mymhcexperience

“I grew up in India where a woman got married, settled down, and kept a house. I never thought I’d do anything different. I lived a very sheltered existence. I went to a British school, then a women’s college, and then I met my husband. I assumed that I’d be taken care of for the rest of my life. But shortly after we came to America, my husband slipped into a coma and lingered for another 15 years. We had a small child at the time. I’d never worked before, except for a part-time job in the bookshop at the Met. I was a very quiet person. And suddenly I had to make all of the decisions. I had to get a full-time job. It was empowering. I learned that I could be fearless, I could be angry, and I could fight. These were three things that I’d never had to do before. I was thinking recently that if my husband had lived, he might not have liked who I’ve become.” — Humans of New York

I can’t say why, but that last sentence really hit me. We are all a product of our experiences and of the people we interact with in life. Yet we all have our demons: regrets, lost chances, not being true to oneself. Will I grow up to be someone others can be proud of? That my family can be proud of? And how do my own selfish desires fit into that? It troubles me that so much of what I want has to do with removing myself from my parents. I think it’s selfish and ungrateful, but I don’t think I can grow anymore with them. But I hope that the person I do grow into is someone they can be proud of.

sometimes i feel so fucking trapped. feeling trapped is a terrible feeling. trapped in your way of life, in your circumstances, by the ppl u live with. and yet you owe your life to the circumstances u were brought up in. sometimes i feel like i’m a terrible person because i want to leave. is that selfish?… i know it is, on some level. and yet i can’t stop wanting it. i know that if i don’t break away, i’ll be consumed by it. i don’t want to live my life feeling like i never really lived it the way i want to. i don’t want that to be the tragedy of my life.

The oil market is undergoing a paradigm shift. Oil hit an historical low of $35 a barrel on the Brent Crude benchmark, the international measure of oil prices. Oil has consistently hit record lows for the past several weeks and does not promise to go up anytime soon. This is great for consumers: spending less at the pump means more discretionary money for consumption. Theoretically, this is good for a consumer driven economy like the United States, but more Americans appear to squirreling their money in savings. This is understandable given the 2008 recession. Unfortunately, it gives even less space from which the economy can grow. Growth must therefore rely on other fields. Some of it comes from the so-called “onshoring” of manufacturing jobs, the process by which certain high-tech manufacturing is positioned in the U.S. for various reasons. Much of it comes from the exploding tech industry and all the related service fields it encompasses. The most striking bit of growth, though, lies in the oil field.

Oil prices haven’t been this low in a while

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” is a new development. Essentially, it is a way of extracting oil resources from deep underground that were previously inaccessible because of a lack of advanced technology. Breakthroughs in drilling methods have granted access to these resources. The United States is well poised to extract them. Our unique land rights ensure the ease with which companies can extract oil from land they own. Our economy is dynamic enough to ensure the success of companies that smartly take advantage of the oil market, while the ones that don’t fail. Our access to technology and associated resources needed for fracturing, such as huge amounts of water, are unparalleled compared to many other countries. These factors combined to produce a renaissance in American oil production. Around the beginning of the decade, for the first time in several decades, the United States began exporting oil rather than solely consuming it.

Around the same time, Saudi Arabia increased its own oil production. This was done to secure the global market against the drop in consumption of Iranian oil due to economic sanctions. Sanctions from the European Union, the United Nations, and the United States curtailed Iranian market share. The former General David H. Petraeus, under orders from the Obama administration, persuaded the al-Saud regime to ramp up production to compensate. Saudi Arabia was only too happy to snub its regional rival and supply the world with its own oil, filling its coffers in the process. Within a few years, though, the geopolitics evolved: the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action was passed among Iran, the U.S., England, France, Russia, China, and Germany. This nuclear deal offered Iran broad sanctions relief for concessions regarding its nuclear weapons development program. Centrifuges were disarmed, weapons facilities transformed into research stations, and an inspections regime by international watchdogs was enforced. In exchange, Iran can once again sell oil to Western markets and a flood of foreign businesses are slated to expand into Iran. This process is ongoing, but Iran is fully poised to reintegrate into the global economy, for all the good and bad that entails.

Iran’s entrance into the world economy means tighter competition for Saudi Arabia, which is one of the largest producers of oil. Saudi Arabia is also a monarch run by the al-Saud royal family. The oil industry finances almost 80% of its national expenses, including its extensive welfare programs, and provides for almost half of its GDP. Such reliance on a single industry makes Saudi Arabia vulnerable to market volatility. One example was during the 1990s, when several factors, including an economic crisis in East Asia, lowered oil prices drastically.

On the flip side, Saudi Arabia benefits greatly when oil prices are high. The most well known example is the oil shock of 1973-74, during which OPEC enacted an embargo over geopolitical reasons regarding American support of Israel. Another example was during the Iran-Iraq War, when Saudi Arabia provided reassurance over an otherwise uncertain oil market. In all of these instances, Saudi Arabia was the decisive oil producer. The kingdom always pursues a strategy that ensures maximum market share, taking on defensive or offensive positions as the situation demands. This time is different: Saudi Arabia faces a much more competitive oil market.

In keeping with its goal of retaining maximum market share, Saudi Arabia has refused to lower production. It is still operating at the inflated high from when it increased production under request of the Obama administration. Its logic is to drive oil prices so low with surplus supply that American manufacturers will be forced out of business. It is a war of attrition, in which Saudi Arabia hopes to bleed out its competitors faster than it bleeds itself, like how chemotherapy aims to rid the body of cancer before destroying the actual body. It has also convinced other OPEC members to maintain levels of production. Saudi Arabia, however, has the lowest break-even price per barrel of oil, which makes it the best suited to pursue this aggressive strategy. On the other hand, it is the most reliant on oil revenue. An unhealthily high proportion of its citizens are government employees, paid for by oil revenue. Its most valuable firm and largest employer is Saudi ARAMCO, the nationalized oil company. The Economist estimates its worth at trillions of dollars, possibly making it the most valuable company in the world, but much of that value lies in untapped oil reserves that are decreasing in worth. Without substantial increases in oil prices in the foreseeable future, Saudi Arabia will have trouble paying its employees, let alone balancing its budgets. Social security payments will undoubtedly fall while taxes may have to be imposed. The unemployment rate may rise, which is troublesome for a country as young as Saudi Arabia: almost half the population is under 25. Young, unemployed men are especially problematic, as they are often prone to violence and lack of productiveness. Factor in potential religious extremism inspired by ISIS, which itself gains its theological inspiration from Saudi Arabia, and the danger becomes much more severe.

Saudi Arabia’s plan is to bleed American oil producers out, but the American economy is nothing if not dynamic. Several smaller oil producers have in fact gone under, but others have merged together to make stronger companies. Over $300 billion in mergers and acquisitions (M&As) was either announced or proposed for the oil and gas industry, which helped make 2015 a record year for M&As. Such moves are necessary to maintain the competitiveness of the American oil industry in the face of OPEC’s strategy.

Russia is another major oil producer. President Vladimir Putin uses revenue from his country’s energy sector to fund ventures abroad. Geo-politically, President Putin’s interests vary considerably from those of the United States. Sometimes they align, such as the passage of the Iranian nuclear deal. On Syria, their alignment is at best circumstantial. On others, such as conflict in eastern Ukraine, the two are diametrically opposed. The state of the oil market is another such issue.

The Russian cost of production of oil far exceeds its current selling price. Russia, much like Saudi Arabia, is dangerously reliant on oil revenue to fund many of its domestic  and foreign activities. The current slump in prices is problematic. To make up the difference, a debate is raging in Russia now on cost saving measures, including cutting pensions for workers, raising taxes, and even cutting back on military costs. The government is also considering taxing oil companies on the funds that would normally be saved to explore new oil fields. Russia has a higher break-even price than Saudi Arabia, which bodes ill for President Putin. Additionally, Russia’s economy is closer to an oligarchy, where power, wealth, and entire industries are controlled by a few individuals, far more so than the United States’ economy. This ensures inflexibility, a liability that is sure to hurt President Putin’s domestic and foreign aspirations.

Congress also finally uplifted its oil export ban, allowing American oil to be exported without restrictions. Prior to the lifting, American exports were limited to oil refined in domestic facilities. This ban was legislated after the oil shock of 1973-74 to ensure a domestic supply if OPEC ever decided to engage in an embargo again. Of course, that never happened again and the export ban simply remained in place. While the ban prevented exports of unrefined oil, refined oil was allowed to be sold. Unfortunately, most of the oil American producers have been recovering through hydraulic fracturing is light crude, while most American refineries are suited specifically for heavy crude. While the US still exported oil which led to the current oversupply, there was an even greater amount that remained inside the country. Now that the ban is lifted, that oil will flow out to foreign markets that are suited to refine light crude. It will also make the Brent Crude benchmark of oil prices closer in range to the American benchmark, the West Texas Intermediate. This should make international trade among the US and other countries more seamless, but it will add to the current surplus.

Another oil manufacturer to enter the market is Iran. With the passage of the nuclear deal, the Islamic Republic will resume exporting its oil reserves to the international market. The agreement also unfreezes Iranian assets held abroad, estimated to be worth at least $100 billion. Much of that money may wind up in terrorist organizations, such as Hezbollah, to secure Iranian state interests, but that is merely a logical conclusion of realism. As Iran gains access to the international economy, its local economy will greatly benefit, but it remains to be seen whether most of that benefit will come specifically from the oil sector. Several of its other sectors, from retail to education to nuclear research, are developed enough to grant Iran a strong foundation and promise to grow even stronger. Iran’s increased role in energy can only put a downward pressure on the price of oil, which is terrible for producers like Saudi Arabia, Russia, and Venezuela. Iran, however, is not nearly as reliant on oil as many other producers and its economy is diversified and mature enough to handle a blow to its energy sector. Likewise, the US is diversified enough to not be dealt a critical blow.

While the world economy is experiencing a glut of oil, slow growth continues to persist. The Chinese economy has slowed down significantly, owing to worries over exports growth, currency valuation, and stagnation in manufacturing and financial services. Once a reliably growing consumer of oil, China is no longer the boundless market for oil it once was.

Economic turmoil in the European Union also hampers growth of demand. The EU is currently experiencing a bedlam of problems that threaten its very foundation. Its shattering problems with migrants, financially and socially unstable southern European countries, and a potential exit of Great Britain (the so-called, dreaded “Brexit”) pose massive problems. Terrorist attacks in Paris and Brussels, the latter of which is the de-facto capital of the European Union, have unnerved many Europeans against further immigration. Countries all over the continent are now instituting border controls to stem the flow of refugees from Iraq, Syria, and Northern Africa. We are witnessing the deterioration of the Schengen Convention, a treaty that makes possible seamless travel among EU countries. Hassle free European travel is one of the European Union’s hallmarks. This is changing as more countries enact border patrols, erect fences, and close borders. Consequently, the terrorist attacks have emboldened far right-wing parties, many of which advocate nationalism and xenophobia.

Prime Minister Angela Markel of Germany has led the effort to accept refugees. She is by far one of the strongest and most popular leaders in the EU, but she has expended much political capital trying to handle both the migration and financial debt crises of Europe. Her governing coalition recently suffered losses in local elections. She is holding for now, but it is unclear how long she can maintain herself and her party if she continues her position on immigration.

The EU faces a variety of crises, some of its own making and others as a result of turmoil in the Middle East. One of the primary reasons for the founding of the EU was to create a unified economic zone that allowed free movement of goods and people. In terms of the oil industry, these dilemmas will continue to hurt oil consumption in the short term. At worst, they threaten to bring the two decades long project of the European Union to come crashing down.

Meanwhile, American growth remains meager. As President Obama loves to mention, the unemployment rate is down to nearly pre-recession levels, but it is also true that this recovery is among the worst on record following any prior recession. Wages remain stagnant for the majority of Americans and median household incomes have barely budged in almost two decades. None of this indicates a potential surge in oil consumption anytime soon.

All these factors leave us with an oil supply at an all time high: the world now faces an oil glut. The paradigm of weakening demand and increasing supply is a double-edged blade. What is strange is the near simultaneous timing of everything that led us to this point. It’s so perfect that it almost sounds like a conspiracy theory.

It remains to be seen where all this will lead, but oil prices will likely not go up anytime soon. More American oil and natural gas companies may go out of business due to the deflationary pressure on prices. This will translate into lost jobs and the overall decline of the oil sector. But perhaps this is where we need to go: if the world is to make its inevitable shift to renewable energy, then perhaps a sustained crash in oil prices is the impetus it needs to make that shift.

I saw an interview recently between JK Rowling and Oprah Winfrey. JK Rowling is a billionaire author, a feat that I don’t believe any other author has accomplished solely through writing. Oprah asked her what money has done for her in life. She responded by saying that it was the simple knowledge of security that money provides that is money’s greatest blessing. She can sit down with her family and ask where they want to go for holiday. Not if they can go holiday. Not if they can take time off, or if they can afford it. Just where they want to go. And that is what money means to me: it is freedom. It is the ability to do what you want, when you want, and in the manner you want to do it in. Money is choice.

In my experience, it is only people who have substantial money that do not recognize this. I believe this makes them more prone to be less empathetic to people who do not have money, those who do not have the kind of choice in life that they do. The only people you ever really hear say money isn’t important are those who have it; anyone else will acknowledge the opposite. But people who rise up from poverty, those who acquire great wealth later on in life, like JK Rowling, recognize the freedom that money grants. I suppose it is the responsibility of such people to teach their children this lesson so they don’t take that freedom for granted.

I have been working since I was 15. I was blessed enough to receive an all tuition scholarship and I currently live at home, so my expenses are minimal. This has allowed me to save an amount of money, far more considerable than what most people my age have access to in their personal funds. I want my money to grow though. I don’t know yet what I will do with it, but I know that I want to reach that kind of mindset that JK talked about.

In August 2015, the Shanghai Stock Exchange experienced its worst crash in almost a decade. Trillions were eviscerated, which caused a massive drop in value for some of the richest investors and companies in China and sent shock waves around the world. In the final weeks of December 2015, the United States Federal Reserve, the central bank of the US, announced its first interest rate hike in seven years on the basis of an improving American economy. In the first week of January 2016, the Chinese stock market crashed once again, causing the worst opening of international stock markets in a new year ever recorded. These events tell a story of an international economy that is intertwined for good and bad; it is a product wrought by globalization.

And I thought learning how to drive was difficult…

The Chinese economy has been slowing down for quite some time, and most likely will continue to decelerate. For over two decades, China achieved stellar, double digit growth rates. This led to the rise of hundreds of millions from poverty and the development of specific sectors of China’s economy. It also created a dismal situation for workers’ rights, produced grotesque pollution, and exacerbated inequality, particularly between coastal areas and impoverished inland regions. For almost 20 years, China was the engine of economic growth for the world, proving to be a bulwark even during the global recession of 2008. This dynamic, however, is changing. The Chinese economy is slowing down, with official growth rates struggling to hit the 7% forecast for 2015.

The primary concern, among many, is the slowing growth of Chinese exports that supply the world with cheap consumer goods. To combat this, the central bank of China, which is an inherently political institution of the Communist Party, intervened by devaluing the Chinese yuan against the American dollar. By lowering the value of the yuan, Chinese exports are made more competitive against exports of other countries with higher value currencies, thereby making Chinese goods more compelling for consumers abroad. This devaluation, however, defies the international standard of letting financial markets freely determine the value of another country’s currency. It also panicked investors by explicitly letting them know that the Chinese economy is in trouble.

The People’s Bank of China devalued the yuan against the dollar twice in August and once again in January. While the devaluations were tactical moves by the PBOC to allay the exports problem, they alarmed investors, which caused massive sell-offs around the world and two stock market crashes. They also introduce problems of their own. Commodities all over the world are denominated in dollars. Raw materials like minerals, gold, copper, oil, and metals are usually priced in dollars regardless of whether an American is involved in the transaction. If financial markets change the valuation of the dollar, it only marginally affects the buyers and sellers of other countries (supply and demand move around because reasons). However, if a government artificially lowers the value of its own currency, it winds up paying more for commodities. China has become a massive consumer of commodities, much of which comes from Africa, to power its economic growth. Of course, as overall economic growth slows, the demand for such commodities will also slow, but what it does buy may be more expensive because of the devaluation.

Almost all commodities are down, especially oil. The devaluation means that China will consume fewer commodities, which will make this chart go even more left.

Intervention of the PBOC is also behavior unwelcome by the international community. Starting in October 2016, the renminbi, another name for the yuan, will join the Special Drawing Rights (SDR), a basket of foreign currencies designated by the International Monetary Fund. This basket is composed of currencies that are used by countries and corporations everywhere when making transactions and are the forms in which most wealth is stored. It includes the US dollar, the British pound, the Japanese yen, the Euro, and (soon) the Chinese yuan, which means these are the most prolific currencies. One of the conditions for entrance into the SDR is transparency in monetary policy and allowing financial markets to determine currency valuation. The Communist Party has maintained an iron grip on the value of the yuan for years in order to bolster exports, which many criticize as an illegal trading practice. As the yuan joins the SDR, though, the Communist Party will supposedly relinquish control and eventually cease intervention. Interestingly, the recent devaluations are not contradictory to this statement: many experts believe the real worth of the yuan is actually lower than it is now. The Communist Party may have artificially set the bar, but it is still closer to where it should be now compared to before. What is contradictory is the intervention itself. China will not release full control yet because it could lead the economy even more downward, but it should soon.

The valuation of the yuan in August compared to the dollar. It dropped by almost 0.12. And yes, that freaks people out…

The stock market crash has social ramifications too. The current slowdown will likely not recede. One way the Communist Party has dealt with it is by making a scapegoat of some of the wealthiest citizens of China. In recent months, hedge fund managers, CEOs, and other successful people have been detained and interrogated for a variety of crimes, including falsifying financial reports. While it’s reasonable to believe that at least some corruption exists, it is bad for business to detain prominent individuals for political reasons. For all the bad they may have done, these men and women have in fact provided much of the economic growth of China. If standards of integrity are to be used, they must be upheld at all times, not just when it is convenient for a one-party country like China. Stock market crashes also worry ordinary Chinese citizens, who must increase consumption in order to develop their country as an economically stable market. In the same vein, the financial services industry needs to continue growing as well. These latter points are critical as China must move away from the debt fueled investments it has used to power its economy towards consumer spending. This will ensure continued growth of the economy while slowing the growth of debt. The rise in interest rates by the US Federal Reserve may help in this regard.

For over seven years, the Fed has kept interest rates in the US at a bare minimum. This kind of monetary policy encourages greater borrowing from banks. Individuals looking to buy a home and companies looking to engage in new investments have benefited from low interest rates, causing a flood of American cash to enter various markets. By encouraging borrowing, the Fed hoped to improve the American economy. This strategy, called quantitative easing, worked to an extent. Much of this money found its way to the developing world, which in turn financed a lot of economic growth. Firms in China, for example, were able to attain American money to expand, but they also accrued significant debt.

Being in debt, whether on a micro or macro scale, is not necessarily a bad thing. People usually take out loans to acquire material possessions or start businesses. Companies take out loans to start new projects or expand. So long as a steady stream of income ensures that payments are made to pay back loans and interest, being in debt is not bad. In fact, it’s actually good, because it means that an economy is active, but there are limits.

On a micro scale, individuals can set their own limits. On a macro scale, it is typically bad for countries to have a debt-to-GDP ratio larger than 100%. GDP is analogous to measuring how much a country is worth, in a monetary sense; a ratio larger than 100% is like saying that a country owes more than it is worth. China is a corrupt one-party state where official facts and figures are dubious at best. Unofficial studies, conducted outside the Communist Party, estimate that the debt-to-GDP ratio is almost 200%. Much of that debt was accrued during the era of cheap American money. That era is not yet quite over, since the Fed only increased interest rates by a bit (~0.25%), but it should discourage borrowing. As the economy slows, corporate revenue takes a hit and a company becomes hard-pressed in repaying its loans. If the debt-to-GDP ration is in fact 200%, China may be in a credit bubble of giant proportions. The government can’t help every company, which means that many will go bankrupt. What remains to be seen is how bad of an impact this will produce for China and the rest of the world. What will happen when this bubble pops?

The global economy will likely go into panic mode, as it did in August and January, although the degree of that panic may be far worse. It could be as bad as it was in 2008, when the US thrust the entire world into recession. This time, however, the US is in much better shape now than it was before. The unemployment rate is below 5%, there are many realms of advanced technology that promise economic expansion, and wages are finally increasing, although just barely. Perhaps one of our biggest dilemmas is the extreme partisanship in Washington DC. Still, we are in much better shape than we were in 2008 and could potentially weather an economic storm wrought by China. Who that storm will affect the most, though, is the European Union, which is China’s biggest trading partner. Various commodities suppliers, mostly in Africa and Central Asia, will also hurt as demand slows in China.

If the the Chinese credit bubble does pop, then the volatility could be far more encompassing than the current market turmoil. The present situation is confined to the global stock market, which is always a lot more volatile and unstable than other economic sectors. As an old adage goes, “the stock market has predicted nine of the last five recessions.” Financial markets are unreliable as fortune tellers and investors have a tendency to overreact. Moreover, China is in fact doing many of the things that it needs to do to transition: consumer spending is increasing, borrowing is going down, and the Communist Party is (slowly) releasing control of the yuan. But the era of high economic growth is likely over. It will take time for people to get used to that.

One final note: this is all a result of a more connected world. Why is it that what happens in one place affects things everywhere else? How can some numbers and charts that don’t move the way people expect make everyone panic? It seems quite absurd when you take a step back, but that is what happens when a global economy joins to the hip. It is a result of globalization, a glorious process that connects us all and makes our world smaller, for good and bad.

People who face adversity when trying to achieve their life goals are inspirational. There will always be people who, for whatever reason, face adversity and challenges that are greater than that of other people. Often times, those reasons are beyond our control. It can come in the form of lack of opportunity, lack of resources, misunderstanding from other people. A lot of that is stratified by race, which is to say that racial minorities in the U.S. and other Western countries invariably face worse odds. A lot of it also has to do with being poor, which isn’t exclusive to race and can be for historical or institutional reasons. The world is what it is and there will always be some people who have to work twice as hard to earn just as much as those who didn’t have to. Not all may be able to handle that kind of pressure, and some may break because of it But the people who do succeed in spite of the deck stacked against them turn out to be stronger people because of that adversity. The drive to achieve against incredible odds is perhaps a gift bestowed upon people who exist in terrible circumstances. Their strength gives me strength. And that is inspirational.

On November 24, a Russian fighter jet was shot down by Turkish forces. On November 13, a coordinated attack by ISIS agents in Paris killed over 130 people. On October 31, a Russian civilian airliner flying over the Sinai Peninsula to Moscow was downed, killing 224 passengers and crew. These events are disturbing symptoms of a much wider conflict that spans the Middle East, one that stems from civil war in Syria, oppressive governance of Iraq, and geopolitical failings of the United States and other countries in the region.

Syria has been in civil war since 2011, arising from the Arab Spring, a democratic movement that swept the region. While the movement has produced transitions to democracy in  the countries it spread to, it led to a brutal conflict in Syria. An estimated 220,000 have been killed, over 7 million internally displaced, and over 4 million refugees, many of whom have fled to Jordan and Europe. What began as an arguably noble struggle between a tyrannical government and those yearning for freedom has devolved into one of the worst wars of the century, with a whole mess of extremist Islamist groups vying for power. President Bashar al-Assad still rules and those who oppose him are either too weak or too busy fighting themselves. He is successfully pursuing a strategy of keeping everyone else weak enough to prevent any one individual group from challenging him.

In this humanitarian crisis, outside actors have entered the stage. Of all the opposition groups in Syria, ISIS is the most prominent. It is a terrorist organization borne out of the oppressive and brutalizing regime of the former Shia president Nouri al-Maliki of Iraq and is inspired from the ultra-conservative brand of Islam of Wahhabism, the official sect of Saudi Arabia. Founded by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and under an ill conceived notion of reestablishing an Islamic caliphate, ISIS has emerged as one of the most dangerous terrorist groups in the world; it overshadows others in the region in terms of religious extremeness and scope.

It initially took over territory from Iraqi security forces that were both unprepared to deal with an insurgency and disheartened by a PM and government that was oppressive against the Sunni Muslims of the country. It then established its foothold by delivering security and services to locals in a way the government had failed to. It provides employment and opportunities for people who were otherwise marginalized by an exclusionary government; it schools and trains children in its territories; it creates religious and secret police forces to govern its people; it also terrorizes anyone who does not subscribe to their extreme version of Islam. This includes ethnic minorities, such as Yazidis and Kurds. It has stolen caches of Iraqi army weapons, many of which were paid for by U.S. tax dollars, and stolen oil fields that it uses to finance its operations. Recently, it expanded into Syria, taking advantage of the lawlessness and chaos and established its capital in Raqqa. ISIS has effectively created its own country that spans two failed states.

Russia is yet another actor to have entered Syria. Spurred by a desire to distract the world from the annexation of Crimea and to protect one of Russia’s few allies, President Vladimir Putin has gambled on Assad. He has provided ground and air support against all those who oppose Assad, including ISIS, but his forces have also been striking American air support in the region.

The United States has been conducting an aerial campaign of its own against ISIS and supporting more moderate rebel forces in the country, such as the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG). President Obama has made it clear that he will not engage in a ground war in Syria on behalf of the rebel groups. Neither will he embrace arming and training all those who would want to fight Assad; we did that once in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union invaded and that indirectly led to the rise of the Taliban. These decisions are his presidential prerogative and history shows that action can have dire consequences; regardless, current events show that inaction has its own consequences.

The absence of American leadership has allowed Russia to step in for its own interests, thereby making the crisis ever more complex. Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet exemplifies this. The incident resulted from the jet flying into Turkish airspace. Turkey responded with force. Although the two parties have said they will not go to war, the region has become a powder keg. Countries that do have a stake in resolving the conflict have apparently decided that they each have higher priority concerns of their own.

Turkey is one such country. It has received a flood of refugees since the civil war began. It warmly embraced them at first, but that generosity has since dried up. It is now more alarmed at how the Kurdish people of Syria have become empowered in fighting Assad. The Kurds are an ethnic group scattered across Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Throughout history, they have been systematically denied a state of their own and often deprived of civil rights. In the wake of the civil war and the rise of ISIS, many Kurds have become armed fighters, many of whom have inspired the Kurdish party in Turkey known as the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Turkey now fears what it cannot control. Turkey has long classified the PKK as a terrorist organization; now it says the same of the YPG. In fact, Turkey began an aerial campaign against the YPG in the city of Kobane in northern Syria, despite the fact that the U.S. officially supports them. Turkey is clearly more worried about its Kurdish minority gaining autonomy than resolving the black hole that is Syria.

The Kurdish region of Syria borders Turkey

Saudi Arabia is another major country in the region that has other interests. Through the past four years, Saudi Arabia and other wealthy Gulf countries have exhibited absolutely no desire to take in refugees. In fact, none of the wealthy Gulf countries have. They have provided minimal air power of their own and little aid to relief efforts. Instead, Saudi Arabia is more interested in its oil revenue: crude oil prices in the global market have dropped to record lows because of a renaissance of American oil production. Shortly prior to that renaissance, Saudi Arabia increased oil production to compensate for economic sanctions placed on Iran and it never reverted back to normal levels.

OPEC members, led by Saudi Arabia, have refused to lower oil production. The logic for OPEC is to continue to pump oil out in the hopes that such low prices will drive out all other competitors in the free American market before they are driven out themselves. Now, the global market is flooded with oil from the United States, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC countries. With Iran poised to reenter the market because of the recently passed nuclear deal, prices are set for another nosedive. All this is bad news for Saudi Arabia, which depends on oil revenue to appease its people and survive. Rectifying this problem is a far more immediate situation for Saudi Arabia than the Syrian civil war.

Saudi Arabia is also involved in Yemen, where another civil war is raging between government forces and Houthi rebels that support a former Yemeni president. Saudi Arabia is engaged in an aerial campaign against Houthi forces. If this sounds similar to the Syrian conflict, it’s because it is. This conflict, however, is not reported on as much because it is comparatively contained and has not produced a humanitarian crisis on the scale of Syria.

Likewise, Iran has business and oil related interests that keep it busy. Officially, Iran supports and provides weapons to the Assad regime. Though Syria is a majority Sunni country, Assad and the ruling minority are Alawites, a specific group of Shia Muslims. As the only majority Shia country in the Middle East, Iran supports the Assad regime, which in exchange provides weapons smuggling routes from Iran to the terrorist group Hezbollah. Iran has backed Assad from the start, but its attention is wavering. With the passage of the nuclear deal among the U.S., Iran, and several other countries, sanctions will slowly be phased out. This will allow Iran to start exporting its oil to the international market and for a flood of businesses to come into the country. Iran is heading towards integration with the international community. Many analysts say that it will not do anything too drastic in the short term to jeopardize this fact. It is, however, entirely plausible that it will use some of the revenue from increased business to fund Assad and thereby work against the U.S.

France is now the latest actor to have entered this overcrowded stage. Reeling from the terrorist attacks in Paris, President Hollande has declared war on ISIS and stepped up aerial bombings on Raqqa. Of course, this has resulted in the deaths of several civilians as well as ISIS agents. France’s military power, however, is quite limited. European members of NATO are notorious for keeping their defense spending lower than what is actually required by NATO. France is no exception. Truthfully, France is riding off the coattails of U.S. power and much of the rhetoric regarding the downfall of ISIS is nothing more. The same can be said of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries.

So where does this all leave us? Clearly, there are a million and one parties involved here, all with their own interests. If we are to limit our tactical goals to the containment of ISIS, we can accomplish that quite well. Our military prowess is still the greatest force in the world and continued air strikes will ensure the disruption of ISIS activities within their own jurisdiction.

Arming groups in Syria and Iraq that are opposed to ISIS is another measure, although a tricky one. The historical precedent is the U.S. arming of the Mujahideen forces in Afghanistan when the Soviet Union invaded. Tactically, that was a successful move, but it  also led to eventual rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, from where al-Qaeda launched the September 11th attacks. Doing a similar move in Syria may or may not produce such unintended consequences, as such things only become clear in hindsight.

Such measures, however, will not defeat ISIS. Although ISIS is in fact a terrorist organization, it encompasses more than that: it is an idea of resurgence of the Middle East, a region that was once the epitome of civilization. It is a means to restore dignity and fight back against tyrants and despots and the infidels. It governs and provides services, employment, schooling, and opportunity for people who would otherwise starve. Ever since the end of colonialism and the discovery of oil, these things are exactly what several Middle Eastern governments have failed to provide its people. It is the reason why ISIS is so deeply reviled by most successful Muslim majority countries, but embraced by some of the worst Middle Eastern countries. And right now, it is winning. In order to defeat ISIS strategically, the U.S. must fight the idea of ISIS. Moderate Muslims in the region must be empowered, not just with Kalashnikov guns, but with ideologies. Effective and inclusive governments must be built from the ground up in Iraq and Syria. This is not impossible and to suggest otherwise is insulting: Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world and is a successful, pluralistic democracy. The Middle East had already reached that height once before without outside interference and it will have to do it again.

The two main political parties of Bangladesh are in an open war with each other. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina of the Awami League is leading a campaign of suppression against the opposition, the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP), arresting several prominent BNP members and placing BNP leader Khaleda Zia under house arrest. The Awami League won the 2014 general election due to a boycott held by the BNP over ongoing abuses and political oppression. From the highest public office of the country, Hasina is hounding the opposition to political destitution, undermining Bangladesh’s democracy and changing its very constitution to her benefit in the process. As recently as 2006, however, Zia did much of the same when she was Prime Minister and control of the country was wrested from the ruling BNP to a caretaker government, overseen by the military. That resulted in a two-year interim period during which Zia was faced with corruption charges and the Awami League won an overwhelming mandate to power. Now circumstances have reversed from what it was in 2006, and the Awami League is the one abusing power, arguably worse so than the BNP did. It is an irony that would be quite sad if Bangladesh had not had this kind of checkered past since its war for independence in 1971.

In spite of its volatile politics, Bangladesh has achieved remarkable strides in human development. It is consistently ranked well by the UN Development Program, with significant improvements to its urban and rural healthcare and has combatted the spread of malaria and other diseases through simple measures like making available insect nets. It has surpassed the Millennium Development Goal of reducing child mortality rates and almost achieved universal primary education among boys and girls. Economic growth has also been chugging along, producing an impressive average GDP growth rate of 6%, mostly from the garment and textile industry. Investor capital from abroad is being used to develop the industrial sector and the Bangladeshi government, in between its episodic dramas, is seeking cooperation with other countries to build a deep sea port that could be an economic hub in South Asia. The founder of microfinance, a Bangladeshi man named Muhammad Yunus, has worked to provide ordinary citizens with small loans to start businesses, which has done wonders for the rural parts of the country. By all measures, Bangladesh has a lot going for it and has earned a tradition of improving the lives of many of its citizens.

This success story in the making, however, can easily be derailed by governmental antics that benefit no one. The irresponsibility displayed by both political parties can quickly escalate to something far worse that could impede whatever progress Bangladesh has a hope of making. With the national population set to grow to 250 million by 2050, Bangladesh will continue to face a host of problems, from providing for such an enormous population to addressing the dangers it will face from rising sea levels. While the economic sector has proved resilient and resourceful, only the government can ensure the conditions for long-term stability and prosperity for the country.

The New Silk Road is China’s latest and most ambitious attempt to foster economic relations. It is two proposed trade routes, one land based and one sea based, that seeks to integrate Central and South Asian economies with China and Europe. The Maritime Silk Road makes stops in South Asia before it circles over to Nairobi and then throughout Europe. The land based Road makes stops throughout Central Asia, which will allow countries in the region to exploit their significant energy repositories at a time when there is increasing demand for it in South Asia. The land based Road then continues to Europe through several countries including Iran and Turkey. So there are two separate pathways, linking three continents and billions of people in developing countries with hundreds of millions in more advanced ones.

Within China, the land based Road crosses the underdeveloped and unstable Xinjiang region. This area of China is one that has missed out on the prosperity and economic development that the coastal regions have enjoyed in recent history. Moreover, the people of this region, known as Uyghurs, are majority Muslim and have traditionally been oppressed by the Chinese government and denied the freedom to exercise religion. The New Silk Road is an opportunity for the Chinese government to appease the Uyghurs with increased wealth and development and perhaps quell the civil unrest in the region, even if it still denies the people the right to exercise religion freely. President Xi Jinping’s recent trip to Pakistan to sell the idea of the Silk Road also serves to remove the incentive of Pakistani funding of Islamist rebel groups in the Xinjiang region. In turn, China is already promising massive investment that would have practical benefits for Pakistani society. Now this is where the United States and China have significantly differed in development aid: China often directs its foreign investment towards projects that benefit the society of the nation in question, whereas the United States has historically spent its foreign investment on military and security purposes. The Pakistani military is awash with American investment dollars that corrupt officials often rob and send back to the very terrorist groups that the U.S. military fights in Afghanistan. The Chinese government, on the other hand, is promising investments in power plants, renewable energy, and infrastructure, as it has already done so in numerous African countries. The Unites States’ idea of aid is outdated and counterproductive compared to the refreshing take by the Chinese government. Such investment could also buy China greater influence in Pakistan, a country that the United States considers a necessary ally on the war on terror. Introducing Pakistan into the New Silk Road would therefore be a success for China.

The mechanism for financing this massive project is indicative of another geopolitical success for China. The Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) is a proposed financial institution that would provide the funds for the New Silk Road, along with other infrastructure projects in Asia. The financial institutions that already exist, like the World Bank, are geared toward Western nations because they were developed by those same Western nations. The AIIB is China’s latest attempt to counteract those institutions’ favoritism, although the Chinese government denies that the AIIB is a rival. Scheduled to come into force by the end of 2015, the AIIB already has 57 member countries, many of which are in Asia and some in Europe and other regions. China, as a founding member, is apparently prepared to dole out tens of billions of dollars to build all kinds of infrastructure for a 21^st century Silk Road: high speed railroads, bridges, roads, pipelines, fleets of ships, and more.

Of course, the economic potential of the New Silk Road is huge, but the creation and sustainability of the AIIB could be one of the major geopolitical events of the century, especially if it actually delivers on its promise of development in Asia. China, however, could just as easily overplay its hand as the primary founding member and allow corruption to take root, just as it has allowed so in the various levels of its own domestic government. It could also foster an attitude of favoritism among its members, only granting funds to member countries that please China and ignoring others, the same attitude that Western based financial institutions have. With regards to this possibility, small countries in South and Southeast Asia, like Bangladesh and Laos, would be vulnerable to an abusive China. Still, China has set the situation up so that both the AIIB and the New Silk Road are mutually reinforcing and that other countries can join in and still benefit.

The United States has not joined the AIIB, even though several of its allies throughout Asia and Europe have. It has expressed support for the New Silk Road, but it only seems to be concerned with how the project can benefit Afghanistan; in fact, the State Department does not make even a single mention of China’s role in the New Silk Road or how it would be relevant to other areas beyond South and Central Asia. This irrational focus on Afghanistan makes sense considering America’s commitment to the war torn country, but the scope of the Silk Road is much bigger and focusing too much on a single thing makes one oblivious. The U.S. should focus on the broader picture and tie Afghanistan into that picture, rather than the other way around. It should, for example, offer aid in the development of the energy production industry in Central Asia, which has great potential. It could also use the Silk Road to promote the supremacy of regulations and the rule of law with good governance and reward anti-corruption measures.

While the U.S. does not have to be a member of the AIIB—although that should be considered—it should get involved in the New Silk Road, especially to combat Chinese influence in regions that the U.S. deems strategic. The trade routes of the New Silk Road introduce the greater likelihood of growth of Chinese soft power, which is the appeal and sway that one culture has over others. The universality of things like iPhones and Coca-Cola and Taylor Swift are examples of American soft power; this is the kind of power China desperately wants to have but currently lacks. If the New Silk Road were to facilitate trade of ideas and innovation from China, it could more easily grow that kind of power. If the U.S. gets involved with the New Silk Road, it could at least contain and balance that influence.

The development and economic rise of Asia is fated to be one of the significant events of the century; the New Silk Road and AIIB could very well be a culmination of that event, or at least a way to it. Either way, it could majorly reshape the geopolitics of the world and benefit millions of people with investment, trade, and more opportunities. It’s a vision that deserves to be pursued.