However, it was not just the collapse of the Twin Towers and the partial destruction of the Pentagon that made the attack globally monumental. It was what followed post 9/11 Attack – primarily in terms of the US’s counter-response to the attack and secondary in terms of the attack’s impression upon the larger eastern and western ideological realms.

“U.S. Under Attack” was inked as headlines after three commercial airliners were used as bombs to destroy the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan followed by twin towers as well as part of the Pentagon which serves as the headquarters of defence. Another hijacked U.S. airliner Flight 93 crashed in Pennsylvania, supposedly intending to crash into the White House in Washington, DC.

INTRODUCTION

The United States suffered an unprecedented loss of life on September 11, 2001, from what was labelled a “terrorist attack.” Mainly on the basis of data from professional association surveys and government agencies, it was found that the United States and many other countries of the world have been significantly affected by the events and aftermath of that morning’s events.

As an unprecedented attack on a country not usually affected by external terrorism, often cited as an example of leading powers it allows a unique study of how the notion of terrorism changed after the traumatic series of events. As a result of the “9/11 attack”, a number of changes were triggered as the economy, society and civilians recovered, the Arab world and Western allies diverged on the spectrum. Many of the initial logistical changes appear to have diminished over time as things restored normalcy but severed relationships between countries, prejudiced views and discriminatory practices linger on as memoirs of the incident.

WHAT IS TERRORISM?

Coined during the French Revolution to describe “the reign of terror” the term originates from the Latin word “terrere,” which reflects frighten or tremble and had positive connotations. Today, terrorism has transformed into a more menacing spectre where throughout the years, various scholars have attempted to define what constitutes ‘terrorism’.

Yet, the term is so loaded with conceptual problems that a totally accepted universal definition of it ceases to exist and the irony is that the recurrent theme of violence has become the daily part of the political drama of modern times. Where the U.S. Department of Defence defines it as “the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological”.

On the other hand, the Arab Convention for the Suppression of Terrorism quotes it as, “any act or threat of violence, whatever its motives or purposes, that occurs in the advancement of an individual or collective criminal agenda and seeking to sow panic among people, causing fear by harming them, or placing their lives, liberty or security in danger, or seeking to cause damage to the environment or to public or private installations or property or to occupying or seizing them, or seeking to jeopardise national resources is – terrorism”.

Terrorists have a myriad of potential targets in the world; they strategically aim to disrupt high-profile landmarks, crowded public places with low security, targets that would hurt their enemy’s economy, and anywhere that could cause maximum harm to their enemy’s citizens. Perhaps it is in this regard that the attacks on the WTC affected the health of US civilians in uncountable ways: it created psychological distress for millions, exacerbated mental disorders among the younger segment of groups and jeopardised social cohesion which functions as the founding pillar for mental health.

THE EVENTS OF 9/11 ATTACK

Described by the U.S. Department of State as the deadliest international terrorist attack in human history it involved four separate but coordinated commercial aeroplane hijackings by 19 hijackers belonging to the Al Qaeda terrorist branch resulting in over 25, 000 injuries with $ 10 billion worth of property damage.

As all the aeroplanes had just taken off and were filled with jet fuel for their transcontinental flights, their intentional crashes into buildings had the effects of a bomb exploding as the fuel ignited upon impact and hundreds suffered the cost.

The 19 hijackers on 9/11 were described as ‘terrorists’ who came from various Middle Eastern countries. NBC Nightly News (2002) said the 19 hijackers all entered the United States illegally as with over 6,000 mi of land borders, 95,000 mi of seacoast, guarding all possible entrance points into the United States and keeping out any foreign entities that can accelerate chaos is almost impossible.

GLOBAL EFFECTS & GOVERNMENTAL MEASURES

The United Nations passed a resolution condemning the 9/11 attack while Interpol focused its attention on bringing justice by organising an 11 September Task Force in response to the attacks.

The attacks on 9/11 in the United States have directly and indirectly drawn many other countries into the fray against terrorists by tightening their security guidelines to even racial profiling measures.

The 9/11 attack triggered a number of responses within the global hegemony where the initial tenor of the populace in the United States was shock, sorrow, and outrage. Views were highly foreshadowed as reports of hate crimes and acts of discrimination against Muslims and Arabs became a regular phenomenon. While on the other end of the spectrum people opened up their hearts and pockets in an initial outpouring of donating blood and money to help the victims who bore the brunt of the tragedy. Employees became more oriented towards spending time with loved ones and balancing work and home time as well extending a hand of help to those in need. The testing times brought out the best spirit in people as the citizens of the United States were drawn much closer together; there was a significant increase in cohesion of the populace.

Stringent government changes were put in order as greater coordination of the intelligence and law enforcement communities like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and FBI was emphasised. Forty government agencies and units were assigned to collect intel on terrorism by employing multiple mechanisms.

A cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security was formed in the national government to overlook the supervision while congress laid the stone for the formulation of the Transportation Security Administration to hire and employ over 40,000 federal baggage screeners for checked baggage at the 429 U. S. airports.

President Bush declared “War on Terrorism” and received tremendous public support where his approval rating as President soared to 70% and solidified his image as a ‘strong’ leader.

There was an incursion into Afghanistan by the United States and its allies to find and destroy those guilty for 9/11 where the U.S. after the infamous invasion of Iraq; officially listed it under the U.S. Department of State as a sponsor of terrorism.

Even though the U.S. retaliated after the great shock but its economy was adversely affected by business spending dropping significantly. Analysts noted how terrorist strikes were the single greatest loss for the insurance industry in 2001 while the travel industry also decimated. Employers were mentally affected by the 9/11 attack in numerous ways and thus the importance of crisis management teams and plans took centre stage, where disaster plans were revised and meetings away were drastically curtailed. Increased security procedures led to the slower and more costly movement of services, and over-cutting costs often not viable for small business to withstand. Bernasek (2002) estimated that it would cost the United States an extra $151 billion a year because of the 9/11 terrorist attacks including an extra $6 billion for people costs such as extra absenteeism. Employers took leaves of absences and time off to recover from the troubling events of the 9/11 attack. With the passage of time, however, the initial effects of 9/11 declined and life in the United States generally reverted to pre-9/11 behaviours where national surveys have shown little lasting change on the U.S. population and economic market since the 9/11 attack.

POLARISATION OF VIEWS POST 9/11 ATTACK

Ideological and political conflict between the Western and Arab and Muslim world is one of the most dominant phenomena that override the relations across global issues of the present era where struggle and strive is mediated, reproduced, and circulated mostly by headlines and media. While U.S. and Western media have previously dominated the global mediascape, the emergence of the new Arab public sphere opens the way for productive dialogues, better mutual understanding and to curb hostility that has seeped in over years of projecting one-sided narratives.

One still needs to understand the need where Western mechanisms need to break with stereotypes of Arabs and Islam, incorporate more Muslim voices into its programming and provide a safe platform for real dialogue and debate rather than ideological posturing and polarisation.

Likewise, the emergent Arab public sphere should be open to Western dialogue as well as the diversity of views in its region as these opposites need to take into account how it will be one of the challenges in the coming years and calls for critical communication, interaction and deliberation between the Middle East and the West which has been so fraught with danger and will no doubt continue to be a site of immense importance and conflict.

THE DIVIDE

Following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Islam and Muslims started to come to the forefront of the Western media, albeit not for very positive reasons; it flared the already existing one-sided view westerners kept of the eastern world. Because Osama Bin Laden cited religious motives for his criminal attacks, a debate started brewing in the Western media over the real essence of Islam and whether it encouraged violence and promoted hatred, particularly against non- Muslims.

Many media outlets referred to the 9/11 terrorists simply as ‘‘Muslims,’’ which fuelled stereotyping further and did nothing to help stop the verbal and physical attacks taking place against Muslims in the U.S. at this critical time; it was noted how after the events of 9/11, ‘‘the U.S. media immediately fell back on the prevailing —and stereotyped—narrative about Arabs and Muslims and reverted to its historic tendency to present the world, as Henry Kissinger’s quotes, ‘a morality play between good and evil’’.

Despite the fact that all Arab countries condemned the attacks and took a solid stance against ‘ terrorism’ in all forms, for the most part, voices communicated through the mass media still failed to differentiate between Arabs and Muslims, on one hand, and terrorists, on the other.

Political scholars in Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR, 2001) noted that ‘‘many media pundits focused on one theme: retaliation; while not paying heed to what follows in the aftermath.
For example, on September 12, 2001, Steve Dunleavy wrote in the New York Post: ‘‘The response to this unimaginable 21st- century Pearl Harbor should be as simple as it is swift—kill the bastards. A gunshot between the eyes, blow them to smithereens, poison them if you have to. As for cities or countries that host these worms, bomb them into basketball courts.’’

Even leaders of importance who uphold the ideals of rationality and diplomacy took sides like the former U.S. Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger commented on CNN, ‘‘There is only one way to begin to deal with people like this, and that is you have to kill some of them even if they are not immediately directly involved in this thing’’. Statements like this coincided with and may have contributed to an increasing anti-Muslim sentiment which slowly seeped into other western nations who believed they were ‘‘doing the U.S. a favour.’’

The Arab Dilemma

It is difficult to draw a conclusion with one side as dual variables have functioned simultaneously where the Western media have produced dominant negative stereotypes and demonised Islamic fundamentalism, and in turn how Arab media have promoted negative images of the West and offers a rigorous narrow crevice to hold dialogue.

Chomsky (2001) asserted that the mainstream media in the U.S. constitutes a well- run propaganda systems that hold the immense capacity ‘‘to drive people to irrational, murderous, and suicidal behaviour’’ where citizens need to resist the notion of responding to terrorist crimes and must hold the wisdom to see both sides of the story.

During the post-9/11 era tensions and hostilities have been intensified due to the Bush Administration “war on terror” and Osama bin Laden and other radical Islamic groups promoting “Jihad” where Bush and bin Laden’s rhetoric and worldview and how their binary discourses and extremist rhetoric have shaped the representations of each side in their respective media.

This bias was further aggravated by what could be called ‘‘jihad journalism’’ a concept narrowly created to meet the partisan need where such slanted coverage was ‘‘the hallmark of the post-9/11 era’’ and a ‘‘a result of racist jingoism”.

CONCLUSION

A decade has passed since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Most of us remember where we were when we learned of the attacks, although our memories of the event and of our feelings that day may not be as accurate as we suspect as it is a known fact how the 9/11 attack did far more than destroy buildings and kill thousands of innocent people, it divided beyond boundaries and devastated perceptions beyond mending. They interrupted routine patterns and tugged at our social fabric, not simply in New York City, but across the global platform. They shattered a sense of security and perceptions of vulnerability among residents of the Western world even those who did not know anyone who died that day have been touched by the tragedy in one way or another. It now falls on to us to usher in peace, leave what’s all left behind and look beyond what is projected.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abbas, T. (ed) (2007). “Islamic Political Radicalism in European Perspective”. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.

Andrew Silke. ( 2003) . “Beyond Horror: Terrorist Atrocity and the Search for Understanding” . Studies in Conflict and Terrorism 26(1) ,pp. 37–60.

Bergen, P. (2006). ‘What were the causes of 9/11?’

Bobbitt, P. (2008). “Terror and Consent: The Wars for the Twenty First Century”. London: Penguin Books.

Maxwell Taylor and Ethel Quayle ( 1994 ) . “Terrorist Lives” . London: Brassey’s, Publication

Richard A. Clarke. ( 2004 ) . “Against All Enemies: Inside America’s War on Terror” .New York: Free Press, pp. 227–238.

The post 9/11 ATTACK: THE RIFT THAT DEFINES THE EAST AND THE WEST appeared first on WISER WORLD.

GameStop stock prices is not a vindication of the company’s health rather it is a reflection of the battle of the investors. What basically happened is that investors on the WallstreetBets bought in all the shares when the smart money was shorting to a level that there were no shares left in the market to be traded. The hedge funds(Melvin Capital and Citron) had borrowed the shares that they sold in the hope that eventually when the price of the stock falls, they would purchase them at a lower price and so the difference would have been their profit margin. Instead, what happened is that subreddit WallstreetBets investors kept on buying the shorted shares until a time when the loaned shares that must be returned were greater in number than the actual shares for trade in the market. Now, this has lead to a Reddit v Wall Street battle where the ‘short-sellers’ are helpless since, the longer the WallstreetBets investors hold on to their shares, the higher the prices of GameStock will be. (Good, 2021)

QAnon: The Start of an Era in Anonymity

The QAnon is basically a chain of posts that were made anonymously and posted on 4chan, a message board. The person who posted this series had signed off as ‘Q’ and hence the name QAnon. These posts were known as ‘breadcrumbs’ and were pro-trump posts. QAnon army believes that Donald Trump is waging a war against the paedophiles of the government, media and business. They describe themselves as “people who love the country”. (Wendling, 2021)

The main concern with online forums like 4chan is anonymity. Since people can post anything and not be held accountable for it, they forget the difference between right and wrong. It has led to mass manipulations by such people who in the darkness of such online forums can put forth their destructive and unproductive opinions and influence atleast hundreds of thousands of people. In this age of social media influencers and the over accessibility of internet, the people are easily distracted and mislead in a lot of ways.

The QAnon posts and its supporters were eventually banned from many big social media platforms, but the harm was already done till then. QAnon has created many unproven conspiracy theories which are believed by many supporters of QAnon without having asked questions about its authenticity.

QAnon supporters create abusive hashtags and posts against people that they perceive as enemies or people who they do not consider as the true people of the nation, mostly important politicians, journalists etc. This is not only an online threat but also an offline threat to the life of many such people. Many QAnon supporters have also been arrested after such hateful posts. The QAnon supporters are relentlessly posing threat to the society in general and one of the main reasons of doing so is that Mr. Donald Trump had himself retweeted some posts of QAnon, which shows that in some way or the other QAnon has got the support from Trump and even his son had posted QAnon memes during the elections. (Wendling, 2021)

Another QAnon supporter, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia was elected in the US Congress in November. It is rather shocking that such extreme posts and hashtags are being supported by influential people in the US which can perhaps lead to mass destruction of the community as a whole.

All of this could have been controlled if online forums like 4chan did not have the feature of posting anything anonymously. It gets especially difficult to culminate a wrong action if people cannot be held accountable easily for their actions.

GameStop Shares Sold by Robinhood: An Intentional Mishap

Robinhood is a stock trading platform founded in 2013. Recently, Robinhood was in controversy as a number of its users accused the platform to have sold their shares without taking permission from them.

During the last week, many customers of Robinhood posted screenshots on Twitter and other social media platforms claiming that the trading company automatically sold their shares at a low price lower than the price list. (Eric, 2021)

On 28^th January 2020, two users of Robinhood claimed that it had restricted the transactions of GameStop. Robinhood had basically restricted investors to buy shares of GameStop so as to facilitate short selling hedge funds in their tiff with WallstreetBets. Robinhood had further stopped the users to trade on stocks of AMC, GameStop, Blackberry, Bed Bath & Beyond, Nokia etc. Customers who owned shares of these companies were only given an option of selling their existing shares.

These claims have resulted in negative reviews of the trading company on google which lead to a fall in its rating from 4.2 to 1. Later google deleted a good amount of negative reviews to restore its rating at 4.2. There is already a lawsuit filed against Robinhood which claims that the trading company has tried to manipulate and therefore control the market through its actions and that it’s a clear violation of the functioning of the market. (Mathur, 2021)

On the other hand, Robinhood denied of all these claims and the spokesperson of Robinhood has claimed that they had to sell some of the shares to reduce risk since the shares were bought at the margin, whereas the investors have claimed that they bought the shares outright and planned to hold on to them.

Billions of Dollars at Risk: Who Faced the Actual Loss?

As developed from the above, the investors who have faced the loss is perhaps Melvin Capital. This is because they sold the borrowed shares that actually have to be returned at a price that they thought is higher than at what price they would have to buy. But the opposite happened. So here is the fiasco we are talking about. Now they have no option other than buying all the shorted shares in order to return what they borrowed. But since even that is not possible the other option is to sell off everything in the open market. (Good, 2021)

So, Melvin Capital had to take up a huge loss when they closed up their short position on the 27^th of January. Although the exact loss is not known the investor had taken a cash infusion of $2.75 billion from two investment banks to keep itself away from dissolving in the US stock market.

Citadel to the Rescue After the Loss Incurred by Melvin Capital

Citadel funds have invested $2 billion and the rest $750 million will be invested by Point72 Asset Management. They have planned to invest in Melvin Capital in return of a non-controlling revenue share in the hedge fund. Although many investors had given up on short-selling bets, Gabe Plotkin, the owner of Melvin Capital still has his hopes for short selling, even though he has had a bad time in it this year. Ken Griffin, the founder of Citadel has rather shown his confidence in Gabe Plotkin as he says in one of his statements that “Gabe Plotkin and the team have delivered exceptional results over the history of Melvin,”.

Plotkin has shown great interest in working harder with his team to live up to the expectations and the confidence shown to him by both his investors. (Burton, 2021)

Citadel’s Association With Robinhood Receives Scrutiny

Robinhood has spent years to form a relationship with the big market investors called the ‘market makers’ to receive real-time information about their investors and which stocks its users are buying or selling. The online trading app receives a large number of revenues from Citadel Securities. However, after the entire fiasco of short selling, the relationship between citadel and Robinhood is under scrutiny or rather a criticism. (TORBATI, 2021)

This scrutiny has happened after Robinhood has limited trading of certain stocks, namely GameStop stocks. Several Reddit users have accused Citadel founder Ken Griffin to have pressurized Robinhood to limit trading of GameStop shares in order to prevent further losses incurred by the short-sellers. This is because Citadel is an investor of Melvin Capital, the short seller here in context, to avoid any losses further. Reddit users have taken on to Twitter to accuse Robinhood of giving in under the pressure of its big business partner, Citadel as Robinhood does not charge its users so its revenue highly depends on such big companies as Citadel. (TORBATI, 2021)

Since Robinhood is not directly involved in the trading of shares but it provides information to its partners in return of a small fee and privilege to give its users the best prices for trading in the market. However, later in a post, Robinhood has denied the accusations and said that it was a risk management decision to limit trading of shares.

However, it has also taken a political turn as congress has decided to examine Citadel’s agreement with Robinhood and if there is any manipulation of the stock market by the two business partners. Critics have also said that there is a possibility of hidden tax in this entire context. Overall, the recent developments in the stock market of the US has led to increase in the scrutiny of such business relationships to check if such partnerships are hurtful for the average investors in the market. (TORBATI, 2021)

Conclusion: How Can This GameStop Story Probably End?

The entire issue occurred due to the expectation of one investor based on the normal trading behavior of other investors. The stock market simply works on the lines that there will perhaps be a priced to the share than an investor cannot say no to and eventually one has to lose or win. But here the WallstreetBets investors were refusing almost any price to it. In such situations, the other party has to only go through losses. What can perhaps be taken care of, is a better look at the market and opportunities since human behavior can perhaps be very unpredictable.

References

Burton, K. (2021). Citadel, Point72 Back Melvin With $2.75 Billion After Losses. Yahoo! Finance.

Eric, J. (2021). Users accuse Robinhood of automatically selling shares. Insider Paper.

Good, O. S. (2021). GameStop’s stock market explosion, explained. Polygon .

Kastrenakes, J. (2021). Robinhood denies claims that it sold GameStop shares out from under its traders. The Verge.

Mathur, C. (2021). Robinhood reportedly sells GameStop shares without permission from traders. NewsBytes.

TORBATI, D. M. (2021). Robinhood and Citadel’s relationship comes into focus as Washington vows to examine stock market moves. The Washington Post.

Wendling, M. (2021). QAnon: What is it and where did it come from? BBC News.

The post REDDIT v WALL STREET: THE GAMESTOP FIASCO, EXPLAINED! appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Iranian regime has considered the United States to be a staunch adversary since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979. The killing of Fakhrizadeh was the last nail in the coffin. The Iranian leadership faces a perilous conundrum in a precarious environment.

With the recent election of Joe Biden as the forty-sixth president of the United States and Hassan Rouhani’s term drawing to an end in 2021, we must shed light on what the future holds for the adversaries. Recent months have recorded a tremendous increase in hostilities between the two countries. Within this highly complex geopolitical web, Iran though cornered has not lost all hope. There are two significant advantages that the regime enjoys in the region. There exists a general understanding in the Gulf that U.S allies, which includes Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, do not have the capacity to engage with Iran in a full out conflagration. The second advantage that Iran enjoys is its regional proxy networks.

The Iranian regime has aimed at executing a one state, two systems formula for conflict-ridden states. Through this strategy, Tehran does not wish to rebuild institutions in accordance with international convention, instead chooses an approach centred around a host of armed non-state actors, that help the regime establish networks and institutions that parallel national institutions. The presence of weak national institutions provides the regime with the opportunity to subjugate governing structures and political systems. With the election of Joe Biden to the Presidency of the United States, there is renewed optimism that real diplomacy and engagement will dictate relations between the US and Iran, as compared to wishful demands for Iran’s total capitulation.

The last four years under the Trump Administration has marked the most contentious period in US-Iran history since the 1980s. The fragile state of relations between the US and Iran is clear by the fact that the two countries have been on the brink of war twice. The first being in the aftermath of Iran shooting down a US drone in 2019 and the second being the start of 2020 when the US orchestrated the assassination of the Quads Force commander Qasem Soleimani. The situation under the Biden administration might be expected to take a veritable turn, as there could be a substantial reduction in tensions by easing sanctions on the Iranian economy, and a return to an approach involving multilateral diplomacy that initially led to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. But the question still remains, if the Biden White House can draw its European Allies-Britain, France, and Germany to rebuild a coalition, of a similar nature as seen during the Obama era.

However, there exist several hurdles in this entire process of renewed diplomacy that the Biden administration may or may not adopt towards the Iranian Regime. The first such obstacle that the United States faces is the lack of time. Iran is due to have its presidential elections in 2021, which would in all probability see Housan Rouhani step down. The Presidential election may act as a thorn for the United States government as there has been a substantial weakening of the pragmatic forces within the Iranian polity. According to Iranian-American scholar Mohamad Tabbar, Iranian politics has undergone a tectonic shift, which has resulted in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps assuming the leadership of this change. The Iranian military is also preparing for the upcoming presidential elections and a veteran of the IRGC is likely to take over the executive branch. These perceived changes within the Iranian political structure gives the Biden White House, approximately six months to deal with and straighten out US’s relations with Iran. The Biden Administration is predicted to be faced with surmounting pressure from its allies in the Middle-Eastern Region, this opposition to US engagement with Iran is a result of the growing concern that this would lead to a broader rapprochement between Iran and the US, which could diminish the importance of American allies to Washington D.C.

Another significant challenge faced by the Biden administration will be shoring up support for the JCPOA within the country itself. The JCPOA has always faced tough criticism in Congress, members of the two houses never warmed up to the idea of an agreement with the Iranian regime. The biggest point of contention for parties and other actors in American politics has been varying expectations. Many believe that Iran should not be permitted to have a nuclear civil program, while many are of the opinion that the country needs to change its behaviour in the regime before a revised deal can be entered. Some believed that the provisions of the original JCPOA focused solely on the short term, and felt that it was necessary to tie down Iran’s nuclear ambitions in the long run. Getting Congressional support for a revised JCPOA is not going to be a cakewalk. More importantly, entering into a revised agreement with Iran, Biden will have to ensure that both Iran and the United States will be able to uphold the provisions without any margin of error.

Lastly, American relations with Iran rely a great deal on the other parties that were originally a part of the JCPOA. This includes the “P=5+1”, that is Russia, China, Britain, France, and Germany. Since the P-5 and Germany are all signatories to the JCPOA, the deal belongs to all of them. This essentially means that it is vital the United States can get each and every member on board with the revised provisions of a new agreement with Iran. However, this process of gaining support from European partners might be significantly more strenuous as compared to the last time, the countries agreed to the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This is mainly a result of a series of changes on the geopolitical stage. The U.K has now left the European Union, with the achievement of a trade deal. The Russians on the other hand have gotten more assertive. Whereas China seems to be at loggerheads with the Americans over its increasing presence in the Indo-Pacific.

Having assessed the current situation, it is evident that Iranians are relieved to have survived the last four years under Donald Trump’s “maximum pressure campaign”, and there exists a glimmer of hope that Biden’s election represents the opening of a new chapter. This, however, does not mean that Iran will be ready to compromise on America’s insistence. The regime will expect a revived JCPOA that recognizes the economic damage that has been caused over the past four years. There seems to be appearing a rift between the Iranian moderates and the hardliners. Amidst this confusion, it would be interesting to see how an agreement, if there is one, influences the Iranian Presidential elections. Moreover, in the event of a failure to achieve an agreement before the 2021 election, it would be difficult to ascertain the effect this might have on the two countries, and how the Biden White House would handle the Iranian Regime and what would be future of US-Iran relations.

The post US-IRAN: INCEPTION OF CORDIAL RELATIONS? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

1998- 2013: Chavez presidency

In 1922, oil was discovered in Maracaibo basin of western Venezuela, considered to be the world’s largest oil reserve. The then dictator allowed more than 100 foreign companies into Venezuela to extract the reserves and by 1928; the country became the world’s second-biggest petroleum exporter. The nation’s economic development was based on rising prices and profits in oil reserves. But in the 1980s, as the world was facing the worst oil crisis, the global oil prices fell and the Venezuelan economy collapsed; the country faced a massive foreign debt of 33 billion dollars. Ultimately, it was forced to accept an International Monetary Fund Bailout and impose austerity measures that resulted in sharp rises in the price of consumer goods and fares for public transport.    

In 1998, Hugo Chavez was elected as the president of the country and he promised to use the country’s oil wealth to improve the lives of the poor. He expanded the social services and spent huge amounts on social programs such as education, health care, food and housing problems, at one point, even provided free heating oil for impoverished Americans.  Though Hugo wanted to diversify the Venezuelan economy, his expensive strategy only increased the dependency upon the exported oil.  As corruption was still rampant, a steady decline in the oil production reduced oil reserves and increased the government debt.  To deal with the dire economy, Hugo introduced a lot of economic reforms such as currency devaluation and price controls but nothing was effective. He also declared an economic war due to the increasing shortages in the country. In 2013, after ruling for 14 years Hugo died of cancer at the age of 58, his chosen successor vice president Nicolas Maduro narrowly won the elections and became the president.

2013- 2020: Maduro presidency

After the demise of Chavez, elections were held and Maduro won the elections with a 1.5% margin. With inflation at more than 50% a year, the national assembly gave Maduro emergency powers for a year. Still, by 2014, the country had entered an economic recession and by 2016, the country had an inflation rate of 800%, the highest in its history. The healthcare system lacked funding, once-eradicated diseases like cholera and malaria returned causing the death of thousands of children due to hunger and malnutrition. The rate of unemployment increased at an alarming rate and the prices of goods rose to an unexpected level causing a situation of hyperinflation in the country.                                              

In 2017, Maduro’s government created a new legislative body, which gave him the right to pass laws and he disavowed the National Assembly in 2017 leading to the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis. Following the constitutional crisis and the push to ban opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles from politics for 15 years, protests grew to their most combative since they began in 2014. The government failed to handle the matter in a peaceful manner and started oppressing the mobs by using violence, which led to the death of about 6000 civilians by the special action forces.

With these ongoing social and economic crises, in 2018, Maduro won the presidency again in a low-turnout election that was seen by many countries as fraudulent because of low participation by opposition parties.                                                  

Soon after the elections, to tackle the situation of hyperinflation, the government slashed five zeroes from the face value of its old currency and tied the new “sovereign bolivar” to a cryptocurrency that can’t be traded.  Despite various economic reforms by the government, nothing has helped the country’s economy to recover. Years of this economic and political instability in Venezuela have caused the largest population outflow in Latin America in recent years; about 5 million Venezuelans have left the country seeking food, work, and a better life since 2014.                                                       

In 2019, the opposition leader and head of the National Assembly, Juan Guido declared himself to be interim president according to the constitution. He is recognized as such by the U.S., Canada, and Venezuela’s Latin American neighbours.

In 2020, as the coronavirus pandemic spread in Latin America, border closings and the collapse of global oil prices have made life even harder for the Venezuelans.  Child malnutrition has reached crisis levels in Venezuela, reports the U.N. children’s agency. The country’s GDP (Gross domestic product) has dropped by 25% in 2019 which is the largest since the Libyan Civil War began in 2014. The inflation rate has reached 10,000,000% making it almost impossible for people to afford even the basic services like food for their survival.  The country is facing the worst economic and social crisis of all time with the high level of corruption, increasing poverty, no food and water, no proper healthcare system, increasing mortality rate, massive housing shortage, increasing crimes and illegal detentions, increasing unemployment, increasing hyperinflation and sinking of the oil reserves. 

Conclusion

The country which was once considered as the richest in Latin America, due to the largest oil reserves in the world, is now facing the worst economic crisis in the history of the world. It is marked by hyperinflation, escalating starvation, increasing unemployment and a shortage of a proper healthcare system which has led to increased malnutrition and mortality rate. Due to the declining oil reserves and poor governance along with high corruption the economy of the country collapsed.  The country is in a very dire situation with people lacking even the basic needs for survival.  Various countries such as China and Russia are sending aids for the Venezuelan crisis; Russia sent tons of food and medical supplies in Venezuela in February 2020. The European Commission (EC) is the largest donor to organizations working inside Venezuela in 2018, according to the database. It has been sending humanitarian aid to Venezuela since 2016. The EC focuses on projects to improve access to food and nutrition, water, hygiene and sanitation for people in Venezuela.  The United States and regional partners should also provide humanitarian relief and security assistance and accelerate change to a post-Maduro democracy.  As Venezuela is floundering, these humanitarian aids by countries come as the only hope that the country, which was once considered as one of the richest countries of the world, can still overcome its crisis and improve the economic, political and social situation of the country. 

The post VENEZUELA CRISIS – EXPLAINED! appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Process of the Presidential Election

Before talking about the two candidates, it is important to understand how the election process works since it is very different from that of India. The election for the President of the USA is done separately from the legislative (The Senate and House of Representatives). The two main parties, Republicans and Democrats have small primaries and caucuses which are meetings of sorts in various states all over the country to decide the candidate from their party. When the two candidates are chosen, debates and campaigning is done, followed by voting. An electoral college is formed by the states of America and elections are held. Different states have different strengths for their college, keeping in mind the population of the particular state. The total number of seats is 538 and to become the President, a candidate needs to cross 270 seats. Since the division of seats is done on population, states like California and New York carry much more weight. The process from this point is more confusing. If a candidate wins the majority of the seats in a particular state, instead of the number of seats he has won goes into his account, but rather it is the total number of seats in the state that go into his account and it is said that he has ‘won the state’. For example, California has the most number of seats with 55 and hypothetically, if Biden wins 38 seats in the state, he gets the majority of the state. Not only that, in the total count he will get 55 seats to his name. Overall, whichever candidate reaches 270 seats in the college becomes the President. Now, let us look at the candidates.

 As of now, we have two candidates. Donald Trump from the Republican Party and Joe Biden from the Democratic Party as the leading candidates. The campaign has not gone into full swing as of now and the presidential debates are yet to be held. All this said; let’s look at the two candidates.

 The Incumbent – DONALD TRUMP

Starting with the incumbent Donald Trump; he has had little to no opposition when it comes to being endorsed by the Republican Party. The main reason behind this is the simple fact that he is the incumbent and has maintained a certain level of support in his key demographics. He has higher approval ratings than any other politician from the Grand Old Party (GOP) or the Republicans. Nonetheless, not every member has shown unequivocal support. Former presidential candidate from the Republican Party, Mitt Romney had voted to convict Trump during the infamous impeachment trials of early 2020. The economy has played to his advantage, at least before the pandemic and Trump does not shy away from taking the credit. Nonetheless, there are a few things that have played a role in the fall of his approval ratings. At the forefront, we have the mismanagement of the coronavirus outbreak in America. Currently, 4.1 million people have contracted the disease and considering that Trump has previously ridiculed the ability of the virus to spread and not impose restrictions has reflected the lack of leadership. Second, we have an issue that has not been at the forefront of Presidential elections for the last 3-4 races. The issue of race and institutionalized racism has taken America by a storm and Trump has not managed to control it. He has not openly talked about facing the issue of race but has called the protestors thugs and terrorists. Even though bold stances like this worked in 2016, they do not seem to be effective this time around when the issue is as sensitive as a race. With these things in mind, let’s look at the Democratic nominee and former Vice President under the Obama administration, Joe Biden.

The Nominee – JOE BIDEN

Joe Biden was relatively late to coming forward with his candidature if we compare it to the likes of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, who had been talking about their campaign for long before the start of the democrat party’s caucuses.  This lack of early preparation was seen during the Iowa caucus and the primary in New Hampshire in which Biden didn’t perform very well. But eventually, things started to fall in place, with the regular debate over Sanders electability and Warren’s early withdrawal, Biden was eventually selected to be the Democratic presidential nominee. All this proposes the question that is Biden the best that Democrats have to offer, to go against Trump. Now even though a lot of voters think that his policies may not be as radical or as glaring as those of Sanders and Warren, he has been gaining the popular vote time and again. The political scientists within the party say that people just consider Biden to be more electable. Even though there are some question marks over his leadership ability and his ability to talk to people in a sense which creates a different political wave (something Trump did pretty well in 2016). Nonetheless, we have seen during the Obama presidency what Biden is capable of in terms of team management and keeping his administration smooth. Further, Biden is gaining more edge in political leadership after he had openly criticised the current President over his handling of the pandemic and the protests. All this is something that the political scientists have talked about the two leaders and there are differences in opinion. But one thing that is not as subjective is the polling data that various news agencies have collected.

Status of Polling Data and Opinion Polls

The latest polling data, as of 9th June by RealClearPolitics shows a lead in favour of Biden by 6 points as he stands on 46%, as opposed to Trump’s 40% approval rate. Similarly, NPR (+8), NY Times (+14), Fox News (+12) and Quinnipiac(+15) all suggest Biden having a huge lead over the president. It is important to mention that the past few months have shown Trump’s worst approval ratings during his tenure, going down to 38%. He, without a doubt, will improve his ratings and consequently improve his numbers in the poll. So, it is not advisable to consider Biden to be the new President, just yet. Also, a data as general as this one is not usually considered to be a clear indicator of who will be winning, as was seen back in 2016 when Hilary had an advantage of 4-5% by the same data  To better understand the polling data we need to divide the data into two different categories. The first is the situation in the swing states and secondly, the situation of the key demographics and the handling of various issues. An important note is that a lot of states are considered to be predominantly Red (Republican) and Blue (Democrats) states. This division is done, keeping in mind the dominance of the said party in the state in the previous elections as well as the general polling data. The states which do not fall under this category are the swing states. In the upcoming election, seven states have been identified by most of the political scientists as the swing states. These are Arizona, Florida, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Different networks consider different states to be swing states but on average these 7 states have been the most common. It is important to note that Trump won all of these states back in 2016. It is also worth mentioning that Biden has led the state of Texas which has been predominantly a red state, and so Trump is expected to win the state back even though a lot of journalists have started to consider Texas to be a swing state. Data between 17th and 22nd June collected by NY Times/Siena poll shows a huge advantage for Biden.  Comparing the current numbers to that of 2016, we see that Trump has completely lost Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, which he won by margins of less than 1 point, and is now trailing by 11, 11 and 10 respectively. Moving on North Carolina and Arizona have shown a smaller advantage as Biden leads by 9 and 7 points respectively. Florida is an interesting state which is considered vital for Trump’s re-election and he won it narrowly in 2016 by 1.6 but is currently trailing by 6 points. All this said, one has to keep in mind two things. First that most of these polls showed an advantage for Hilary as well but she lost these battleground states but second, her advantage was not as big as that of Biden. One would not be surprised if Trump manages to cut down the advantage in these swing states and also manage to win one or two conservative states, but will this be enough for him to regain presidency?

Going by the same source, looking at the key demographics, Biden leads by 74 points with black voters, 39 points with Hispanic voters, 34 points with young voters (18-29), 22 points and 18 points with independent voters. This shows a key advantage that will play in the favour of Biden. Back in 2016, Trump won the election with a huge advantage, running up to 70 points, with independent voters, men, older voters and white people. This time the gap has cut so much that Biden leads in 3 of Trump’s key demographics i.e. independent, men and older voters. This seems like a much more negative trend than one would have predicted. Moving on, key issues like COVID and racial issues have highly favoured Biden. People have started to doubt Trump’s leadership in these two aspects and considering that these are the two main issues of 2020 for America, Biden does seem to be favoured. On the other hand, Trump is preferred when it comes to immigration, economy and job creation. Trump has made it a point to claim the growth of the US economy before the pandemic to his benefit and that seems to be in his favour.

Conclusion

Even though we are just 3-4 months before the elections happen, all of these are predictions and pre-election polls. A lot of things like the presidential debates, widespread campaigning and the actual Election Day turnout, all can change the way things stand today. This was seen back in 2016 to work in favour of Trump but that was because the difference between the two candidates was too small. That may not be the case this time but nothing can be said with certainty. Kanye West has pulled out of the race and it will be fair to say that he did not have much ground before as well. As of now, even though the polls indicate one thing, anything can happen. There is without a doubt a bit of uncertainty and just like 2016, the door is still open for both candidates to win the White House. 

The post USA POLITICS – ANALYSES OF THE USA’s ELECTION 2020 appeared first on WISER WORLD.

USA and its Historical Ties with the United Nations and its Subsidiaries

Starting from Franklin D Roosevelt in 1954, the USA has shown signs of solidarity with the UN and the United States’ voice in decisions of the UN has always played a pivotal role, especially since it is one of the P5 members. Conjointly, along with its allegiance to the United Nations, the US has been a significant actor in the projects carried out by the WHO. 

For decades the United States has been a committed partner of the World Health Organisation in aiding global health emergencies and has financially supported its prospects. The US was the number one donor for the 2016-2017 programme budget and for many previous years. Both state and individual donations combined, the total donations made to the WHO that rooted from the States has been a total of US$ 945.6 million in WHO for the 2016-2017 period. And the contributions from the United States were made up for over 76% of voluntary funding.

The United Nations was built upon the principle of global syndication and interdependence, however, with the USA’s interventions over the years and its weighty contributions have to some extent eroded the UN’s legitimacy. Although the foundation of the United Nations is that of a liberal idea with the notion of co-dependence and overall prosperity of both big and small state actors, it has been proven time and again that for many states, especially ones that are permanent members, like the US, have used the United Nations as a forum to further their neo-realist agendas wherein non-state actors are only a pathway to increase power and legitimacy and not multilateralism. 

China’s Participation and COVID

Although China’s funding in the United Nations has been increasing each year over the last decade, its contribution to the World Health Organization has especially seen a rise pertaining to the current Coronavirus pandemic which originated in China’s Hubei province. Hence, making China’s say in the matter that of much more significance in comparison to any other state. 

The WHO has appreciated China’s efforts and action towards this pandemic publicly and stated that their response made a major impact on the spread of the virus globally. However, there were many criticisms in regards to the same. Specifically by the US. 

The WHO’s sudden inclination towards China with the arrival of this pandemic was questioned by many and ticked off the US as a result. The role of the World Health Organization is to maintain diplomacy and be an advisory organ for states to act upon at their discretion. This has been the preliminary basis of debate over why the organisation is in the wrong for potentially siding with China and not criticising them for notifying other states much later than the first traces of the virus were found, in December 2019. In addition to this, China’s circulation of faulty safety kits also added to the narrative of China deceiving other nations and not painting a clear enough picture for states to act upon. 

The World Health Organisation’s backing towards China potentially has its roots in the increased funding by China to the UN as a whole. China is now the second-largest contributor to the United Nations funds amongst the G77 countries. This, therefore, makes it a notable member whose presence in the United Nations can not be forgone. 

President Trump’s Response

On the 7th of July, 2020, President Trump announced the USA’s withdrawal from the World Health Organisation. This decision faced a lot of opposition from opponent parties given the WHO’s role in fighting global health emergencies that the world is currently living through and the fact that the United States has one of the highest numbers of cases globally.

Not only will this move have a detrimental impact on the United States status as far as the number of cases goes, but this can also result in a global setback of vaccine development in which the US could have been a major stakeholder and contributor. While the Trump administration has already cut off all funding, the withdrawal process will take approximately a year. However, the 2020 presidential candidate, Joe Biden has vowed to reverse this action and be part of the organisation again. 

This decision further goes on to prove the USA’s intentions with non-state actors and how they are linked to notions of neorealism and are used as a tool to safeguard self-interest rather than build on global interdependence through collaborative measures. 

Furthermore, the decision to pull out of the WHO is also an indication of what US-China relations will be like post-COVID, as prior to this it was still an unclear picture. However, pulling out of the WHO as a result of backing China is a clear enough signal that at least under the Trump Administration these tensions will continue and are not going to change in the foreseeable future. 

Conclusion

Regardless of the gravitas of this situation, this move does not come as a shock after the US pulled out of the Paris Agreement. Inferring from the series of events that have taken place before and after this monumental decision issued by the US government, it is safe to assume that this is in relation to President Trump’s prolonged pattern of claiming that the United States is being taken advantage of by intergovernmental organisations such at WHO and NATO and this action is one of the biggest showcases of it. 

The post USA’S WITHDRAWAL FROM WHO appeared first on WISER WORLD.