THE GLOBAL

NO.2
INQUIRER
SEPT 2023
CONTENTS NO.2

PAGE 3 PAGE 4
BARBIE DIPLOMACY: HOW A THE REALITY OF THE CHINESE
DOLL'S INFLUENCE REFLECTS YOUTH
GLOBAL POLITICS

Uswah Hassan Rayaan Ahmed

PAGE 5 PAGE 7
HENRY KISSINGER GOES ON
THE NEW COLD WAR? SINO- TOUR
AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR
AND TECHNOLOCY RIVALRY

Anha Chaudry Muahmmad Siddiqui

PAGE 8 PAGE 9
FIRST ISLAND RING CHAIN BRIC NATIONS: BUILDING
BLOCKS OF A GLOBAL
ECONOMIC POWERHOUSE

Waleed Imran Ibraheem Umair

BARBIE DIPLOMACY: HOW
A DOLL'S INFLUENCE
REFLECTS GLOBAL
POLITICS

USWAH HASAN

Barbie, a plastic fashion doll that loves pink and represents feminism. Who knew a doll could cause such a frenzy in global politics?
Recently, in mid-July, a movie based on Barbie was released in cinemas, and it definitely received appreciation and recognition.
However, many critiqued the film, from amateurs to renowned individuals in the industry, such as Noah Shapiro. The film itself
seems harmless and immune to political arguments. However, if analyzed on a deeper intensity, there could possibly be a hidden
political agenda. The movie mainly speaks on patriarchy and growing up to realize we live in a patriarchal world. However, there
is room for change and more opportunities for women in society. Alongside this, there are numerous other lessons the movie
conveys through this cinematic masterpiece. Additionally, the film also covers globalization and consumerism through "weird
Barbie" and "stereotypical Barbie," the controversial nine-dash line map, and lastly, as well as the most valuable lesson to take from
this film, how the patriarchy is a social system set up for and run by men. We also see this in our day-to-day lives with little to no
female leaders, governments, and esteemed positions typically belonging to men.

Consumerism is the economic order of purchasing and to keep on purchasing. In economics, this is said to be beneficial since it
leads to an increase in the production of goods and services, and there is a linear relationship between high consumption and an
increase in GDP. Barbie has been the icon of consumerism for young girls for decades and is even said to be the "conspicuous
consumption" globally. There isn't only one type of Barbie; there are various different types. And as of today, to encourage
"inclusivity," there are hundreds of other Barbies. Along with the doll, the marketing encourages you to buy accessories, dollhouses,
clothes, cars, etc. This was a trap that almost every young girl fell into. The movie has various different types of Barbies as well,
including a weird Barbie, which Mattel recently came out with after the film had received such positive feedback. They took
immediate advantage and put "weird Barbie" in the marketplace. Consumerism increases economic growth and GDP, which
benefits a state in the world of global politics because it promotes political stability.

The infamous controversial nine-dash line map caught people's attention in the film and caused Vietnam to ban the movie from the
country. This map is a visual representation of the Chinese territorial claims in the South China Sea in the western Pacific Ocean.
It's China legitimizing its claim on the South China Sea; however, the People's Republic of China and Taiwan are in a dispute over
the legal rights and ownership. This is offensive and inappropriate because Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, etc., all have
regions and land that intersect and overlap with China's "territorial claim."

There were various critics who had something to say about the film, specifically, Republicans were in turmoil since they support
the patriarchy. This film promoted feminism and portrayed the patriarchy, showing that it hurts everyone regardless of their
gender. Barbie is a symbol of female empowerment, and while this might be inspirational to some, it also sparks insecurity in
others. The film portrayed the government and Mattel headquarters as all men at the round table, depicting our world today. If we
look at global politics, almost all of the leaders of our world are men, with a few exceptions. However, the G5 are all countries ruled
by men because women aren't given the same opportunities as men in politics. They are given a chance because for decades we've
always had male leaders, and change seems to be too progressive for some individuals. A prime example is how America, the
world's leading hegemon, has never had a female president because women are portrayed as fragile beings incapable of making
complicated decisions and cannot be trusted with too much power. However, they fail to consider how much women can
contribute. In this case, we can quote the critical feminist theory: "Being logical is more accepted than being emotional," and that
gender is simply a social construct that we enforce in our society.

This film wasn't meant to be a cinematic masterpiece but instead, it was supposed to convey a message to young girls and older
women that it is time for society to progress and change because the patriarchy affects all regardless of their gender. This is
relevant to global politics because our society is taking a step in the path of progressiveness, which means our countries will be led
by women one day. This can be beneficial to global politics because not only will it promote inclusivity and diversity, but it will also
encourage broader perspectives, balanced decision-making, addressing gender biases, etc. Women should be given the same
opportunities as men in politics because they will bring creativity and innovation to the table, and that might be just what our
current world order needs.

PAGE THREE |THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

 THE REALITY OF THE CHINESE YOUTH
RAYAAN AHMAD

In the Southern City Huizhou, an electronics factory is offering job opportunities with a monthly salary ranging from 4,500 to 6,000
yuan ($620 to $830). While this income could cover basic necessities like food and essentials, the job advertisement implies that new
employees are expected to work long hours and endure hardship, which doesn't resonate well with the younger generation.

This type of work reminds the older generations in China of their past experiences, involving painstaking work in challenging
conditions, all in the hopes of providing a brighter future for their children. However, advertisements like these don't align with the
aspirations the younger generation has for their own future.

The youth in China have been educated with stories of economic growth and social mobility. The Chinese economy experienced
remarkable growth, more than doubling every ten years since 1978 when market reforms were introduced. This led many young
people to focus on their studies, aim for prestigious universities, and expect high-paying jobs upon graduation. However, there's a
saying that "if you eat bitterness, it will make you unhappy."

Today, the situation has become even more challenging for Chinese youth due to economic struggles. Unemployment rates for
individuals aged 16 to 24 have exceeded 20% in recent months. Official figures show that in 2021, over 70% of the unemployed were
graduates with degrees, indicating a devaluation of higher education in China. This has led to a gloomier outlook for the future of
Chinese youth in a highly productive country.

Despite these statistics, Xi Jinping has encouraged the youth to "embrace struggle" and "eat bitterness." However, there's a saying
that "if you eat bitterness, it will make you unhappy," which seems to reflect the state of mind of China's future youth.

It's not that young Chinese aren't working hard. They face immense pressure to excel in school and perform well in the gaokao,
China's tough university-entrance exam. However, many young people feel that no matter how hard they work or study, they won't
see an improvement in their quality of life. They talk about "involution," a term used to describe a situation where additional effort
doesn't yield better results, which seems increasingly true for the younger generations.

In response to these challenges, some Chinese parents and youngsters are choosing to emigrate in search of better opportunities
abroad. This means that China could lose some of its most highly educated young talents to other countries. To maintain an
innovative and efficient economy, China needs to find ways to encourage its youth to stay and contribute to their country's
development.

Xi Jinping promotes the "Chinese Dream" by emphasizing collective goals over individual aspirations. He encourages young people
to prepare themselves by following the party and toughening up, to "engrave the blood of their youth on the monuments of history,
just as our fathers did." However, this message is not resonating strongly with many young people.Even when told by their leader to
eat bitterness, they would prefer to let it rot away

Song of the month!

“Push” by MatchBox
Matchbox Twenty’s “Push” has a message of struggle
between the power imbalances and dependancy in a
relationship that have consequences extending to the
relationship; much like the way nations find themselves
politically and economically reliant on the United States
that have consequences extending to their policies.

PAGE FOUR | THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

THE NEW COLD WAR? SINO-AMERICAN SEMICONDUCTOR AND
TECHNOLOCY RIVALRY
ANHA CHAUDHRY

The echoes of history are resounding as a new era of international rivalry unfolds, evoking memories of the Cold War that
defined much of the 20th century. In an age characterized by rapid technological advancements and shifting global
dynamics, the world finds itself once again at the precipice of a Cold War-like standoff.

The Cold War, which began in the 1940s between the US and the Soviet Union and ended in the 90s in large part due to the
implementation of nuclear and conventional arms control agreements, witnessed the gradual disintegration of the
communist bloc. This included the China-Soviet split in the 1960s and '70s, as well as the increasing economic
independence of Japan and certain Western nations.

Despite differences in implementation, parallels can be drawn between the current political climate between the United
States and China and the ‘first’ Cold War. It reflects geopolitical tensions of the past but takes on a new dimension in the
digital age, where warfare extends beyond traditional battles to employ technological combat, including hacking and
surveillance.

To comprehend the impact and potential ramifications, it's essential to understand what's happening now. At its core, the
current situation involves two technological powerhouses competing for supremacy in the semiconductor industry. Much
like the Cold War was a competition between major global powers, this contemporary rivalry centers on the race for
dominance in cutting-edge technology.

During the Cold War, countries engaged in various activities to further their geopolitical and economic agendas. This often
involved proxies, espionage networks, and even subversive actions, including proxy wars, such as the one in Afghanistan,
where the US sought to contain the Soviet Union by supporting the 'Mujahideen' or Afghan Freedom Fighters.

However, after the end of the Cold War, marked by the fall of the Berlin Wall, the US enjoyed a prolonged period of global
supremacy. This dominance has recently been challenged by various factors, including a more inward-looking political
perspective, exemplified by the "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) movement during President Donald Trump's tenure.

The rise of China, India, and the BRICS further threatens the United States' global dominance, with even the hegemony of
the US Dollar under threat due to the BRICS agenda. This shift in global power dynamics has led to the current Sino-
American hostility, manifesting as the "semi-conductor" war.

This technology war, crucial in an increasingly technology-driven world, has the potential to reshape the global power
structure. Beyond technological supremacy, military ambitions come into play, with President Xi of China aiming to make
the People's Liberation Army the best in the world, and technology serving as a significant military enabler.

To support this agenda, the United States has imposed restrictions on semiconductor exports to China, prompting China to
retaliate by banning US-made chips. Chinese manufacturers are now resorting to various means, including renting chips
and exploring the black market.

Moreover, the US is tightening its grasp by closing loopholes and persuading other countries, like the Netherlands, to adopt
more restrictive measures. The Biden administration is also seeking to deny Chinese companies access to cloud servers,
further escalating tensions.

In this complex landscape, multilateral approaches and international agreements may offer prospects for resolution,
mirroring the collaboration spaces that provided de-escalation during the original Cold War. However, as history repeats
itself in new forms, the global community must navigate this landscape carefully, harnessing technological advancement
for the greater good while avoiding the pitfalls of an all-encompassing Cold War scenario, which could result in mutually
assured destruction. The power of technology and information in this contemporary rivalry makes it even more
challenging and potentially sinister than the Cold War of the past.

PAGE FIVE |THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

CROSSWORD!!

PAGE SIX | THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

 HENRY KISSINGER GOES ON TOUR
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUI

Henry Kissinger shakes hand with good friend and fellow mass murderer Augusto Pinochet

Taylor Swift wasn’t the only one who went on tour this year; Henry Kissinger, renowned war-criminal and statesman, just
turned 100, and he didn’t skimp on the celebrations. Instead he went worldwide, traveling to New York, London, and Germany.
While in New York, he was welcomed with the full red-carpet treatment at the New York Public Library and among his guest’s
were Eric Schmidt, the billionaire former Google CEO; Tony Bilkin, current Secretary of State; and Larry Summers, former US
Secretary of Treasury. It may seem odd to see such an extravagant celebration thrown for a mere statesman, but Henry Kissinger
isn’t just any statesman, he is the statesman. And by that I mean he is the most vile, disgusting, and downright deplorable proxies
ever employed by the US States—which is probably why he’s so well loved.

When asked by journalist Jonathan Guyer about if Kissinger was a war-criminal, Larry Summers had this to say: “I’m
just not going to go there. I’m gonna leave it at the one quote I just gave you.”
Summer puts up a truly convincing argument, but perhaps there’s something more to the question. Is Henry Kissinger
really a war-criminal?—The short answer is yes, and the even longer answer is YES.

Kissinger has often been described as a brilliant statesman. He’s served as National Security Advisor, Secretary of State
and Informal Advisor for every US president, from Eisenhower to Trump (also a criminal). Over the course of his
“esteemed” career, Kissinger has put his shriveled old-man hands in just about every area of foreign affairs imaginable,
to the point where if one were to view a vignette of the worst atrocities committed in the 20th century, they’d be sure to
find Kissinger’s lurking figure in the shadows.

Kissinger’s style of diplomacy is commonly referred to, by his groupies, as Realpoltik: a system of politics based not on
ideological considerations, but instead on a practical and dispassionate analysis of a situation at a given moment. For
Kissinger however, this was not a diplomatic approach, but was rather a way of moral absolution: a self-fulfilling means
by which the atrocities aided by US foreign intervention could be justified. Rebecca Gordon of the University of San
Francisco describes this, as “an ethical stance, one that privileges only this country’s imperial advantage.” In almost all
scenarios, the only practicality that Realpolitik ever offered under Kissinger only ever seemed to be beneficial for the
US, for Kissinger rarely ever acted based on moral instinct or ethical obligation, but rather based on his own delusions
about what served his country best.

Perhaps it’s for this reason that Kissinger, statesman of the so-called “most democratic country in the world,” often
ended up empowering more dictatorships than he did democracies. He was content with supporting Pakistan, under
dictator Yahya Khan, in it’s genocide of East-Pakistan, provided Pakistan would give Kissinger an opening in to China in
return, and was similarly eager to support a coup against Salvador Allende—Chile’s elected socialist president—in favor
of electing Augusto Pinochet, who was responsible for the death of 3,000 people and the kidnapping of around another
1,000 or so.

That’s why in 1973, Kissinger, for his contributions in negotiating the ceasefire in Vietnam, was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. For Kissinger, "There [was] no other comparable honour. A statesman’s final test, after all, is whether he
has made a contribution to the well-being of mankind". Well, if Henry Kissinger has made a contribution to the well-
being of mankind, then Trump may as well get crowned the Pope.

PAGE SEVEN | THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

 FIRST ISLAND RING CHAIN

WALEED IMRAN

As China rises in its position as a global superpower, the US Defense strategy, in its response, seeks encirclement of China.
Many islands in the South China Sea are being loaded up with military hardware, with most of them coming from the United
States. This forms a chain of militarized islands, creating a line that centers on Taiwan. The question arises: Is this an effort of
defense or aggression?

"The US military is planning for a 'transformative' year in Asia as tensions with China continue to rise."
~ Christopher Woody (INSIDER)

One US official referred to this as the possibility of the US forces there experiencing the "most transformative year" in a
generation in 2023. This chain is a symbol of rising tensions between global superpowers, and I will explain why this is
happening now and what it means for the future of this conflict.

A document from the US Department of Defense, the "National Defense Strategy of the United States of America," is released
every four years, providing insights into what the US military is up to. The 2022 report focuses heavily on China. The DoD
states, "China remains our most consequential strategic competitor for coming decades." Why? The Pentagon suggests that
China is bullying its neighbors to "reshape the region and the international system to fit its authoritarian preferences." In
essence, China is attempting to challenge the global order established by the United States, seeking to create a new world
order based on different values and systems.

China is rapidly modernizing and expanding its military at an astonishing rate, effectively deploying the equivalent of an
entire new British navy every four years, significantly increasing its military footprint. In response to this growing threat
from China, the United States has devised a plan and has set a 10-year window for implementing significant changes.

Here's what the plan looks like: The United States has developed a strategy called "integrated deterrence" to create a military posture
aimed at containing China. The primary focus of this strategy is to work with American allies in Asia who share the goal of deterring
and containing China. Initially, this strategy seeks to militarize Japanese islands, creating a line toward Taiwan. This involves
deploying US and Japanese troops and military equipment from Maeshima Island to Amami Island in the south, continuing south
towards Taiwan's Okinawa, where the United States already has a substantial presence of tens of thousands of troops alongside
Japanese military bases. This chain also includes adding electronic warfare units to jam communication signals or intercept
communications. However, the chain doesn't stop here; the United States has increased its number of military bases to nine in the
north of the Philippines, moving toward Taiwan. The pretext for this expansion is also related to the Philippines' fishing industry,
which was under threat from China, providing a reason to help fill the gap in the created chain.

This first Island Chain acts as a physical border between China and the Pacific Ocean, establishing a line that Japan and
indirectly the United States can easily control and monitor. It also serves as a wall of missiles, giving them a significant
logistical advantage and readiness to respond quickly to any potential invasion of Taiwan by China. This strategy appears to
be an overt escalation in trying to curb China's influence in its own region.

"China FM warns of 'conflict' if the US stays on its path of confrontation."

~ ALJAZEERA
"Chinese FM to US...Change 'Distorted' views or face conflict."
~ CNN

Chinese President Xi Jinping has already labeled this a policy of encirclement and suppression. This implies that if the United
States and its allies are not cautious in their approach, it may send a signal to China that it's the right time to invade Taiwan.
In that sense, this strategy could inadvertently provoke the very conflict it aims to deter.

PAGE EIGHT | THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

BRIC NATIONS: BUILDING BLOCKS OF A GLOBAL ECONOMIC
POWERHOUSE
IBRAHEEM UMAIR
BRICS is a rising organization that was formed way back
in 2009 informally. This organization was formed to
challenge a world order dominated by the United States of
America and its Western Allies. This organization was
created by Russia. It wasn’t a formal group such as the
United Nations or the World Bank.
The main members of the group consist of; Brazil, Russia,
China and India. South Africa, the smallest member in
terms of economy and population later on became part of
the group as the first beneficiary of an expansion of the
Bloc in 2010, then being known as BRICS.
Going further back “BRIC” was a term given by the Goldman
Sachs economist Jim O’Neill in his report “Building better
economic BRICs”. During that time the economies of the
four countries, Brazil, Russia, China and India were rapidly
growing, raising concerns regarding their impact on the
global economy. Foreign Ministers of these four countries
started meeting informally in 2006 leading to more formal
annual summits in 2009. South Africa then joined later on,
officially making the acronym “BRICS”. Despite the
differences the BRICS nations have including different
geographical settings and historical background, they still
share some very notable characteristics including rapid
economic growth, high population and GDP. The countries
of this bloc comprise of the two most populous countries in
the world (India and China) which is why they have over
40% of the global population. Furthermore their economies
account for over 30% of the world's GDP.
This Bloc has many set objectives such as, promoting
environmentally responsible and sustainable
development practices while collaborating to meet shared
development objectives. Another one of the Blocs main
objectives is technological innovation. Increasing
international cooperation in science, technology, and
innovation domains to support knowledge sharing,
capacity building, and technical advancements among
member countries.
Improving political debate and cooperation on
international issues, such as altering global governance
institutions to account for the changing nature of the
world economy and to provide developing nations a
louder voice and more representation.
Mutual respect and ties for one another's cultures are
encouraged, and social and cultural exchanges between
countries are also encouraged in order to forge better
relationships with each other's countries. Promoting
peace, stability, and security on a local, national, and
international level while addressing common security
concerns and issues, such terrorism. Fostering economic
cooperation, growth, and trade among members while
enhancing the BRICS economies' access to markets.
PAGE NINE | THE GLOBAL INQUIRER
Enhancing collaboration and cooperation between
developing nations, exchanging best practices, and assisting
projects that aid in the general development of the Global
South. Establishing organizations like the CRA and the NDB
to finance infrastructure and development projects in
member countries is known as "development financing."
Most of these goals insist on the idea of all these states
becoming independent and getting rid of aid from the USA
and the European Union.
Recently, South Africa has hosted the 2023 BRICS summit and
has invited 67 leaders across various continents including
Africa, South America and Asia. Over 40 countries, including
Iran, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Argentina,
Indonesia, Egypt, Ethiopia, Cuba, and Kazakhstan are
interested in joining the Bloc, according to 2023 summit chair
South Africa. BRICS agreed on Thursday to admit Saudi
Arabia, Iran, Ethiopia, Egypt, Argentina and the United Arab
Emirates. Some of the biggest oil exporters in the world are
among BRICS now, consisting of Saudi Arabia, Iran, UAE and
Russia.
In the 2023 BRICS summit, many countries expressed their
interests in joining the Bloc, which is why this summit
became about expansion. China is seeking to boost its
geopolitical might during tension arising with the USA, being
the main driver of expansion. Russia is also seconding this as
a way of overcoming isolation over the Ukraine war.
Now what can happen to states non-aligned to BRICS. There
are many outcomes, but the Blocs activities and decisions
cannot directly affect these nations like those that are a part
of BRICS. There’s not much that could happen for states non
aligned to BRICS, but here are some of the possibilities
include points such as Limited direct impact, States that are
in the Bloc have more influence over BRICS compared to non
aligned states, As a result, the impact the non aligned states
can have on BRICS decisions, agreements and projects are
significantly reduced.
Despite many states being non-aligned with BRICS, non-aligned governments may still be impacted by the decisions and projects
BRICS takes at a global level. Due to many powerful nations being a part of BRICS, many decisions can affect non-aligned states.
Non-aligned governments have the option of cooperating with the BRICS nations on particular international problems that suit
their interests. Even though they are not BRICS members, they might take part in debates or agreements about trade,
development, or climate change. Non-aligned nations may occasionally request observer status at BRICS summits or meetings in
order to follow debates and decisions. This might make limited-scale diplomatic interaction and cooperation easier. States who
are not members of the BRICS or other significant international alliances are free to pursue their own foreign policy goals and
alliances. They are able to maintain a broad network of diplomatic ties as a result.

States that are non-aligned to BRICS may have more freedom to themselves but they may miss out on crucial benefits, considering
BRICS has some of the biggest oil exporting nations in the world. They also have some of the biggest exporters such as China. Not
only are there big exporters in BRICS but, BRICS consists of some of the biggest and most rapidly growing economies in the world.
The effect a non aligned state can have from BRICS completely depends on their own foreign policy and how they are connected
to countries involved with BRICS.

PAGE TEN | THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

 THE GLOBAL INQUIRER

AUGUST 2023 | VOLUME 1 ISSUE 1

TNS GLOBAL POLITICS SOCIETY’S FLAGSHIP PUBLICATION

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Alisha Amjad
DEPUTY EDITOR/DESIGNER
Momina Rizvi

ANSWER KEY

BEACONHOUSE TNS DEFENCE | DIPLOMA PROGRAM | GLOBAL POLITICS SOCIETY

TNS.GLOBALPOLITICS@GMAIL.COM

PAGE ELEVEN | THE GLOBAL

INQUIRER