Why US-Russia Relations Will Not Improve

The Donald Trump administration has taken a different approach in its tactics with Russia. Even with the revelation of  of Russian interference in the US 2016 presidential election, the administration wants improvement in relations. Such actions have caused feelings of anger and confusion. There have been condemnations of Donald Trump meeting with Vladmir Putin, but this should not be taken as an act of treason. Nor should it be seen as a skillful work of diplomacy. While it seems that the Trump administration is interested in improving relations this seems unlikely to occur. The current geopolitical and historical circumstances prevent such a substantive change from being enacted. The Cold War may be over, yet the legacy still haunts both nations. The Russian Federation and the United States continue to perceive each other as enemies. The past continues to effect the present as represented by the behavior of both countries. The US and Russia have a radically different world view and this is apparent on certain matters of international affairs. Syria, Ukraine, and North Korea are areas of major disagreement and tension. The US continues to support NATO and maintain a military presence in eastern Europe. These maneuvers have only cause more complications in Europe and around the world. Something must be done to prevent a large scale conflict from erupting. It is pivotal that the world's most powerful nuclear armed nations be in a state of peace and negotiation. Instead there are wars of proxy being waged in which the US and Russia are supporting various armed groups. Realizing such behavior is dangerous, means that there needs to be a reevaluation of US foreign policy, Regime change, nation building, and installing American modeled democracy has caused international instability. Through out the 20th century Russian and American contacts have been mostly negative. Donald Trump's pragmatism may be motivated by economic investment, attempting to isolate China, or a settlement on the Syrian conflict. The problem with this is that President Vladimir Putin would not trust the United States, after what had transpired during the Obama administration. While it would be welcomed that both nations reach a consensus, it is an unrealistic objective, given the current international situation.
        The origins of  US and Russian enmity began with  World War I. When the Russian Revolution occurred,  the decision was made with the new leadership to make a separate peace with the Central Powers. The October Revolution brought the Bolsheviks to power causing the collapse of the Kerensky government. The Allies were alarmed at these turn of events and fearful that this could be a help to Germany. The closure of one war front would have helped the German Empire, if it had occurred sooner. Between the years of 1917 and 1918 the Central Powers were facing eminent defeat. Western Europe and America were hostile to the new Bolshevik state, fearing world revolution. Vladmir Lenin had the intention of spreading a workers' revolution internationally deposing the capitalist world order and establishing it with a socialist one. The world was clearly being remade with the collapse of the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman empires. There was much trepidation about what the new geopolitical order would be. Russia was experiencing many setbacks with a limitation of munitions, supplies, and various defeats. Peasants grew more restless and workers could no longer tolerate conditions in the factories. Cazar Nicholas II was deposed unable to keep his empire functional. The Alexander Kerensky and Menshevik  faction made the error of keeping Russia in the war. The Allies once concerned seemed to briefly rejoice at this decision. When Lenin came to power it was obvious to him there was no reason to continue combat with the Allies. The Brest-Litovsk  treaty was signed in March of 1918.

The Russians lost territory to the Central Powers. The stipulations of the treaty included that Poland, Lithuania, and the Latvian province of Courland  be given to Austria and Germany. Finland, Estonia and parts of Ukraine were to be made independent under German supervision. Livonia a Latvian province  would also be a German protectorate. Turkey wanted access to the Armenian districts south  of the  Caucasus. Romania realizing it was isolated also sued for peace and in return was promised Bessarabia. The result was that the eastern front collapsed for the Allies. Germany could now devote its attention to the western front and Austria could focus on Italy. The Allies did not forget about Russian withdraw from the war. This resentment may have been an explanation for the intervention in the Russian Civil War. The Whites were a mixture anti-Bolshevik socialists, liberals, supporters of the monarchy, nationalist separatists, and some  peasants. The US, Great Britain, France, and Japan sent troops to assist the Whites in their attempt to overthrow Lenin's government. The Communists won the civil war by 1920.  Japan was the last Allied nation to withdraw its troops from the intervention. The series of events that occurred between 1914 to 1920 established the tone in which relations with Russia and the West would be. Russia since the reign of Peter the Great was seen as a dangerous rival power in Europe. The British Empire saw Russia as a threat to its position in South Asia. The Great Game was the term used to refer to British and Russian competition in the Central Asian  region during the 19th century. Afghanistan became caught up in this contest. This competition was continuing mainly due to Britain's desire to the empire's Indian colony be at risk. This was why the alliance between the Britain, France, and Russia seemed peculiar. There could have been poor relations between Russia and other Allied powers, doubtless of what government was in power.  

Foreign relations would antagonistic during the Interwar period. The United States just like the western European countries would view Russia and socialism with suspicion. America became so paranoid of Communist revolution that in 1919 there was the Red Scare. A combination of xenophobia and fear of Bolsheviks  erupted in racist violence and government oppression. A mysterious series of mail bombs were sent through out the country. It was unclear if it was a group or even Communists that were the culprits. It provided Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer a justification to arrest and deport foreigners. One mail bomb was sent to Palmer's home giving him an excuse to abuse power in the name of public safety.The people who were arrested  were 5,000 in total and it resulted in 249 deportations. J. Edgar Hoover a member of the Justice Department was an assistant to Palmer who would later become a long serving director of the FBI. Hoover would use the same tactics he learned during the Palmer Raids during the second Red Scare in the 1950s. The Red Scare of 1919 would end in 1920. Palmer and Hoover created mass hysteria while making outrageous claims about attempted Communist takeover. Thus began America's association between socialism and violence. Americans began to view Russia as an enemy to freedom and to an extreme degree a threat to world peace. The irrational obsession with  Russia did not allow other European countries to see real dangers. World War I and the Versailles Treaty created a situation in which Fascism could flourish. 

       The United States after the war chose a policy of isolation relative to European affairs. The Soviet Union was going through a massive transformation. Joseph Stalin became the absolute ruler and master of Russia. However, his ambitions were not world revolution rather revolution in one country. The Soviet Union was not going to embark on major international revolutionary movements as Lenin had envisioned. The plan was to engage in programs of industrialization and collectivization creating a model socialist state  that could compete with western powers economically. I would seem that that would have been impossible considering the global economy during the 1920s was experiencing growth. Roaring Twenties America was a place of  growing consumer culture  economic power,  and wealth. Many erroneous thought that such prosperity would last indefinitely. The stock market crashed in the United States effecting European economies. The Great Depression caused unemployment and homelessness. Communism and socialist ideology was becoming more attractive to people , which caused trepidation in European and American political circles. This explains why Fascism  was seen as less of a threat than Communist revolution. Perturbed and confused by economic and political crisis  the German and Italian  people turned to extreme far-right political parties. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini  would attempt to remake the European political order. Germany and Italy had larger ambitions for expansion. France and the British Empire appeased them for a number of reasons. It was the a belief that if  these two powers were not a force in Europe the Soviet Union would become more powerful. Both France and the British Empire did not want to fight another war. 

Fascism was seen a the only way to counter totalitarian Stalinist Communism. These positions were horrible miscalculations. The failure to establish closer relations with the Soviet Union in the 1930s allowed Germany to maneuver in manner to expand. Joseph Stalin accepted a non-aggression pact with Nazi Germany shocking the world. Some in liberal and socialist circles thought of it as a portrayal. Germany was free from fighting a two front war for the time being. A secret part of the agreement was that Poland was going to be divided between both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.  The West only became more anxious as Germany had masterfully deceived both France and the British Empire. When Germany invaded Poland, France and Britain had to go to war to preserve Poland's independence, which was part of their security agreement. World War II began with the Axis powers gain vast amounts of territory. The US continued to remain out of the conflict, but it was inevitable that it would get involved. Although America proclaimed neutrality, it was aiding the British through Lend Lease Act. This program of aid was expanded to include the Soviet Union, China, and other Allies in the war against Fascism. Two events that altered the war were Germany's invasion of the Soviet Union and Japan's attack on America at the Pearl Harbor base. Hitler initiated a two front war, terrorizing the Russian population. Russians suffered immensely compared to other Allied nations. The invasion and conquest of France in 1940 left Great Britain the only country fighting  the Axis powers, but this was soon reversed by events in the Pacific and Hitler's desire to destroy Communism. Thus, the British Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union became unwilling partners in the war. Stalin complained that the US and Britain should open a second front so that the war could come to an end. Prime Minister Winston Churchill  had anxiety about such an operation recalling the failure of Gallipoli during World War I. Rumors began to emerge that the US and Britain were delaying  this military operation to leave the Soviet Union in a weakened state so it would not have global influence in the post-war era. 

Eventually, it was decided that an invasion would happen in Normandy, France.  Axis power had been slowly declining since 1942 and the days of rapid victories were coming to an end. D-Day occurred on June 6, 1944, while the Soviets were pushing from the East. Germany would surrender May 7, 1945. The world had been radically changed, more so than after World War I. Great Britain would no longer be the most powerful nation on Earth. The United States of America and the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics would become the world two only superpowers. Both countries became antagonistic toward one another fighting for geopolitical dominance. Relations between the US and Russia were in poor condition prior to the war due to the political circumstances in the international landscape. The new peril came from the rise of nuclear weapons. Two large super powers  were amassing arsenals and the fear of nuclear war would occurred caused panic. Europe became divided between east and west with an Iron Curtain acting as a barrier. 

            American and Russian rivalry became more intense during the Cold War. Both nations were influenced by popular myths in regards to their ideology. America though it was a defender of the free world and that Communism was such a danger it must be contained or eliminated. Russia thought it was leading an international freedom struggle against capitalist oppression. The US and the USSR were merely doing what other world powers had done before them: partitioning geopolitical space. The Soviet Union could have a long term presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltic states. The United States would embark in a new global role deposing governments, stopping anti-colonial movements, and promoting American business interests. The Soviet Union would in response to the US military interventions was to support various anti-colonial movements and even aid leaders of the non-aligned movement. The US and Soviet Union would fight wars of proxy in the Third World. There are numerous reasons the Cold War began. The break down of the wartime alliance created the atmosphere of mistrust. The power void left by the defeat of Germany, Italy, and Japan only made matters worse with both the US and USSR trying to influence areas in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Civil wars in China and Greece were some of the first areas in which the US and Russia became involved with. There was also a major economic incentive for the United States. Europe was at the time a large consumer of American goods. If the Soviet Union had more influence on the European continent, America would have been at a disadvantage in trade. US farmers, automobile companies, steel, and machine tool companies needed stable European markets. 

There was a resistance to open dialogue and diplomacy after World War II. The US and USSR became constant competitors for world power. President Harry S. Truman promoted a policy of containment. The Truman Doctrine stated that aid and assistance should be given to peoples who are threatened by Communism. The Truman administration aided both Greece and Turkey to demonstrate to the Soviet Union that the US had the resolve to challenge them anywhere. The year 1947 saw the Cold War escalate to new levels. Mao's triumph in China caused more frustration in the US and conflict in Korea broke out in 1950. The West and East only became more hostile to one another with the establishment of new military alliances. NATO was created in the event of Russian aggression and the Warsaw Pact was developed to counter the West. Simultaneously, the US was getting more involved in Southeast Asia. Vietnam became a place in which  the containment policy failed,because US officials did not understand the nature of the situation. The Vietnamese were fighting to have their nation free from imperial rule. The Viet Cong and Ho Chi Minh   were seen as puppets of Moscow by the US government. From the Dwight Eisenhower to Kennedy administration there were no attempts to distinguish between freedom struggles and  Soviet subversion. There was hope with a more liberal president that relations could be improved with Russia. President John F. Kennedy made such an attempt with Premier Nikita Khruschev. The Vienna summit did not produce results. Conditions became even more dire. The Berlin Wall  was constructed creating tension that had not been seen since the Berlin blockade. Through espionage, the US discovered that the Soviet Union was building nuclear installations in Cuba. 

     

The Kennedy Doctrine made it clear that no Communist government would be allowed to be in the western hemisphere, especially in the South American countries. The Bay of Pigs invasion was a failed military intervention with the goal of deposing Fidel Castro. Cuba allowed nuclear weapons and sites on the island only after this attack. The nuclear sites were to act as a deterrent against possible US invasion, but instead it caused the world to be on the brink of nuclear war in 1962.  Nuclear brinkmanship had brought the world to a state of crisis and the world wondering what might happen. Both leaders reached an agreement with Russia removing its nuclear missiles from Cuba and the US dismantling its sites in Turkey. For the first time since the end of the war, the two countries were engaging in rational diplomacy. The successors of Kennedy and Khruschev did not follow what could have been a path to peaceful coexistence. Vietnam became a source of tension between the Soviet Union and the United States. President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated involvement in the region continuing to send more troops with the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev reversed much of Khruschev's  reforms and foreign policy measures. The Americans supported the authoritarian regimes in South Vietnam, while the Russians as well as Chinese supported North Vietnam. The image of America was slowly declining in international public opinion as the war was seem as an imperial conquest in the Third World and certain western political circles. The Vietnam War so badly damaged the Johnson presidency, he did not seek re-election. The US would take another turn to the right with the rise of Richard M. Nixon. Along with Secretary of State Henry Kissenger a new policy of detente with the Soviet Union was formed. Political and military tensions were to be eased with the Soviet Union. Doing so, Richard M. Nixon hoped an honorable peace and a victory in Vietnam by exploiting the Sino-Soviet Split. Tensions between Russia and China had worsened to such a degree that there was a border clash in 1969. Mao Zedong disagreed with Khruschev's policy of destalinization creating antagonism among the two Communist states. Rapprochement  did not occur with the change in leadership in the USSR in 1964. The result of detente policy was SALT 1 and SALT 2. The Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties  called for the reduction of nuclear weapons. The Ford administration continued the detente policy, but political direction was shifted once more with the Jimmy Carter presidency. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan ended the thaw in US-Russia relations. This action made the US congress to reject ratification of the SALT 2 treaty. The Soviet Union wanted to ensure that the socialist People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan remained in power. Afghanistan was struggling with a series of coups since the fall of King Zahir in 1973. Instability tended to attract external powers interested in gaining influence. Sensing that this could be an issue for the Soviet Union National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski suggested to President Jimmy Carter that the US should arm and assist growing radical political Isamist  groups to undermine the PDPA. The reason why the US became more involved in Afghanistan was not only for geopolitical reasons, but to get vengeance on the Soviet Union for its role in Vietnam. The Soviet-Afghan War lasted from 1979 to 1989  and was in many regards a Russian version of the Vietnam War. The Ronald Reagan administration came to Washington with a policy of aggressive anti-Communism. The military was built up more so, while a new arms race was happening. Relations once more reached a nadir. Ronald Reagan infamously referred to the Soviet Union as " the evil empire."  A speech made in 1983, this speech was designed to demonstrate that the US was more willing to get aggressive with Russia. Presidents had never been this threatening when discussing the behavior of the Soviet Union. A new era had began, with growing concern about US-Russia tensions. 

      The death of    Leonid Brezhnev exposed that Russia was facing a number of economic and political challenges. Corruption became widespread in the Soviet Government and the economy was stagnant. Brezhnev left no clear successor and the leadership was aging. The following leaders between the years of 1982 and 1985 died in office. Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko did not formulate new policies to address tensions with the US or domestic problems. Real change did not come until Mikhail Gorbachev came to power. However, it seemed that reforms would be too late. the Mujahadden were still fighting the Red Army in Afghanistan and the arms race with the US was continuing. There was a demand for  change in terms of relations and foreign policy. The 1985 Geneva summit meeting both Reagan and Gorbachev came to the conclusion that strategic nuclear weapons must be reduced for the sake of global security. Nuclear weapons were no longer just solely devices of  the US and USSR; they were spreading. Other nations such as Pakistan and North Korea were seeking them. Since 1982, the Reagan administration was engaging in the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks, but aggressive anti-Communist rhetoric blocked progress. 

There was the 1986 Reykjavik meeting which came close to genuine arms reduction. The problem was that the United States was unwilling to abandon the Strategic Defense Initiative. This program was directed at the Soviet Union with the proposal of using space based weaponry to intercept Russian nuclear missiles. The two leaders did accomplish something. The Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces Treaty was signed in 1987. All land based intermediate -range  nuclear missiles were banned from Europe. Soviet SS-20s were removed and no longer directed at western Europe. NATO no longer had missiles directed at Russia. The Soviet Union could no longer afford to remain in Eastern Europe or fight in Afghanistan. The fall of the Berlin Wall represented the end of the Cold War and the most negative chapter in US-Russia relations. The Soviet Union would cease to exist when it dissolved in 1991. A myth that emerge was that Ronald Reagan's administration ended the Cold War. Western triumphalism was the new political philosophy in various circles proclaiming the superiority of capitalism and liberal democracy. Economic shock therapy which was done in Eastern Europe had negative effects on the population. Prosperity or new jobs did not come with the new free market systems. President Boris Yeltsin in the 1990s developed policies ending price controls and increase private ownership of industry. Free market reforms and the end of a social safety net caused many Russians to fall into poverty. While the Cold War had ended, the US still wanted to prevent a Russian rise. The error was that many assume since Russia adopted a capitalist system that relations would improve with the United States. Neoconservatives viewed Russia as  a potential menace even though there was little chance of the Communist Party becoming the political force that it once was.

The US was enjoying a role as being the world's sole superpower and policy became devoted to stopping the rise of rivals. NATO was struggling to define what its role was in a post-Cold War world. Russia was promised that the alliance would not expand. However, NATO became involved in both Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Russia was having too many internal problems to adequately deal with rapidly changing international affairs. The United States did not have another power to check its behavior. When the US intervened in the developing world, it always had to make the consideration of how an equally strong power would react. Russia became during the Boris Yeltsin presidency in the separatist movement in Chechnya. A full scale invasion in 1999 was condemned by the international community. Russia viewed this as an internal matter regarding its territory. To the United States it conjured memories of the Cold War. Yeltsin resigned  having no solution to the war with Chechnya or Russia's economic turmoil. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 dramatically altered the world. The US used the attacks as a justification for aggressive war. Iraq and Afghanistan became subject to attack from the United States tarnishing its image among allies and other nations of the globe. Russia going into the 20th century had a new vision of its place in the world. Vladmir Putin would rise as the most dominant force in Russian politics with the goal of  increasing the country's international profile. 

         History demonstrates there are cases in which US-Russian relations can reach a consensus. Yet these are only temporary due to vast differences on perspectives relative to global affairs. Vladmir Putin does not want a revival of the Soviet Union, rather his political ideology is based on a Pan-slavic revival. He wants a strong Russia that can assert itself when it needs to. Vladmir Putin has a more pragmatic foreign policy, but it is not in alignment with other European leaders or the US objectives. It has changed and been revised since his first term. President Putin  was willing to assist the United States in the War on Terror, yet was opposed to the invasion of Iraq. The Russian Federation like many other countries condemns US unilateral military action. Although Russia did not approve of the Iraq War, relations with the Bush administration were better compared to the Obama administration. 

   

   There was gradual deterioration in 2008. Conflict with Georgia gained international attention. When Georgia conducted a military operation to capture both South Ossentia and Abkhazia  Russia responded with force. From 2008  onward, Russian and American diplomatic ties would be strained going through another vicious cycle. The Russian perspective was that this was a regional matter, that did not need to include international involvement. During Putin's first and second term Russian was finally on a new trajectory. The United Russia Party saw victory in parliamentary elections in 2007 giving Putin a new mandate. According to the constitution he could not run for another term and decided to step aside. Dmitry Medvedev became his successor, yet Putin was appointed Prime Minister still retaining a high amount of influence. The West became more critical of the issues related to media freedom and accusations of  electoral fraud. International observers and the United States continue to question the legitimacy of Russia 's presidential and parliamentary elections. The Arab Spring uprising that occurred in North Africa and the Middle East further damaged Russia and US relations. Libya became a source of contention, when Russia voted for UN resolution 1973. Russia was convinced that regime change was not part of the proposal, but when rebel factions were being armed by the US, UK, and France there was a sense of betrayal. When Vladmir Putin won his third term in 2012 he was determined not to seen another Libya situation in Syria. Russian interest were too vital to see the Assad presidency collapse. Russia then decided to intervene in Syria in 2015 to fight ISIS and keep President Bashar Al-Assad in power. The US had funded opposition groups in Ukraine through USA Aid and by 2014  protests against President Vikor Yanukovych  broke out. Russia was alarmed that there was US interference close to its borders. Russia responded with the annexation of Crimea and supporting pro-Russian separatist groups in eastern Ukraine. Vexed, the Russian Federation got involved in interference with the US presidential election of 2016. Unable to to hack into the RNC, Russia was able to get access to DNC data. This made many to question if the Donald Trump campaign was colluding with Russians. So far, the Robert Muller investigation has not detected evidence of treason or direct collusion. There does remain the possibility considering that President Donald Trump fired FBI James Comey. When examining the history of the United States and Russia it is clear that relations may not improve in the future. 

            President Donald Trump wants to improve relations with the Russian Federation, yet this does not seem feasible. Much of it is related to the completely different world views that both countries have. The US still functions on a neoconservative foreign policy with the intention of nation-building. The United States simply does not want to see the rise of a world of multipolarity. Disagreements over Ukraine and Syria will hinder any progress of talks. The questions regarding Iran and North Korea only complicate matters. The more aggressive position the US takes, the closer Russia and China become. Donald Trump's limited understanding of Russia and foreign affairs puts him at a disadvantage. When the president meets with his Russian counterpart, meetings will not be substantive or reach long lasting agreements. What happened starting with World War I through the Cold War still has an impact on the current condition of the US-Russia relationship. It was announced that the Trump administration was deciding to withdraw from the INF treaty. This could result in a new arms race between two world powers. The precarious situation only gets more exacerbated with the rise in Russophobia. The Democratic Party furious with its defeat in the 2016 presidential election needed a rational explanation for their loss. Hacking and Russian interference did not cause their defeat, rather the inability to adjust to a changing political climate. There were many voters in rural areas that were ignored and left behind due to globalization and uncontrolled neoliberal capitalism. The Democratic Party lost a huge cross section, which only aided Trump's rise in American politics. While Trump has constantly promised  improved relations with Russia, but this is not attainable. Sanctions remain in place since they were placed in 2014. When the price of oil fell in that same year Russia was struggling economically. Enacting a sanctions measure was tantamount to a declaration of war. There was at some point optimism in Russia that a new Republican president would be willing to negotiate certain disputes. When Trump decided that US troops were not leaving Syria and a rumor that the US wants to establish a permanent military base in Poland much of  the drive for improving diplomatic relations stalled. The United States of America and the Russian Federation are going down a path of possible military conflict. Relations can only improve if certain conditions are met. The US must accept that the world is moving to a multipolar political power structure. Russia should make should stop interfering in US elections or data systems. Syria and Ukraine should be allowed to decide their own political future without American or Russian involvement. Russia and the United States should develop a framework of peaceful coexistence. Ultimately these conditions may not be met in this century. As the Cold War demonstrates, the US and Russia have been through fluctuations of turbulence. 

References 

Hayes, Carlton. History of Europe Since 1500. New York : Macmillan Company, 1956. 

William, Rana. American History.  London : Parragon Publishing, 1999. 

Norton, Mary. A People And Nation A History of The United States.  

             New York : Houghton Mifflin Company, 2001. 

Woof, Alex. A History of The World The Story of Mankind From Prehistory to the 

          Modern Day. London : Arctus, 2016. 

Ewans, Martin. Afghanistan A New History. London : Curzon Press, 2001.          

    

  

             

            

Cameroon Election Puts The Nation In Crisis

Cameroon faces many challenges. The re-election of Paul Biya has created more political tension with opposition candidates attempting to contest the results.President Biya has been in power since 1982 and it appears there may be no end in sight to his long rule. What has emerged is an Anglophone based separatist movement, which he has used as a justification for strict measures. Simultaneously, Cameroon also with the assistance of Nigeria is at war with Boko Harem. Cameroon with such security challenges cannot maintain a functional democracy. The problem is that areas in which there is combat, it would not be safe to open polls. Then there is the issue of low voter turn out. If most citizens realize that the system cannot be overturned through democratic means, this may induce a civil war. There have been allegations of electoral fraud and intimidation in the elections for the presidency. Some may think that a violent overthrow would be the answer, but this would result in possible instability and conflicts between various borders. It may be that Paul Biya will be president for life and justify authoritarian policies a means for state security.Economically, Cameroon continues to struggle with poverty and lack of development. Paul Biya can always scapegoat the Anglophone separatist movement or  Boko Harem for Cameroon's problems while deflecting questions about  corruption and abuse of power.     

The Rise of Xenophobic Nativist Nationalism

Globalization has caused major economic, social, and political transformation. While there have been positive benefits from the rise of an international community, there have been more extreme reactions.The rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism has been a reaction to globalism as an international force. These sudden changes include supranationalism, mass migration, and the effects of neoliberal capitalism. This reaction can be seen in the West and wider Eurasian region. It also has a presence in Global South nations, with various countries becoming more suspicious of one another. The result is a world falling further into tribalism and balkanization. Old fault lines are emerging causing geopolitical shifts. It must be understood that xenophobic nativist nationalism is both a movement and political ideology. Like other belief systems it has a specific set of attributes. The reason for its rise is not only due to globalization, but the historical events of the past. European colonial empires, neocolonialism, and humanitarian intervention have contributed to the increase in various extremist groups globally. Discord, inequality, and the general state of frustration among the world's population has created conditions for far-right movements to flourish. The collapse of the Soviet Union also created more complications in terms of the geopolitical structure. Countries may no longer be aligned by an specific political ideology rather, a strict adherence to identity politics.  If this continues only more international division and conflict will occur. Animosity has become political capital being used to justify policies that would otherwise be condemned. Xenophobic nativist nationalism can be at times a nebulous concept, but there can be a more broad description based on the behavior of particular nations. 

        Xenophobic nativist nationalism can be defined as the fear or hatred of foreigners combined with extreme patriotic devotion to a nation-state. This ideology elevates one nation above others advocating ethnocentrism. Native culture and customs of a particular nation is considered superior to foreign ones. Migrants and immigrants are perceived as problems or security risks. Racism and scapegoating are common characteristics of xenophobic nativist nationalist sentiment. Immigrants have been blamed for crime, harming the labor market, or exacerbating political edge issues. The demands of assimilation are not based on the goal of full integration into society. Assimilation means in the context of xenophobic nativist nationalism that foreigners completely relinquish their cultural and ethnic identity or forget their heritage in order to conform. The demand for conformity represents how some countries deem their culture and customs as superior. The desire of xenophobic nativist nationalism is to produce a state that is racially and culturally homogeneous. The ideology rejects internationalism, multiculturalism, and leftist political beliefs. Xenophobic nativist nationalism opposes globalism for other reasons, different from anti-imperialist advocates. The position is that globalism encourages mass migration and undermines national culture in favor of an international one. Supporters of this type of nationalism hold the conviction that immigrants should not be treated with dignity or respect. This projects itself in a number of human rights abuses. Indefinite detention, separations, and over crowed facilities are common place for nations with high immigration. Although supporters of xenophobic nativist nationalism do not describe themselves as fascists, many  far-right organizations, hate groups, and white nationalists use this movement to advance their own  political agendas with in the political movement. The mainstream xenophobic nationalists intolerance want to distance  themselves from the extreme right, however they still support their ideas and advance their causes in a furtive manner. These concepts are only the basics of a growing political ideology of xenophobic nativist nationalism.
         What gave birth to xenophobic nativist nationalism was a combination of economic shifts and the international political culture. Neoliberal capitalism had not only exploited the labor of the developing world. It also put workers in the West at a disadvantage. Transnational corporations outsourced their labor to countries that had a labor force willing to work for less pay and benefits. Simultaneously, this effected people in the West at lower income levels. Working class whites who were to a degree, protected from major economic changes because white supremacy guaranteed a safety net. When that was challenged, many of this group felt left behind. The collapse of  the Soviet Union made neoliberal capitalism the dominant economic system, but this did not improve the conditions of the general population globally. One reason mass migration has reached astronomical levels is that people from Asia, Latin America, and Africa cannot sustain themselves financially. They have become economic refugees and the West becomes a destination for some form of safety. Germany and particularly the eastern section is an example of how xenophobic nativist nationalism can blossom under harsh economic conditions. East Germany did not benefit from reunification and capitalism. Unemployment and hardship induced hatred directed at various immigrant groups from 1990 to present.

Turkish, Vietnamese, and currently Muslims are viewed with suspicion or enmity. The reason why supporters of  the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement are increasing in number is that their economic situation has not improved after the 2008 financial global crisis. Fiscal austerity measures and failure to regulate international finance capital has resulted in the European nations projecting their anger through various fringe movements.The international political culture also raises concerns. This specifically describes a mode of  global affairs thought in which every nation should be part of a supranationalist organization. Such a proposal is not entirely outrageous, but the problem arises from the question of national sovereignty. The European Union dictates which criteria nations have to meet to be and remain members in the international body. These conditions could range from human rights concerns, refugees, or economic policies. The question of which nations take refugees become a contentious one. Countries that have limited resources to deal with the influx of migrant traffic become more frustrated, when it appears that the wealthier nations on the continent do less in comparison. This has been  Prime Minister Vicktor Orban's argument as he has used it to move Hungary to the far-right. Differences over refugee policy and  the conduct of the EU have energized the far-right in Europe. The EU has a vision in which all countries in the organization ascribe to a set of political and cultural values. This includes embracing neoliberal capitalism, liberal democracy, multiculturalism, and multiracial societies. The countries that advocate xenophobic nativist nationalism do not embrace such values,because they equate it to the destruction of their identity. The only value they embrace is the economic aspect in which neoliberal capitalism would still be a part of the society, but it would only function for the nation and specifically the ruling class. The International Monetary Fund and World Bank have made the economic system benefit  the ruling elite of  European nations. The economic nationalism of  the new political movement wants to concentrate the wealth in a certain state only without sharing with other nations. This explains why President Donald Trump's economic nationalism resonates with conservative voters in the United States of  America.  

   

The sentiment is that immigration has caused a financial strain on the US and by reducing illegal immigration jobs and economic stability will return. These are falsehoods, but they seem to be factual to those on the American right. President Trump as constantly stated that various nations including US allies have exploited the country. Part of international political culture is adopting a capitalist only system with a strong emphasis on free markets and limited protectionism. The IMF and World Bank are presented as institutions designed to help the global economy, but various observations show that they have become instruments of economic exploitation. A large part of globalism is economic, not only politics and international affairs. Workers now find themselves competing for jobs not just within their own nations, but the entire world. Simultaneously, poverty continues to increase around the globe. Citizens of various countries want an explanation to economic challenges, but do not comprehend the complex nature of the international economic conditions. Immigrants become targets and are scapegoated for struggles in certain countries. The reason fascism became so popular in Europe in the 1930s was due to the Great Depression. The economic factor related to the rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism cannot be ignored. 

         One aspect of international political culture that has made such a far-right ideology popular is the attempt to impose liberal democracy around the world. This has been done through military intervention or economic warfare. Humanitarian intervention merely covers neocolonial designs by dominant world powers.The use of sanctions in an arbitrary manner demonstrates attempts at isolating particular nations who do not adhere to a conformist international political culture. The world then becomes divided between liberal democracy and states designated as rogue states. Even when certain countries are compliant relative to a dispute, they still are harassed. Iran has not violated the nuclear agreement, yet the US has imposed more sanctions to harm Iran's economy. Regime change has been a part of US foreign policy and it has had devastating consequences. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, and Somalia have been subject to US military intervention. It is not only the United States that wants to impose political systems on foreign nations, but its allies. France and the UK also are involved in the movement to impose liberal democracy on African and Asian nations. North Korea has been sanctioned by the UN and other US aligned countries, even though this country struggles with intense poverty. From a military perspective, they would not even be a substantial threat. It would take years to build a formidable arsenal and doing so could bankrupt the country. Zimbabwe still remains under sanctions, even through Robert Mugabe resigned. No matter what these countries do they will be subject from some form of attack under the principle of democracy promotion. This is not the promotion of freedom, rather an attempt to maintain the neocolonial order. There are repercussions from such behavior. The dramatic increase in war refugees may not be manageable. The migrations from Africa and Asia will continue as long as the military interventions continue. 

This map shows data acquired from 2016 from the Emergency Response Coordination Centre 

NATO has changed its role from being a defensive military alliance to an active war force. The United Nations with should be a forum for peaceful resolution has become an institution that authorizes military strikes.  The failure to provide a framework for the ongoing civil war in Syria and the Saudi-Yemen conflict demonstrates the  inefficiency of the institution. This mass movement of people from various foreign countries provides a justification for xenophobic nativist nationalism. While such advocates do not condemn warfare, they ignore the reason why there are refugees in the first place. Neoconservative foreign policy, military intervention, neocolonialism,  and world power competition have created the refugee crisis of the contemporary international landscape. The xenophobic nativist nationalist argument is framed as if immigrants merely come to exploit the many resources of more prosperous lands. This myth constantly is repeated. There are numerous push and pull factors which force people to leave their countries of origin. Economic and political factors are the two major forces that cause people to flee. Warfare and political oppression force migrants to get asylum seeker status. Knowing this, xenophobic nativist nationalists should be ant-war,just on the basis it creates refugees. They still advocate strong armies and warfare, yet want  a strategy that does not cause blowback. President Trump  once stated that the interventions in Iraq and Syria were misguided, however reversed these positions when he became president. The reason is that even advocates of  xenophobic nativist nationalism realize that strategic interests are essential, if the US wants to remain the world's sole superpower. Xenophobic nativist nationalism should not be confused with the isolationism of the Interwar era of the 20th century. The US is still very much involved in global affairs and will be more involved in the continent of  Europe. Isolationism is complete disengagement from international affairs. Advocates of the new far-right movement want some involvement in global affairs just as long as agreements solely benefit their nation only. This is the philosophy of America First. Allies and the collaboration between them should result in America getting more of the benefits rather than an equal exchange between two partners. What is also being seen is the struggle between globalism and national sovereignty. This has been a contentious issue when member states of the European Union debate about what do about refugee and migrant traffic.Securing borders and which countries supply asylum may place more burden on smaller member states.  There is a direct correlation between the political establishment's nation building projects and the promotion of western modeled liberal democracy and the rise of xenophobic nativist nationalism.  

       Xenophobic nativist nationalism is not exclusive to the West. There are African and Asian nations that have experienced a surge in such ideological sentiments. South Africa had cases of xenophobic violence prior to the emergence of the political movement. The year 2008 saw acts of xenophobic violence directed at immigrants in South Africa. The attacks have not subsided in the last ten years. There continues to be tension between immigrants from Mozambique, Nigeria, Zimbabwe, and other parts of the African continent. Economic turmoil once again is an explanation for such scapegoating. However, this may be more of an expression of the dangers of identity politics. 

     

Supporters of xenophobic nativist nationalism claim they must defend their identity as a nation and race. Immigrants to such supporters represent a type of threat. The argument from a South African supporter is that other groups from other parts of the continent are exploiting the country's resources and diluting its national character. This is an argument of ethnocentric nationalism. The desire to make nations racially and culturally homogeneous is a goal of  the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement. Decolonization throughout the world brought much hope and high political expectations. The problem was the dream of developed and countries free from former colonial masters has not fully materialized. This explains why leaders of various developing nations may either incite ethnic tension to distract from political and social issues. China also could be experiencing xenophobic nativist nationalism particularly with its emphasis on the promotion of Han Chinese identity. Tibetans and Uighurs are facing racial discrimination and harassment. The favoritism of the Han Chinese above the fifty-six recognized ethno-linguistic alienates others who would otherwise love to contribute to Chinese society.  Xenophobic nativist nationalism will inevitably lead to ethnic conflict. Myanmar although in a process of political reform is embarking on a campaign against the Rohingya. The Burma people similar to the Han Chinese do not see their minorities as  being a part of the nation. Ethiopia has  similar situation in which the Oromo ethnic group also faces exclusion. This is why civic nationalism should be promoted rather than ethnic nationalism. Internal conflict could be used as a justification for military intervention of the West. If the global south is to rise it must reject the current political wave of xenophobic nativist nationalism. 

         The disturbing phenomenon about xenophobic nativist nationalism is when it emanates from the US or Europe it has the goal of internationalizing white nationalism. Although they reject internationalism, they do not oppose organizing globally. White nationalism has infiltrated the international political mainstream. It is incorrect to call this Trumpism, because such a movement and concept existed before his election. The white nationalist movement has the same ideological perspective of the xenophobic nativist philosophy. There is one slight difference. Normally, xenophobic nativist nationalists say they oppose illegal immigration. White nationalists despise immigration even if it is legal and would prefer that those who do come are from European countries. Unsubstantiated claims that their is a "white genocide" or an  "attack on western civilization" are commonly articulated in white nationalist publications. This message has become more popular in Australia, New Zealand, the US, and  on the European continent. Steve Bannon  who was a chief political strategist for Donald Trump has made efforts to spread xenophobic nativist nationalism into mainstream politics. White nationalist populism is attempting to make itself presentable to voters in western liberal democracies. 

Steve Bannon 

        

The desire to eliminate all immigration is not articulated publicly, but in secret this is the goal. Through legislation certain groups would be targeted. The US continues to struggle with preventing voter suppression and the reason it is favored by the extreme far-right is that it works in their political favor. By excluding non-whites from the political process, the white nationalist populists get closer to making a white only nation-state. the first step is to stop immigration from African, Asian, and South American countries. Legal immigration would be slowly be dismantled and would be only for people of European origin. The United States under the Donald Trump administration has been attempting to experiment with this in his travel ban. Syria, Somalia, Libya, North Korea, Iran, Yemen, and Venezuela are selected for this travel ban. Previously, Sudan, Chad, and Iraq were included on the list. Xenophobic nativist nationalism is certainly nothing new to the US. The Immigration Act of 1924 in which northern Europeans were favored over other races was an example of such sentiment. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was another instance of anti-immigrant and racist policy designed to preserve white supremacy in the United States. The demographic shift in America has alarmed many whites in the US and the response has been to become advocates of xenophobic nativist nationalism. Suddenly, figures like Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor who are major figures in  the white nationalist movement are gaining wider exposure. Both supported Donald Trump in the 2016 US presidential election. Taylor and Spencer are both known for their scientific racism and anti-immigrant policies, but many of their ideas are adopted by President Trump. What such individuals want is a ethno-state for whites only. The concept ethno-state  has been experimented with, yet it has occurred in the most unlikely place. Israel has under the far-right government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  has introduced the nation-state law, which would reduce Arab Israelis to a second class citizenship status. Israel under the policies of the Likud Party have become more strict and harsh in regards to the treatment of immigrants and refugees. Somalian, Sudanese, and Ethiopian migrants are forced into detention centers. 

Oddly, factions of white nationalists praise Israel's racist policies because it is a model of ethno-state. White nationalists who many would normally have anti-semitic sentiments, praise the Jewish state due to the notion that they are fighting "the Muslim menace. " Islamophobia has become a major  form of political mobilization in the European and American far-right. To them Israel through its inhumane treatment of the Palestinians shows that it is a worthy ally in the fight against what they call the "Islamization of Europe." The white nationalists who are part of the neo-Nazi political ideology view Jews and Israel as part of the problem. They blame Jews for immigration policies and liberal politics, which they claim have destroyed society. This faction of the white nationalist far-right claims that "cultural Marxism" and "Zionist occupied governments" are at war with western civilization. These accusations are nothing more than the same anti-semitic  conspiracies that were espoused in the 20th century. 

Richard Spencer and Jared Taylor 

  

David Duke represents the faction that still holds anti-semitic  beliefs in the white nationalist movement. Such organization like the National Policy Institute or fringe groups would not have had much political traction two decades ago. The negative consequence of social media is that such groups and organizations can form faster and more efficiently. The establishment political structure fails to comprehend the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement. They either ignore it or remain complicit in the potential risk. The left does not have an effective strategy of countering the extremist movement that threatens freedom itself. Observers of politics mistakenly label this movement as populism, but this is far more complicated. The movement is a mixture of extreme far-right politics,  social conservatives, racists, hate groups, capitalist supply side economics advocates and right-wing conspiracy theorists. The traditional conservatives and neoconservatives  are solely being phased out by this movement. Steve Bannon wanted to remake the Republican Party and was then defeated. His removal from the White House demonstrated that the faction of established conservatives are not going to be phased out without some political confrontation. Xenophobic nativist nationalism may have more success in European countries as more frustration at the European Union continues to grow. France  and  the UK are facing a xenophobic nativist nationalist current. Marie Le Pen's attempt to win the French presidency caused a level of trepidation in European political circles. Her National Rally Party has embraced anti-immigrant rhetoric and ideas. The party was originally known as the National Front when it was founded by her father Jean-Marie Le Pen. The National Rally has been known to be opposed to multiculturalism with Islamophobic  overtones. 

Marie Le Pen 

Even though she lost the French presidential election, her party still seems to resonate with those who are vexed about the political and economic situation in Europe. Economic nationalism wants to make capitalism work for certain nations, not the entire globe. This is what Le Pen emphasizes to voters. There is a possibility that she could run again and win. The rise of the UK Independence Party under the leadership of Nigel Farage  saw xenophobic nativist nationalism come to the mainstream in British politics. Other extremist groups existed prior to the UK Independence Party's rise such as the English Defense League. The problem with neo-fascist, hate groups, or far-right organizations is that they use violence and intimidation not realizing this is not an effective public relations strategy. Farage when he was leader of the UK Independence Party used his knowledge as a broadcaster to make far-right political views more palatable. He condemns the EU on the grounds of  economic nationalism. Although Nigel Farage is no longer head of the party he continues to be a part of the Leave Means Leave organization and is a large part of the Brexit movement. Such lobby groups are having an influence on Prime Minister Theresa May  who is pushing ahead with negotiations for the UK to leave the European Union. 

Nigel Farage 

        Xenophobic nativist nationalism is being fueled in Europe by euroscepticism and the possible loss of national sovereignty relative to European integration. Questions of immigration, economics, and law become more complex  under a system of supranationalism. The movement of xenophobic nativist nationalism does not want European integration in the context of the EU.  There is a Pan-European movement that is emerging from xenophobic nativist nationalism. This concept envisions an ethno-state functioning on white nationalist political philosophy. The dream is to go back to a period in which the European countries dominated most of the world. While there is a move to internationalize white nationalism, there has been a dramatic change in the international landscape. China has become more powerful and is gaining more influence in the developing world. African nations have seen economic growth, although the majority of the population has not seen the benefits. The European population compared to the African and Asian population is small. The desire to reestablish a white supremacist world system would certainly fail considering these realities. However, that does not make this new movement any less perilous. Even though they style themselves as being moderate in presentation, their political ideology encourages violence. The path to creating the ethno-state which they desire would require mass deportations, segregation, and etnic cleansing. Hatred's logical conclusion is genocide. Hopefully, white nationalism's attempts at international appeal will dissipate with active resistance. 

        The West has been going through an identity and confidence crisis in an era of uncertainty. When there is economic turmoil and political confrontation, the public look to explanations for a rapid decline of a functional society. Globalization has not only made the contact between people of different cultures easier, but also has led to political globalism. Not all nations want to adopt this system mainly because it demands that each one adheres to particular stipulations that may not benefit the member state, but the supranational organization as a whole. The West convinced itself that liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism were the only and ultimate economic as well as political systems. The collapse of the Soviet Union caused many unintended consequences in terms of global affairs. The United States erroneous thought it would remain the sole superpower. The older ethnic conflicts reemerged around the world in countries such as Yugoslavia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Somalia, Burundi,  and Rwanda. Identity and ethnic politics became more of a force in the international sphere when the world was no longer  divided between a communist east, a capitalist west, and non-aligned states. The West during this transition from 1991 to 2008 saw a high amount of cultural and international political dominance. The global financial crisis and the rise of a multipolar world system saw a crisis in confidence in the West. China is becoming a major world power through economic growth and its extensive foreign relations with other global south nations. Russia has made a comeback in terms of power under the leadership of Vladimir Putin. The West is struggling to navigate a world which is rapidly changing. Many are unwilling to accept an international political order in which the West is not predominant. Such a nation energizes the base of the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement. The politics of fear is a larger motivating force. A Russian and Chinese rise in international affairs induces has caused a level of panic in the American and European populations. Xenophobic nativist nationalism can utilize anti-Russian and sinophobic sentiment to their political advantage. This scapegoating of immigrants and foreign nations provides a convenient cover to the actual problems of  society. Poverty, war, and corrupt government are sources of  various issues facing the European and North American countries. The US, UK, France, Italy, Germany, and other EU countries have failed  their people in terms of trust and providing efficient governance. This is explains why mainstream establishment political parties will struggle and why more extremist ones will be more attractive to irate citizenry. Uncertainty about the global market, mass migration, and potential international conflict only empowers xenophobic nativist nationalism.  

      Xenophobic nativist nationalism may seem like a temporary political phase. Yet, it is clear that there has been a shift in political culture. Far-right fringe movements are now being seen as credible in political circles on both sides of the Atlantic. Globalism, neoliberal capitalism, liberal democracy, and supranationalism have not produced a stable or liberated world. Instead it gave birth to a more extreme political movement that parallels another in the 20th century. Fascism arose from the devastation of World War I and the Great Depression. Economics has been a catalyst for the xenophobic nativist nationalist movement, with a large portion of working class people who have been left behind in the global economy. For them, there has not been economic recovery. Desperation and anger have been projected into  this new wave of far-right extremism. The fascists of the 1930s and 1940s realized that people would follow them if they promised a revived economy and a stronger state in which they could be proud of. Xenophobic nativist nationalism articulates taking a country back to another time in which they had prestige and respect. America First is more than just a simple slogan; it is a declaration of  exploiting the world to one nation's benefit. Britain's Brexit negotiations also utter this sentiment. Advocates want to leave the EU, but still want the benefits that come with being a member state. Although contemporary xenophobic nativist nationalism  is a new phenomenon, there can be solutions developed to counter its rise. The political left must organize effectively. There continues to be a divide between centrist and progressive ideological factions. The election of extreme far-right political figures demonstrates that centrism is not enough to defeat such candidates for public office.The leftist should embrace their more progressive faction to attract voters who normally would not be active. Another policy that should be implemented is ending the state of permanent warfare. Humanitarian intervention has caused the increase in refugees and asylum seekers. At some point it will not be possible to accommodate  refugees fleeing from war zones. Military interventions must stop to adequately handle the refugee crisis. Peaceful resolutions rather than armed conflict  is a better alternative. A new immigration policy must be implemented with a pathway to citizenship. If this is not done more detention centers and immigrant camps will be established. A series of humanitarian disasters will congest an already broken immigration system in both the US and Eu countries.Once these issues are dealt with, xenophobic nativist nationalism can be defeated. If effective resistance cannot not be organized against this political movement, then xenophobic nativist  nationalism  may become a serious threat to nations in which it is active. 

    

  

African Women Reluctant To Embrace #Me Too

African women, particularly in Uganda are hesitant to embrace the #Me Too movement. Western women fail to realize the privileged situation in which they live. This demonstrates the narrow and somewhat superficial nature of the #Me Too movement. There is little attention given to global south nations  in which women struggle with violence, domestic abuse, and sexual harassment. There are nations on the African continent which are high risk factors for women. The DRC, South Africa, and Libya are extremely dangerous for women's personal security. Even in the US, there is an obvious ethnic divide in the #Me Too movement. The women who are most visible in protests are white and normally middle class women. There rarely is mention of the racial disparities or other social problems that effect women of various race and class backgrounds. The #Me Too movement gradually has become nothing more than a movement solely designed for the improvement of white women's lives. African nations must empower women as part of a larger project of liberation from neocolonial domination. The African man's attitude regarding women must change. The idea that men have a right to dominate or control women is antiquated and abusive. Although feminism has its faults, there are some countries that need it.  

Population Growth : Its Political, Economic, and Social Consequences

The world's population has rapidly grown and may continue to in the future. Globally life expectancy has increased due to biomedical science, food security, and healthcare. There remains a disparity however in regard to health conditions and total life expectancy. The Global South struggles with development. Sudden population growth has political, economic, and social repercussions. It could be possible that a population may get close to exponential population growth and experience major societal challenges. The political sector would have to adjust in a particular manner. Keeping a large population functioning would require more control and a larger bureaucracy. This means that democratic models would not be able to function based on certain ideals that it values. Order would have more importance over freedom or equality. Such conditions would make quasi-authoritarian models more attractive that a democratic alternative. Economically, there would be more unemployment and the rise of a global underclass. If there is no opportunity for social mobility, a reliance on neoliberal capitalism, and a immense disparity related to income there will be insurrection. Society will be altered from an boom in population. Demographics are pivotal particularly the age of the population. A large ageing population could create economic problems related to welfare systems. A population with more young people could be the catalyst for mass rebellion or a shift into various forms ideological extremism. The environment also will suffer from more human consumption of natural resources. This may become a source of world conflict as growing populations hunger for various commodities. Population growth may be more of a problem, rather than a strength. Having a smaller population could also pose certain challenges, but these are minor compared to the explosion of a population boom. Population growth poses various political, economic, and  social strains that have the potential to be dangerous.
        The politics of population growth can cause issues for a nation. This relates to demographics. When an age pyramid becomes unbalanced this may alter political situations drastically. A majority elderly population may favor more far-right governments, while a youthful population desires more radical changes. A generation gap will form making a political consensus more difficult. A country or society cannot function without some agreement on political matters. This becomes more complicated in a democratic system. Voting can be effected by population size. Certain groups may just be able to get more representation simply based on population size. Majoritarian democracy may not be able to handle the erratic political shifts high population growth. Rapid population growth also induces a level of fear. This happens in racially and culturally diverse societies in which the ruling class and ethnic group fear  the shift in power. Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand are experiencing a wave of  xenophobic white nationalism in reaction to the increase of refugees and immigration. These sentiments are becoming more popular in the face of population and demographic shift. The EU countries attempt to present an image of tolerant and welcoming nations, but their policies demonstrate that the East and West conflict still continues. The majority of the population reduction programs are directed at global south nations, yet if population growth were to occur in Europe such programs would not exist.

The West has an overwhelming fear that it will be outnumbered by the growing numbers of African, Asian, and Latin American populations.This also explains why the West seems more willing to inflict violence on global south nations. There is power in numbers to a degree and the reduction of population by either military force or disease would benefit a project of global hegemony. China and India may in the future find themselves targets of a new wave of  European imperialism. Normally, sinophobia is justified by racists on the basis China's population is too large. Population growth becomes a factor in global affairs when examined from this perspective. A large population can be used as a symbol of national power. For every child born, they could be potential soldiers if a system of conscription is in place. Democratic systems would not be able to cope with rapid population increase. The basis of such a system relies on debates, elections, and consensus. There is an emphasis on the individual rather than the collective society. A large population requires more organization and governance. The more complex a society becomes freedom will take low priority in favor of structured order. To keep a functional society with a large population bureaucracy almost becomes a necessity. The needs of the citizens maybe to difficult for them to acquire on their own. If a democratic system does not meet the needs of citizens increased political factionalism and low political participation will be the result. A democratic government becomes ineffective. Authoritarianism which comparatively would have greater human rights abuse, is more efficient. Decisions are made by one person or group allowing for polices and projects to advance at a faster rate.  Authoritarianism may become politically popular because it provides stability and order. Societies out of fear of possible chaos will be more willing to accept extremist ideologies if they can in a rapid manner produce solutions to problems surrounding growing populations and discord. A large population provides a justification for oppression and control of citizens. 

         Economic systems would be effected by population growth. The concern centers around employment and consumption. One hundred percent unemployment is not possible. There are numerous circumstances for why certain people do not work. Illness or disability may take people out the workforce. Others who have struggled finding work may simply give up. Employers may not be hiring as much when there is a recession. The official reports on job growth are not a complete account of  the levels of employment  or unemployment. The data only accounts for those still active in the workforce. The complications amount when there is a large population and limited jobs. Companies cannot hire every single person. A high population may see a number of unemployed people no matter what their skills or education levels are. Conditions would effect the poorest and least educated among society even worse . 

The term underemployment has been used to describe a phenomenon in which people are working multiple jobs to sustain an income. Many corporations and companies are now adopting a model of using part-time , contractor, or free lance labor rather than hiring full time employees. Neoliberal capitalism cannot accommodate large populations. There is the advantage in having a mass of consumers, but they need to have incomes high enough. Disposable income allows for growth in an economic system. Businesses could fail in multiple sectors if there are not enough consumers to purchase products. Easy acquisition of credit can alleviate some of the challenge of having limited income. The problem arises with the accumulation of debt. Debt may be unavoidable with the high price of college education, home ownership, or the purchase of automobiles. What a large population does is allows for the creation of a permanent unemployed underclass. Under a supply side economic system the working poor and the middle class would have  to pay more taxes and be more productive without seeing significant increases in wages. The upper class gentry would have to pay more taxes to sustain both the state and population. A major revision of the tax code would have to be implemented for the sake of preventing possible economic turmoil. Another factor has to do with technology and the loss of jobs from a changing workplace. Automation could soon make human labor obsolete. If it is realized that there are not enough jobs for a enormous population, this would further add to discord in society. Then the age of the workforce becomes a problem. Older workers will suffer under a mass influx of younger workers when jobs are limited. Experience and qualification become irrelevant to employers when they have to consider benefits or pensions for employees. The goal of any business or company under a capitalist system is to have profit maximization to the highest apex. Hiring older workers would just be more of a burden. This would create more tension among the youth and older generation in the workforce. A job market that is so competitive also may form more ethnic and sex hostilities. This makes the prospect of an economic depression more terrifying. If banks were to fail, while a stock market crash occurs this would induce mass unemployment and poverty. If the population cannot have the ability to advance themselves economically, this could be a catalyst for rebellion. Maintaining a stable economy becomes more of a challenge with an enormous population. 

            The social consequences are more extensive  with large populations growth. Women are particularly impacted with dramatic population growth. The size of the population indicates in an indirect manner the status of women's reproductive rights. Limited access to contraception or abortion contributes to rapid growth. Women are placed in this system of mass growth in a secondary status. Countries that value women's traditional gender roles as wife and mother restrict their freedom. The sex balance becomes distorted, because many female babies are victims of infanticide. This has been the case in India and China which are two of the world's counties with the largest populations. Although there has been progress to address the gender inequality in these societies, there are still a number people who do not value women or their rights. 

While population growth can reveal much about the condition of women, there also needs to be a solicitous approach to children. Education and the availability of it is essential to maintaining a functional country. Countries must make public education free to all children of the world to ensure a skilled and competent workforce. Many nations of the global south do not have the funds to make public education free for all children. Even wealthy nations do not adequately invest in students. The United States mostly funds public education through property taxes. This creates an unequal system of education. If US education was federally funded, this may reverse some inequalities in education. Children's quality of life could be effected negatively in societies with large populations. Teachers may not be able to cope teaching in large classes. Children's quality of education may suffer under such conditions. The youth must be prepared to run the society of the future. Besides the condition of women and children, the matter of feeding the populace becomes another concern. Growing populations demand a high level of food. The Green Revolution was suppose to solve problems of human starvation. Yet, there are still countries that struggle with feeding their populations. This is not entirely related to the number of people. Some nations are deliberately starved. Iraq was subjected to the oil for food program, when previously it was able to produce its own sustenance. Nations may be more reliant on importation of cereals or wheat and if  they are under sanctions or in confrontation with particular nations this could effect their food supply. Climate change can also effect subsistence agriculture. Desertification and change in erosion patterns can devastate farmers. Arable land could become a rare occurrence if climate change goes unchecked. This also relates to the preservation of the environment. The more people the more consumption of resources. Scarce resources would be contested for more vigorously. Fossil fuels would be consumed more by large populations, which would create more conflict. Oil has already caused many conflicts across the globe with the US and China competing for the remaining reserves. Limited regulation and the constant use of fossil fuels could result in more air pollution, which will have a deleterious effect on human health. Crime could also be a consequence of larger populations. Although there are multiple factors for why crime exists, lack of resources may force people into such acts. Few jobs, limited social programs, and poverty could force people to be reliant on the black market, theft, or drug dealing. Controlling crime waves would be futile with an immense population. Prisons would not be able to manage overcrowding of their facilities. These scenarios could become reality especially in an urban environment. More people are going to be living in cities in the future and the global population will continue to grow. The social consequences of population growth could be more difficult to manage for various nations. 

          The world has reached a unique stage in history. There are more people on Earth than centuries past. This is not only from the fact more babies are being born, rather humanity has reached a point of high longevity. It is more likely depending on which country one lives to reach old age. A development like this has changed the way individuals think about life and society. Retirement, economic and personal finance have become more important. A longer life also gives way to more concerns about healthcare. Aging populations need affordable healthcare. These are new considerations related to population growth. While incredibly large populations can create problems, smaller populations also have a challenge. A country with a small population may face labor shortages and find itself unable to finance its welfare system or public institutions. Japan has to deal with under-population, which they are feeling the effects of  both economically and socially. There needs to be enough young people in the workforce to aid the social programs of a country. Family size  and birth rates would have to be large enough to accommodate the retired population. It may also require a program of immigration to meet labor demands. Unrestrained population growth creates a level of instability. Proper analysis of a problem can lead to a practical solution. A solution should not be based on Malthusian ideology. Simultaneously, it should not be targeted at particular countries. The population programs of the UN or other international bodies target African, Asian, and Latin American countries indicating a racial bias. This also extends to economics in which the West blames developing nations attempting to industrialize for the increased rate of carbon emissions. The EU countries and the United States are the biggest consumers of fossil fuels compare to the least developed nations. The culpability does not rest on the global south countries. There must be an emphasis on women's  reproductive rights and a functional system of welfare. If governments do not take a proactive approach to population growth, running  a nation-state may become insuperable.