Pakistan is a unique country amalgamating diverse ethnicities, religions, regional dynamics, and political ideologies. Upon independence from British Colonial rule in 1947, Pakistan had experienced periods of military dictatorships interspersed with democratic governance.
The creation of Pakistan’s democratic foundation is accredited to President Ayub Khan. He worked to create the Elective Bodies Disqualification Order of 1959; this was created to help prevent “free-for-all” fighting among politicians, having a negative impact on the country. Through this order, the beginning of the democratic order began, with the increased role of the civil bureaucracy and increased central authority. This order did not come without criticism, especially from the lay citizens; through the order, individuals were not incentivized to participate democratically in the country’s politics.
A Turning Point in Pakistan’s Democratic Framework
The trajectory of Bangladesh’s secession from Pakistan demonstrates the complex interplay of socio-political forces. General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan, succeeding Ayub Khan, led Pakistan’s military regime from 1969 to 1971 amidst a backdrop of enduring military rule, reflecting a nation grappling with its identity; this was very different from the approach Ayub Khan had taken. The 1970 general elections, a watershed moment, laid bare the fissures of regionalism and social discord, with the Awami League ‘s electoral triumph in East Pakistan highlighting demands for provincial autonomy. Meanwhile, in West Pakistan, the Pakistan People’s Party’s populist surge under Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto reshaped the political landscape, overshadowing traditional Islamic parties; however, fears of East Pakistani dominance spurred a political conspiracy thwarting the Awami League’s ascension, triggering armed rebellion and Indian intervention, culminating in the birth of Bangladesh in 1971 amid the throes of conflict.
Modern Implications of Political Success
The subsequent democratic experiment, marked by Bhutto’s ascendancy and ousting under General Zia-ul-Haq’s military rule, underscored Pakistan’s struggle for stability. Bhutto’s governance failed to bridge the chasm between rhetoric and reality, highlighting the entrenched power dynamics between civilians and the military. Even with elections, Pakistan’s democratic fabric remained frayed, with presidents wielding disproportionate influence compared to that of the prime minister. Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif and their descendants oscillated between who would be in power; this tumultuous change, albeit frequent, perpetuated a cycle of disillusionment and distrust among its citizenry. As subsequent administrations navigated the murky waters of power politics, from the restoration of parliamentary supremacy to Musharraf’s coup, the quest for a stable, inclusive democracy persists amidst the crucible of Pakistan’s diverse socio-political landscape.
2024 Elections
The foundation laid by historical nuances resulted in a unique 2024 election for the country. It all started in 2018 when Imran Khan, leader of Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI), was elected as the prime minister of Pakistan; after four years, however, Imran Khan was removed by the political opposition in a no-confidence vote. This vote followed Khan’s perceived economic mismanagement of the country, as inflation was at an all-time high, and the Pakistani rupee was plummeting alongside foreign currency. In addition, his commentary on foreign affairs, especially alongside Russia-US and China-US relations, were clauses of removal. Shehbaz Sharif, leader of the Pakistan Muslim League (PML), was then sworn in. Shortly after his removal from office, Imran Khan was sentenced to prison on terms of corruption, followed by a lengthened sequence on suspicion of leaking state secrets. The turbulence superseded the 2024 general election and contributed to allegations of political rigging and delayed results.
Results started on February 8th, when polls opened, demonstrated that PTI had a majority vote; many candidates had to run independently, so when there was no clear majority party, it was assumed that PTI maintained the majority vote. This was echoed by the Election Commission of Pakistan as well. This, however, was not reported, which raised suspicions and alluded to manipulation and political interference by external entities; comments were also rescinded from the Election Commission of Pakistan, resulting in concerns about the true results.
Amidst the election, the apolitical role of division commissioners had come under scrutiny amid concerns over their potential influence on election proceedings; despite official assertions of their non-involvement, apprehensions arose due to the appointment of electoral officers from within the hierarchy below a commissioner, raising suspicions of undue interference. This likely contributed to the hypothesized widespread electoral malpractice this past election. Urgent calls for a thorough investigation were prominent to understand the turn of events.
Internationally, the Free and Fair Election Network (FAFEN) reported widespread obstruction of election observers and candidates in accessing crucial tabulation processes, casting doubt on the integrity of electoral outcomes this past February. FAFEN’s appeal for meticulous scrutiny of contested constituencies using advanced analytical methods underscores the imperative of upholding electoral legitimacy, echoing similar demands from political stakeholders.
Human Right Implications
As seen with the 2024 election, speculations, potential interference, and lack of transparency prevent voter’s voices from being uplifted in the election process. Without protections of free, fair, and honest elections, individuals cannot participate democratically. As seen with Pakistan, a long history of concerns about election malpractice decreases trust in the government and current democratic systems. It is important for Pakistan and future leaders to address underlying challenges to help foster a culture of accountability and integrity, helping pave the way for a representative democracy that will upload the voices of its citizens.
In the landscape of global health, vaccine diplomacy has emerged as a compelling strategy, melding healthcare initiatives with international relations. This approach is pivotal in the ongoing battle against infectious diseases, most recently the COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine diplomacy involves countries utilizing their surplus vaccine supplies to forge diplomatic ties, enhance global influence, and foster goodwill. This is often done in partnership with private pharmaceutical entities and public health organizations. However, while aiming to address the urgent need for equitable vaccine access worldwide, vaccine diplomacy raises critical questions concerning human rights and health equity on a global scale.
Evolution of Vaccine Diplomacy
The vaccine diplomacy has existed long before the COVID-19 pandemic, but we noted its increased influence during this unique time. Nations like the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, possessing robust vaccine manufacturing capabilities, sought to leverage their surplus doses as a means of geopolitical influence. For example, the United States promised to donate over 1.1 billion vaccines by 2023. This approach gained momentum as vaccine shortages persisted across continents, exacerbating health inequities, especially among women and children, and prompting a response beyond national borders.
Examples of Vaccine Diplomacy
Vaccine diplomacy has manifested in diverse forms. China and Russia have actively supplied their respective COVID-19 vaccines, including Sinovac, Sinopharm, and Sputnik V, to various nations as part of aid packages or through bilateral agreements. India, known for its significant vaccine production capacity, contributed doses through the COVAX initiative and direct donations to neighboring countries and beyond. These mobilization efforts are valuable to the development and growth of vaccine diplomacy through the lens of aid. This improves the well-being of marginalized groups and pushes national interests abroad.
Human Rights and Vaccine Diplomacy
At its core, vaccine diplomacy intersects with human rights, particularly the right to health. Access to vaccines is considered a fundamental human right, and ensuring equitable distribution is paramount to providing equal protection against COVID-19. Yet, the disparities in vaccine access have sparked concerns about the violation of this right for marginalized and vulnerable populations globally. Several countries have taken commendable steps to uplift vaccine diplomacy and do their part to make interventions more accessible. The United States pledged substantial donations of vaccine doses through COVAX and direct allocations to nations facing acute shortages, aiming to bolster global vaccine access. Countries like Sweden and Norway have also committed funds to support COVAX’s efforts in distributing vaccines to low-income nations.
To enhance the accessibility and efficacy of vaccine diplomacy, countries must prioritize transparent vaccine-sharing mechanisms, equitable distribution plans, and fair allocation strategies. Greater collaboration among nations, regulatory transparency, and a resolute commitment to multilateralism are essential elements for ensuring broader vaccine access. This can be done through working alongside pharmaceutical companies, local organizations, and many other avenues.
How to Get Involved
Individual engagement plays a pivotal role in advancing the cause of equitable vaccine distribution. Advocating for fair vaccine distribution, supporting initiatives that promote vaccine access in underserved communities, and raising awareness about the critical importance of global health equity are impactful ways for individuals to contribute. Engaging with policymakers, supporting organizations dedicated to vaccine distribution, and staying informed about global health issues are pivotal steps toward effecting change.
Vaccine diplomacy stands at the nexus of opportunity and challenge in addressing the global vaccine disparity. While it serves as a conduit for international cooperation, its success hinges upon ensuring vaccines reach those most in need, aligning with the fundamental principles of human rights and health equity.
Chinese vlogger captured a horrific, viral video of a woman chained outside to a hut in January of 2022. This woman was mentally incapacitated and had been without clean water, food, and electricity for an extended time. Xiao Huamei had been taken from her home province of Yunnan and sold to a farmer in Jiangsu for 5,000 yuan – or $790 at the time. She managed to escape him only to be sold into marriage trafficking two more times. The last time occurred in June 1998, when Dong Zhimin bought Xiao Huamei and subsequently tortured her, forced her to bear children, and subjected her to barbaric conditions. At the hands of Dong Zhimin, her husband, she was forced to have eight children in nine years, the firstborn in 1999. From when she was sold in 1998 to when she was found in 2022, Xiao Huamei had been a victim of marriage trafficking for 24 years. Claiming she had schizophrenia, Dong Zhimin subjected her to inhumane treatment, such as chaining her up outside like a dog. Dong Zhimin was sentenced to only nine years in prison. Sentences for trafficking crimes are typically capped at ten years. This spurred public outrage online because many felt the punishment did not fit the crime. Ten years is not even enough time to conceive and carry eight children. This case raised awareness about the lack of reforms for marriage and human trafficking.
What is marriage trafficking?
Marriage trafficking is an international problem that continues to grow and must be handled domestically. It is defined by the transfer or receipt of a person; the means may include deception, threats, or coercion, and the purpose may be sexual exploitation and/or servitude. Cases like Xiao Huamei’s are not isolated to domestic women because foreign women are also exploited and sold to Chinese men to be abused and breed children. Traffickers target vulnerable young women and children in their country as well as neighboring countries. Women in Myanmar, Cambodia, and Vietnam who are trying to flee political unrest and economic instability are highly exploited in this situation. Vulnerable, job-seeking women are tricked into entering the arrangement through a broker that is offering well-paying jobs across the job, thus meeting the criteria for an overt act of marriage trafficking. Traffickers smuggle these women in using coercion, violence, and threats. The process used to transport these women also constitutes human trafficking.
The prevalence of trafficking in China is exacerbated by the lack of accountability among government officials. Chinese officials have allegedly turned down the appeals of women who have been trafficked, held them for extended periods, deported them without their children, and, in certain instances, returned them to their husbands in exchange for bribes. Chinese authorities rarely, if ever, pursue prosecutions against marriage trafficking charges. It is difficult to investigate due to the underground, illicit nature of marriage trafficking. In China, marriages between foreign-born women are not usually officially registered, which leads to their children being lost in the system.
The intent behind this industry is apparent from the illicit means used to facilitate the business. The purpose of the financial transaction of young women and children to Chinese men as brides is to uphold cultural values of marriage, family, and children. Based on sociological exchange theory, women enter the relationship expecting stability and support that is gained from marriage, while the men enter the relationship expecting a personal benefit that is gained from maintaining the cultural values of marriage. Most of the time, traffickers promise a better future to young women seeking to better their situation. This is not always the case, but it is the case of Xiao Huamei and foreign brides who are trafficked for marriage. While they migrate voluntarily, knowing that they are to be married, they are also often times deceived or trapped in their situations. Forcing these women into marriage means exerting power and control over them. The exploitation of vulnerable women and lack of individual freedoms constitute these cases as marriage trafficking.
What is responsible for this?
Given China’s longstanding one-child policy with a preference for boys, broader socioeconomic and political factors drive the marriage trafficking illicit market. Due to this, China experiences a gender imbalance, with about 35 million more males than females. The lack of eligible brides creates a demand for the marriage trafficking illicit market. An estimated 7,400 women and girls were victims of marriage trafficking in the Yunnan Province along the border, which is where Xiao Huamei was from. In rural areas, the proportion of women in society has declined. Among them, more than 5,000 females were compelled to bear children with their Chinese spouses. Bride trafficking in China constitutes human trafficking because there is an overt act, a thorough process, and an intentional purpose behind it. China, with its vast population and growing economic and regional disparities, experiences nearly every manifestation of marriage trafficking.
What is China’s response?
Under Chinese law, people face more fines for selling parakeets, a protected species, than for selling women. The government realizes there is an issue, and they have pledged to crack down on the illicit industry. Chinese police arrested more than 1,300 people suspected of assisting in marriage trafficking. However, women are still trafficked from Cambodia, Myanmar, and Vietnam. There needs to be safe passage for refugees from these countries so they do not fall victim to trafficking schemes. Despite past efforts, ongoing commitment is needed to fulfill these pledges and protect vulnerable individuals. To combat marriage trafficking, China needs to enforce stricter laws around forced marriage, childbearing, and immigration.
Victims of marriage trafficking were 6.5 times more likely to experience intimate partner violence compared to women in autonomous marriages. They are 4.7 times more likely to suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth and 4.6 times more likely to suffer the death of at least one child. There are many more women like Xiao Huamei. To protect them, there needs to be active, continued efforts to educate society about the harmful consequences of marriage trafficking. Coordinated programs with neighboring countries to address cross-border cases of marriage trafficking are essential. Providing social services at risk of being trafficked and offering safe entry into China will significantly impact the illicit economy. By addressing marriage trafficking through these comprehensive strategies, we can shape a world where everyone has the freedom to choose whom they marry and live a life free from coercion and violence.
In the United States, the right to vote is heralded as a cornerstone of democracy, in which every citizen can access the ballot box. However, recent legislation in Alabama has cast a shadow over this fundamental right, prompting a fierce legal battle to uphold the principles of democracy and accessibility in the electoral process. Alabama Senate Bill SB1 imposes stringent restrictions on absentee ballot assistance. The new law imposes misdemeanor penalties for returning someone else’s ballot application or distributing an absentee ballot application containing a voter’s personal data, like their name. The payment of someone to distribute, order, collect, deliver, finish, or prefill another person’s absentee ballot application is a felony act that carries a maximum 20-year jail sentence. Aimed at combating “ballot harvesting,” a type of voter fraud that involves submitting completed ballots by third-party individuals rather than by voters themselves, the legislation criminalizes certain forms of aid provided to vulnerable voters, including the blind, disabled, and illiterate, who rely on assistance to exercise their constitutional right to vote. Extensive research, however, shows that voter impersonation is essentially nonexistent, fraud is extremely rare, and many purported cases of fraud are actually errors made by administrators or voters. The Brennan Center’s seminal report, The Truth About Voter Fraud, conclusively demonstrated that most allegations of fraud turn out to be baseless and that most of the few remaining allegations reveal irregularities and other forms of election misconduct.
Historical Context
The restrictions that accompany this new law not only infringe upon fundamental constitutional rights but also perpetuate a legacy of voter suppression that has long plagued Alabama’s electoral system. This has been rooted in the state’s constitution since 1901. When delegates gathered to rewrite the constitution, Chairman John Knox opened the proceedings, saying their goal was “to establish white supremacy in this state.” During Jim Crow segregation, Alabama implemented numerous laws and practices to disenfranchise Black voters. These discriminatory practices included poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, which limited Black people’s right to vote. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was passed as a result of the first failed march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, which was called “Bloody Sunday” and concluded with an attack on protesters. There have been several instances in Alabama’s history that contributed to systemic voter suppression.
Since then, there have been various forms of voter disenfranchisement in terms of redistricting, strict voter ID laws, and lack of accessibility for absentee voting. In Alabama, absentee voting is allowed only with a specific excuse. Voters must expect to be away from their county on Election Day, have a physical disability, or be scheduled to work a shift of 10 or more hours on Election Day to request an absentee ballot. This policy is completely unnecessary and imposes outdated, inconvenient restrictions on eligible voters. The challenges faced by low-income individuals, rural communities, Black Alabamans, the elderly, and those with disabilities have only worsened as a result of Alabama’s inability to enact these reforms. The lack of accessibility in Alabama’s election system was not intended with these marginalized populations in mind.
Implications
SB1 adds to these restrictions because now people who have a valid excuse, such as a disability, are penalized for using absentee ballots. One of the law’s key provisions prohibits individuals from assisting others with absentee ballots, criminalizing acts as benign as providing a stamp or sticker to a neighbor in need. Due to restricted transit alternatives or physical disabilities, voting is already difficult for many residents, such as homebound individuals, retirees, and the elderly. This is designed with a blatant disregard for vulnerable voting groups under the pretense of preventing voter fraud. Allowing this form of blanket prohibition not only undermines the spirit of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which sought to remove barriers to voting for marginalized communities, but also stifles the efforts of grassroots organizations striving to empower voters.
Alabama’s law creates new hurdles to voting, escalates already-existing inequities, and criminalizes assistance that helps marginalized voters participate in the political process. Enacted amidst heightened partisan tension due to the 2024 presidential election, the law has sparked widespread condemnation from civil rights organizations and voting advocacy groups. The Alabama State Conference of the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, Greater Birmingham Ministries, and Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program are A few years ago, a similar case was presented to the US Supreme Court, Milligan v. Allen, in which a coalition of civil rights organizations sued against the state’s enacted congressional redistricting, stating it was racial gerrymandering, the map-drawing process was intentionally used to benefit a particular race. The Court upheld the district court’s decision and required Alabama to create a second majority Black congressional district in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Final Thoughts
This problem goes beyond party politics and touches on democracy. Regardless of circumstances, everyone deserves unrestricted access to the ballot box in a country built on equality and freedom. The court dispute is a harrowing reminder of the continuous fight to preserve voting rights and protect democratic principles for future generations as it plays out. SB1 perpetuates obstacles that Alabamians with disabilities, the elderly, and home-bound individuals encounter daily. These people oftentimes have to travel further, wait in longer lines, and jump through more bureaucratic hoops than other people. Absentee voting increases accessibility, allowing these voters’ voices to be heard. Restrictive legislation like this is designed to keep eligible voters out of the voting booth. Twenty-eight states already have no excuse for absentee voting in place for November. Criminalizing assistance that provides access to the voting process to others limits participation for Alabama’s most vulnerable citizens.
Voter fraud is wrong, but rather than enacting laws that will make it more difficult for millions of eligible Americans to exercise their right to vote, we should focus on finding answers to real issues. All Alabama citizens need to be able to vote in the November election, and they need to be able to trust the results. This can be achieved by countering the misinformation about mail-in/absentee voting. Instead of passing SB1, voters must appeal to Congress to supply the necessary funds to help states with less experience processing absentee ballots. Voter fraud is a serious issue; however, the right to vote is a Constitutional right enshrined in this country’s foundation. Before preventing any fraud, protecting all citizen’s right to vote should be paramount. Despite all the obstacles in this unprecedented moment, Americans will vote this year, possibly in record numbers. It’s not a matter of whether tens of millions will do so by mail but whether they will have their voices heard.
Haitis political challenges can be traced back to its revolutionary past. Following independence, the country faced the daunting task of establishing a functional government amid the ruins of colonial rule. The unmountable debt given to the Country of Haiti from its former colonial power, France, coupled with internal power struggles, set the stage for a volatile political environment that persists.
Haiti has a long history of corrupt leaders, the most notorious of whom were Francois Duvalier, also known as Papa Doc, and his son Jean Claude-Duvalier (Baby Doc), who ruled the country from the 1950s to the 1980s. The Duvalier family was known for its extravagant spending and mishandling of Haiti’s funds. Their regime was characterized by authoritarianism and totalitarian rule, and they used techniques such as extortion, repression, and embezzlement of government funds to maintain their grip on power.
Following the reign of the Duvaliers in Haiti, the country became even more susceptible to natural disasters, especially earthquakes and hurricanes, which further increased its economic vulnerabilities. The devastating earthquake that occurred in 2010 drew attention to the precariousness of Haiti’s infrastructure, leading to widespread destruction and loss of life. The subsequent challenges in rebuilding efforts imposed additional strain on the nations already fragile economy, further impeding its capacity to provide essential services and support its citizens. The earthquake has left many citizens, even years later, without stable housing or work.
Since then, Haitis government has experienced numerous periods of political instability, marked by changes in leadership, coup d’états, and challenges to governance structures. Frequent government changes have hindered the establishment of long-term policies and sustainable development initiatives.
Present Crisis
Civil unrest was ignited in Haiti in 2018 when the government announced its intention to eliminate fuel subsidies. The situation was further exacerbated by several contributing factors, including the misuse of loans from Venezuela, social inequality, substandard living conditions, and, well into 2020, the poor management of the COVID-19 pandemic. President Jovenel Moïse faced criticism for seeking to extend his term amid allegations of police brutality, human rights abuses, and violence against protesters. Following Moïses assassination in 2021, the country’s period of crisis has only been exacerbated.
The country has been overrun with gangs and has excelled to new levels, with the gangs taking over and now moving into the country capital, Port Au Prince, a prison near the country capital, and letting out 4,000 prisoners. Many of the country cities were already not safe due to brutal violence such as sexual assault and killings happening daily. Two hundred thousand plus citizens have been displaced from their homes due to the escalating violence. Haiti is home to over 4 million citizens, but the number of police in the country is around 13,000. This massive imbalance of police to citizens has made it very hard for Haitis Political Officials to establish any order within the country.
State of Emergency
Haiti declared a State of Emergency on March 3rd, The United States evacuated its Embassy, and the Regional leaders of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) held an emergency summit to discuss the Haiti crisis and establish a framework for a stable political transition. Furthermore, the President of Guyana, Irfaan Ali, commented on the meeting and let it be known that at the summit, plans were agreed upon to create a 7 to 9-member transitional government comprised of Haiti’s major political parties. The council will be in place and responsible for selecting a new prime minister. Recently, According to NBC News, the council has stated that its creation is almost complete. The group hopes to restore Haiti and put it back on the path to legitimate democracy.
According to Al Jazeera, over 200 gangs are operating in Haiti, with two of the most extensive coalitions claiming Port-Au-Prince as their territory. The most infamous and the one who is making news waves is the leader Jimmy “Barbecue” Cherizer of the G9 gang, a former Haiti police officer who has been pushing for the resignation of Haiti Prime Minister Ariel Henry, whom former President Moise appointed. As of March 12, 2024, at the height of the violence and within days of the country calling for a state of emergency, Prime Minister Ariel Henry announced that he would be stepping down and “leave immediately after the inauguration of a new council.” However, Jimmy Barbecue does not like the idea and will resist the implementation unless he is given a seat at the council table. He has stated that the corruption of the “traditional politicians” has not done Haiti any good and are the ones “damaging the country.”
Since the state of emergency was announced the United Nations has estimated that 53,000 Haitians have fled the capital of Port-Au-Prince in March. Also, 1.64 million men, women, and children are facing severe acute malnutrition due to the rise of gang violence has only exacerbated the crisis. The percentage of those who rely on humanitarian aide for food has only increased. Before the crisis, Haiti’s urban and rural communities had long relied on their city and town markets, which are sustained mainly by the work of Madan Saras, the women of Haiti who buy, distribute, and sell food and other essentials in these markets, serving as the lifeline of the communities. Still, unfortunately, they have become targets for gang violence, especially in recent times. The gangs seek to assert their power over the towns, and thus, the markets have become a hotbed of criminal activity, which has contributed to the decimation of Haiti’s economy. This is just one example among many of the challenges the people of Haiti face.
Path of Uncertainty
Still, despite the council’s creation, a finalized plan has yet to be developed to assure Haiti and its citizens of a peaceful and stable environment. Kenya’s plans to assist the country and bring in military aid have been stalled, and the country’s future is uncertain. The government has been distressed for many years, and the plan to restore stability will require continued effort.
Several organizations are assisting the people of Haiti in the amid unrest. Here are a few of them:
The region of West Papua has been plagued by a complex web of struggles and injustices that have left indelible marks on its society. These issues are deeply rooted in the region’s colonial past and have been compounded by ongoing struggles for self-determination, discrimination, and egregious human rights abuses. The people of West Papua continue to grapple with the multifaceted challenges posed by these historical injustices, and their struggle for justice and equality remains ongoing.
The Challenges of Self-determination
The Act of Free Choice that took place in 1969 was a significant event in the history of West Papua. At the time, the territory was under Indonesian rule, and a process was initiated to determine the status of West Papua. The process was organized under international pressure but lacked genuine representation and transparency. The participating representatives represented only 1 percent of the West Papuan population, and there were allegations of coercion. The Act of Free Choice has been a lasting source of frustration for West Papuans. It was seen as a profoundly flawed process, symbolizing a profound historical injustice. The vote was conducted in a minimal scope, with only 1,022 handpicked representatives voting. These representatives were pressured to vote in favor of Indonesian rule, and there were even allegations of torture and intimidation. The Act of Free Choice has been a contentious issue ever since. Many West Papuans believe that the process was rigged and that they were denied their right to self-determination. The vote was not conducted fairly and transparently, and the outcome was predetermined. The legacy of the Act of Free Choice continues to resonate, and it remains an important issue for West Papuans seeking justice and recognition.
Marginalization and Discrimination
Indigenous Papuans have faced systematic discrimination, resulting in stark socio-economic disparities. Unequal access to education, healthcare, and economic opportunities has entrenched a sense of disenfranchisement. Policies favoring non-Papuan migrants further contribute to marginalization exacerbating tensions and perpetuating historical injustices that affect the fabric of Papuan society. Al Jazeera News, reports that the government of Indonesia created a transmigration program that has been moving others from around the country to the Indigenous West Papuan lands, forcing them out of their own.
Cultural suppression in West Papua has taken various forms, and one of the most prominent ones is the restriction placed on indigenous languages and practices. The Indonesian government’s imposition of a dominant Indonesian culture over the diverse cultural landscape of West Papua is perceived as a significant threat to the rich tapestry of Papuan cultural identity. As a result, the Papuan population has been resisting attempts to assimilate them into a broader Indonesian identity for decades.
Recognizing and preserving West Papua’s unique cultural heritage cannot be overstated. The region is home to over 250 distinct indigenous groups, each with its language, customs, and traditions. The suppression of these cultures has had a severe impact on the Papuan people, leading to a loss of cultural identity and a sense of dislocation. Despite the challenges, there are ongoing efforts to preserve and promote Papuan culture. Organizations such as the Papuan Hope Language Institute are working to document endangered languages, while others are advocating for the recognition of customary laws and practices. These efforts are crucial in ensuring that the rich cultural heritage of West Papua is preserved and remembered.
Exploitation and Economic Disparities
West Papuan natives argue that they have not received proportional benefits from economic activities, particularly mining and logging. Military operations that displace indigenous Papuans pave the way for extractive industries and Indonesian settlers, which exacerbates instability and makes it difficult for people to work and earn a living due to the constant threat of violence.
The United Nations human rights experts have been advocating for access to the area to investigate reports of human rights violations. The Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights estimates that between 60,000 and 100,000 people have been internally displaced since 2018. West Papuans have experienced racism ranging from common insults such as “monyet,” meaning monkey, to active discrimination, limiting their business opportunities and making them feel like second-class citizens. Environmental degradation further exacerbates their struggles and negatively impacts traditional livelihoods. Addressing these economic imbalances is crucial to promoting sustainable development and redressing historical injustices in the region.
Movements and Resistance
The Indonesian government’s actions have increased military presence in the region and led to the emergence of West Papuan movements such as the National Committee for West Papua(KNPB) and the Free Papua Movement (Organisasi Papua Merdeka or OPM). The OPM advocates for independence, which has led to occasional violence and clashes between pro-independence groups and the Indonesian military.
Reports of human rights abuses by the Indonesian security forces have been persistent in West Papua. Violence, extrajudicial killings, arbitrary arrests, and restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly contribute to a climate of fear. The systematic nature of these abuses underlines the urgent need to address human rights concerns as an integral part of rectifying historical injustices in the region. Since the annexation of West Papua in the 1960’s, over 100,000 civilians have been killed in the indigenous land. The most known tragedy was the Biak Massacre in 1998, where tensions between the West Papuan people and the Indonesian military came to a boil. The total number of state forces deployed in the region remains classified. However, Papua and West Papua provinces are known to have the country’s most significant presence of Indonesian troops.
Conclusion
The historical injustices embedded in West Papua’s past are intricate and interconnected, requiring a nuanced approach to resolution. A comprehensive strategy should acknowledge the complexities of colonial legacies, contested political processes, discrimination, human rights abuses, cultural suppression, and economic disparities. It is crucial to draw international attention, promote meaningful dialogue, and make concerted efforts to establish justice, equality, and self-determination in West Papua. This is necessary to rectify historical injustices and pave the way for a more inclusive and sustainable future in the region. The Free West Papua Campaign website is a great resource to learn about organizations actively working towards this goal, and you can even donate to support their cause.
Here are some websites offering more information about this blog post
That statement was uttered repeatedly in interviews performed by the Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program (ADAP) with residents of Sequel Courtland, a psychiatric group home for boys in Courtland, AL. The residents of the home reported consistent patterns of abuse. One boy “reported witnessing a staff member lifting another resident up by the throat and slamming him to the floor.” Multiple boys reported being slammed into the ground and not being allowed to receive medical attention.
Sequel Courtland is a facility for boys. At the time the letter was sent in July 2020, there were “at least two transgender girls inappropriately placed at Courtland,” one of whom reported that she “is constantly touched, smacked on the butt” and that “they [other residents] try to watch me dress.”
At a Sequel facility in Owens Cross Roads that was part of the same investigation, “male staff repeatedly enter girls’ bedrooms and put them in violent containments.” At the same facility, residents were frequently ordered to sleep in common areas rather than in their bedrooms as a punishment. Staff also failed to report or make any attempt to prevent suicide attempts.
Sequel Montgomery practiced “Group Ignorance” as a punishment. Group Ignorance, or GI, involved staff and other residents completely ignoring the person being punished. The isolated person was unable to interact with peers in any way; just being within ten feet of another resident would be considered a violation. The facility’s then-current guidelines read that “They can participate with peers only during direct billable services—BLS and therapist-led group therapy.” One resident reported attempting suicide specifically because of the stress of being isolated under GI.
Sequel Tuskegee utilized a “time-out room” for up to days at a time as a means of controlling residents. There was no mattress present in the room; boys were required to move the mat from their bedroom into the confinement area. It also lacked a toilet or sink. Because of that, residents were forced to either try – and often fail – to gain staff’s attention to use the restroom or, failing that, “urinate in the corner of the room and clean it up later.”
A Sequel group home in Ohio was also investigated by that state’s protection & advocacy (P&A) agency, Disability Rights Ohio. They reported that one of the children living at that home told them he was “Put in a hold so strong that it almost broke my arm; they kept holding me tighter and tighter; my hands and arms were tingling and going numb.” Another said, “I don’t feel safe.”
Abusive group homes are not exclusive to Sequel. Group homes are often abusive, no matter what company owns them.
At a residential facility called Canyon Hills Treatment Facility in North Carolina, “at least one-third of residents lost weight after they were admitted for treatment.” Canyon Hills’ residents were children who should still have been growing. When residents asked for more food, their portions were cut even further. At another facility in North Carolina called Anderson Health Services, “Ten staffers at this facility have been charged with child abuse since 2017.”
At a group home in California, a woman with severe autism often went out on rides in the home’s van. She occasionally tried to stand up, after which “the staff member driving would slam on the brakes and, like, brake check her.” That practice caused bruises. The same woman, who had harmed herself in the past, was frequently left alone and unsupervised, during which time she banged her head into the wall, leaving large holes in the process.
Neglect in Group Homes
Many group homes are chronically understaffed. That, along with low pay and a lack of care from and proper training for staff, collectively leads to preventable injuries and death.
A woman choked to death at a New Jersey group home in 2017. She was unable to swallow large pieces of food; everything needed to be in small pieces, and she required supervision while eating. Two years prior, she had been taken to the hospital after choking on a bagel – an incident her family was never told about.
As a result of poor staffing, a resident of an Oklahoma group home named Terry Brown was strangled by his roommate. There was only one staff member on duty; when she intervened, she was attacked as well and “watched Terry’s body turn purple, go limp and fall lifeless.” At a group home owned by the same company, a resident drowned in 2011 on an outing. He was supposed to be wearing a life jacket. When he died, there was no life jacket for him to wear.
One Texas caregiver worked for almost 70 hours straight while caring for two disabled women; her only breaks were a short nap and a trip to run errands. She is the only caregiver for two women who require constant care and supervision. She was clocked in from 8:16 Tuesday morning to 10:08 Friday morning, and only four hours after clocking out she returned for another 19-hour shift. She said that, “I’m always here. The only thing I do for fun — besides sleep — is go to church, read my Bible, hang out with my family.” The only occasional help she has comes from equally understaffed and exhausted workers at other group homes. For her work – providing constant, necessary care to two people – she makes $9 per hour, which is a wage that is not uncommonly low and serves as one of many reasons group homes are so often neglectful.
At the previously mentioned Sequel group home in Courtland, Alabama, ADAP investigators found blood and feces on windows and floors. The same investigation had residents report insufficient and inadequate food and water, nonexistent education and medical treatment, and that “there’s mold in the showers, and rats and roaches in our bedrooms and the hallway.”
Physical and Chemical Restraint
Mental healthcare professionals generally agree that restraining someone who is in crisis only makes things worse. Many group homes do it anyway.
As part of the previously mentioned investigation into Sequel facilities in Alabama, numerous instances of inappropriate restraint were reported. A report compiling the results of several investigations by various state Protection & Advocacy Agencies (P&As) reads about an Alabama group home, “One boy described his head being caught on a nail in the wall during a restraint; another said he was picked up and slammed on his stomach onto the concrete. A boy who had visible gashes to his head said that facility staff had slammed him against a wall the previous night.”
A group home in Carlton Palms, Florida has yet another pattern of restraints being used. Those restraints include cuffs, residents being strapped to chairs or being tied down, and straitjackets. These restraints directly cause physical harm – broken bones, bruises, and broken teeth, to name a few.
Seroquel is an antipsychotic drug that is approved by the FDA to treat some severe mental illnesses. Seroquel does not have an immediate effect. It is not approved as a form of chemical restraint or as a treatment for insomnia or anger management, among other off-label uses, but that is what it has been marketed and used for. Disability Rights Tennessee, the P&A agency in Tennessee, reported that “In one facility, staff increased a child’s Seroquel dosage from 50 mg to 300 mg as an emergency intervention.” The same problems occurred in North Carolina; “staff had administered Seroquel numerous times to a child who did not have any diagnoses that would indicate use of antipsychotics.”
Samuel Walker proposes that America has two crime problems, one affecting most white, middle-class Americans and another affecting mostly people of color in poverty. Racial bias has been expressed in drug policy for centuries and has not ceased to marginalize certain racial and ethnic minorities. Chinese immigrants have been historically discriminated against in the United States and have not ceased to face racism in everyday life, especially after being associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Bias has not only affected drug policy over time, but drug policy has reiterated this bias.
Stigma refers to a negative attitude toward a particular group of people, which is usually unfair and leads to discrimination. Stigma can be both explicitly expressed, like thinking people with mental health conditions are dangerous, and subtly embedded in societal norms, like repeatedly showing people of certain groups in the media in negative situations. Labeling someone in a positive or negative way is an easy solution to avoid the toll of understanding the challenges they are experiencing. Stigma is hugely based on social identity and perception of other groups, in that negatively stigmatizing other groups can be a way to justify inequalities in one’s own privilege compared to others.
Understanding stigma toward other social identities is especially important in the context of historical and present drug policy. In this series of blogs, I will explore some important historical examples of how stigma against minority groups has been embedded in American drug sentiment. Throughout this series, I will review the opium trade and Chinese repression, the criminalization of marijuana and Mexican immigrants, the unequal playing field of the hippie counterculture movement and the Indigenous Peyote movement, and the controversy over racial disparities in crack and cocaine sentencing. I hope to offer new perspectives on how targeting and incarcerating drug users has resulted in challenges specifically for minority groups, and how stigma hurts in the criminal justice system.
Outlining the Opium Wars in China
An early point to recognize in the development of drug prohibition was the Opium Wars in China and their effects on the criminalization of Chinese immigrants, especially in the US. This example importantly impacted policies on opiates, the term for the chemicals found naturally and refined into heroin, morphine, and codeine. These variations are derived and created from opium, a depressant drug from the sap of the opium poppy plant. Opioids can refer to both naturally derived opium and its variations syntheticallymade in the laboratory, like oxycodone and hydrocodone (partly synthetic) or tramadol and fentanyl (fully synthetic). As a medication, opium is meant to be used for pain control, but smoking opium causes euphoric effects almost immediately since the chemicals are instantly absorbed through the lungs and to the brain. The coming of opium smoking to the US created very toxic discrimination by those in privilege against Chinese immigrants, leading to blatant policies against Chinese people in poverty, even when the opium frenzy that followed was far from their goal.
In the 1700s, opium poppy fields in India were conquered by the British Empire and smuggled into China for profit. Even though China banned the opium trade in 1729, the illegal sale of the drug by outside nations caused an addiction epidemic and devastating economic consequences. In the Opium Wars, the Qing Dynasty attempted to fight against opium importation, but the British consistently gained more power over trafficking and forced China to make the opium trade legal by 1860. China had imported tea through the East India Company to Britain for many years, but it no longer appealed to Britain’s trade options, and this was detrimental to trade. As Britain ran out of silver to maintain the tea trade, the East India Company found that opium could be sourced in bulk from China, which led to a growing and promising market. The East India Company did not initially create the demand for opium but found a way to maximize the economic disruption and addiction in China for the benefit of trade.
Opium was then trafficked increasingly and was effectively destructive to the Chinese. For example, for the British to get their fix of caffeine, the Chinese got their fix of opium. The drug was sold and medicalized to merchants around the world, notably America, which played a significant role in finding new sources of supply from China and expanding the opium market until 1840. In Chinese culture, smoking opium was initially a ritual luxury that was used to display privilege, but as it became more accessible, the government was less concerned with controlling its pharmacological effects and more with controlling the social deviance associated with it. The Opium Wars ended in an unequal trading arrangement in Europe’s favor, continuing importation and causing the market to become socially segmented. Depending on their wealth, people bought different varieties of opium. However, addiction did not discriminate by wealth.
Judging Drugs by Culture
When many Chinese immigrants came to the US in the mid-1800s, primarily to escape the social and economic devastation brought upon them by the Opium Wars, they were an easy scapegoat for US politicians to blame for the internationally emerging opium crisis. Opium smoking, as well as poverty, was popular among them, so many started businesses of their own, including Opium Dens. These were hidden places to smoke without social consequences, popular in San Francisco, and were typically run by Chinese immigrants, though people of all backgrounds could be found there. These dens were compared to sin and hell, which only increased the already pervasive anti-Chinese sentiment. There was popularity in claims that vulnerable white women who entered the dens were manipulated and their honor surrendered by Chinese men. Males made up 95% of Chinese immigrants in the late 19th century, working for the few available jobs amid the great depression, leading to strong discriminatory sentiment among Americans affected by unemployment, such as referring to cheap laborers as ‘opium fiends.’
Chinese people were at first welcomed by some Americans as “the most industrious, quiet, patient people among us,” by a California newspaper in 1852. Still, tensions rose at the same time that immigrants started impacting opium use and the workforce. Policies on opium reflect xenophobia and racism, perpetuating fear of the ‘yellow peril,’ a racist color metaphor in American campaigns disguised as ‘anti-drug.’To further conceptualize racism in politics during this time, the California Supreme Court case People v. Hall in 1854 categorized several racial and ethnic minorities as lacking the progress or development to testify against White people. Even if states did not blatantly pass these laws, Chinese people would be dismissed as liars before even speaking for themselves. This pervasiveness made it impossible for Chinese immigrants to seek justice against the severe discrimination and bias of the drug wars or practically any repressive measures they were subjected to. With the completion of the railroad in 1869, thousands of Chinese people were out of work, denied access to jobs, and targeted as competition as soon as they began to succeed.
By the 1870s, it became apparent that many individuals, including white people, were picking up on opiate addiction. Opium use had increased alarmingly by the 1880s across the American medical field as well, and this led to criticism of Chinese immigrants by people who saw their fellow Americans as plagued by a disgusting habit. When more others were associated with Chinese people in this way, the criminalization of Chinese people represented a shift in focus toward protecting the perceived integrity of white people. For example, the San Francisco Opium Den Ordinance in 1875 made it illegal to maintain or visit places where opium was smoked, so many Chinese people and their neighborhoods were criminalized. Essentially, the US passed the Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882, which was the first major federal legislation to explicitly restrict immigration for a specific nationality. This meant pushing Chinese people away from the US even when they were producing the backbone of American railroad labor and only making up 0.002% of the population at that time.
Parallels of Criminalization and Overprescription
The Smoking Opium Exclusion Act in 1909 continued to ban the possession, use, and importation of opium for smoking, being the first federal law to ban the non-medical use of a substance. Even though opioids were rampantly prescribed and available in America by this time, the criminalization only applied to smoking opium, primarily done by Chinese immigrants in Chinatowns. Contrary to assumptions, it is not illegal drug cartels but pharmaceutical companies that fueled the opioid epidemic. For example, many Union soldiers in the Civil War returned home addicted to opium pills or needing treatment only possible by hypodermic syringes, which had become widely overused by both doctors and addicts due to their powerful relieving abilities. Male doctors prescribed morphine for women’s menstrual cramps, and it was even infused into syrup to soothe teething babies who became addicted. This was known as the ‘Poor Child’s Nurse,’ since the drug often led to infant death by starvation when sold as a medicine to calm hungry babies. In a broad sense, depending on or relating to one’s racial or ethnic community, opioids were regulated differently.
When narcotic sales were banned in 1923, this forced many addicts subjected to this overprescription to buy illegally from the thriving black markets, especially in Chinatowns, again criminalizing Chinese people. Countless doctors warned and panicked over the rising commonality of addictiveness in opiates as early as 1833, and opium was rapidly synthesized by scientists all over the world into more dangerous variations. When problems with addiction to medicalized opioid variations spun out of control, the US blamed Chinese immigrants rather than consulting with the professional field to avoid harm in the irresponsible dispersion of highly addictive drugs. Instead of dispersing research on the new and dangerous variations, opium smoking was specifically centralized, with opium being generalized into street names like ‘Chinese molasses’ or ‘Chinese tobacco.’
The narrative of opioid addicts was changed when opioid abuse rose among white people, and by this, I mean both the attitudes toward addiction and the actions taken to solve it. Framing addiction as a disease rather than a disgusting crime came when it was no longer just people of color getting in trouble. The idea of pharmaceutical treatments for drug abuse came when it was white people suffering and dying from the opioid epidemic. Meanwhile, opium ordinances had a heavy burden on the incarceration and continued detainment and deportation of Chinese people in the United States especially before accurate research was done. Repression was tied to opium but also purposely deprived Chinese immigrants of opportunities to succeed and created criminalized reputations among their communities. Despite its age, the history of the Opium Wars and its impact on societal discrimination in America is not a point to be missed when considering drug stigmatization.
Content warning: This blog contains references to violence and murder.
Introduction
The femicide crisis in Mexico can be best exemplified in the quote, “What is happening in Mexico is a gigantic tragedy, a humanitarian catastrophe”—a statement made by Lucy Diaz Genao, a representative of Colectivo Solecitos (Sunshine Collective). Colectivo Solecitos is a group of women searching for their disappeared relatives, known as madre buscadoras.
Genao is not overstating her concern for the issues in Mexico, as every year more and more people, mostly women and children, are reported missing with little to no action done by government officials to find them. Every day, approximately ten women are murdered, resulting in a staggering 3,754 deaths in 2022. These deaths are rarely investigated as femicide, with less than a third of them given the proper acknowledgment that they deserve. Not only are they not presented as femicide, but they are also often presented as accidental, with manslaughter being the most frequent classification. It is possible that this misrepresentation is done so that the Mexican government can downplay the severity of femicide within the country. There are countless factors perpetuating the violence against women in Mexico, with some of the major reasons being cultural machismo, domestic violence issues, and a flawed justice system.
A Flawed Justice System
The flaws in the justice system are numerous, with some major problems being insecure crime scenes and the removal of objects that could be evidence in cases. One specific occasion of this is with Diana Velázquez. Velázques was killed after numerous brutalities were committed against her—both physical and sexual—and then her body was abandoned by a warehouse. The investigation was quickly mishandled when Veláquez’s body was misidentified as a man. This is obviously problematic in many ways, one of which is that Veláquez’s family could not find her for some time. When she was finally found, she was heavily decomposing on the patio of a morgue. While these factors are more than enough to emphasize the missteps within the justice system, the mismanagement of the case does not end there. Authorities lost Veláquez’s clothing, which was vital in collecting DNA and identifying her killer. Her family got minimal closure, and because of the flaws in the investigation, only one suspect was apprehended and convicted.
This is one case out of thousands as the violence against women comes in shocking waves. The crimes are handled so poorly that it incentivizes individuals to continue committing acts of violence. It is vital for the Mexican government to take a firm stance against femicide and provide more cohesive measures to prevent and punish the murders.
Gender-based violence is not new in concept; however, femicide is new in terms of legal codes in Mexico, and it was first made a distinct crime category in 2012. This demonstrates progress, but the negative implications of it being so recent are numerous. For one, there is little uniformity in this classification, so many femicides may go undocumented as such. The incorrect documentation of the crime underemphasizes the problem, and it encourages those in law enforcement to put less focus on the roots of the problem, like machismo culture and domestic violence.
Machismo Culture and Domestic Violence
Mexico’s machismo culture is another large factor attributing to the abundance of femicides in the country. Machismo is “the set of ideals and beliefs that support the notion that men are superior to women. Men…must protect the vulnerable, usually by exercising control over women.”. This forces women into a more subordinate role and allows men to enforce their dominance. Gender discrimination leads directly to gender violence, and gender violence rooted in patriarchy has been increasing steadily every year.
Women are stuck living in fear, as their perpetrators are often given minimal sentencing if prosecuted at all. Domestic violence perpetrators are given much lower sentencing than those who commit murder or femicide, so women are often left to face their abuser after the sentencing.
These gender biases amongst judges and prosecutors also lead to victims gaining little to no protection. Described as “institutional neglect” by journalist Gloria Piña, Piña laments, “There are no legal consequences for killing women, [and] the State will do nothing to financially take care of victims.” This state-based discrimination dissuades victims from coming forward, as it will often just result in angering their significant other. Exorbitant fines prevent women from speaking up, so why waste money on a legal process that will result in no justice?
Unique Violence of Femicide
Femicide needs a significant increase in attention from law enforcement and government officials; however, it is not overlooked by the general public. There are major demonstrations throughout the country, happening at least once a week. There are also annual marches honoring International Women’s Day in March. Women have been participating in strikes to fight against gender-based violence in Mexico, but we need the government to intervene.
The homicide rate in Mexico is high, but femicides are uniquely violent. Most killings in Mexico are done with a firearm, but only 21% of femicides are committed with a gun. Most are done by strangulation, suffocation, drowning, knives, and other brutal acts. This emphasizes the personal nature of femicide, and it illustrates how men are able to commit these crimes in more intimate ways, as many of them live with the woman they end up murdering.
Conclusions
The brutality of femicide brings all the elements discussed in this post together—it begins with the machismo culture of Mexico. This allows men to feel superior to women, which leads to physical violence against them. This physical violence is forceful and personal, and they are allowed to get away with these actions because of the flawed legal system in Mexico.
Protection for women and children is the first step. If women are guaranteed safety or even provided more security than they are now, the magnitude of gender-based violence will be better able to be understood as more women come forward. A more cohesive jurisdiction will help women not only feel safer but get the closure that they need and deserve. It is time to place emphasis on women’s rights in Mexico, and it is time to bring an end to the brutal killings of women.
Sustainability means a lot of things to many different people, and I view that as a positive thing. One part of sustainability that is usually highlighted is the focus on environmental sustainability, given the real-time effects of climate change. Individuals apply this to their lives in many forms, such as my grandmother, who refuses to throw away food, or my supervisor, who walks to the office.
When talking about sustainability, people are quick to bring up things like recycling or electric vehicles (EVs). In essence, this is the low-hanging fruit (not necessarily in price, but they require the smallest amount of effort or change). These are the simple things that make wealthy people feel better about unhealthy consumption habits. This blog is not intended to point fingers. I want to highlight this black-and-white perspective of sustainability, which is misguided. Still, it remains a popular view in much of the Global North due to inadequate education or pure convenience.
In 2024, we would rather feel good about ourselves for putting plastic bottles in the recycling bin than examine why we are still using single-use plastic bottles. For some, these reasons are significant, as not everyone has access to clean and safe drinking water. For others, not so much. The ultimate truth is that it is more convenient to adapt sustainability into our current habits than to change our habits to be more sustainable. Essentially, this view is a type of “convenient sustainability”—or capitalistic sustainability— and is a bit of an oxymoron, considering that capitalism thrives on maximizing profits at the expense of any consideration of long-term social or environmental sustainability.
I am not here to encourage anyone to stop recycling and refuse to buy only gas automobiles but to challenge them to think about it in a less binary way. At a basic level, most of these choices are better for the environment than the alternatives. However, they do not get to the root of the problem, which, for this blog, is a society dominated by a reliance on automobiles rather than on diverse modes of transportation.
Beyond that, the narrative that buying something new will solve climate change is not only false but reinforces the narrative that innovation under capitalism can save us from the repercussions of climate change, which is the same mentality that has gotten us here.
To get to the root of this problem, we must look at different aspects of the life cycle of products to really get at what true sustainability is—not just environmental sustainability but social and economic sustainability, too. In this blog, I will use the case of car overreliance to illustrate true sustainability. Not only is it poor for the environment, but car overreliance also has human rights concerns due to its impacts on air pollution, communities of color, and the global supply chain.
I want to be clear that I do not think it is reasonable to expect us to eradicate the use of automobiles in this country, nor is it necessary. Cars are needed in many rural areas, and the United States is a large country. But in a culture that loves to flaunt the benefits of a free-market system and increasing consumer choice and freedom, why have we accepted that cars are the only option? This acceptance benefits the automobile industry and the fossil fuel industry, even for EVs.
The Rise of the Automobile
It may be difficult to imagine, but automobiles are a relatively new technology, and they are extremely inefficient. The average American automobile spends 95 percent of its life parked, which seems like a crazy statistic at first until you actually think about the amount of time you spend in your car each day.
For the purpose of this blog, I am specifically targeting EVs because they are too often touted as the solution to climate change, especially in the Global North. What I think is most important to note is that this perspective is a privileged one. There are numerous environmental issues that are directly caused by car overreliance, and EVs will not solve most of them.
Automobiles spit out emissions at the street level, which contributes to climate change by releasing carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons by burning gas and diesel. There is also increasing awareness that automobile exhaust is a public health concern. One 2023 study linked breathing in traffic emissions to increased blood pressure of passengers. Other studies have connected air pollution from automobiles with increased rates of cardiovascular disease, asthma, lung cancer, and death. Additionally, a society focused on cars promotes a sedentary lifestyle, which puts people at risk for many of the same conditions caused by the air pollution from tailpipes.
Moreover, a world built around automobiles (and the rise of the suburb) also benefits large corporations and harms local businesses. Since smaller businesses generally operate in smaller (usually more urban) areas rather than in large commercial lots, car-centric design common throughout the suburbs makes it easier for consumers to purchase from large companies. Meanwhile, many small businesses rely on people walking/passing through, which car dependency negatively impacts.
Urban Sprawl
The rise of the automobile is connected with the rise of the suburbs and modern urban sprawl—think driving down Highway 280 in Birmingham at 5:30 PM on a Tuesday. The rise of the suburbs has increased the number of miles per trip and made it convenient to move far away from the cities. Massive amounts of land were developed, displacing wildlife and allowing the wealthy (and predominantly white) to move away from the cities. Studies have linked development with a decrease in biodiversity. While, arguably, this concerns urban and suburban areas, the suburbs take up significantly more space than urban areas (even though they contain far fewer people living in them).
It is a common misconception to think that a rural home with large, spacious fields is the most “environmentally friendly” way to live, with cities being the enemy of true sustainability, largely due to the historical implications of the Industrial Revolution on cities. While living in a rural area is not necessarily bad for the environment, cities are vastly more efficient from a space perspective, and much of that is because of the diversification of transportation (though this depends on the city).
Much of what I am describing is the ideal end result of success through the American Dream. It focuses on economic prosperity and the goal of owning property and raising a family. It’s no secret that the idea of upward mobility being accessible to all is inaccurate. Aside from that, it can take time before we think about the cost of all of this.
Connection to Human Rights Domestically
Besides the consequences of that for human health we’ve already talked about, overreliance on automobiles exacerbates the already high inequity within the United States. The US Department of Transportation estimates that the construction of the interstate system displaced over 1 million people when it was built starting in the late 1950s. The system was built to connect the United States, and it did, but it connected some groups more than others and came at a high cost to others. The bulk of the interstate system cut through black and brown communities to cater to white commuters who worked in the city but lived in the suburbs. Not only has infrastructure historically cut through communities of color and impacted the once-flourishing social centers there, but by putting a highway there, it places those same groups of people underneath the emissions pipe of people who drive through there every day.
As for the consequences of this shift on cities? There are numerous. One of the main ones that comes to mind is the issue of parking. On UAB’s (University of Alabama at Birmingham) campus, nearly everyone is dissatisfied with the parking situation. This issue goes back to the inefficiency of the automobile. As mentioned earlier, on average, a car is parked for 95 percent of the time, taking up a square of concrete nine feet wide by 18 feet long. This is problematic for urban areas like Birmingham because the density of jobs and people is so high, yet the amount of space is quite tight. It does not take a civil engineer to recognize how inefficient this is in terms of land usage. This is also problematic when you consider that the majority of the time, all the parking lots are empty—yes, they really are empty most of the time.
In addition to their inefficiency, they impact different communities disproportionately. Parking lots are generally built in, near, or even over communities of color, further degrading property values (and can sometimes make those communities warmer due to the heat island effect). This is also concerning for public health because parks in nonwhite areas are generally about half the size of parks in majority-white areas.
When considering all of this, it is not difficult to see how car-centric infrastructure is a human rights issue in the US, often fueled by racist zoning laws and institutions that seek to capitalize on the manipulation of communities of color.
Similarly, the modern American driver is dissatisfied with the amount of traffic whenever “everyone else” is taking up all the room on the road. In the United States, there are large cities that are known to have this problem due to their almost complete reliance on automobiles. Houston and Atlanta are primary examples of this, where they have such high populations and poor public transportation to accommodate the large daily movement of people.
In Alabama and many other states, the solution is to add more lanes, which makes traffic worse due to a concept called induced demand. While it may seem that adding another lane would allow more space for people to drive and reduce traffic, adding another lane to an inefficient system makes the existing system more inefficient. Increasing roads by 10% will temporarily improve traffic, but over time, it will increase traffic by 10%, making the problem worse.
Human Rights Violations in Congo
EVs, as you may have realized, do not solve our parking or traffic problems. Beyond that, there are human rights concerns with the global supply chain that make EVs less ideal, too.
With EVs specifically, the lithium batteries require a significant amount of cobalt. The largest reserves of cobalt in the world come from mines in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Copper is also needed for different types of batteries, including cell phone batteries, and it is frequently mined in Congo as well. Unfortunately, families in Congo have been forcibly evicted due to the opening of new cobalt mines. Amnesty International, a global human rights NGO, has accused large companies who are opening these mines of forced evictions, threats, intimidation, and deception of the people who live there.
It is crucial to mention that ethical considerations like this have long been used by the fossil fuel industry to discredit and slow down the movement toward clean energy. It is imperative for the US to curb emissions and shift towards renewable forms of energy. Additionally, automobiles are a significant component of that, making up the largest category at about 29 percent of GHG emissions in the US. Still, it is critical that we do not continue to uphold unjust forms of labor and oppression. It is precisely these systems that have placed the United States as an economic powerhouse through the exploitation of people from other countries, damaging their health and environmental quality for our benefit.
Moving Forward
From an emissions perspective, EVs are a step in the right direction, but they do not begin to touch most of the other issues discussed in this blog, including environmental racism and public health concerns from an automobile-centered society.
EVs won’t solve the parking problem, the traffic problem, the microplastic problem, or the human rights issues associated with the global suppliers that are notoriously secretive about their practices. While they may decrease direct pollution that is linked with all the health conditions I mentioned earlier, they do not erase the damage to the people and countries that are supplying materials for their construction.
What will start to get at the problem is diversifying transportation. While automobiles are needed in many cases, it is extremely exclusive and inefficient to make them the only option, especially in our mid-size and large cities. In some countries, tax dollars fund all transportation infrastructure rather than almost solely funding infrastructure for cars and requiring bike infrastructure to be paid for by private individuals. In the US, most states spent an average of $1.50 to $3 per capita on bike infrastructure.
Improving public transportation in urban areas and between cities, such as through intercity trains, would benefit public health and the environment. It could also be a small start of changing centuries worth of racism and inequity by decreasing pollution and making it so that the people producing the most pollution cannot drive 40 miles outside the city to get away from it.
Investing in public transportation would also improve the lives of people who cannot drive or do not want to. In a car-dominated society, many disabled people and elderly people are forced to rely on others to take them places or pay for expensive Ubers. Giving them the option to travel without the assistance of others, just like everyone who drives themselves to work, is important to preserve their autonomy so they can maintain control over their own life without relying on others.
Car-centric design favors the wealthy and forces the rest of the population to keep up with car payments and insurance, which are quite expensive for the everyday family. According to the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, the average American family’s second highest expenditure (behind housing) is transportation, with 93 percent used for car payments and maintenance. It also favors the automobile companies, which is the biggest reason we do not have diversified transportation (like nearly every other developed country).
The simple truth is that the United States economy benefits from the sale of cars, and changing how we view this is difficult. Changing the infrastructure (and, in some ways, creating it) would not be easy, but it wouldcreate a more inclusive world. To change this, we must make the best decisions and push for improved public transportation, especially in urban areas like Birmingham.
What can we do?
Realistically, no person can change this system individually, and I think that is a large reason why people love talking about EVs and other ways we can individually make an impact.
Overall, wanting to make a difference is a good thing. It is important to pay attention to the companies you purchase from and ensure they are upholding high ethical and sourcing standards. I have mentioned this in previous blog posts, but the best thing to do is to refrain from purchasing unless you truly need it—and even then, try to buy secondhand.
If you do not need a new phone or laptop, do not buy a new one every year. Remember that companies, including the fossil fuel industry, benefit from the mentality that we should all have the newest thing. This is not good for your wallet, and it is especially harmful for the planet and the humans who collect the resources used in things we take for granted every day.
Another thing to consider is reducing your reliance on batteries. I am not saying to throw out all the batteries you may have at home, but to think of it from a purchasing perspective. It is becoming increasingly common for basic household appliances to be battery-powered because they are convenient. For some people, having multiple battery-powered flashlights for camping is a crucial safety measure, but if you need a new appliance for use in your home, be realistic. Batteries are convenient, but do you really need a battery-powered vacuum cleaner or handheld mixer that could be plugged into the electricity grid for use in a home? Given the questionable industries involved in battery production (and their environmental damage when they are not properly disposed of), eliminating the use of battery-powered objects in cases when they are not necessary is a great start.
A Final Note
I cannot finish this blog without mentioning that Birmingham does have a bus system, but it is mostly designed for people who do not have cars. It is designed as a last resort rather than a first choice, which means that users are often viewed negatively for not having a “better” option.
Arguments against diversifying transportation usually include comments that walking or biking is not accessible because things are so far away.
If that is what comes to mind, I’d like you to consider that most major and even mid-size cities (Birmingham included) had expansive public transportation until private car ownership increased from the 1920s to the 1950s. I cannot include them here, but you can find maps of Birmingham’s old streetcar system online.
Many of the tracks are still here, and we drive over them every day without even realizing it.
UAB is an Equal Employment/Equal Educational Opportunity Institution dedicated to providing equal opportunities and equal access to all individuals regardless of race, color, religion, ethnic or national origin, sex (including pregnancy), genetic information, age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, and veteran’s status. As required by Title IX, UAB prohibits sex discrimination in any education program or activity that it operates. Individuals may report concerns or questions to UAB’s Assistant Vice President and Senior Title IX Coordinator. The Title IX notice of nondiscrimination is located at uab.edu/titleix.