The Red Folder

Archived from August 12, 2024. 

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024. 

International Stories

4 key international stories for the week:

1) Brazil’s Fight Against Indigenous Peoples Paul Robinson


When he was elected President of Brazil, Lula de Silva promised to protect Indigenous people in his country, who had widely been ignored by the previous administration of Jair Bolsenaro. Unfortunately, that may not be up to him.


At the end of last year, the Brazilian Congress passed a law which prohibits the demarcation - the giving back of lands to indigenous peoples - of land in Brazil. As he promised in the campaign, Lula vetoed the law, but Congress overrode his veto and passed the law anyway. The fate of the law now rests on the decision of Brazil’s Supreme Court, which started hearings on Monday to decide whether the law was unconstitutional.


Indigenous peoples in Brazil have been fighting against the government since 2014, when far-right president Jair Bolsenaro deregulated industry in parts of the Amazon which were home to indigenous tribes. The lawsuit was brought by the Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB), an activist group for indigenous peoples. It asks the nation’s highest court to overturn the vast majority of the law’s provisions on the basis that they violate the Brazilian Constitution.


Should the court fail to do so, all land not already subject to demarcation would be open to industry. This means that destructive industries, such as logging and mining, could become more prevalent in rural regions of Brazil. This damage could be irrevocable, as one of nature’s greatest domains falls victim to the powerful forces of unregulated capitalism. This means that indigenous peoples could lose the land which they have lived on for centuries, as industry destroys it in the name of profit.


There is an environmental side to this story too. Without protection, the Amazon, which is crucial to the climate of South America, could become more and more deforested. This could exacerbate global warming, both because the Amazon absorbs large amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and because the industries set up on that land, most notably agriculture, could emit even more greenhouse gasses. Whether this becomes a reality will be up to the Brazilian Supreme Court.


Read more:

2) Bangladesh “Bans” their Prime Minister Rohan Dash


In Arabic, the word “Sheikh” means “old man”, and is used as a term to address respected leaders. And it seems that despite her name being Sheikh Hasina, she certainly is no longer a respected leader after her ousting from office in Bangladesh. Being the daughter of the founding father of Bangladesh, Bangabandhu, Sheikh Hasina has always been in the limelight, serving as Prime Minister since 1996, with a hiatus for eight years until 2009. However, she wasn’t always beloved by her people. This article will examine her political history, the current events pertaining to her removal as Prime Minister, and the future of Bangladesh.


To understand the unfolding political crisis in Bangladesh today, we must go back to the history of the country and its roots from the 1940s. After over 200 years of colonization, Britain finally relinquished their control of India, leading to a partition into the Hindu state of India and the Muslim state of Pakistan. However, Pakistan had two separate regions: West Pakistan (modern-day Pakistan) and East Pakistan (modern-day Bangladesh), separated by about 1,600 kilometers of Indian territory. Cultural differences would lead to East Pakistan fighting for independence, with the formation of the Awami Muslim League, led by none other than Bangabandhu. Over the course of a few decades, there started to be several cultural and political differences between the two Pakistani regions, leading to disagreements. However, the climax occurred in the 1970 elections, in which their victory, including winning a majority of seats, in theory would have put Bangabandhu as the new Prime Minister. He called for an autonomous region known as Bangladesh, which put fear in the minds of previous leadership. West Pakistan would end up breaking out in a war with Bangladesh, and after India decided to help Bangladesh due to air strikes on their territory, Pakistan surrendered. 


However, Bangladesh did not have a happily ever after. Bangabandhu would go on to create a one party system, and bureaucrats and military officers were ordered to join the single party. Unfortunately, this led to revolt, and in 1975, Bangabandhu as well as a large portion of his family was assassinated by a military coup, leaving only a few members of his family, including his daughter, Sheikh Hasina, alive.


Sheikh Hasina was on a visit to Europe when the coup happened, and would end up living in exile in India. In 1981, she was elected as the President of the Awami League, so she was able to return to Bangladesh. Her first few years were spent in military detention, but, in 1991, she finally took on the role of Leader of the Opposition, after the Awami League forced the Bangladesh Nationalist Party to allow for a caretaker government to run elections. The following would repeat in 1996, and this time the Awami League would win, meaning Sheikh Hasina would finally have the opportunity to serve in the role her father did as the Prime Minister. Her first term as PM was marked by the signing of treaties with countries like India, the creation of peace accords, and decent economic growth. Yet, despite these efforts, the Awami League would go on to lose the elections in 2001. Hasina and the party claimed the elections were rigged, but the international community denied such claims.


Hasina would serve as Leader of the Opposition yet again, but would have to escape the country during military interventions and was arrested in 2006 on false claims. She would be released due to medical reasons, and went on to contest the 2008 elections, working with the Grand Alliance, an alliance of political parties led by the Awami League. From 2008 till 2024, she served as the Prime Minister, but in recent years, some Bangladesh citizens have begun to get sick of her. Elections were claimed to be rigged, and the opposition even boycotted one election. 


In the last few months, protests arose over a quota system for government jobs. The police forces and members of the Awami League responded in a harsh manner that led to the loss of over 300 lives. Over 11,000 people were arrested, and these protests only continued to worsen the stability of the country. In August, protests began to surround her official residence, and she fled the country to India, marking the end of her leadership in Bangladesh. Sheikh Hasina and her family have had a strong legacy in the founding and development of Bangladesh, but now, times have changed, and a new leader will need to work to restore peace in the country. 


Read more here:


3) South Asia’s Pollution: What To Do? Anthony Babu


In 1876, Maharaja Ram Singh was the world’s most famous breast cancer awareness advocate.


In preparation for a visit from Britain’s Queen Victoria, Singh had all buildings in the city of Jaipur painted pink. Hence, Jaipur quickly earned the nickname of “Pink City.”


However, nearly 150 years later, Jaipur might as well be renamed “brown city,” because it is one of the most polluted cities in the world. In fact, 83 of the 100 most polluted cities in the world are in India, the world’s most populous country.


Pollution in South Asia is a common phenomenon. The world’s three most polluted countries consist of Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India. 


South Asian pollution boils down to waste pollution and air pollution. As for air pollution, the causes largely boil down to outdated industrial habits. In Bangladesh, brick kilns are still very common for industrial practices, with over 8,000 of them  emitting smog across Bangladesh. 


South Asians are also forced into using outdated fuel for those industrial practices. 41% of Indians still rely on biomass for cooking, emitting 340 million tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere each year and also contaminating food, creating public health risks. Pakistani farmers tend to burn stubble, or crop residue, to make way for new crops,  adding unnecessary smoke into the atmosphere. These outdated power and business practices have led countries like Bangladesh to have air pollution 16 times the recommended limit of the World Health Organization.


Physical waste also tends to accumulate, posing harms ranging from needless inconveniences to serious risks. Only 50% of physical waste is even processed in India, leaving trash to accumulate on the street. Of what’s processed, 20% ends up in landfills, reflecting inefficient management. This is largely due to a lack of funding and access to Indian villages, meaning most trash rots in trash canals under villages and cities.


This pollution poses serious risks. Air pollution is the leading cause of death in Bangladesh, the most polluted country in the world, killing 235,000 civilians every year. Biomass burning in India kills 3 million people every year. 4.2 million people lose their lives annually due to exposure to agricultural burning practices. Poor garbage practices threaten the lives of 20 million people just in India’s capital city, and add methane gas as another obstacle to the fight against climate change, potentially dooming all of us.


With every second passing, more and more people lose their lives because of pollution. It is time for the international community to work together, not just to save lives, but to improve the quality of life denied to the billions in South Asia for decades.


The Bangladeshi government must begin properly enforcing its existing environmental regulations. India should invest in alternative fuel, both to manage waste and shift away from biomass. India should also continue to attract foreign direct investment in solar and wind energy to grow its economy and save its environment. 


South Asia is growing fast. But for growth to be sustainable, pollution can’t grow faster. It is time for Jaipur to become not just a pink city, but a clean city, if South Asia truly wishes to vault out of the global south.


Read more here:

   4) From Blue Passports to Riots: The British Far Right Paul Robinson


Issued relatively recently in 2022, my passport is one of the first blue British Passports in more than three decades. My dad, having a passport issued before the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, has a red passport. The first word on the top of mine is “British”, for him that word is “European”. The difference in our passport color is indicative of a struggle of some in Britain to make the UK “independent”, as they call it, from Europe. It is also a struggle to keep Britain “British”. 


The pro-Brexit movement painted the European Union as a globalist organization which let in too many immigrants. They escalated fears that Schengen visas were being issued in huge numbers by countries like Germany or Greece to Middle Eastern refugees, and that those refugees were “flooding” Britain and changing British culture. Brexit was meant to change this; it was billed as making Britain work again for British people, who, at least according to the Brexit campaign’s public statements, could be of any race or ethnicity. Even though many sources claimed that race was indeed a concern for politicians in positions of leadership - and that those same politicians used derogatory language to refer to racial groups - the official position remained that the campaign did not condone racism in any way. Saying that Brexit was an inherently racist campaign is quite an argument, and not one that this article will make.


While there are legitimate arguments about how many immigrants the British government should allow, the same cannot be said of the riots which have been taking place in Britain for the last week. There are no two sides to this issue: the British riots were not a result of legitimate grievances, nor were they an exercise of free speech. They were vicious attacks on people, attacks which the British government must not tolerate and which everyone - including journalists who strive to be impartial - should condemn.


While the British economy is getting better, it is on the tail end of a recession. Unemployment remains a problem, with current rates being at their highest since the Covid pandemic. However, perhaps a bigger problem is people who have jobs, but who are not making enough to survive. Inflation triggered by the pandemic has raised the cost of living in just a few short years, and salaries have struggled to keep up. This has created wide scale, perfectly reasonable discontent in the United Kingdom. Labour capitalized off of this to paint the Tories as caring more about the rich than about helping those who were struggling to live through the recession. Due to the incontrovertible fact that the Conservatives had not rescued Britain’s lowest earners through social services which they themselves had refused to fund - something not even the Tories themselves deny - this message worked. Labour won the election, and Sir Keir Starmer became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.


Some, however, pointed to a culprit other than the Tories, the EU, or even Covid. Immigrants have been proven to be beneficial to the UK economy, but nonetheless fear persists that immigrants take jobs away from British citizens. Seemingly seeking revenge on these immigrants, rioters over the past two weeks have attacked hostels which host asylum seekers and mosques throughout the UK. Many victims were not even immigrants; the Muslim community in particular has been terrorized by these mobs. In addition to mosque attacks, racial slurs have been graffitied on buildings in Muslim areas,  and even on gravestones of Muslims. Worst of all, Muslims themselves have been attacked, and people have even been convicted of physically assaulting Muslims in Britain.


The unrest initially began after three young girls were stabbed to death in Southport. While it has since been revealed that the suspect was a British citizen born in the UK, rumors online (which were spread by someone banned by Twitter before Elon Musk reinstated him upon acquiring the platform) initially indicated that he was a Muslim immigrant. While this horrific crime instigated the riots, much about the situation has little to do with the situation itself and more with the Islamophobia which has been allowed to flourish in the United Kingdom for the last ten years. Since then, Islamophobia has had a place within mainstream British politics. While the Brexit movement was not inherently racist, nor was every person who voted “Leave” Islamophobic, the campaign was more than happy to lend a dangerous legitimacy to these views. The desire to get votes above all else is not unique to Brexit or even the UK. Politicians across the political spectrum from all over the world have done exactly the same. 


What both Labor and the Tories need to recognize is that the populism promoted by the Leave campaign allowed the United Kingdom to become a less tolerant place. For some, Brexit was not about blue passports or being free of European regulations. It was the first step in creating a new Britain, one that would not be tolerant towards minorities. It is now the responsibility of the British government to stop that from happening.


Read more here:

Special Report:

Mulling Over Maduro's Machinations

Author: Daniel Song

It’s super surprising that Nicolás Maduro isn’t competing at the 2024 Paris Olympics because he would definitely take home the gold medal in running … a country into the ground. Since he became president of Venezuela in 2013, Maduro’s policies have led to one of the worst humanitarian crises in the world. A majority of Venezuelans live in poverty, GDP has crashed by 75% since 2014, and inflation is still extremely high at over 50% (though down from 10 million percent in 2019). These dire economic conditions, combined with Maduro’s repressive policies, have led almost 8 million Venezuelans to flee the country in recent years. 


Under pressure from the United States and incentivized by the lifting of some sanctions on Venezuela’s battered oil sector, Maduro agreed to hold presidential elections on July 28th, 2024. The election campaign was marred by violence, threats, and the arbitrary disqualification of leading opposition candidate Maria Corina Machado. Although, the Maduro regime did allow former diplomat Edmundo González to run in Machado’s stead. 


In a post-election analysis, the Carter Center concluded that the election “did not meet international standards of electoral integrity and cannot be considered democratic.” Regardless, the Venezuelan National Electoral Council (CNE), which is controlled by allies of Maduro, declared him the winner, saying the socialist incumbent earned 52% of the votes with 97% of ballots counted but refusing to release the full results (spuriously blaming a conveniently-timed cyberattack). However, Maduro’s victory has been widely discredited by international organizations, with numerous investigations by The New York Times, Associated Press, Washington Post, and political science professor Dr. Walter Mebane of the University of Michigan all finding that Edmundo González overwhelmingly defeated Maduro by a margin of 66% to 31%. The opposition has even published the results on a public website. The United States has also recognized González as the winner. Humiliated and embarrassed by the opposition, Maduro has refused to face the facts. His arrogant defiance of voters could cost Venezuela the easiest opportunity for change. González and Machado have promised to restore democracy and the rule of law, boost the private sector, invest in oil production, promote green energy, and a variety of other reforms to revive Venezuela’s moribund economy. Despite González’s overwhelming victory, Maduro has refused to concede defeat and instead cracked down on protests, imprisoning over 2,000 people and killing 22.


Venezuela’s descent into an authoritarian nightmare is heartbreaking, and the shameful hypocrisy of its tormentors is stark and glaring. In scenes reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984, images of Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chávez’s eyes are plastered around the country, reminding the people just who is in charge. But hope is never lost, drawing inspiration from Venezuela’s national anthem, “Glory to the brave people who shook off the yoke … And if ever despotism Raises again its voice, Then follow the example That Caracas gave.” Now, 200 years after the anthem’s author penned these words, Caracas is once again controlled by a brutal dictator. With Maduro refusing to accept the result, the key question facing the US and liberal democracies across Latin America and the world is how to liberate the Venezuelan people from Maduro’s grasp. This will be the most difficult step in Venezuela’s transition to democracy. There are two ways Maduro can leave office: Peacefully or Violently.


Considering the violent route, Dr. Shannon K. O'Neil, senior fellow for Latin America studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, analyzes the idea of a US-led military coalition to overthrow Maduro and concludes that such an effort would be disastrous, counterproductive, and likely end in failure for a multitude of reasons. As a start, to even have a chance of success, an intervention in Venezuela would require over 100,000 soldiers given the sheer size of the country and large population. A poorly-organized coup failed completely in 2020 because it lacked significant support. Such a significant force would be a significant strain on US military resources at a time when the military is already overextended and facing numerous strategic demands and challenges across the world. Actively opening up a new conflict in Latin America would be horrifically irresponsible. Even if the US could muster such a force, it would be unwelcome. A 2019 poll found that 54% of Venezuelans oppose a foreign military intervention and only 35% support one. If a century of US intervention in Latin America and around the world (e.g. Middle East) has taught us anything, it’s that regime change and military operations must be organic and significantly originate from the citizens of a country, not a foreign power. Operationally, a military intervention would also demand a Herculean logistics system. Venezuela’s infrastructure is barely functional, forcing US troops to basically self-supply and travel on poor roads, vulnerable to guerrilla attacks. Also, armed pro-Maduro gangs known as “colectivos” would pounce the moment US troops stepped foot in Venezuela. The geography of Venezuela is also a challenge: rainforest and mountains make military movements very difficult.


A multilateral force might fare better, but there is likely no appetite for that in Latin America. Colombia, Brazil, Mexico, and Chile all have leftist leaders who have shown sympathies toward Maduro and would oppose putting their own troops in danger to support a mostly-American led effort. The only significant country with an anti-Maduro leader is Javier Milei’s Argentina, but it is currently gripped by a massive economic crisis as Milei’s shock therapy takes hold, presenting little public willingness to extend men and material for a far-removed foreign folly. The military, which is instrumental to keeping Maduro in power, has continued to prop up his regime. The Venezuelan attorney general, a key Maduro loyalist, has even launched a criminal investigation into Machado and González based on fabricated changes of insurrection. China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba, all countries with at least some degree of regional or international military and economic influence, have stridently backed the Maduro regime and recognized the Salt Bae supporting, steak snacking autocrat as the 2024 election’s winner. To cap it all off, even election winner Edmundo González declared his opposition to any violence, saying, “It would be against my principles and against my lifelong record to advocate any violence, let alone a coup d’état.”


Regrettably, the most realistic way to reach a democratic transition in Venezuela is that Maduro and his powerful allies must concede defeat on their own accord, peacefully. No other method will work because Maduro is simply too powerful. A significant body of academic research supports the idea that effective regime change must be internal from the regime itself. Between 1950 and 2012, nearly two-thirds of the 473 authoritarian leaders who lost power were removed by government insiders, according to an analysis by Erica Frantz, a political science professor at Michigan State University who studies authoritarianism. Maduro has tried to prevent this scenario by dividing power between various military and intelligence agencies that check each other and maintain a stable structure to keep him in power. Over 25 years of rule has allowed Maduro’s party, the United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV), to gain control of nearly every relevant institution: the Supreme Court, the Office of the Attorney General, the National Assembly, media outlets, the electoral authorities, and the armed forces. Venezuela’s armed forces, with approximately 150,000 members, are split between the army, navy, air force and national guard. There is a national police force and a national militia — partly made up of Maduro supporters with little to no training — that can be called in to take up arms in an emergency. There are also the colectivos and three separate intelligence agencies that surveil the opposition and one another. This complex web of agencies and division of power has served Maduro well in the past for many reasons, chief of which is that top leaders have every incentive to keep supporting Maduro in spite of undeniable opposition victories. Maduro has wielded corruption masterfully, relying on an extensive system of patronage to purchase loyalty by giving senior military officers lucrative government positions and control over natural resources like oil, gold, and even allowing some allies to traffic drugs for personal profit. In the context of how awful this is, one must give Maduro some credit for being a brutally effective dictator. Of course, that does not excuse in any way his massive human rights violations and countless crimes, but it does put into perspective how difficult it will be to dislodge him from power. 


To explore how the US might persuade Maduro to relinquish control, we must examine his incentives and goals. Over 400 years ago, Shakespeare argued, “Th’ abuse of greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power,” meaning that when powerful people act without a sense of guilt, it is a sign that they have abused their power. Indeed, Maduro has certainly done just that, padding his pockets with ill-gotten profits, 100% guilt-free. But more than just money, power provides protection to Maduro and his cronies. For top leaders of the regime, losing power means they will immediately become subject to numerous criminal investigations by the United States and international organizations stemming from their countless human rights violations and narco-trafficking. Maduro and his allies would likely serve long prison sentences for their numerous crimes. Certainly, they would not like to spend the remainder of their days jailed in conditions that make Satan blush in shame. In short, Maduro and his top allies must be offered a way out that allows them to keep their freedom and lead lives of relative comfort. Aesop’s Fables got it right when they concluded that gentle persuasion achieves much more than brute force. The sad but simple truth is that Maduro will not be removed from power unwillingly. The US and our allies simply lack the means to force regime change. We have thrown everything but the kitchen sink to try and remove Maduro from power. Targeted sanctions aimed at regime officials? Failed. Oil sanctions to starve the government of resources? Failed. Easing sanctions as an incentive to hold free elections? Failed. Put a $15 million reward on Maduro’s head? Failed. Support opposition leader Juan Guaidó? Failed. All efforts have been unsuccessful because Maduro (as pointed out in the previous paragraph) has too much powerful institutional and international support to be removed. 


There is historical precedent to support a peace-based proposal. As Venezuelan nonprofit leader Roberto Patiño points out, South Africa and Chile both had peaceful transitions to democracy by offering an off-ramp to leaders of the old regime. For example, South Africa gave amnesty for perpetrators who admitted their crimes. But, I will controversially contend that in this case, the opposition must be willing to go further. Currently, Maduro and his allies have no reason whatsoever to accept any loss of their power because they know that it is extremely likely they can maintain control after the furor over the election subsides. Western democracies have to contend with numerous domestic and international challenges, leaving little capacity to invest in Venezuela. The US elections are happening in less than 100 days, riots grip the UK, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine continues, the Middle East crisis keeps escalating, and China maintains its aggressive pressure on Taiwan. In short, the countries most likely to support the opposition are overextended and distracted. Maduro is betting (probably correctly) that he can simply wait this crisis out. The opposition needs to both weaken the Maduro regime to the greatest extent without resorting to violence and offer a deal sweet enough that Maduro will jump (think enhanced carrots+sticks). Now, I will break down some possible carrots and sticks.


Stick 1: Divide the Maduro coalition

Despite Maduro’s overwhelming control on all the levers of power, his base of support is not ironclad. About 75% of Venezuelans want a change in leadership. Even in former strongholds, Maduro’s support has eroded due to his catastrophic economic mismanagement and hyperinflation eroding the value of government subsidies and welfare. Recent polling suggests that 10% of even the most ardent Maduro supporters are open to considering what change might mean. The opposition should take advantage of these rifts in Maduro’s coalition to gather support from disillusioned backers of the regime.


Stick 2: Keep protesting

Despite Maduro’s arrest of more than 2,000 protestors, it is critical that the opposition keep their forces energized and active. Even in dictatorships, perception matters. The opposition must show other Venezuelans, the regime, and the international community that an overwhelming majority of people want Maduro to step down and demand democracy. The 66% of people that supported González can take advantage of strength in numbers and protect together to reduce the risk of punishment. These methods are empirically proven to work. A study by Harvard’s Erica Chenoweth showed that over the past several decades, 57% of nonviolent resistance campaigns around the world led to democracy, while only 6% of violent campaigns did. By continuing to protest, the opposition can keep its momentum alive and have the capacity to resist Maduro even if the rest of the world cannot contribute much.


Carrot 1: Incentivize the military to force Maduro from power

Many low level soldiers are frustrated with the military top brass’s continued support for Maduro’s repression of their fellow countrymen and want to see a change too. Low wages and a lack of economic opportunity affects the military just as much as ordinary civilians. While top military leaders continue to support Maduro, foot soldiers could be persuaded to switch sides if they were offered immunity from prosecution in exchange for backing the opposition. In fact, González and Machado have announced they are prepared to include the military in their transition to democracy. González, a former diplomat, is particularly poised to play a crucial role. He can apply his skills of unity and empathy to persuade some segments of the military to switch sides. It is true that top generals have a significant financial incentive to stick with Maduro, but if a significant portion of the military changes sides, that provides pressure for top generals to stop supporting Maduro and for the dictator himself to negotiate with the opposition.

Carrot 2: Offer a comprehensive power sharing agreement

This is the most important suggestion and the one most likely to be successful. For all of Maduro’s wily maneuvers, if he loses the support of his generals and officials, it’s over. Dr. Francisco Rodríguez, a professor at the University of Denver, explains that a power sharing deal between Maduro and the opposition could provide a way for Edmundo González to take power while allowing Maduro’s camp some level of influence. Here too, there is historical precedent. In Poland, communist dictator Wojciech Jaruzelski shared power with the pro-democracy Solidarity movement for a period, allowing Poland to transition into a full democracy, joining NATO in 1999 and the EU in 2004. Returning to Venezuela, the US should support adopting a similar proposal. It would be in the opposition’s best interest to be realistic and be willing to make concessions. Some control over Venezuela is better than none. In fact, the US State Department even laid out a Democratic Transition Framework for Venezuela. However, a deal today would likely have to be more favorable to Maduro to persuade him to accept. Based on Dr. Rodríguez’s article and adding my own analysis, here are some basic principles:


No doubt, many will ardently object to these proposals because they (rightfully) demand that Maduro and his cronies must be held to account for their horrific crimes against Venezuelans. However, rabid passion should ultimately yield way to rational practicality. The best way to improve the lives of the Venezuelan people is to pave the way for Edmundo González to become president and start enacting reforms. To put it bluntly, at the worst case, I would much rather let a small group of people get away with crimes (no matter how horrible) in exchange for uplifting millions of Venezuelans trapped in the chasm of poverty rather than dogmatically pursue justice that probably won’t result in anyone getting held accountable. That’s a lever to the trolley problem I’m pulling any day. There can and should be good faith debate about the specific provisions of a power-sharing agreement, but recognize that almost all of the commentariat, including myself, lead comfortable lives in developed Western countries, insulated from the hellish conditions millions of Venezuelans have to brave on a daily basis. Consider the children in Caracas who are forced to scavenge the trash for food and ask yourself: Is a vague sense of “justice” more valuable than their lives and futures? As difficult as it is, we must all put the interests of the Venezuelan people above any desire for revenge. True justice cannot be delivered if Maduro is still ultimately in power and Venezuelans are still suffering.


Of course, all this might fail and Maduro could simply dig in, ramp up repression, rely on support from his allies, and wait for international pressure and attention to subside, thus entrenching himself in power for the near future. But if millions of Venezuelans can wait hours in line to vote, and Edmundo González and María Corina Machado can put their lives on the line to liberate their people from oppression, the international community owes it to Venezuelans to do everything in our power to support them. “Democracy Dies in Darkness,” proclaims The Washington Post. Given Venezuela’s continued rolling blackouts, this is especially prophetic. I hope that our collective conscience is worth more than cheap sloganeering. Only if all of us commit to keeping the flames of democracy burning so strong that they cannot be snuffed out, will the Venezuelan people ever see the dawn of a brighter future.

The Equality in Forensics News Brief is brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the News Brief Team:

Interested in becoming a contributor? You can apply to join our staff team here.