislike of the politicization of Islam as the rule of law. Tensions between Iran and the rest of the world will in part determine how the revolution plays out in the country over the next decade. One thing is for certain though, according to Siamdoust: if asked again in a referendum, no Iranian would vote for an Islamic Republic today. And in that sense, one might say with a hint of sarcasm, that Iran is ahead of the game in the Middle East.

Written by Minahil Nawaz

Over 100 million people headed to the polls in Bangladesh to vote in the country’s 11th general elections on Sunday, December 30th.

The major contenders were the Grand Alliance coalition and the Jatiya Oikya Front (or National Unity Front). The Grand Alliance was led by Sheikh Hasina, head of the Awami League, who has led the country since 2009. She sought her third consecutive term, a record breaking number for a Bangladeshi politician. Her father, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman was the nation’s first President, and is known as the father of independent Bangladesh.

Sheikh Hasina’s main rival was the National Unity Front, led by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. BNP chief and two-time Prime Minister Khaleda Zia was banned from contesting in the 2018 elections due to corruption charges for which she is serving a 10 year prison sentence. In her absence, the National Unity Front was led by Kamal Hossain, a former law minister who himself did not contest the elections. It was thus unclear who would become Prime Minister if the opposition were to win.

Before heading to the polls, Bangladeshis were compelled to ask themselves a few important questions. First, did Bangladeshi citizens want the incumbent to return to power? Apart from the 2014 election that was boycotted by the BNP, Bangladesh has never elected an incumbent as Prime Minister two terms in a row. This has often been because of a desire to change up the political order following the use of brute force to silent political voices and dissent in the country by the incumbent. The Awami League thus faced the threat of anti-incumbency sentiments, particularly due to its recent crackdown of student protests on road deaths, and its politically motivated arrests of opposition party members.

Second, Bangladeshi citizens had to balance the accusations of authoritarianism and suppression of free speech, with the economic success the country has seen under Sheikh Hasina. According to the Dhaka-based Odhikar group, the government has carried out “enforced disappearances” of opposition leaders, students and activists. In September 2018, there was also international outcry following the arrest of prominent photojournalist Shahidul Alam, who was imprisoned for months after accusing the government of using brute force in an interview with al-Jazeera. However, Hasina’s power base has often chosen to focus on her socioeconomic achievements, with Bangladesh currently experiencing a rate of nearly 8% growth, and predictions of Bangladesh’s per capita income crossing that of India’s by 2020.

Third, Bangladeshis must now ask themselves whether the election was free and fair. The lead-up to the election was marked by increasing violence, arrests, and crackdowns on political voices. Campaign clashes also resulted in the deaths of four BNP supporters and two Awami League supporters. The Human Rights Watch declared the election as being conducted in a “politically repressive environment” due to intimidation by the government. Visas for election observer groups such as the Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel) were also delayed. The government targeted the opposition, detaining members and attacking campaigns. In the 2014 elections, when similar intimidation took place, the BNP ended up boycotting the election.

On polling day, nearly 18 people were killed in election-related violence due to clashes between government and opposition party supporters. Nine people were killed in the Chittagong division alone. These clashes took place despite the fact that nearly 600,000 security personnel had been deployed across the country to try to prevent the violence. Salahuddin Ahmed, a BNP candidate from Dhaka, was even stabbed in his own constituency. The elections were rejected by the opposition, with leader Kamal Hossain called them “farcical.”

Though Sheikh Hasina won a landslide victory amid claims of rigging, the elections were crucial for the country and world regardless. Bangladesh has been in the international spotlight for a few years now, with the Rohingya Muslims taking refuge from neighboring Myanmar there, with the Islamic State attack in Dhaka in 2016, the controversial War Crimes Tribunal over the 1971 war, and as a South Asian country experiencing record economic growth. Bangladesh will now see Sheikh Hasina as Prime Minister for her third consecutive term.

Written by Minahil Nawaz

In December 2018, the Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir became the first leader of an Arab League member state to visit Syria in eight years. In addition, just a few days ago, the embassy of the United Arab Emirates reopened in Damascus as well, signaling a desire to rebuild relations with Syria. In light of these diplomatic developments, and according to recent reports from The Guardian, it is expected that the Arab League will move to readmit Syria in 2019.

Though the US is pressuring Riyadh and Cairo to hold off on such a vote, there is reported to be a growing consensus among the 22 states of the League that Syria should be readmitted. Syria has been considered a pariah state internationally for many years now, and if it were to be accepted by the global community again, the process would likely begin from its own geographical region i.e. the Arab world.

When Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir visited Syria, there was heavy media coverage of this meeting, with images of Bashir and Assad shaking hands and walking down a red carpet surfacing all over media outlets. The visit was widely seen as a gesture of friendship not only from Sudan, but also from Saudi Arabia, a country that has strengthened its own ties with Sudan in recent years. According to an official press statement, the two leaders discussed the need to build “new principles for inter-Arab relations based on the respect of the sovereignty of countries and non-interference in internal affairs.” However, to many Sudanese opposition politicians, the move was just an attempt by two dictators to consolidate their hold on power further.

Moreover, the reopening of the embassy of the United Arab Emirates in Damascus can also be seen as a prelude to further Saudi diplomacy. This is the first time a Gulf country has re-established formal relations with Syria since 2012. In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the UAE said that “the move underscores the UAE government’s keenness to restore relations between the two brotherly countries to their normal course.” Restoration of such ties could also potentially entail new funding for reconstruction projects in the nation, considering the US continues to isolate Syria and is even withdrawing troops from Syria’s north-east now. The US expects Saudi Arabia to fund the reconstruction efforts, but according to estimates, nearly $400 billion will be needed for reconstruction of the war-torn country.

Following the reopening of the UAE embassy in Damascus, Bahrain’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that “work is continuing” at its own embassy in Syria as well. In December, the first commercial flight from Syria to Tunisia in seven years took off. Furthermore, Jordan has reopened the Nassib border crossing with Syria to people and goods, after being closed for three years. The Nassib crossing is a route that used to carry billions of dollars in trade for both countries, and the move is expected to boost local economies. Israel has also reopened the Quneitra crossing on its occupied Golan Heights front with Syria, a crossing that had been closed for over five years. Over the past several months, Egyptian state-run media outlets as well as government officials have called for Syria’s reinstatement in the Arab League.

In 2011, Syria was expelled from the League due to its brutal suppression of the peaceful protests against President Bashar al-Assad. At an emergency session in Cairo in November 2011, the League decided that Assad had failed to comply with the stipulations of the peace agreement from earlier that month: he did not withdraw government troops and tanks from the northern regions of Syria, resulting in battles between security forces, armed opposition groups, and further civilian casualties.

The failure of this deal was damaging not only to Syria, but to the Arab League as well, an organization that has often been unable to prevent the violence of the revolutions that have spread across the Middle East. With the Syrian regime committing crimes against humanity, and with no signs of an end to such violence in sight, the Arab League decided to expel Syria from the organization, in the hopes of increasing international pressure on the regime.

However, earlier in April 2018, the Secretary General of the Arab League, Egyptian diplomat Ahmed Aboul Gheit, called the decision to suspend Syria from the League a “hasty” one. In November 2018, the Executive Committee of the Arab Parliament, an Arab League auxiliary, also called for the Arab League to readmit Syria. This may be part of a broader Arab plan to bring Syria back into the folds of Arab diplomacy, remove it from Tehran’s influence and thus isolate Iran in the region.

The Arab League is now set to meet in Tunisia in March 2019, where the Egyptian delegation is expected to call for Syria’s reinstatement.

On Friday, October 12th, the Yale Globalist, an undergraduate magazine of international affairs, brought together a panel of speakers to discuss their experiences with refugee rights and policy in the United States. The event was held in collaboration with the Yale Refugee Project, a student group that provides direct assistance and advocacy for refugees settled in New Haven, as well as Yale UNICEF, an undergraduate organization that works to raise awareness for children’s issues.

The panel consisted of Mariana Olaizola, a third-year Yale Law Student, Dr. Zareena Grewal, an Associate Professor of American Studies at Yale, and Chris George, the Executive Director of the Integrated Refugee & Immigrant Services (IRIS) in New Haven. The panelists spoke about how they have worked with refugees in their respective careers, why refugees are perceived the way they are in the US, and how the US government facilitates this perception of refugees.

While introducing herself, Olaizola spoke about her experience living in Myanmar with a stateless population, the Rohingya Muslims. As a Polish, Venezuelan, and now naturalized American citizen, Olaizola was shocked to see that a government could strip a people of their identity: “It was my first time encountering a population that was denied nationality,” she said. Now, Olaizola works with asylum seekers in places ranging from Somalia to Louisiana.

Likewise, Dr. Grewal’s experience with refugees has also been a first-hand one. In 2017, Professor Grewal took 18 students from her class “Narrating the Lives of Refugees” to an international refugee camp in Greece. To Professor Grewal, it was crucial to impact the lives of not just the student, but also the refugee. She mentioned how the refugees living in the Moria Refugee Camp in Lesbos would say: “We are underground. We are buried alive here.” Despite refugees leaving everything behind in the search for a better future, they were still met with poor treatment in their host country.

In comparison to Olaizola and Dr. Grewal, George’s experience with refugees has been vastly different, as he has worked with the US government in the effort to resettle refugees. According to George, the process begins with 85,000 refugees who are allocated to 1 of 9 national organizations, and then to 1 of roughly 200 smaller organizations. IRIS is one of these smaller organizations, and, as George describes it, it all begins with one email. After establishing contact by email, IRIS staff scramble to find an apartment, ask for donated furniture, cook 2-3 days worth of food, and obtain used winter coats. As George puts it, “I don’t know why it always seems cold when we meet refugees.”

After this, the refugee family must experience a “demanding, bootstrap self-help struggle.” Much is demanded of them: they are asked to get a job, enroll their children in school, learn English, and make ends meet. The refugee resettlement programs are modestly funded. And even though organizations like IRIS do a great job at resettling refugees, Americans have not been engaged with refugee resettlement in a consistent and national manner. As George pointed out, President Trump was able to scapegoat people he knew no one would rise to defend. How many people would come out and say, “My children go to school with a refugee,” or “I helped a refugee get a job?”

The panelists shared more insightful comments through a Question & Answer session, in which Aastha KC, Editor-in-Chief of the Yale Globalist, asked how we can re-conceptualize the narration of the lives of refugees. In response, Professor Grewal emphasized that we must stop thinking of refugees as guests. We must “move from hospitality to human rights” as we are not simply being hospitable to refugees when we help provide them with their basic human rights. George followed up by adding that at the heart of any resettlement program is empathy. We have been pushed into a corner and have been forced to justify accepting refugees by pointing out their economic value. However, we should not have to. It’s our humanitarian imperative to help refugees, and any potential economic value is just the gravy on top.