The Red Folder

Archived from September 2, 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.

Click here to test your knowledge of the stories covered this week with our weekly Extemp Questions!

International Stories

4 key international stories for the week:

1) Brazil X Moraes Lindsey Zhao

Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro's loss in the October 2022 election to former President Lula da Silva continues to indirectly wreak havoc on the country nearly two years later. It isn’t so much Bolsonaro himself causing trouble, but rather how his loss has emboldened the unprecedented spread of misinformation from the far right in Brazil across nearly every social media platform available in the country. Throughout his presidency, Bolsonaro sought to undermine Brazil’s faith in the electoral system, culminating in the infamous January 2023 riots in Brasília, spurred by far-right Brazilian influencers calling to "Stop the Steal." (Sound familiar?)

Nearly ⅔ of Brazil’s population are on some form of social media (most commonly X, Instagram, Tiktok, Facebook, and Whatsapp), so online political misinformation has since become a pressing issue in the country. At least, it has tried to. To combat this, Brazil has adopted one of the world's most unique approaches to fighting dangerous political lies on social media. They have entrusted this task to a single individual: Alexandre de Moraes, who has served as a Brazilian Supreme Court Justice since 2017.

The 55-year-old happened to be the nation’s election chief during the controversial 2022 presidential election- shortly after, he was given unilateral power to order tech companies to remove online content from their platforms that he believed constituted a threat to Brazil’s institutions. At the same time he has been called Brazil’s lead defender of democracy, he has also been demonized for using a wide interpretation of the Supreme Court’s powers to investigate, prosecute, and silence anyone he believes a threat to Brazil’s institutions.

Often giving social media networks just hours to ban hundreds of accounts and posts, Justice Moraes has been unrelenting in his fight to combat internet misinformation that ranges from posts calling left-wing politicians cannibals to claims that politicians were hoarding food and clothing during deadly floods this May.

While many academics have generally supported Justice Moraes’ actions, deeming them necessary to fight back against misinformation, that has taken a recent turn after X was banned on Saturday, August 31 for its nearly 22 million users in Brazil. Since last year, Justice Moraes has tried particularly hard to purge X of anti-democratic voices, vexing the platform’s conservative billionaire owner, Elon Musk. He has accused Justice Moraes of trying to silence free speech and conservative views, calling the judge ‘Voldemort’ and a ‘fraud’. Mr. Musk has repeatedly shown support for far-right figures like Bolsonaro and former US President Donald Trump.

Justice Moraes’ Friday ruling to ban X in Brazil came when Mr. Musk ignored a 24-hour deadline to appoint a new legal representative for X after their local offices closed a few weeks ago. Internet service providers were told to suspend users’ access to the platform by Brazil’s telecoms regulator Anatel. Moraes has established an indefinite suspension of the platform as well as a daily fine of $8900 for any individuals or companies using VPNs to access it. The average Brazilian’s monthly income is less than $2000 USD.

Needless to say, this new order has created massive controversy. Let’s see some expert opinions below. All quotes are from this NYT article.

“The thing that is really disturbing is that increasingly, undemocratic governments can point to democratic ones to justify their actions…Where there are narrower ways of addressing privacy concerns or misinformation concerns, governments should use those narrower means.”

Jameel Jaffer, executive director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Against the order.

“...the most extreme judicial decision out of a Brazilian court in 30 years of internet law.”

Carlos Affonso Souza, Brazilian internet-law professor. However, he emphasized that Brazil had to take some sort of action after repeated defiance from Musk. Limited support.

“The world looks at Brazil now and sees something is being done there to push back. It might encourage some other countries to do the same.”

Fábio de Sá e Silva, professor of Brazilian studies at the University of Oklahoma. Supporter.

“[Fining VPN usage] is absolutely authoritarian, and there is no explicit legal provision that allows for it.”

Thiago Amparo, prominent Brazilian lawyer and columnist who has previously supported Justice Moraes. Against the order.

“I was someone who was very on his side…But when we saw the X decision, we were like: ‘What the ****? This is too much.’”

David Nemer, Brazilian-born media professor. Against the order.

“If billionaires want to have companies that make billions in these parts, they need to learn to respect the laws. Long live the rule of law and national sovereignty,”

Erika Hilton, leftwing congresswoman. Supporter.

Despite concerns that Justice Moraes’ efforts to protect democracy are actually hurting it instead, his actions are not unprecedented; Whatsapp was shut down several times by individual Brazilian judges back in 2015 and 2016 for its refusal to send user data to police. Moraes threatened Telegram with a similar shutdown to X in 2022, but they ultimately stayed online when they appointed a local representative.

There is no doubt Justice Moraes’ campaign to silence disinformation has helped Brazil stay ahead of right-wing trolls. However, some question whether his efforts to protect democracy might actually be harming it.

Read More Here:

2) As Merkel’s Legacy Fades, Alternative für Deutschland Pounces Paul Robinson

When compared to the turbulence surrounding the likes of Marie LePen and Boris Johnson, Germany has always had relatively stable politics for a major European power. As the largest economy in Europe, it often falls upon Berlin to protect the global order built by the West. Globalism thrived in the 1990s, especially in Europe, where the Communist bloc had recently fallen. East Germany was finally reunited with the West, and other Eastern European nations, most notably Poland, embraced Democracy and the newly formed European Union.

The leadership of German Chancellor Angela Merkel did much to keep that globalization afloat. When multiple wars in the Middle East dramatically increased migrant flows to Europe, she was quick to use the might of her country as a threat when other nations, such as Hungary and Austria, tried to militarize the situation. When the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, and France nearly elected a far-right government, Merkel acted for many as the voice of reason, advising against these courses of actions.

Angela Merkel is no longer Chancellor. She stepped down in 2021, leading to new leadership in Germany for the first time in almost two decades. However, as she led Germany for around half of its modern existence, her ideologies still leave a lasting effect on the way in which Germany operates. Germany still possesses some of the most open immigration policies in the world, even despite toughening its laws in January of this year. This has caused friction with other nations which share an open border with Germany, which have many indigent residents as a result of Germany’s policies. Much to the chagrin of the likes of Poland’s Law and Justice or France’s National Right, the position of the German government has long been clear: the Federal Republic of Germany, as a sovereign nation, has a right to set its own laws, and will not be pressured by outsiders into changing them.

Merkel succeeded here because she had tremendous popular support. Her domestic approval ratings never dipped below 68%, and she left office with 76% support. Unfortunately for her colleagues, the same cannot be said for the movement she once led. In fact, they are currently being threatened not by foreigners, but by Germans themselves, who want to see the policies of Merkel dismantled. Disgruntled Germans are now backing the relatively new party Alternative für Deutschland, better known as the AfD. This is evident in the recent elections which took place on Sunday, and saw the AfD take huge gains in the ex-Communist East, specifically in the states of Thuringia and Saxony. The AfD won the former, and narrowly lost the latter, signaling that the 11 year-old party is poised to become a major player in German politics in the years to come. This is especially relevant now, with national elections coming up next year where the AfD could potentially gain even more seats in Parliament.

Unless the AfD somehow wins a majority of seats, which is nearly impossible to do in a system like that of Germany, it is unlikely we will see an AfD member become Chancellor in the foreseeable future. Not even considering the scope of the party’s policies, its leaders have become notorious in the past for using language which diminishes the Holocaust, a serious crime in Germany. This fact alone means that most political parties, even ones which have similar policies, will refuse to form a coalition with them. The AfD will never be in a majority coalition, at least for a while.

That does not stop them from causing huge disturbances. The more seats they hold, the more they can force the establishment to negotiate with other parties who are sympathetic to their views. In turn, concessions on the issues that these other right-wing parties care about, such as aiding Ukraine, economically supporting EU members, and most significantly Germany’s loose asylum policies, could well be on the table.

For the first time since the Second World War, there is incontrovertible evidence that the far-right is gaining support in Germany. The age of globalization there may be coming to an end, as nationalism picks up support in a nation which has done everything it can to avoid it. This puts the entire continent of Europe on edge; Germany is the largest economy in Europe, and is the glue that holds the European Union together. While a German withdrawal from the organization is not likely to happen anytime soon, a shift to the right in Germany may mean that the EU is not getting as much support as it used to from one of its key members. It could also mean that the effective openness of the Schengen Area, made possible by the availability of German visas, could change if a Parliamentary coalition must include right-wing parties. With extreme turmoil in the Middle East caused by the Israel-Hamas war and the incredibly complicated war in Sudan as destructive as ever, the impact that a closed Germany would have on migrants cannot be overstated.

The election could drastically impact life within Europe as well. The German government has historically worked just as much for the rest of Europe as it has for Germany, but it seems the appetite for this is waning within Germany. The European Union is the most successful supranational body ever created. No other organization rivals its unity and shared commitment to building up an entire continent. Europe acts, in this regard, more like a single country than an international organization; however, its ability to do so is contingent on the cooperation of member states. When the European Union was built, three countries were far more powerful than the others: the United Kingdom, France, and Germany. Britain famously broke away to set its own course, and the fear that France may do the same has existed for years now. We are now seeing Germany show signs of going down the same route. With all three major European powers exhibiting nationalist tendencies, it is all but certain that the age of Merkel is coming to an end.

Read more here:

3) Belarus Rushes to the Scene Boyana Nikolova

2 years and 6 months into the Russo-Ukrainian war and an end to the fighting still doesn’t seem to be nearing. Until now, the war has entailed nonstop Russian advances, a lauded (and failed) Ukrainian counteroffensive, and now, an unprecedented Ukrainian offensive into Russian territory that has already resulted in the seizure of more than 100 settlements. The state of suffering in the two countries has hardly changed throughout this. The intentions of neighboring nation Belarus, however, certainly seem to have shifted. For once, Ukraine is in a domineering position in the war, something which could prove fatal both to Belarus and its Russian allies. It’s prompting action from both as a result.

At the forefront of Belarus’s worries is Ukraine’s recent offensive campaign and how it has only branched out. On August 6th, Ukraine launched an incursion into Russian territory for the first time in the war, budging into the Kursk region. Infrastructure, troops, and military prestige are now at risk for Russia. Bridges along the Seym River, which have been crucial for the transfer of supplies and ammunition, have been destroyed. On a far more tragic hand, dozens of troops and civilians have been sacrificed for the sake of these attacks succeeding.

All of this means that the Kremlin is taking great blows to its once seemingly invincible reputation. Forces are taking blow after blow and with more than 30,000 additional troops being deployed to join the fight in Kursk, it’s clear that Russia is struggling to dislodge Ukraine from their land. Fortunately for them, they have a secret weapon that they haven’t used yet: their western neighbors. Whether Russia chooses to use Belarus as a weapon or just a bluff isn’t certain yet, but it’s only a matter of time until they act.

A week ago, Belarus deployed a third of its troops - roughly 12,000 of them - to the Ukrainian border, a decision which comes in the context of years of supporting Russia. Until now, Belarus has been embroiled in the conflict on almost every front except actual fighting. Belarusian President Lukashenko has firmly stood with the Kremlin’s “special military operation” ever since it was announced 2 years ago and he has accepted barrages of economic sanctions as payment for becoming Russia’s favorite ally. Even then, his country’s population remains surprisingly divided on the issue of Ukraine.

However, this doesn’t mean that Belarusians will necessarily be spared from the frontlines. According to Lukashenko, Belarus would be more than willing to gear up for an attack against Ukraine, as it believes its airspace is currently under invasion. As Ukraine has beefed up its use of drone warfare during the war, reported cases of Ukrainian drones illegally entering Belarus’s airspace have also gone up, providing Lukashenko a perfect justification for his current re-stationing of troops.

So with Belarus having “landed” the excuse for it, what do 12,000 troops on post at the Ukrainian border imply for the remainder of the conflict, especially at such a crucial juncture of it? First, they’ll likely be used as a bluff to ease ongoing pressure on Russian soldiers. Second, a potential attack could occur if Russia believes that peace talks are nearing and they still lack sufficient bargaining chips. Third and most importantly, the act signals that the Ukraine war has reached a critical turning point: one, at which foreign militaries are finally preparing to get involved.

Although foreign policy analysts have been having a field day with Lukashenko’s decision, the most likely explanation behind Belarus re-stationing its troops is that it’s a bluff intended to protect its Russian allies. Not only is this the safest way for Belarus to help out Russian troops during a moment of intense pressure, but it’s bound to have an effect. Ukraine can not risk a northern offensive happening from Belarus’s side and it may have to begin redeploying troops from Kursk and other key regions to safeguard its border, giving Russia some advantage in areas where they’ve been hard hit.

A significantly riskier second option would be to attack. With roughly a third of its entire total number of troops deployed, Belarus is well-equipped to join the fighting, despite all odds suggesting that it won’t. Domestic approval of Belarus’s alliance with Russia is already questionable, meaning morale isn’t yet high enough, and the consequences aren’t likely to outweigh the benefits. If anything, Belarus is better off betting that its deployment of thousands can encourage other Russian allies to do the same. If a sufficient number of other nations can support getting involved, Ukraine may feel pressured into admitting early defeat, promising little bloodshed but a certain victory for Russia and its friends. If, at all, Belarus does attack and succeeds in seizing northern Ukrainian land, this could be used as leverage against Ukrainian diplomats during peace talks, especially as Russia and Belarus are on track to make major concessions if the Kursk incursion continues.

The current toll of the war is difficult to measure in quantitative terms, but there is at least one measurement of the suffering Belarus’s current actions are capable of causing. Over 12,000 lives are now at risk for a conflict they’ve never been directly implicated in. What Belarus decides to do next will determine their futures.