Democracies Under Threat

On August 2nd, a plane carrying Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the United States’ House of Representatives, touched down in Taiwan (more formally known as the Republic of China). Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan comes amid the backdrop of deteriorating relations between mainland China (more formally known as the People’s Republic of China) and the United States. The visit itself was seen as provocative by mainland China, which regards Taiwan as rightfully belonging to the mainland for historical and strategic reasons, and sees this as potentially opening the door to American recognition of Taiwan as a sovereign entity separate from China. Such a recognition would be in breach of the current formulation of American-Chinese ties, which was built on a One China policy, where the United States acknowledged that “ that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China.” This policy and its (somewhat ambiguous) wording was first established by the 1972 Shanghai Communique and was reinforced by subsequent agreements. China reacted to this visit by holding military exercises near Taiwan and severing various agreements with the United States.

Everyone is aware and most likely has felt the impact of inflation in recent years. In the US and the EU, at the time of writing, the annual inflation rates are respectively 8.26% and 10.1%. To put this into perspective, the long-term average inflation rates are respectively 3.26% and 1.95%. For many people, high inflation is causing significant issues in their day-to-day life. The average American household for example will already spend over $8,600 more this year, assuming no further increase in inflation. Some families across the US and the EU are struggling to make ends meet during these difficult times. In fact, a staggering 78% of registered American voters report inflation has caused financial hardship in their own lives.

On September 22nd during a speech in front of the UN, Yair Lapid stated his belief that, “An agreement with the Palestinians, based on two states for two peoples, is the right thing for Israel’s security”. Lapid’s speech and very public support for the two-state solution did not mention Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority (PA) by name. Instead, he shared a condition shared by the vast majority of Israelis for a future Palestinian state, that the state created "be a peaceful one". In response to Lapid’s speech, Abbas responded by arguing that Israel’s “premeditated and deliberate policies” were “destroying the two-state solution”. Abbas went even further, claiming that this was why the Palestinians “no longer have an Israeli partner to whom we can talk”. Abbas’s delusional response to Lapid’s UN speech was filled with historical revisionism and a general failure to take responsibility for his own missed opportunities for peace during his years as President of the PA, an office he has occupied for over 17 years. Abbas’s gaslighting rejection of Lapid’s speech provides even further evidence that Abbas has never been a suitable or plausible partner for peace.

Only 45 days after becoming the prime minister of the United Kingdom, Liz Truss announced her resignation stating “I recognize I cannot deliver the mandate on which I was elected by Conservative party”. The announcement of her resignation marked the end of Liz Truss’s time as prime minister and gave her the infamous distinction of governing for the smallest duration in the history of Great Britain. Her announcement was a dramatic U-turn from the day before in which she pushed back against demands for her resignation, saying defiantly “I’m a fighter not a quitter”. The speed of her downfall demands a question: how did it all go so wrong, so quickly for Liz Truss?

Two months after the onset of the Ukrainian counter offensive at the beginning of September the stance of the conflict has changed dramatically. Ukrainian forces have liberated more than 10,000 square kilometers, the Russian Duma ratified the supposed “annexation” of the Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia regions despite lacking full control of any of the regions and a tenuous grasp on the only regional capital Russian forces acquired in the entirety of their campaign. Putin decreed martial law and the mobilization of 300,000 men, an order whose execution has been plagued with violations of the established protections for students, and stories involving agents of the Russian Ministry of Defense (MOD) raiding cafes and business districts to grab men at random. A defected Russian diplomat has provided an unprecedented glimpse at the inner thoughts of the Russian Foreign Ministry at a personnel level and exposed the extent to which post-2014 sanctions crippled the logistical infrastructure of the Russian military.