W

hen we think of iconic cities like Paris, the Eiffel Tower often comes to mind. This towering masterpiece serves as an enduring symbol of the Western civilization and a testament to power.

The relationship between architecture and politics runs deep. Buildings are more than just structures; they are powerful statements that shape social fabric and reflect collective values and power dynamics. They create a narrative that reflects and shapes how we live our lives and interact with each other.

International airports are a prime example of how architecture shapes us more than we realize. Architects carefully design these buildings to guide and regulate the flow of passengers while providing a sense of security and reassurance. The layout and design of airport terminals are not only functional, but also carry political implications, skillfully influencing traveler behavior.

Elevators, often overlooked in our built environment, also play a role in the complex political dynamics. Before the invention of elevators, people placed the most prestigious areas of buildings on the lower floors, reserving the upper floors for production and lower status areas. The introduction of elevators revolutionized the concept of power, allowing the rise of skyscrapers and redefining urban hierarchy.

An alternative perspective on doorways

The size and design of doorways in Italian architecture are significant political symbols that reflect the historical, cultural, and economic context of their regions. More than just entrances, they are political expressions that reflect the identities of the north and south and shape the way people live and interact with their surroundings.

In the wealthy cities of northern Italy, such as Venice, Milan, and Florence, grand and luxurious doorways serve as historic symbols of wealth, power, and high social status. Influenced by the Renaissance and Neoclassical styles, these architectural choices emphasize visual grandeur and aesthetic appeal. These cities boast grand residences, aristocratic residences, and luxurious buildings owned by the wealthy elite that feature large and elaborate entrances. These large doorways symbolize prestige and wealth, and their elegant designs, luxurious materials, and impressive size emphasize a sense of power and wealth.

In contrast, in the southern regions, including Sicily, Calabria, and Puglia, where a history of economic inequality and foreign domination has left its mark, we see a more pragmatic way of life. Doors in this region are smaller and less extravagant, emphasizing functionality over ostentation. They focus on meeting the practical needs of daily life and providing protection from the Mediterranean climate, rather than trying to show off wealth. Simplicity and practicality are prioritized, reflecting a unique set of values.

Hitler’s Prora

In 1938, Adolf Hitler initiated the construction of what would become the world’s largest seaside resort under the “Strength Through Joy” program. “Strength Through Joy” was designed to organize the leisure time of Germans, a central part of the Nazi Party’s vision of a state that would oversee all aspects of citizens’ lives. The ambitious project found its home along the Baltic Sea coast on the island of Rügen, stretching an impressive 3 kilometers, and was dubbed “Prora” by the Nazis. The plan for Prora was ambitious: it was to house 20,000 residents and become the largest vacation resort of the Third Reich.

Prora was not just a vacation destination; it was a propaganda tool designed to rally the German people to Hitler’s side. The monumental complex, originally spanning 4.5 kilometers, consisted of eight separate blocks, each 500 meters long and 6 stories high, connected by covered walkways. Constructed of reinforced concrete and steel, these buildings housed a total of 10,000 rooms, each identical in size and furnishings, and all overlooking the sea.

The resort boasted numerous amenities, including two huge swimming pools with wave machines, two large theaters, and a massive central hall that could accommodate large gatherings. Each block had a restaurant capable of serving 2,500 people at a time, all included in the price. The price was only a quarter of the average wage. More than just a vacation spot, Prora was strategically designed as a mechanism of social engineering to garner public support for Hitler’s regime.

The Nazi regime planned community games, parades, and daily activities focused on fitness, discipline, and the promotion of patriotism, all part of the Nazi plan to mold ideal citizens. Families were encouraged to visit, and the original plan was to build five of these colossal structures. However, this vision was never fully realized.

The outbreak of World War II in 1939 brought construction of Prora to an abrupt halt. The resources and manpower that had been dedicated to this grandiose project were urgently needed for the war effort, leading to its abandonment. Prora never saw a single vacationer pass through its doors. Its association with Nazi propaganda and the oppressive past made its completion politically untenable. The division of Germany further complicated its fate, and it largely fell into disrepair. While some sections have been repurposed in recent years, Prora remains a powerful symbol of the political underpinnings that can shape and ultimately frustrate architectural ambitions.

Redefining the Heart of India’s Capital

In the heart of India’s capital, New Delhi, a major redevelopment initiative known as the Central Vista Redevelopment Project is transforming the city’s government district. This ambitious undertaking goes beyond the construction of government buildings; it represents a significant process of renewal that has been underway for a long time.

In December 1911, King George V announced the relocation of India’s capital from Calcutta to Delhi during the Delhi Durbar, a grand assembly. Renowned architects Sir Edwin Lutyens and Sir Herbert Baker originally designed the Central Vista during British colonial rule. The architects were inspired by iconic landmarks such as the Champs-Elysées in Paris and the National Mall in Washington, D.C.

Today, New Delhi’s Central Vista is home to important government buildings such as the Indian Parliament and the official residence of the President of India. They have repurposed many buildings from their original purpose, and the administrative district now houses only a portion of the government offices. They have relocated many ministries elsewhere.

There are several reasons for the redevelopment of Central Vista. The growth of India’s population from 376 million in the 1950s to 1.393 billion in 2021, an increase of 270%, has led to an increase in the number of Indian states and elected representatives. However, the number of elected representatives in the Lok Sabha has increased by only 11%. The demographic challenge calls for improving office infrastructure to increase administrative efficiency.

The project also aims to improve public spaces and make them more accessible to the public. Emphasis on environmental sustainability is another key theme, with a commitment to preserving and expanding green spaces and transplanting trees rather than cutting them down. This project demonstrates the Indian government’s commitment to transforming Central Vista into a modern, efficient and environmentally sustainable area. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has highlighted the shortcomings of the current Parliament House, including outdated communications infrastructure, poor acoustics, and limited workspace, which do not meet the needs of a fully functioning democracy.

U

ndercover Israeli forces invaded Jenin refugee camp in the early hours of Thursday, January 26, 2023, and fired at a group of Palestinians who refused to hand themselves over. The invading force, in turn, was targeted by Palestinian fire after their activity was exposed by locals.

According to Palestinian health authorities, nine Palestinians were killed, including three Palestinian fighters and an elderly woman, and 20 others were injured. Four of those injured were shot in the upper part of their bodies and are in critical condition.

Palestinians rushed some of those injured by Israeli fire to a local sports club, but invading Israeli forces attacked them inside, demolishing the walls. Local sources have revealed that the Israeli forces also crushed a Palestinian car in which two Palestinians who were injured were inside and killed them before leaving the refugee camp, following four hours of clashes in which an Israeli drone was also downed by Palestinian fighters.

Palestinian, Jordanian, and Israeli reactions

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has called for an emergency meeting in Ramallah to discuss the implications of killing nine Palestinians in Jenin, as Mahmoud Abbas, President of the PA, called for lowering the Palestinian flag for three days as a sign of mourning.

The spokesperson of the Jordanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs Sinan Al-Majali said the invasion into Jenin camp will only serve to escalate the situation and lead to yet another cycle of violence whose price will be paid by all. The Israeli incursion into Jenin came a day after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met Jordanian King Abdullah II in Amman, during which meeting he affirmed that the status of Al-Aqsa Mosque will stay the same, after Israeli forces prevented Jordan’s ambassador to Israel from entering the compound.

Following the Israeli operation in Jenin, Netanyahu held security consultations with army officials, whereby the Israeli army activated the Iron Dome battery in the south, fearing a retaliation from Gaza.

The Israeli army said it killed three Palestinians who were planning an attack against Israel during the invasion.

Saleh Al-Arouri, the deputy head of Hamas, said the retaliation for what Israel did in Jenin will not take long.

Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip announced a general strike to mourn the killing of the nine Palestinians in Jenin.

The Israeli invasion into Jenin refugee camp was the most serious since Israel’s invasion and destruction of large parts of the refugee camp in 2002.

Following the killing of 9 Palestinians, a number or home-made projectiles were fired into Southern Israel on January 27, which prompted the Israeli army to attack targets in Gaza over night.

The Palestinians killed in the Jenin refugee camp are the following:

Nour Ghunaim

Motasim Abu Al-Hassan

Hamoudi Al-Washi

Abdallah Al-Ghoul

Hamodui Al-Shaqi

Talip Izriqi

Izzideen Salahat

Waseem Jai’is

Majeeda Obaid

For Latin America’s political map, the weekend of March 11-13 was historical. On Friday, March 11, 2022, in Chile’s capital, Santiago, newly elected president Gabriel Boric and his cabinet assumed power in the Andean country, with a recent past of intense social turmoil. On Sunday, March 13, the Colombian people too elected their legislative body and a number of parties decided by popular vote their final candidates for the presidential election on May 29.

With COVID 19 gradually receding, the challenge of the incoming presidents in Latin America will be addressing the aftermath of the pandemic’s catastrophic implications of over the last two years.

In the last decades, both Colombia and Chile have been ruled by what could be described as right-wing neoliberal governments. Boric, a former student leader whose role in the social struggle throughout the past years in Chile has been recognized, rose to power with a promise of bringing about structural social changes in the economic spectrum, pensions, abortion, gender issues, migration, and other sensitive issues for the Chilean people.

Feared by the traditional Chilean power centers, Boric is now facing critics from his own leftist base who voted him in mainly due to his moderate stance regarding the Russian invasion of Ukraine, which he recently condemned, the same as he had condemned autocratic leftist Latin American governments such as Nicaragua.

Boric’s positions in the early days of his duties in office seem less radical than what voters from, for example, the Chilean Communist Party would have expected them to be. It is clear that for Boric to have a grip on power in Chile, he must distance himself from radical postures and somehow calm the traditional elites without submitting to them. The fact that he is 36, one of the youngest presidents in the world, puts some extra pressure on him.

The continent’s youths seem to have awoken from a long lethargy and the fact that the young man, known as a student who took to the streets in Chile, a country shattered by the violence of a prowling dictatorship became president is significant. Boric has to prove that the future is better in the hands of those who stand a higher chance to be part of it.

The March 13 primary elections in Colombia helped cast a denser shadow over the results of the 2018 election. A few days after the primary elections’ results were released in 2018, Petro’s party, Pacto Histórico, had gained at least 390,000 votes as “found” by his party’s election witnesses body, after electoral observers reported irregularities.

So even though the leftist parties may still not have a majority in Congress, they will definitely have a larger representation than they did in the past four years. This scenario could lead to Petro’s presidency, giving him a strong legislative support, but, as Boric did in Chile, he will necessarily have to bargain with the traditional parties to develop his social agenda, through flirting with the Colombian electorate.

Still, there’s nothing sure for Petro in a country where the political and social establishment is not used to losing and the right-wing candidate, Federico Gutiérrez, has all the political machinery on his side.

During the pandemic, Chile and Colombia experienced drastic social unrest, rarely seen before, despite their violent histories. The ruling regimes in both countries failed to deliver welfare to their peoples in the midst of the pandemic. Latin America is a region plagued by social inequalities where natural resources have been exploited for the benefit of foreign multinational companies with the complicity of local elites. Poverty levels and crime rates skyrocketed in most Latin American countries.

Politically, the subcontinent has oscillated between populist governments simplistically labeled “leftist” or “right-wing.”

Countries like Argentina have been oscillating between both extremes without achieving sustainable prosperity. Mexico’s leftist President Andrés López Obrador, who after three attempts, snatched power from the conservative ruling parties, still keeps a relatively healthy level of popularity among Mexicans, but violence is rampant and social inequalities are more than evident.

Likewise, other Latin American countries also fail to find continuity in state policies that would translate in social conquests redounding to better conditions for their citizens. The roots of inequality and social injustice in Latin America are profoundly and intimately related to its colonial history and the process to transcend it is tortuous and slow-moving compared to the people’s needs.

Brazil, the region’s giant, will have presidential elections in early October, expecting a probable comeback of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the socialist former president (2003-2010). Da Silva represents a radical contrast to Bolsonaro’s ultra-right, pro-U.S. government.

The recent developments this year in Chile and Colombia as well as the possibility of Brazil following their footsteps in their elections in October may give birth to a new hope in the region. An essential issue that the new governments must approach is the resumption of diplomatic ties between South American countries, shattered by the influence of the United States.

For instance, Venezuela has no ties today with Colombia and Brazil, two of its most important and increasingly relevant neighbors. The three countries share key challenges like migration and economic development.

America’s leaders are fighting too many battles at once. They are taking on Russia, China, and DAESH as well as North Korea, Iran, and a host of militias with transnational reach. They are spreading inadequate military forces over vast distances with no control over multiple confrontations that can quickly escalate into conflagrations across every continent and ocean.

In all of the would-be superpowers, generals and diplomats think they can choose their own wars. Once they identify key adversaries, they lay out plans to contain them within well-defined boundaries—assuming they can shift resources between competing fronts to put out fires as they breakout in one region after another.

Over the last two decades, four American presidents became the most enthusiastic advocates of this approach. One after another, they spun a series of dubious and contradictory geopolitical projects—The Global War on Terror, democratizing the Greater Middle East, the pivot to East Asia, joining maritime zones to form an imaginary Indo-Pacific theater, and, through it all, the steady expansion of NATO into post-Soviet territories.

Growing complexity of global politics

As each administration struggled to exit the quagmires of Iraq and Afghanistan, it was obvious that U.S. strategists would have to juggle at least three regional fronts simultaneously. China, Russia, and countless Islamic movements would mount constant challenges to Washington’s efforts to shore up its superpower status. Instead of dominating a unipolar world, America had to wrestle multiple power centers with impressive resources and unpredictable intentions.

Then, just as American strategists thought they were ready to cope with the growing complexity of global politics, the Ukrainian war upended all of their key assumptions. China no longer seemed to pose the greatest threat to international order. Russia was not behaving as the second-rate player Washington envisioned, but as the assertive Eurasian power it has always aspired to become.

In the Middle East, a new nuclear deal with Iran had to be postponed and Syrian volunteers were asked to fight in Ukrainian cities.  Once again, simmering Middle Eastern tensions were fueling chain reactions with a distant crisis that Beltway thinkers viewed as unrelated.

China’s goal is to rebrand itself as a guarantor of the international system in contrast to Washington’s warnings that it is a revisionist power determined to overthrow the status quo. Chinese leaders are convinced that the tide of history is shifting the balance of power in their favor. In this light, they see the war in Ukraine as another rung on their ladder toward replacing the United States as the benevolent hegemon most deserving of global respect and leadership.

Analyzing the current situation in Ukraine, a Chinese commentator expressed precisely this sentiment. Zheng Yongnian argued that events are moving in China’s direction and that, as long as China doesn’t sabotage itself with foolish behavior, it will continue to prosper. Zheng’s caveat about reckless action might have been intended as a mere aside, but his warning can also be seen as the most important part of the picture. The world order that China claims to value is a shambles—largely due to the flagrant law breaking of all the great powers, China included.

From Abu Ghraib to Mariupol

International law is generally respected in commerce and diplomacy, but it is routinely cast aside in matters of armed conflict, human rights, and immigration. The very countries that make the rules violate them with impunity. Abu Ghraib, Xinjiang, and Aleppo helped establish the pattern long before Kharkiv and Mariupol.

Defying the law of nations is part of a wider pattern of ignoring risk that has become a typical approach in many areas of policy making around the world. Beyond refusals to limit the use of military force, we see failures to manage economic meltdowns, environmental disasters, recurring pandemics, waves of human migration, and ethnic violence. Scholars in several fields have tried to explain the striking increase in such seemingly irrational behavior.

Many views combine psychological, economic, and structural approaches. The most frequently cited causes of dysfunction include distorted information, biases of individualistic cultures, disincentives to collective action, indifference to externalities, the inherent anarchy of sovereign nations, and coalitions of entrenched interest groups. These ideas have blended into a new orthodoxy of social skepticism that refutes once dominant assumptions about rational choice and efficient markets.

Increasing distrust in governments

Unfortunately, skepticism may not sufficiently illuminate the gravity of the situation because it neglects the central issues of intention and responsibility. In much of the world, political leaders have failed so often that their citizens no longer believe they are acting in good faith to protect the public interest.

By fostering ever deeper inequalities, governments and international organizations seem to serve privileged elites at the expense of everyone else. This perception undermines the legitimacy of all ruling institutions whether they are national or global, political, or corporate.

The result is an upsurge in social movements with transnational reach demanding accountability for war criminals, tax evaders, polluters, and human traffickers. Several countries have adopted a form of universal jurisdiction permitting their courts to judge particularly heinous crimes no matter where they are committed even if the perpetrators are sitting officials.

When President Biden declares Vladimir Putin a “war criminal”, he is bending to public outrage against all leaders who flaunt international law. Biden’s denunciation requires action—not merely against America’s adversaries, but against perpetrators from his own country, both past and present.

After the Nuremburg and Tokyo trials, legal immunity for international crimes narrowed in theory only to resurface in recent years as impunity in practice. This is a collective lapse of conscience among ruling elites that world citizens are still struggling to reverse.

Global security has the extraordinary characteristic that states, irrelevant of their strength, do not respond according to their capacity. Global escalations, which have contributed immensely to our knowledge base, have transformed what is “normal” for humans, society, and humanity in this sense. The term “normal” has, actually, become blurred since traditional, modern, and post-modern have become intertwined. We are experiencing a mixture of old and new conceptualized – or not – political phenomena enriched by emerging challenges. Such complex developments perplex all actors in international politics.

Scholarship has shaped our understanding of international and transnational security under the clout of natural disasters, societal mobility, pandemic diseases, climate change, or living standards. There is no unity and resilience in addressing these emerging risks among state actors, though awareness has been expanding among individuals, civil society, and the global public.

In this frame, international community actors are trying to put such concerns on the agenda. This requires resilience, collaborative engagements, and compliance with the prerequisites of what has to be committed to in order to respond to the dangers exposed. Unfortunately, the states’ commitments to keep security risks at a tolerable level are not the same as the ones by those affected by global security concerns.

A consensus was reached among state actors to take joint action against the well-circulated threats. Nevertheless, they ignore the issues which have an economic or political impact on the continuity of their sovereignty or their economic interests and territorial gains. For instance, global climate change has been a concern for most states, in parallel with the demand for action by individuals or societies. Developing states with vast populations, like India and China, refrain from complying with the Paris Conference decisions, while the U.S. stance is vulnerable to any governmental policy change.

In other words, individuals and communities press for a “change,” but states resist, while individuals and society themselves challenge the climate objectives by insisting on consumption habits. Like the climate challenge, protectionism of culture and identity have pushed individuals and communities to put pressure on the state. Cultural and identity protectionism have been equated to countering immigration and xenophobia.

Another case worth scrutinizing is the pandemic of the last two years. There has been a solid stance to fight COVID19 at all levels and units in international politics. But vaccine diplomacy, affiliated with the vaccine economy, diverted the firm stance to a competitive pattern whereby states compete which will profit the most from vaccine sales. The economic consequences of the pandemic, on the other hand, have boosted concerns of political security and, for some countries, regime continuity.

In other words, the pandemic could not prevent conflicts across the globe, like those in Syria and Libya, while its consequences can devastate the order of the international political system. It has shifted attention away from dedicated cooperation and the grants given by developed countries to less developed ones, and what remains is only symbolic commitments.

Global concerns, as manifested in the emerging “soft” threats and challenging situations described above, are not only about the experienced traumas in our lives but cover a broader spectrum. The newly emerging concerns can form a long list like digital currencies, space mining, cultural expansion, consumption habits, digital space, importing high-level human resources from developing countries. These new challenges will be on our agendas as humans and society feel their impact in their ordinary course of lives. Hence states or groups will be compelled to compete for more gain or enhance protectionism against the new interpretations of security.

Strategy-Making for Multilayered and Multilateral Security

The strategy-making of this era, with its obligation to address complicated structures and threats, requires flexible and critical thinking with intelligent technologies. Policymakers have to scan more dynamics, actors, and variables of all sorts with a heightened capacity for analysis and synthesis. As options increase for all brands of actors in the international realm, predictability becomes compelling. In other words, the probabilities of “misunderstanding” and “miscalculation,” which may spark any conflict, have become a risk for peace and stability.

What is more, the features of the contemporary era, which are integrating modernity and pre-modernity with new interpretations, require all international community actors to invent sui generis modus operandi for all courses of political, economic, military, or environmental actions. Today’s strategy-making has to address multilayered concerns regarding “unusual” situations in order to be prepared for the worst-case scenarios.

For all actors and against the backdrop of this new security environment, the strategy-making process needs to address the emerging structure of today’s politics. In this frame, actors prefer to use multilateralism as the new mood of the day. This term implies the existing superpower, namely the U.S., and the potential ones with long-term projections. Given the militarily inspired statements of French President Macron and the German quest to dominate the EU economically and diplomatically, Europe wants to be more independent. Russia is more concerned about re-establishing the former Soviet “sphere of influence.”

Finally, China is inclined to be a superpower to honor the 100^th anniversary of the PRC with a pledge to the teachings of Mao and Deng Xiaoping. On the other hand, the U.S. is committed to countering the emerging superpowers while building a check mechanism based on NATO and partners. One can, then, question whether multipolarity brings stability as achieved by the Cold War through mutually assured destruction or imposes a “Cold Peace” which sustains low-intensity conflicts with its emerging modus operandi. This picture of international politics expands the courses but strains the states’ options.

Regionalism’s Scattered Structure

Other than global politics, there is another level of complexity involving actors, dynamics, and events in the regional systems.  Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver’s regional security complex theory includes new, uncontrollable inputs whereby the classical balance of power or bandwagoning strategies are not fit for addressing modern concerns. For instance, the Gulf countries function beyond their traditional area of interest spanning across vast regions beyond the Persian Gulf, where they compete with one another, all made possible by their wealth.

“Glocalism” pushes these states to observe the concerns of their citizens due to the trauma of the Arab Spring (or Winter?) while making sure their regimes – not states – are seen as able to play this challenging role in order to retain credibility. On the other hand, external actors continue to search for security in rentier economies. Compared to the Gulf countries, the Middle East appeared to have more regional systems inside its multilayered regional system. On the other hand, regionalism in Central Asia, the Balkans, or the Caucasus is reminiscent of the Cold War era. As a result, regions have their sui generis characteristics. Nevertheless, regional complexities can bring back the traditional threat perceptions of the Cold War.

Transnational Interaction

States and the organizations of what the states make are short of covering the cobweb of individuals and communities. The strength of individuals vastly increased in the last two decades, thanks to communication technology and human mobility. The interaction among individuals of different communities has resulted in new communities of interest and groups that put pressure on international actors. States cannot control individuals, and have concerns about maintaining their existence and regime security. The fundamental challenge to the state regards the loyalty, sacrifice, and dedication of communities.

Hence, a self-organizing body of individuals and their collectivity exist with unique interests, concerns, and commitments. This picture compels states to take conservative measures for preserving the societal order within their borders while encouraging a change abroad through access to the digital world. Hence, transnationalism is a threat to the state, but inspired by the state for a controlled transformation in other actors.

After all the discussion on global and regional systems (and subsystems), the themes addressed denote changes in the structure of actors and engagements in the international system. Traditional responses are still valid, but the expansion and deepness of the sectors and units in international politics has entered a new phase. The essential features of this new phase are unsteadiness, intertwined dynamics, and the degradation of consequences. In this sense, international situations cannot be fixed to a particular course but rather need to be treated flexibly.

Liberation theology can provide a critical and deep understanding of how politics and religion, and in particular the Catholic Church in Latin America, are interrelated. Liberation theology reveals how religion can be used as a vehicle to justify and translate the religious understanding of politics into concrete action. The message that advocates of liberation theology want to convey is that religion is heavily involved in society, and that the core and essence of its teaching is to advocate on behalf of the oppressed – even if it comes at a cost.

During the 1960s and 1970s, a debate emerged in Latin America that aimed to provide a critique of liberation. In the Latin American context, liberation theology was viewed as a means to strengthen the Church’s presence in public life. It rejected lecturing people from an ivory tower and losing touch with reality under the banner that the church should be separate from politics and that religion should remain pacifist even in cases where oppressed groups are subjected to violence. Concepts such as wisdom and rational knowledge became secondary and complementary to the notion of liberation.

In this context, liberation had three meanings: (1) political liberation, meaning the liberation of oppressed nations; (2) religious liberation, meaning people’s liberation from “sins”; and (3) historical liberation, meaning the liberation of humans as part of the course of history.

The introduction of political liberation to the overall meaning of liberation shifted the discourse and the involvement of the Catholic Church in politics and public life in Latin America. This revolutionary definition of liberation made actors, who had control and influence over the Church for a long time, such as the Vatican and the U.S. administration, feel uncomfortable. Put simply, this new discourse threatened their influence over the Church and its followers.

In 1984, the Vatican issued a document directed at its churches and followers warning them against the theology of liberation, which was advocated by a group associated with the Catholic Church.

In 1984, the Vatican issued a document directed at its churches and followers warning them against the theology of liberation, which was advocated by a group associated with the Catholic Church. These attempts didn’t prove successful and they indirectly contributed to strengthening the liberation discourse of the Church and its clergy.

The first meeting of the Catholic liberation clergy was held in Colombia in 1968. In 1972, a year before the military coup in the country, another theology of liberation conference was held in Chile, organized by a group called “Christians for Socialism.” The declared goal of the conference was to encourage human rights against authoritarian regimes and to give meaning to theology by connecting it to society and politics.

Ernesto Cardenal, a scholar, painter, artist, poet, and political figure, is considered one of the leading names of the theology of liberation in Latin America. He was among a number of priests in Nicaragua who led a revolution against the Somoza family, which governed the country for more than 43 years.

He eventually became the minister of culture after the revolution and engaged in a campaign to spread literacy and culture in the country. Eventually, he resigned following differences over managing the country’s affairs with his comrade and president of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega.

When Pope St. John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983, he openly asked that Cardenal and four other priests who advocated the theology of liberation be removed from governmental posts over their involvement in the revolution and public life.

When Pope St. John Paul II visited Nicaragua in 1983, he openly asked that Cardenal and four other priests who advocated the theology of liberation be removed from governmental posts over their involvement in the revolution and public life.

A famous photo of Pope John Paul and Cardenal shows the former telling the latter that he “must fix [his] affairs with the Church.” A year later, the pope suspended Cardenal because of his role in politics – the order lasted until 2019, when Pope Francis lifted it.

Liberation Theology in the Middle East

In the Middle East, the theology of liberation has gained prominence in countries which suffer from oppression with attempts made to create a movement of Arab theology in Egypt. In Palestine, Hilarion Capucci, a Syrian Roman Catholic priest who was located in Jerusalem, was involved in smuggling weapons to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) through Jordan and Lebanon. As a result, he was imprisoned in Israel for 3.5 years, during which period he went on hunger strike a number of times. He was eventually released as part of a deal between Israel and the Vatican whereupon he was relocated to Latin America.

Capucci spent the rest of his life in exile in Rome. Ironically, he has supported the Assad government despite the immense suffering, destruction, and displacement it has caused the Syrian people. In 2019, a drama series was produced about Capucci which served as propaganda to whitewash Assad and his regime.

Theodosios (Hanna) of Sebastia is the archbishop of Sebastia, a position he holds under the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and is known for his opposition to Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian Territories. He is seen at nearly every Palestinian national conference or protest.

In late 2019, his political stance almost cost him his life. Theodosios accused Israel of attempting to poison him over his stance against its occupation of Jerusalem after Israeli forces fired a gas canister into his Jerusalem church. He was rushed to hospital and later received treatment in Jordan.

The theology of liberation is an attempt to show that devout Christians around the world see the role of the Church in public life and politics as going beyond feeding the poor and offering them prayers. Its advocates assert that Christianity is about defending the poor and vulnerable, and sacrificing one’s life for this purpose. Christianity, for them, is not simply offering prayers and shying away from public engagement.

Although the term “diaspora” was widely confined to the Jewish diaspora and experience, with the onset of the 20^th century, which saw influxes of various diasporas from different parts of the world, the term started to be used to represent the different experiences of different peoples. These peoples include but are not limited to the Lebanese, Syrian, and Palestinian diasporas in South America, North America, and Europe; the Indian and Chinese diasporas in Malaysia; the Greek and Japanese diasporas in the United States; and the Turkish diaspora in Europe. The meaning the term holds today has shifted emphasis with the advance of international relations, and has taken a new turn in which sophisticated networks of identity-oriented people play a greater role in global politics.

The relationship between different nations today can’t be understood without understanding the identity and diaspora politics that bind them together. The relationship between the United States, on the one hand, and Greece, Mexico, and Ireland, on the other, can’t be viewed in isolation from the existence of the diaspora communities of these countries in the U.S. who hold a considerable economic, political, and cultural weight.

An example of the level of this interconnectedness is the solidarity the Irish hunger strikers received in the U.S. back in the 1980s. The state capital of Connecticut, Hartford, hosts the only monument in the U.S. honoring Bobby Sands, an Irish hunger striker who passed away in 1981 as a result of a 66-day-long hunger strike in a prison in Northern Ireland.

In the Middle East, immigration waves to the Americas and Europe increased in the beginning of the 19^th century. Starting in the 1880s, Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese immigrants arrived in South America and the United States. These immigrants built political and economic capital that would shape the history of the countries where they had settled.

Arriving in South America with Ottoman passports, these immigrants were referred to as “Turcos” or Turks, a term that speaks of the passports they held but also of a racist attitude towards immigrants at the time. These immigrants started businesses in the textile sector and trade.

Today, many of these migrants belong to the middle class and have become members of political parties with some of them becoming presidents, ministers, and members of parliament. The traditional wisdom that the first generation of immigrants goes to work, the second generation goes to education, and the third generation goes to action perfectly applies to the Levantine immigrants in South America.

It is estimated that there are 17-30 million South Americans of Middle Eastern origin. In addition to contributing to the cultural fabric of South America, over the years, these immigrants have helped forge good relationships between South America and the Middle East. The involvement of South American governments in Middle Eastern politics today can’t be viewed in isolation from the existence of large numbers of South Americans of Palestinian, Syrian, and Lebanese origins. This joint history can also be witnessed in the existence of Arabic words in South American languages and in culinary traditions that became part of the culture of these countries, such as the popular dish hummus.

South America is also home to a considerable Jewish diaspora, estimated at 250,000, which explains the strong relationship certain countries have with Israel. The rise of right-wing politicians in a number of South American countries also speaks of the centrality of Israel to this trend of right-wing tendencies globally.