2020 was a year that reversed the idea of humanity being a dominant power; it was a year where neither the global economy, global conglomerates, nor global leaders could keep their stand. Instead, remarkable levels of innovation, courage, and leadership emerged in unexpected ways to respond to the socio-economic needs in such compelling and pressing times. 

Incidentally, the economy of my country, India, was one of the worst affected during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeing a 23.9% drop in the Gross Domestic Product (MOSPI, 2020). This highlighted India’s weak social and economic structure. The pandemic brought forward the flaws, fragility and over-dependence on unsustainable consumption that have continued ever since it opened its market to the world in the 90s. The frantic efforts of the Indian government and global leadership reproduced the unsustainable social and economic hierarchies that were identical to the one that fed the rise of the pandemic in the first place (Singhal, 2021). However, through sparks ignited by unexpected leadership during the pandemic times, there had been a raging movement to reduce carbon footprint and to revive the economy sustainably. The unexpected leaders are the long-oppressed and silenced women of rural India. Despite worshipping many female goddesses, the predominantly patriarchal system in India discounts women’s value in society. Still, many women have taken it upon themselves to reform the old and orthodox ways of thinking with their innovations. One such woman, with whom I was fortunate to speak, is Savita. 

Savita is a woman in her late twenties and a resident of a village situated on the outskirts of my hometown, Lucknow. I had met Savita at her kiosk in a fair organised as part of the Festival of Light, also called Diwali. Savita is engaged primarily with domestic duties and devotes 14-15 hours a day executing household activities while managing her two children and husband. She does all this with few breaks, leaving her with very little time and energy for self-care. Despite her hardships and limitations, Savita managed to bring together a group of 50 women in her locality to start her very own business. Her business was based on an ancient tradition that has long been extradited from our customs, as it was viewed as backward and unsanitary. It involved making idols and diyas (small light lamps) entirely out of cow dung. Since ancient times, cow dung has been considered sacred by many communities in India. It even possesses many useful properties— it can be medicinal, an excellent fertiliser, and a completely biodegradable material.

Savita’s initiative is engaging her community at a local level and creating a sustainable business model out of what is universally considered waste, thus contributing towards a more resilient economy. Typically during Diwali in my city, we see a flood of cheap imported lights, firecrackers and idols made of harmful plastics. In 2020, however, we saw a significant transition in the way Diwali was celebrated. Firstly, the imported products were almost nowhere to be seen mainly due to the restriction in global trade following COVID protocols. Secondly, these cow dung idols and diyas entirely filled the dearth of imported products and were readily accepted and bought by many. Interestingly, Savita aligned her initial naive business idea with an ongoing government campaign known as ‘Vocal for Local’ that has been rapidly progressing throughout India. Although the recently launched movement was first visualised and put forward by the Prime Minister of India, it has since been spearheaded by women like Savita from villages across the country. She secured a significant amount of support from the government and NGOs, helping her by providing capital and adequate supply chain infrastructure for marketing. By this, she was able to sell the products made by her team in a big city like Lucknow. 

An old quote by Gandhi has been revived; India indeed “lives in her villages”. We see a symbiotic relationship between the ‘Vocal for Local’ campaign, which aimed to find ‘Atmanirbharta’ or self-reliance, and Savita’s leadership. Self-reliance, in terms of the people of India, means people adopting a sustainable lifestyle by consuming and propagating local products, created by young people like Savita taking initiative and showcasing that they are not only leaders of tomorrow but today as well (Singhal, 2020).

Leadership role models like Savita showcase the emergence of true self-reliance and serve as a possibility for us—the youth—to help the world progress towards a green economy, achieve the SDGs, and contribute towards a greener, more inclusive future spearheaded by unexpected leaders.

References:

1. Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementation Government of India. 2020. Estimates of Gross Domestic Product for the second quarter (July-September) 2020- 2021.

1. Singhal, V. 2021. Green Recovery’s Missing Piece: Engagement with Future World Leaders! https://www.thenatureofcities.com/2021/01/31/green-recoverys-missing-piece-engagement-with-future-world-leaders/

1. Singhal, V. 2020. Green recovery for climate change – for and by us, the future world leaders! https://thepopmovement.org/green-recovery-for-climate-change-for-and-by- us-the-future-world-leaders/  

Written by: Evan Collins, Yale College

This piece was published as part of the YMUN Pegasus Series

One of the most fundamental Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) found within the United Nations resolution for the year 2030 can be found in Goal #6: Clean Water and Sanitation.¹Indispensable to all other SDGs, ensuring clean water and sanitation is so foundational that it is often overshadowed by seemingly more complex problems such as global warming and gender equality. A policy debate about climate change or feminism may seem more fruitful in tackling contemporary nuanced problems; and conversing about how to solve a clean water deficit, i.e. a seemingly less provocative, more antiquated problem, assumes a secondary priority. However, as stated clearly at the 2019 United Nations High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development Goals, the global community should place first priority on tackling the water crisis. Clean water is essential for achieving all other SDGs. Not only does Goal #6 underlie almost all other SDGs, ensuring clean water is a very daunting well to fill by itself. As a complex problem with even more complex solutions, the clean water crisis necessitates immediate action with a degree of international fervor appropriate for the preservation of the most basic human need.

By the Numbers: A Snapshot of the Water Crisis

            One in three people live without adequate sanitation. Every day more than 2 billion people are forced to drink contaminated water. Across the globe, the percentage of people utilizing safely managed water services is only 71%. And with no further improvements recorded since 2015, 785 million individuals are still without the most basic drinking services. Some progress has been made in the past two decades, however. Adequate sanitation reportedly increased from 28% to 43% between 2000 and 2015, with most significant improvements seen in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and South-East Asia. Nevertheless, in 2017, 892 million people still practiced open defecation. More than one-third of all primary schools lacked basic drinking water and sanitation services in 2016.²Moreover, unclean water continues to cause unnecessary disease and death. For example, diarrhea is responsible for 4% of all deaths worldwide, with many instances arising as a consequence of contaminated water inducing cholera and dysentery.³

Efforts by the United Nations

            Presenting the “United Nations Water Policy Overview” at the High-Level Political Forum on July 12, 2019, Ingrid Timboe, a water and climate expert for the UN, stressed the central importance of water for the entirety of the sustainable 2030 agenda. “Climate-resilient water management practices are necessary to ensure water security”, she stated as a key message from the presentation.⁴She particularly emphasized the intersection of water and climate change, arguing that resolving one should also resolve the other. Timboe summarized the main suggestions offered by the comprehensive water report recently released by the UN. Some of these solutions included adopting water management strategies to ensure present decisions do not ensnare society in unsustainable development traps, invest in climate-proof water infrastructure such as aquifers and wetlands that provide climate mitigation (e.g. carbon sinks) and offer adaptation benefits (e.g. buffers from severe weather events, drought protection), and develop regional and basin-wide climate adaptation strategies to promote integration of water resources. As part of the efforts by the UN to expand public knowledge about this issue, the new UN-Water SDG 6 Data Portal will launch to the public in August 2019 to provide users with regional and national data on water quality and access.⁴

A Source for Cooperation not Competition

For millennia, water has served as a source of competition between civilizations, with shortages spurring massive conflicts and inequities. Now, in 2019, the global community must come together, recognizing that water needs to be a source of transregional cooperation. For all the reasons heretofore described, countries with greater financial liberties should allocate more funding towards expanding water resources in developing countries. Not only would such foreign aid improve domestic health in these countries, it would also catalyze a degree of economic prosperity to benefit all nations. Furthermore, as Monika Weber-Fahr, CEO of the Global Water Partnership, stated, “the poor pay more for clean water than the rich, so we might as well make everyone pay the same.”⁴This recognition of the responsibility of more developed states to support improvements in the water infrastructure of developing states is quite essential for all ambitious goals set for the international community. 

The UN itself publishes that, even with current progress, attaining universal access to basic sanitation services would require doubling the present rate of progress. Much like the other SDGs, the effort to ensure clean water highlights the general need for enhanced globalism, i.e., an increasing recognition that a peaceful international union is necessary for the resolution of most objectives spelled out in the Sustainable Development Goals. Although national pride and nuanced cultural identities should absolutely be cherished, it is of the utmost importance that sociocultural traditions and isolationist policies do not serve as barriers to international peace and cooperation afforded to all peoples. The UN Sustainable Development Goals are meant to transcend sociocultural biases, not to supersede them, through working in unison with regional cultures, shaping a world still defined by diversity but yet not marred by inequities and pollution, i.e. unfortunate products of society.

With such a resolute understanding of globalism held and accompanying international projects executed immediately, water could finally become a source of cooperation. But until that point in time, the international community must contend with this water crisis. 

Works Cited

1. “Sustainable Development Goal 6: Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all.” United Nations Sustainable Development Goals Knowledge Platform, United Nations, 2019. https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/sdg6
2. Secretary General of the United Nations. Special edition: progress towards the Sustainable Developmental Goals. New York City: United Nations Economic and Social Council, 26 July 2018 – 24 July 2019; 2019 session.
3. “Water Sanitation Hygiene: Water-related Diseases.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 2019. https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases-risks/diseases/diarrhoea/en/
4. Timboe, Ingrid. “United Nations Water Policy Overview.” United Nations High-Level Political Forum, 12 July 2019, United Nations Headquarters, New York, NY. Conference Presentation and Corresponding Audience Q&A.

Written by: Ryan Fuentes, Pauli Murray College ’23

This piece was published as part of our YMUN Pegasus series.

“Why don’t young people trust their government?”

The question, asked during a UN debate on democracy, felt inevitable. Young people are the heart of the future of democracy; they will decide what it means to our generation. Besides, it is the young people growing up in today’s world that most often find themselves at odds with their government’s choices.

The moderator had set the tone by first considering democracy “an ongoing dialogue between political and civil society.” The idea was not to measure democracy itself in traditional ways of votes or institutions. In the U.S., perhaps we too often forget that our democratic system does not define democracy itself. Rather, as different nations struggle with their own applications of democracy, so the UN debate between nationalities was not a single answer, but a conversation.

But any question about young people and trust cannot be answered by theory or speculation, but hard experience only. After all, when humans mistrust, it is most often because of a lack of understanding between two sides.

Looking around the room, I saw not many but a few young people, most notably a group of Swedish Scouts. The question was not for them. The moderator had directed it to an older man sitting at a panel up front. His name was Jay Naidu, and several decades ago, he left university to be a community organizer in South Africa’s anti-Apartheid movement. Back then, with many  expecting racial civil war, the largely peaceful end of Apartheid in 1994 gave people a lot to celebrate. “We were the political miracle of the world,” said Mr. Naidu. 

But just last year, as the moderator had also pointed out, fewer than 50% of South Africans voted in their elections. 

As Mr. Naidu saw the issue, people do not feel like their government cares about them. But voting is only one specific problem. In his view, democracy at its core is social justice. Nelson Mandela and other leaders may be gone now, but Mr. Naidu never expected them to deliver all the solutions. Instead, they put in place “the containers for us and future generations to do the work.”

Perhaps Mr. Naidu could not speak for today’s generation, but his own experience served as an important reminder: even in a room full of tenured adults, each one was at one point a young person who faced their own, though arguably the similar, kinds of challenges that we face today.

With respect to democracy, Mr. Naidu warned against our present use of older models. He feels that the post-war mindset after World War II still governs much of today’s thinking: “But 70 years later, we need to open the dialogue. We cannot just rely on experience of the past.”

He proposed greater intergenerational conversation. And although he did not say how, it seemed symbolic that many of the following questions from the floor were asked by the Swedish Scouts. One asked: “What can young people do to protect democracy?”

Mr. Naidu responded, this time with an old adage: “Who does this world belong to? We don’t inherit it from our ancestors. We borrow it from our children.” 

He argued that young people need to speak up, challenge their governments, and make change happen. He went on: “Democracy is not just about governments, it’s about civil society, too.” 

Mr. Naidu finally noted the significance of understanding the human relationship between people, regardless of things like race, language, culture, and sexual orientation. He pointed to the notion that together, we have all the wisdom we need to make the world a better place. In accordance, he finished by telling young people to believe in themselves.

His point is a strong one. In measuring particular aspects of democracy, like voting, we can easily bring up numbers; while just under half of South Africans voted last year, just over half of age-eligible Americans voted in 2016. But accounting for these numbers becomes much more personal and much harder to do. Mr. Naidu spoke from personal experience, not just in terms of specific actions but the kinds of choices that young people must make. He provided a powerful message, one that itself seemed to make a connection between his generation and mine.

For the future of democracy, Mr. Naidu placed his faith in young people. For our part, it seems young people must trust and believe in ourselves before we can put our faith into democratic government.

Written by: Henry Suckow Ziemer, Silliman College ’21

This piece was published as part of our YMUN Pegasus series.

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” 

This was the sentiment that struck me as I listened to the opening remarks during a special event at the Friday session of the UN High Level Political Forum (HLPF). The focus of the workshop-syle meeting was Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions. Relative to many of the other goals, the presenters said, SDG 16 had received significantly less attention and funding. Yet despite this apparent lack of interest, achieving peace and justice and crafting strong institutions is essential to the achievement of practically every other development goal. State fragility in particular is a major impediment to obtaining any form of meaningful progress with respect to the SDGs. A combination of factors, from exploitative regimes, inequalities, and armed conflict, contribute to state fragility. According to the Fragile States Index, the majority of the worlds’ countries exhibit symptoms of state fragility to a worrying extent. 

When it comes to peace and stability, the security community may represent an unlikely ally. Too often it seems that a mutually reinforcing wall exists between the theorists and practitioners of international security, and those looking to advance the cause of sustainable development. The former see international institutions as cumbersome and largely ineffective, lacking concrete mechanisms for following through with their grand pronouncements. The latter can often see national militaries as part of the problem, not the solution. Both criticisms are not unfounded, and strike at the heart of very real issues with both the international development and security architectures. However, the isolation between professionals in both disciplines has led to what speakers at the HLPF termed “siloed” discourse, each expert remaining confined to their specific area of focus and not venturing beyond. Siloes are detrimental to progress on the SDGs, which are by their nature cross-cutting and interdisciplinary. Yet there is a burgeoning consensus that the two disciplines enjoy a symbiotic, rather than adversarial relationship. The 2011 World Development Report centered around issues of conflict and security. This report noted that, “no low-income fragile or conflict-affected country has yet to achieve a single United Nations Millennium Development Goal”. Furthermore, Kathrine Sikkink in her book Evidence for Hope: Making Human Rights Work in the 21st Century notes that one of the most significant methods for improving human rights compliance is reducing the incidence of armed conflict.

While Sikkink emphasizes the need to restrain foreign interventionist instincts as one method for decreasing violence, it will take a more comprehensive strategy to meaningfully resolve current wars, and prevent the outbreak of new ones. Measures such as reevaluating UN Peacekeeping Operations, increasing funding for transitional justice initiatives in post-conflict states, and supporting professional, accountable security forces in fragile states all represent useful tools to this end. A fundamental first step however, is elevating SDG 16 to begin with. This is an area which the United Nations is uniquely suited. As a high-profile international institution, it can help bridge the gap between security, human rights, and development silos and encourage sharing of best practices and crafting new strategies to safeguard peace. 

This task is daunting, the realm of armed conflict remains one of the most pernicious issues in international politics today. While some promise has come from recent studies which suggest that interstate wars are on the decline, this has been counterbalanced with an uptick in civil wars and insurgencies. While the solution to the ongoing challenge of fragile, failed and fragmented states is not apparent, what is clear is that finding one will require a new way of thinking which can incorporate perspectives from a number of theoretical and practical disciplines. The United Nations has the ability to jump–start such a conversation and raise SDG 16 to the position it deserves, it has a responsibility to do so. 

Written by: Ali Vandebunt (Saybrook College ’21)

This piece was published as part of the YMUN Pegasus Series

On Friday, July 12th, I sat in an air-conditioned, modern conference room in Manhattan, listening to U.N. ambassadors and prominent leaders of nonprofits and NGOs speak about the need to mitigate the global water crisis. On Friday, July 19th, I drove through an unincorporated slum of Nairobi, Kenya called Kibera, watching as residents carried jerry cans of water filled from an unimproved source. Within a week, I was exposed to two of the most divergent places: a well-organized conference with some of the most powerful people in the world and a disorganized slum with some of the most powerless people in the world. Through both experiences, I learned a great deal about the acuteness of the global water crisis, the need for climate-resilient, scalable solutions to this crisis, and projects that groups have implemented to provide clean water to communities around the world. But perhaps the most striking lesson I learned is the difference between the U.N.’s, and generally an international NGO or non-profit’s, reputation amongst communities in developed versus developing countries.

This summer, I worked for GivePower, a non-profit that provides clean water and clean energy solutions in communities around the world that need it most. I really admire the organization’s structure: it invests in the land and equipment necessary to put either solar panels or solar-powered water desalination machines in villages in developing countries, and then it finds local companies to operate the projects, with an emphasis on empowering women to act as leaders of these micro-businesses. As an intern, my tasks included looking for potential sites for new GivePower solar and water projects and surveying the population of another impoverished area in Kenya, called Likoni, to determine the impact of a water desalination machine in that area. Choosing the right location is vital to the success of a GivePower project: if the region is not sufficiently dense, or if the local community does not seem receptive to a water desalination machine, then GivePower’s projects will not reach their full potential. So, for two weeks, I traveled around Kenya and Tanzania, evaluating potential sites for projects, speaking with local citizens who work in these sites, and facilitating networks for GivePower’s future use.  I thought that a visit to the U.N.’s High Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development would perfectly complement my upcoming visit to East Africa – the conference focused on clean water during the day I would attend – so I stopped in New York on the way to attend the Forum. During a panel called “Water in the 2030 Agenda”, I definitely acquired a better understanding of the water crisis. I learned that almost 90% of natural disasters around the world are water-related, 500 million children worldwide live in high flood zones, and oftentimes, poorer communities pay more than rich communities to obtain clean water. I also attained a deeper understanding of the reciprocal relationship between climate and water stress, as officials from UNICEF, UNESCO, and the U.N. ambassadors of Kiribati and the Netherlands spoke about their newest water management practices. As I absorbed the information from this panel, I took copious notes for my bosses. Overall, I had an amazing experience at the U.N., and I left New York with a very favorable opinion about the organization and its projects.

 My perception of the U.N. changed hours after I arrived in Nairobi. As I ate dinner with my bosses, Barrett, Kelvin, and Joseph, and fellow intern, Alex, I excitedly described my experience at the HLPF, expecting my bosses to have a positive reaction. Rather than take interest, however, they all expressed disapproval. They explained that many Kenyans view the U.N. in a negative light. Its complex is much nicer than most neighborhoods in Nairobi, and many Kenyans believe that the U.N. spends its money on unnecessary amenities for itself (such as fancy hotels for meetings and travel, refurbishment of its facilities, and nice cars) and spends very little on project implementation. Barrett told me that only 7% of U.N. funding goes towards actual projects, and Kelvin, who actually works part-time for the U.N., described the differences between the U.N.’s travel accommodations in comparison to the local living conditions in the communities they serve. All of them explained that the average income in Kenya is generally lower than in the U.S.; even if U.N. workers are paid around the same amount in both countries, their dollar purchases much more in Kenya, thus local U.N. employees can have more lavish lives. I was shocked to hear these negative opinions after my positive experience in New York.

My experience in the field further confirmed this finding: international development organizations may be seen as helpful yet are often not well-liked. When arriving at the Human Needs Project in Kibera, a potential GivePower site, our party received many glares from Kibera locals. In the third–largest slum in the world, one where about 70% of people live on less than $1 a day, we arrived in a nice car; there were few other cars in sight. Our clothes were clean, and we seemed generally privileged. But my most remarkable experience was in Likoni, Kenya, when Alex and I began the process of surveying. We had been perfecting a survey for two months. We had meticulously worded each question, hired Swahili translators to travel with us, and mapped out exactly where we wanted to survey. However, minutes after we began surveying, my bosses received complaints about my group’s activities. Locals were confused as to why foreign university students were wandering around Likoni questioning random people about their relative water deprivation. We tried to explain that we were part of a non-profit and that we were determining the feasibility of a water desalination machine in the area, but the explanation did not suffice: we ultimately had to send our Kenyan translators into the field without us in order to get any survey data. We attempted to exclude any sensitive questions while creating the survey, but in retrospect, it was definitely not wise for an obviously foreign group to go into the field and ask residents potentially sensitive questions about their water usage. I was upset that our methodically-planned survey strategy changed so suddenly, but I understood.

International development organizations, and specifically the U.N., produce incredible projects that positively transform the lives of the communities they help. This paper is not arguing that international development groups should halt their activities, nor that any international organization’s decision regarding local solutions to global problems is wrong. But, I must argue that some aid and international development organizations – perhaps GivePower, perhaps the U.N., perhaps others – need to further understand how their projects and general assistance are received by the communities they serve. Their decisions are often made in skyscrapers in developed nations but affect people living in slums in developing nations. In order for international development organizations to design more effective projects for their constituents, they may need a greater understanding of local cultural norms and of local communities’ specific perceptions of foreign organizations. International development is a very well-intentioned field, yet in order for projects to generate maximum impact, it is of vital importance for organizations to understand, empathize, and ultimately connect with the groups they serve.

This year Yale Model United Nations introduced an essay contest as one of its new educational initiatives. For this contest, delegates were asked to submit a brief piece examining an aspect of globalization and how it has transformed the modern world. From an incredible selective pool the top three essays have been selected for publication online on YRIS. The following is the Third Place essay by Margaret Victory.

Written by Margaret Victory

My daily perusal through Instagram a few nights ago was interrupted by the message “#stoppoaching,” followed by the horrific image of a blindfolded rhinoceros about to be stripped of its horn. Naturally, most teenagers, cocooned by the luxuries of a first-world country, protected from the dark and distant worlds of conflict and crisis, will experience a fervent emotional response to such a picture of the rhinoceros. I started to witness dozens of teens suddenly proclaim their desire to “#stoppoaching,” but I wondered if any of my peers who had developed this newfound ethical morality had known about the multiple previous efforts to control poaching. Due to porous international trade barriers and the seemingly contradictory nature of globalization, the poaching of endangered species has become a global topic for discussion; the question is, how can the international community minimize poaching while also accounting for the positive and negative effects of such actions?

For the purposes of a more specific essay, I will concentrate on the poaching of black and white rhinos in southern African nations, a region with a long history of attempting to create manageable poaching levels thanks to government participation and aid from private organizations. It is important to first consider why people have continuously turned to poaching, and the answer is simple: money. In a global context, the horn of a rhino is valuable especially in Asian nations due to century-old traditions. Traditional Chinese medicine, for example, calls for ground rhino horn to treat multiple ailments including headaches and gout (1). The use of the rhino horn has persisted despite the taboo of poaching due to the fact that the horn is seen as a pharmaceutical necessity. Not only this, but new uses for the horn are developing in nations like Vietnam, whose wealthy citizens buy the horn for its emotional benefits, “as it reaffirms their social status among their peers” (2). Because of this, the demand for the scarce, valuable horn has been consistent and horns can run up to $60,000 (4). Thus, it is obvious why some impoverished citizens in southern African countries are eager to engage in rhino poaching.

The international community first responded to initial increases of poaching levels in the 1970s when CITES, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, was implemented. Within the first Appendix, a ban was placed on all trade involving rhino horn (8). It was hoped that such ban would effectively tackle the poaching crisis however, the convention failed to recognize that where consumer demand exists, supply will be available even in the face of a trade ban. The immediate result of the ban was a drastic increase in the price of rhino horn on the market, which consequently drove up the value in the eyes of consumers. This rise in the price level of rhino horn would provide further incentive for poachers to continue killing the rhinos. The negative effects of the initial ban caused the creators of CITES to encourage more countries to establish a ban on rhino horn trade and “the US government threatened four remaining key consumer countries with trade sanctions unless they passed and enforced strict domestic laws against the use and sale of rhino horn” (6). The effect of this was initially positive, due to the fact that the number of black rhinos began to increase. However, the demand of consumers was still not addressed which is why East Asian interest in purchasing the horn picked up in the early 21st century.

The rise in rhino poaching was met with reactions from private, NGOs, since the legislation of CITES was evidently not enough to control the issue. From the perspective of multiple non-governmental organizations, the problem that needed to be tackled was the maintenance of consumer demand. By working to reduce international consumption of endangered species products, such as rhino horn, as well as enhancing conservation support, these NGOs address the problems that international diplomacy failed to do. For example, WildAid’s slogan is “when the buying stops, the killing can too” (7).

Proponents of demand reduction are met with large criticism, however, since private rhino owners in African nations believe that legal trade in rhino horns may be the most successful method in controlling the killing of rhinos. The contradictory nature of globalization is extremely evident in this method: how could legalizing rhino trade ever control the problem? The answer is that the market price for trade in these products would fall as a result of legalizing in trade; if the product is easier to obtain, then the consumer will pay less. This in turn, minimizes the incentive of poachers since they will make less money on rhino horn than they had before. For example, China has recently decided to loosen its 25- year ban on rhino horn trade, an act that government officials have deemed necessary in order to “manage legal demand” (5). Time will tell what effects this action will have on the market and consumption of rhino horn, and this may ultimately determine further action that may go as far as to legalize the illicit trade all together.

The globalized industry of the lucrative rhino horn trade has clearly inspired international committees, NGOs, and even teens (like my peers) to become aware of the poaching issue and take some sort of action. Over the decades, the industry has evolved into a global market, but also a global problem which has produced several methods of resolution that are still works in progress. Before appropriate maintenance of poaching levels can be attained, people must work to recognize the positive and negative effects that any solution may have since globalization of an industry ties business to multiple aspects of society.

Bibliography

(1) http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/rhinoceros-rhino-horn-use-fact-vs-fiction/1178/

(2) https://www.savetherhino.org/rhino-info/threats/poaching-rhino-horn/

(3) https://www.savetherhino.org/thorny-issues/tackling-the-demand-for-rhino-horn/

(4) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/08/online-rhino-horn-auction-set-open-south-afric a-170821043921244.html

(5) https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/nov/03/experts-fear-impact-of-china-lift ing-trade-ban-on-tiger-and-rhino-parts

(6) https://www.thesolutionsjournal.com/article/rhino-poaching-what-is-the-solution/

(7) https://wildaid.org/about/

(8) https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2015/E-Appendices-2015-02-05.pdf

This year Yale Model United Nations introduced an essay contest as one of its new educational initiatives. For this contest, delegates were asked to submit a brief piece examining an aspect of globalization and how it has transformed the modern world. From an incredible selective pool the top three essays have been selected for publication online on YRIS. The following is the First Place essay by Dylan Kim.

Written by Dylan Kim

In the past years, an international slide into nationalistic policies has alarmed many spectators. In the United Kingdom, concerns over the national identity catalyzed a referendum that called for the state’s exit from the European Union. In the United States, the 2016 general election brought a campaign’s worth of nationalist rhetoric to fruition. In Brazil, the most recent presidential election empowered a known nationalist/­populist. Around the globe, nationalist policies are taking hold. Even as these nationalist forces seem to be reaching unprecedented levels, the rise and fall of these movements are not out of the ordinary. Time and time again, history has shown that while nationalism is a force to be reckoned with, it functions solely when globalization reaches uncontrollable speeds; nationalist movements are a fundamental part of an increasingly globalized world.

The rise of globalization has simultaneously brought the world closer together than ever and created deep fissures between nations. If globalization is defined as the integration of economic, political, and social systems, then the world is currently in a state of ultra­globalization as political, economic, and social institutions approach homogeneity throughout the world. This homogeneity manifests itself in a multitude of ways that affect daily life, whether it be liberal ­democratic political systems, Apple iPhones, or McDonald’s; it is impossible to escape the mass­produced institutions. Conversely, if nationalism is defined as the effort exerted by a nation to preserve its culture, political standing, and dignity as an independent people, then it should stand that globalization and nationalism are direct contradictions to each other;¹ where globalism breaks down barriers between peoples, nationalism builds and rebuilds those barriers. Political theorist Benjamin Barber calls this clash between seemingly opposed forces “Jihad vs McWorld.” Barber describes two different movements: in the “Lebanonization” of cultures, each nation of people is forced to fight for its values; in a “McWorld” of cultural unity, the globalization of technology and culture has mitigated cultural differences.^2,3 There is no future wherein one of these two movements prevails over the other, as the two opposing forces are the children of globalization and cannot exist one without the other. To draw a parallel to physics, Newton’s third law states that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This logic applies not only to physics but also to geopolitics: globalization cannot occur without nationalist resistance.

Throughout much of modern history, there exists a multitude of case studies in which increased levels of globalization have prompted nationalist reactions. Three particular instances stand out which resulted from the globalization of political systems, economic systems, and social perceptions. The German Revolution of 1848 resulted from the proliferation of liberal and democratic ideals throughout Europe; after seeing the French Revolution of 1848, German nationalists staged a revolution in order to create a unified German national identity. More than ⁴ a century later, the dissolution of the USSR left many states struggling to enter into the global market. Georgia, in particular, developed a strong nationalist reaction to this issue. Georgia’s transition to a free market economy and political integration left the nation divided; it still hasn’t completed its state-­building project, and Georgia faces the threat of further divisions from competing national identities. Most recently, Britain’s exit from the European Union⁵ demonstrated a nationalist response to a combination of political, economic, and social factors. As both a supranational and intergovernmental organization, the European Union is the very incarnation of globalization. However, as the EU increased in size and strength, the United Kingdom decided it no longer wanted to sacrifice its sovereignty. Much of the nationalist fervor that pushed Britain over the edge originated in the population’s concern over immigration. In fact, the migration of peoples into the UK weighed into the decision making process of voters even more than the economic factors. The British worried that the influx of non­-British⁶ immigrants and cultural values would erode at their national identity; this fear even pushed some voters to vote against their own interests in the referendum. In their decision to leave the EU, the⁷ British people demonstrated the theory that an increase of globalist forces will result in a nationalist reaction.

The current state of geopolitics appears to be moving towards nationalist­/populist tendencies at an increasing rate. Gráinne de Búrca describes Britain’s involvement in this movement as resembling “a boat on the global tide of populist anti­-internationalism.” If this ⁸ much is true, where did this tide originate? At what point does the tide cease rising and begin to recede? If history is doomed to repeat itself, then these movements will never truly die out.

Nationalist sentiments are but a small obstacle in the path of globalization, which will continue to adapt and advance to further integrate the world. That said, as globalization augments its reach, so will nationalism. There will never be a world in which globalization exists without nationalism–– and perhaps this is for the better. Statistics often show globalization benefiting developed countries disproportionately more than less developed countries through exploitative economic and political relationships. One needs to look no further than the Chinese involvement in Africa in order to see this exploitation for natural resources at work; in the case of Zambia, Chinese corporations exploit copper mine workers in order to gain the natural resources. In such a case, globalization has worked to the detriment of the Zambian people. Nationalism, although often violent and containing harsh rhetoric, warrants a critical analysis of its causes in order to better understand the many forces—social, political, and economic—that cause such an uprising.⁹

Bibliography

Barber, Benjamin R. “Jihad vs. McWorld.” The Atlantic , March 1992. Accessed November 14, 2018. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad­vs­mcworld/303882/.

BBC (London). “Growth of nationalism in Germany, 1815­1850.” Bitesize. Accessed November 15, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zqyrcdm/revision/6.

de Búrca, Gráinne. “4: How British was the Brexit vote?” In Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe , 46­52. Edited by Benjamin Martill and Uta Staiger. N.p.: UCL Press, 2018. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20krxf8.10.

Greenfeld, Liah. “The Globalization of Nationalism and the Future of the Nation­State.” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 24, no. 1 (March/June 2011): 5­9. https://www.jstor.org/stable/41478271.

Sabanadze, Natalie. Globalization and Nationalism: The Cases of Georgia and the Basque Country . Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010. Accessed November 15, 2018. http://books.openedition.org/ceup/570.

Wells, Matt. “You‘ll Be Fired if You Refuse”: Labor Abuses in Zambia‘s Chinese State­owned Copper Mines . Human Rights Watch, 2011. Accessed November 30, 2018. https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/11/04/youll­be­fired­if­you­refuse/labor­abuses­zambias­chine se­state­owned­copper­mines.

Endnotes

1 Liah Greenfeld, “The Globalization of Nationalism and the Future of the Nation­State,” International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society 24, no. 1 (March/June 2011), https://www.jstor.org/stable/41478271.

2 Benjamin R. Barber, “Jihad vs. McWorld,” The Atlantic , March 1992, accessed November 14, 2018, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1992/03/jihad­vs­mcworld/303882/.

3 Barber, “Jihad vs. McWorld.”

4 “Growth of nationalism in Germany, 1815­1850,” BBC (London), Bitesize, accessed November 15, 2018, https://www.bbc.com/bitesize/guides/zqyrcdm/revision/6.

5 Natalie Sabanadze, Globalization and Nationalism: The Cases of Georgia and the Basque Country (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2010), accessed November 15, 2018, http://books.openedition.org/ceup/570.

6 Gráinne de Búrca, “4: How British was the Brexit vote?,” in Brexit and Beyond: Rethinking the Futures of Europe , ed. Benjamin Martill and Uta Staiger (n.p.: UCL Press, 2018), 50­51, https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt20krxf8.10.

7 de Búrca, “4: How British,” 51.

8 Ibid, 51.

9 Matt Wells, “You’ll Be Fired if You Refuse”: Labor Abuses in Zambia’s Chinese State­owned Copper Mines. (Human Rights Watch, 2011), accessed November 30, 2018, https://www.hrw.org/report/2011/11/04/youll­be­fired­if­you­refuse/labor­abuses­zambias­chinese­state­owned­cop per­mines. 1

This year Yale Model United Nations introduced an essay contest as one of its new educational initiatives. For this contest, delegates were asked to submit a brief piece examining an aspect of globalization and how it has transformed the modern world. From an incredible selective pool the top three essays have been selected for publication online on YRIS. The following is the Second Place essay by Daniel Alvarez Cavagliano.

Written by Daniel Eduardo Alvarez Cavagliano

Globalization is one of the most influential phenomena of contemporaneity. In this sense, Zygmunt Bauman, the Polish-born sociologist who explored the fluidity of identity in the modern world, globalization, consumerism, and the Holocaust, used to state that globalization strongly attacked cultural traditions (Junge, M., & Kron, T., 2014). Many of these traditions have seen their values and distinctive characteristics diluted, since the new social paradigms dissolve those cultural pillars that for many generations seemed immovable (Bauman, 2003). Furthermore, something that is commonly excluded when talking about the phenomenon of globalization is the fact that one of its secondary effects is the imposition of a culture that follows a kind of pre-established pattern by international standards. This has generated a progressive dissolution of identity, degradation of language, and a detachment from traditions and customs (Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas, 2017).

Taking into consideration that physical and political borders no longer represent an impediment to the dissemination of information, culture, and commerce, the progressive establishment of customs and traditions molded by the interconnected international society inevitably adheres to local customs. These new cultures are assumed or assimilated until they become part of local societies. This process is giving rise to a complex form of syncretism, unleashing different processes of acculturation. Above all, culture is understood not only as the features which characterize human groups, but also their lifestyles and coexistence (Spencer-Oatey, H., 2012). In keeping with this, another line of thinkers, such as Ulrich Beck, refer to the term cultural globalization,and with it they seek to highlight the contemporary phenomena in which globalized cultural elements are mixed with local ones to create new manifestations (Robertson, 2003).

To understand this almost imperceptible transformation, especially when taken from an individual point of view, it is necessary to analyze the space-time relationship that is shaped by the consistent technological evolution characteristic of the late 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. It is commonly argued in the context of globalization and in the knowledge society that the adoption of technology and the use of social networks in non-Western cultures contribute to the loss of values and cultural practices. It is difficult to expect all those involved in the effects of globalization to enter the process of acculturation without falling into deculturation (Ribeiro, 1968).

Through media, which is influenced by international and multinational forces, so-called idols and public figures emerge in such unpredictable bursts that in many cases surpass those figures of local cultures. Over time, cultures tend to evolve, but they tend to keep their core intact. However, in recent decades and as a result of the inlay of media like television, radio and, more recently, the Internet, local cultures are gradually merging with internationalized standards, giving rise to the processes of deculturalization and synchronization of cultures.

Bauman points out that information floats free of its carriers; the translation and positioning of bodies in physical space are less necessary than ever for the reordering of information and relationships (Bauman, 1998). This evolution of communications technology has ended a series of barriers that historically represented an obstacle for international society but served as guardians for the intangible cultural patrimonies constituted by those invisible parts that reside in the very spirit of the cultures; thus, adapting local cultures to international standards until they are molded in a monotonous and homogenous way.

A clear example would be the cinema where we can see how American films have a greater global boom than locally. According to the Motion Picture Association of America: 69% of the income produced by American films comes from non-national markets (Arell-Báez, 2013). In the book “Making Cinelandia” (Serna, 2014) by Laura Isabel Serna, it is evident how American cinema heavily influenced Mexican cinematographic culture, indicating a rejection of the European form. The book gives us to understand how Mexican society and culture would have been different from what they are today, had they not been influenced by the United States’ film industry, which inculcated themes and purposes different from those of Europe, in its essence in terms of crime, a popular subject in American films.

It is here that the apogee of the modern syncretism catalyzed by globalization begins and that intrinsically influences the current international society. Cultural syncretism is known as the process of interaction between cultures through which they assimilate the most significant features of each other. These cultures mingle and fuse, giving rise to new cultural manifestations (Espinosa, 2012). This was what happened more than five hundred years ago with the collision between cultures in the colonial era and what is currently happening in most countries where their cultural consumption is cinema, television, literature, music and even fashion.

Essentially, we approach a world, where individuals and collectivities can no longer be defined as isolated entities with autochthonous manifestations eminently detached from global manifestations. The effects of this fact, whether positive or negative, are yet to be seen, but we can project that both the “good” and the “bad” of local cultures have to be extrapolated to “global” ones.

Bibliography

Arell-Báez, A. (2013). Cine: una industria para explotar en América Latina. Forbes.

Bauman, Z. (Junio de 2003). La globalización. Consecuencias humanas. Signos Filosóficos, I(3), 205-207.

Bauman, Z. (1998). La globalización Consecuencias humanas. (D. Zadunaisky, Trad.) Fondo de Cultura Económica.

Byrnes, K. (2007). The sharing of a culture: Global Consumerism. Retrieved November 27, 2018, from https://www.uwlax.edu/urc/jur-online/pdf/2007/byrnes.pdf

Crane, D., Kawashima, N., & Kawasaki, K. (2002). Global culture: Media, arts, policy, and globalization. New York: Routledge.

Espinosa, María Macarena. (February 25, 2012). Sincretismo Cultural Mestizaje cultural en México y Perú. Universidad Nacional de Cuyo.

Globalization 101. (n.d.). Retrieved December 15, 2018, from https://www.globalization101.org/uploads/File/Culture/cultall.pdf

Junge, M., & Kron, T. (2014). Zygmunt Bauman: Soziologie zwischen Postmoderne, Ethik und Gegenwartsdiagnose. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

Ribeiro, D. (1968). The Civilizational Process. Washington: Smithsonian Institute Press.

Robertson, R. (2003). Glocalización: tiempo-espacio y homogeneidad-heterogeneidad. Cansancio del Leviatán : problemas políticos de la mundialización.

Sheffield, J., Korotayev, A., & Grinin, L. (n.d.). Globalization. Retrieved December 13, 2018, from https://www.hse.ru/data/2013/05/23/1299088719/Globalization.pdf

Serna, Laura Isabel. (2014). Making Cinelandia: American Films and Mexican Film Culture before the Golden Age. Duke University Press.

Spencer-Oatey, H. (2012) What is culture? A compilation of quotations. GlobalPAD Core Concepts. Available at GlobalPAD Open House Https://Warwick.ac.uk/Fac/Soc/Al/Globalpad/Openhouse/Interculturalskills/global_pad_-_what_is_culture.Pdf

Universidad Autónoma de Tamaulipas. (2017). El efecto de la globalización en la identidad nacional. Revista Internacional de Ciencias Sociales y Humanidades, 67-92.