The Red Folder

Archived from September 23, 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 Red Folder articles with our weekly Extemp Questions!

International Stories

4 key international stories for the week:

1) Olaf Scholz’s Replacement? Rowan Seipp

The new buzz phrase in European politics appears to be “The far right is back, we’re all going to die!” While parties like the AFD in Germany have some scarily similar policies to Nazis or like in the case of the National Rally in France, were founded by outright Nazis, most European nations are dealing with the far right on a much more hidden scale. Except for the National Rally in France, no far-right extremist party has won or come close to winning a national election. Rather, the political power in Europe has come from a wave of support for moderate right parties. The conservatives in Britain (albeit until recently), and Partido Popular in Spain are the most notable. In Germany, however, one moderate right party stands to make a dominant return to power and seeks to nominate the man they want to run Europe's most powerful democracy for the next few years. The Christian Democrats (CDU) used to rule Germany with their titan of a leader, Angela Merkel. After 16 long years in power, she resigned in 2021. Her resignation decimated the party, and in 2021 the CDU lost to the Social Democrats (SDU) and Olaf Scholz became the new chancellor.

However, after finally grabbing power following years of waiting, the SDU promptly imploded. Polls taken in Brandenburg (Berlin) show the SDU in a shocking 4th place behind the Greens, AFD, and CDU in popularity. The problem is the SDU were set up for failure. From a COVID-19 crisis, inflation, and even a German court ruling the SDU’s budget plan was illegal, the SDU has had a tumultuous few years and has gone from Germany’s party of the future to a party that would be lucky to survive the next election.

With Olaf Scholz in a tailspin, the question of who will replace him has become imperative. The Christian Democrats think they have the answer.

Friedrich Merz is a longtime CDU member. Back in 2002, he stood as Angela Merkel's main rival for party leader but lost. He then took a 16-year hiatus only to return in 2018. He returned to gunning for the CDU’s party leader in 2018. However, it was during this campaign that a rather nasty side of him became clear. Merz repeatedly spouted Islamophobic rhetoric, even claiming that “a religion like Islam does not have the right to let children grow up in a cultural area where they are aligned against the Federal Republic.” It is not hard to see the problem with blatant Islamophobic comments. He wouldn’t be as controversial if he stopped there. However, Merz kept making posts on Twitter that spoke to the far right. Probably even more concerning is his support for the AFD, with Merz making several comments flaming the church for not inviting the AFD to a Protestant Church conference in Dortmund.

The fact of the matter is, Merz supports a party that openly aligns with Nazi ideology. Merz has also not been shy about his willingness to make Germany more Christian. The Philadelphia Trumpet, a news site for apocalyptic Christians, went as far as to claim that “Merz could bring Germany closer to fulfilling {biblical} prophecies.” That kind of rhetoric is why Merz is so dangerous. Merz is someone who not only dangerously aligns with Nazi rhetoric, but also has a penchant for sprouting dangerously Islamophobic rhetoric, coupled with his bizarre Christian nationalism. Germany seems to be about to hand the reins of power over to a very dangerous man.

Read more here:

2) The War With No End Max Guo

About a year and a half ago, international attention turned its attention to the nation of Sudan, which had become embroiled in a deadly civil war. In the first months of this conflict, 15,000 people were killed, and another 8 million were displaced. Then, October 7th struck the headlines and people lost interest in this poor, moderately large, and internationally irrelevant nation in favor of more eye-catching news on the Middle East.

But the conflict has not ended. Today, 26 million Sudanese people face imminent starvation. Some areas of the nation, such as the western region of Darfur, are already nearing the brink of famine. How did this conflict begin, and why is it still being fought?

To understand the causes of the war, we must look back to the era that preceded it: the dictatorship of Omar al-Bashir. Seizing power in 1989, and holding on to it until 2019, Bashir’s rule saw the rise of powerful paramilitary groups supported by the president himself. The most prominent of these groups was the Janjaweed militia group. The Janjaweed, which operated mainly out of the western region of Darfur, was seen by Bashir as a tool to quell the unruly ethnic groups living there. Between 2003 and 2005, the Janjaweed militias systematically murdered 200,000 Darfurese men, women, and children. And while the international community initially condemned these atrocities, in a turn eerily reminiscent of the war today, they quickly turned their attention to other matters.

The Janjaweed militia group soon evolved into the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and was officially recognized by the Sudanese government in 2017. President Bashir often lavished as much attention and support on this group as it did the regular army. In 2019, Bashir was thrown from office by a popular democratic uprising, and in 2021, the new democratic government was overthrown by the head of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF,) Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. So now you have two powerful military leaders, al-Burhan and Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo (better known as Hemedti,) the head of the RSF, who both have a powerful military force under their command, and both hold an equal claim to the Sudanese presidency. Without a dominant president like Bashir to keep them in check, each man was open to vye for the top job.

The inability of the international community to stop this conflict stems from a lack of political will. Indeed, there are more nations who have a stake in continuing the conflict than others have in persistence to end it. The UAE, for example, has established friendly relations with the RSF. In exchange for access to Sudan’s copious supplies of gold, the UAE has provided the group with everything from basic arms to attack drones armed with explosives. Combine this support with aid already provided by leaders such as Khalifa Haftar of Libya, and Russia’s Wagner paramilitary group, and the RSF has been able to utilize its plentiful stocks of small-scale weaponry to counter the more sophisticated equipment of their government foes.

Last year, the RSF seized the capital of Khartoum and the country’s second city, Wad Madani. But since then, the war has remained stagnant. The SAF has retreated to Port Sudan, a vital port city that gives it access to the Red Sea and continued shipments of military aid from its ally, Turkiye.

Will the war end anytime soon? It is difficult to say. As long as neither side loses its respective allies, it’s unlikely that this conflict will end in anything but a peace deal. But before that can be signed, millions will continue to languish in a country awash with weapons and bloodshed. And those who can flee will continue to put unwanted pressure on the economies of Sudan’s neighbors in the Horn of Africa. In a region where governments can barely stave off the constant threats of famine and conflicts of their own, (neighboring Ethiopia continues to deal with Northern separatists even after the end of its war with Tigray) each refugee, unfortunately, is another body these neighboring states cannot afford to take in.

3) Hezbollah’s Pagers Aren’t Safe Lindsey Zhao

Hezbollah, the militant group based in Lebanon with close ties to Iran, has used pagers for years to avoid detection and sabotage from their enemies on cell phones. Earlier this year, their reliance increased even further, with the importation of 5000 new pagers and walkie-talkies. Now, even those aren’t safe. This week, exploding pagers and walkie-talkies killed 32 people, including two children, and injured thousands more, setting off a new phase in the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.

In the days since, Hezbollah has furiously vowed retaliation against Israel, which is widely seen to be behind the attacks but has neither confirmed nor denied the allegations. So, what prompted Israel to launch an attack of such devastating magnitude and sophistication? How will Hezbollah respond? Let’s break it down.

On the first day of attacks, Hezbollah saw thousands of pagers around the country explode in their fighters’ hands. Chaos enveloped the country at around 3:30 P.M. local time on Tuesday, overwhelming emergency rooms and causing widespread suspicion from Lebanese citizens of anyone using a phone. Pager explosions on the street, in homes, and in businesses injured nearly 3000 people and killed 12. In another round of blasts a day later, walkie-talkies began exploding too, killing 20 and injuring 500 more. While these operations were believed to have targeted Hezbollah members, they had a major civilian cost, since these pagers exploded wherever members happened to be- whether at home or in public. Some pagers and walkie-talkies were also distributed to Lebanese civilians that often weren’t directly involved with Hezbollah.

Testimony and images of the aftermath indicate that the walkie-talkies may have been from a Japanese company Icom. However, an Icom representative said they stopped manufacturing the particular brand used in the attacks a decade ago. Similarly, the pagers that exploded were branded with Taiwanese company Gold Apollo’s logo- yet they told media that they hadn’t manufactured the pagers used in the attack, saying they were made by a company in Europe licensed to use the firm's brand. Those claims have not yet been confirmed.

A highly explosive compound known as PETN was used to lace the walkie-talkies, with up to 3 grams of the compound being hidden in the devices for months. Iran’s ambassador, Mojtaba Amani, sustained minor injuries in Tuesday’s attack.

This unprecedented attack has severely undermined Hezbollah’s confidence in its supply chain and handicapped their communicative capability. The sophistication of coordinating the attacks on pagers and walkie-talkies across the country indicates not only that Israel spent months tracking down Hezbollah’s supply chain, but also that they were able to plant explosives in them without suspicion.

This plan might not have been entirely successful, however. Several US officials, on condition of anonymity, said that Israel had decided to blow up the pagers when they did out of concern its secret operation might have been discovered by Hezbollah. Usually, this type of large-scale crippling of the enemy would be almost immediately followed by a major offensive of enemy territory; however, Israel has shown no indication of doing so, implying that Israel was indeed pushed to either ‘use it or lose it.’

Understandably, Hezbollah is furious. In a fiery speech Thursday, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah vowed retaliation, promising the militant group was ready to fight. Whether or not they will actually initiate a full scale war is unclear, since Hezbollah is likely unwilling to lose the resources they would put at risk in a war with Israel.

Israel’s attacks may have violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, an amendment added to an international law focused on the usage of conventional weapons. Both Israel and Lebanon are signatories. Essentially, the law prohibits the use of booby traps, or “objects that civilians are likely to be attracted to or are associated with normal civilian daily use.” Furthermore, some humanitarian experts condemned Israel’s detonations because they said Israel didn’t take enough care to ensure only fighters would be targeted, and not nearby civilians.

The attack on pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon was a terrifying reminder that no military group is completely invulnerable. No matter what happens next, this incident is sure to create an even deeper divide between Israel and Hezbollah in a time when one wrong move could spark a regional war.

Read more here:

4) Sinaloa’s Cartel Civil War Justin Palazzolo

If you want to see the individualized impact of cartel violence on Mexico look no further than Rev. Alfredo Gallegos, now commonly known as “Padre Pistolas”, a Catholic priest who famously urged his parishioners to obtain firearms after his home region of Michoacan was torn apart by numerous cartel groups.

Unfortunately, this same violence that tore apart Michoacan and was the impetus for Padre Pistolas’s homily has suddenly flared in Sinaloa.

Since Sept. 9th, over 103 people in the Sinaloa region have either been found dead or missing, two of the most powerful factions within Mexico’s strongest cartel, the Sinaloa Cartel, are now warring with each other with fighting focused on the region’s capital city Culiacan.

The lead-up to the violence began in July with the arrest of Ismael Zambada Garcia or “El Mayo,” a long-time leader of the Sinaloa cartel. After the capture of cartel leader Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman the two dominant forces in the cartel were the faction led by El Mayo and Los Chapitos, the faction led by El Chapo’s sons.

It doesn’t take much thought to see that a cartel power struggle was taking shape quickly. Los Chapitos and El Mayo’s longtime loyalists were now butting heads for power in the absence of the mediating force of El Chapo. Experts began to suspect a cartel civil war was all but inevitable.

It seems that the spark that set off the tension was the arrest of El Mayo. After being arrested, El Mayo alleged that he was kidnapped by a senior member of Los Chapitos and forced on a plane to be captured by U.S. law enforcement. This move is highly likely to be true since multiple of the killed since the violence began have been close associates of El Mayo, indicating the original motive of Los Chapitos was to seize the power of El Mayo and his faction within the cartel.

Since then, fighting has continued particularly within the city of Culiacan, gun battles have already taken the lives of dozens and over 600 Mexican Special Forces operatives have been deployed to the region. Amidst the civilian population, there is great fear of another culiacanazo, a term used to describe the violence in 2019 when cartel gunmen stormed the streets of Culiacan and fought the military following the arrest of El Chapo’s son Ovidio Guzman Lopez in which a city of nearly a million inhabitants was turned into an active war zone.

With the outbreak of fighting between Los Chapitos and El Mayo’s Sinaloa loyalists, debates over intervention strategies against cartels have fired up. The U.S. strategy of isolating and targeting the leaders of terror groups, criminal organizations, and in this case cartels, has always been highly scrutinized. The case of El Mayo is causing many to question the point of targeting leadership if the hierarchy is quickly filled in via a power struggle.

Furthermore, if the ensuing power struggle just causes additional violence, many analysts rightly wonder whether a singular arrest is worth starting violence that results in the deaths of hundreds. In fact, Mexican President Obrador Lopez called the U.S. “jointly responsible” for the violence by carrying out the operation that resulted in El Mayo’s arrest. While blaming American unilateral action is appropriate, it is also worth noting that cooperation between U.S. agencies and the Mexican government is always limited by extensive corruption and cartel influence within the government. For example, the governor of Sinaloa, Ruben Rocha, has been accused by El Mayo’s lawyer of cooperating with El Chapitos to arrest El Mayo and murder Rocha’s political opponent Hector Cuen, who was also murdered the same day Mayo was kidnapped.

While it may be tempting to view the current splintering of the cartel as an inadvertent success, the infighting has not diminished trafficking and has only resulted in more violence as the Sinaloa region is thrust into conflict. In the 1970s-80s the Mexican military launched an intervention campaign in Sinaloa to tackle traffickers, however, this operation only succeeded in splintering drug traffickers all over Mexico causing the growth of the Tijuana, Gulf, Guadalajara, and Juarez cartels as traffickers grew their organization elsewhere. It is a reasonable fear to expect that if the Sinaloa cartels splinter once again, they could spread all over Mexico and expand their violence.

Padre Pistolas was suspended for his homily urging citizens to arm themselves. After all, gun ownership is illegal for citizens in most cases in Mexico. However, the residents of Culiacan may soon be forced to take his advice whether they want to or not.