Debates from the Observatory

Some programs ago we were judging Donald Trump’s period in office, so now we will focus our attention on one specific aspect of it: US foreign policy in the last four years. It is obvious that the country has shifted from an interventionist role in foreign affairs to a more isolationist position, clearly inspired by classic realism, which can be summed up in the president’s leitmotiv: “America first”. Is this the proper way to deal with international affairs, in an era of growing globalisation? Or, on the contrary, is globalization just a way of losing political independence? To help us come to a useful conclusion, Kevin K. Mugabe, Jorge Moreno, and Miguel A. Sisamon will discuss with us the implications of isolationism and interventionism.

Here comes a program that instead of focusing on what has been on the news in the past weeks, is going to analyse a problem that has been present in our lives for decades: global warming. In 2016, the leading countries met at Paris to sing and agreement that was a turning point in Western history: they compromised to carry out initiatives to reduce gas emissions and to slow down the effects of global warming. Nevertheless, in the last four years some countries, namely the US, have criticised the agreement and have even singed out of it. Hence, it is necessary to ask ourselves: is the agreement effective? Are there other ways to slow down the pace of global warming and its dramatic effects? Emma F. Halvorsen, Maria C. Haraldsson, Cecilie Rystad, and Jenny Veland will underline the advantages and disadvantages of the Agreement, pointing out alternative solutions when necessary.

It is one month now since we started to receive huge amounts of news and information about US elections. Regardless of the final result, though it is quite clear that Joe Biden will become the new president of the country, it is necessary for us to judge Donald Trump from an objective perspective, not letting ourselves be driven by our love or hatred towards him. On the one hand, economic figures seem to point out progress in the US in the last four years, but on the other hand he has performed poorly in foreign affairs, as well as in the struggle against the pandemic. In the end, how should he be evaluated? Luis Álvarez, Aliisa I. Carrizo, Rocío Domínguez, and Nerea Regalado have analysed his time in office in detail and will help us clarify the final judgment of former president Trump.

COVID-19 seems to focus a lot of attention in this new season of “Debates from the Observatory”, which makes sense since we are studying issues of current international affairs. Today we will approach it from a totally different perspective: to what point can we argue that female leadership has proved more effective to deal with the pandemic? The conclusion that we reach is rather relevant, as not only will it apply to women as leaders, but also to women’s role in society in general. In order to make a point on the better solution to the problems associated to the disease in countries led by women, Maria Cerdá, Demili Ajibekova, Irene Puebla, and Nadia Petite will provide interesting facts and information in today’s debate.

March 11th 2020 is a turning point in Spanish recent History: the government declared national lockdown to fight COVID-19. Since then, there is an intense debate about the decision: was the government acting effectively to make deaths and contagions go down? Should it have reacted before? Was the initiative an economic suicide? We are afraid that not only security reasons, but also economic interests are behind the debate. In order to clarify the whole situation, Gabriel Desangles, Aina Gispert, Beatriz Piqué, Isabella Gómez, Aliisa J. Raesilta, and Glenn R. Sorzano will describe the pros and cons of the national lockdown.

For different reasons, China has called on the attention of international affairs in recent decades. Firstly, it has remained a Communist dictatorship despite the fact that it has transformed its economic structure in a way that has turned it into one of the leading superpowers in the World. Secondly, it is the place where the global pandemic of COVID-19 originated, so many leaders and pressure groups believe that it is accountable for the global crisis that we are suffering, either because it was not capable of controlling the disease, or because it has provoked it (the most radical people argue). Angel Cerdá, Fiona Grafin, and Piergiorgio Sauli will analyse current situation in detail.

One of the most controverted topics when it comes to US home policy has to do with the healthcare system. One of Barack Obama’s last goals was to reform it in order to open it a little bit, but it always arises the instincts of those who feel that the whole state structure will break down. In order to find out the reasons of both sides (those for making the system public and those against), Hugo Hernandez, Carla Hernandez, Marie de Fontaines, and Ivana Buric will lead a very interesting debate on the topic. Thus we inaugurate the third season of “Debates from the Observatory”.

Migration is an issue that will not disappear from the international scenario in the short term. Since more and more people seem to agree with xenophobic discourses, it is relevant for us to reflect a little more on the topic. That is why Carlos Álvarez and Shreejana KC will discuss on the topic today.

The last conflicto that we are addressing in this season is the Syrian war. Sadly, it is the only episode of the Arab Spring (2011) that still stays alive, as the international and geopolitical interests at stake are too complex for the war to come to an easy solution in the next years. Sara C., Sara A., Claudia, Arantza, and Marina will analyze the conflict from different perspectives.

This debate has been going on since the end of WW2, when the new war was not about confronting armies, but about deciding which was the best economic system: capitalism, or communism. In the end, capitalism has become an ever-lasting system that has overcome communism, in clear decay since 1980s, and especially after the downfall of USSR. Manuela, Eglee, Allison, Gonzalo N., and Mariagabriela will present the main pros and cons of both philosophies.

The conflict in the Holy Land and the Palestinian territories goes back to 1947, when the UK terminated its protectorate over the area in order to give the Israelis and the Palestinians the chance to decide on their fate. Unfortunately, after seven decades of continuous conflict, the situation seems far from reaching a solution. Lydia, Yasmin, Daniel, Eduardo and Markel will analyze the arguments of the two confronting sides.

Yemen has recently become one of the main focus of conflict in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Iran, the UK, the US… have conflicting interests involved in the area, that make peace seem rather impossible. Today Yasmin, Mariam, Alejandra, Gonzalo and Agustin will sum up the main positions around the conflict.

In this program we do not discuss only issues of international politics, but also problems and topics that are present in the minds of everyone. One leading discussion has to do with public healthcare: should it be mandatory for governments? Or is it an unnecessary expense that states should leave up to private initiative? Marina, Beatriz, Andrea, and Aora will try to sum up their positions.

In the last years migration has become a relevant issue in international politics. The topic is especially controverted in those places were unstable borders exist, the frontier between the US and Mexico being one of them. Today Noelia, Iris, Fátima, Perrine and Sophie will discuss the topic, analyzing the main arguments that defenders and opposers to foreign migration use in public debates.

In today’s program, Waad Ahmed is going to tell us about the Syrian War and what the international attitude towards it should be. A very interesting topic, provided that just now ISIS is losing strength and territories and the Syrian War, according to some observers, seems close to the end.

In the last weeks we have been addressing the rise of populism in different specific cases: Donald Trump and Republicanism in the US, far-right and Bolsonaro in Brazil, ultra-conservative parties in Europe… But to this day we are still missing a deep analysis of populism as a whole, connecting the phenomenon to the supposed crisis of democracy. Can we really talk about a system in crisis? Isn’t the alleged crisis of democracy a symptom of current society’s lack of values and proper information? Brenda Muñoz and Jose Cano are going to sum up the main arguments of populist movements, explaining why they have become so successful in recent times, whereas Sergio Martínez is going to highlight the reasons why populism should never be an option.

“Debates from the observatory” moves far from politics today, in order to address a very important issue: global warming and greenhouse effect. Is it a reality that shows the point to which humankind has stressed the Planet, or is it just something that politicians and social movements have made up to harm specific economic and political interests? Not only will we discuss the main arguments that can be presented for or against global warming from the naturalist scope, but we will also analyze different official discourses concerning the topic, trying to clarify if the reasons on which they are based are solid enough. Irene Iturzaeta and Victoria Veliz will defend the main reasons why global warming is in fact happening, and Rebecca Zanardi and Josephine Gyambrah will express their conviction that climate change is not dramatic at all.

Today, we will discuss about a very recent phenomenon that has shocked everyone from every political and ideological scope: Donald Trump’s victory in the US election in 2016. It is clear that President Trump represents the Republican Party, but can we consider him as a paradigm of Republicanism in the US? And what is even more important, is he representative of a broader movement towards the far right, or just a character that looks for national interests in a period of global crisis? Jerelyn Dsouza and Sebastian Blanco are speaking for Donald Trump, whereas in front of them we have Rocío González and Vicente Giner, who wish to emphasize the controversies and contradictions of Donald Trump’s program.

We have just finished discussing the rise of the far-right parties when now we must address another phenomenon that is related to it: the refugee crisis in Europe. In recent times we have become familiar with news of thousands of people dying in the Mediterranean; we have seen people escaping their home countries just because of political, ethnic, economic… and other reasons. Not all western countries are happy to welcome refugees, thus provoking a humanitarian crisis, as well as a very intense political debate. In today’s program, Karla Kuokkanen will try to understand the role of the refugees, whereas Gellért Kovács and Ahmed Abdullah will try to explain their own position towards the control of migration.

If last week we were discussing on the rise of the right-wing in Europe and around the World, today we will focus on a peculiar case: Jaïr Bolsonaro’s recent victory in Brazil. Nemo Delangle and Tamara Mendes will explain the phenomenon of his victory, considering recent political, economic, and social development of the country. Facing them, Aone Pommer and Bob Schuurman will highlight the main contradictions of right-wing parties and will defend the necessity to support other political discourses.

Today, we will analyze the context and the consequences of the rising of extreme right-wing parties in Europe, and in Latin America. On the one hand, Raquel Almendros and Alejandro Ruiz will explain the phenomenon, and they will also justify the ascent of that political option. On the other hand, Nikolai Diadenko and Nagore Portillo will stress the advantages of democracy and more moderate political options.