Geographical Journal最新文献

The likely foreign policy imperatives of President Donald Trump's second term are interpreted through a world-systems interpretation of cycles of hegemony and the related geography of seapower. A realist transactional approach is the likely framework for Trump's foreign policy imperatives. United States foreign policy is understood through a political economy lens that identifies national economic competition, especially over new innovations, as the foundation for global geopolitical competition. The temporal context of declining US hegemony explains the resort to transactionalism and the retreat from liberal internationalism. The geographical focus of United States foreign policy will be Asia, primarily an attempt to challenge the rise of China. Established European alliances may be of lesser value in a transactionalist approach. The geopolitical calculations of Trump's foreign policy are explained by the geography of seapower, the US global presence in far waters, and the resulting friction in China's near waters, the western Pacific and South China Sea. National economic competition has global implications, especially the growing influence of China in Africa and Latin America, and decreased US influence. The US transactional approach is ill-suited to global and multi-lateral issues, such as nuclear weapons proliferation. The national economic concerns of President Trump are contextually relevant but are unlikely to be successfully ameliorated by the likely foreign policy initiatives.

Donald Trump's three presidential campaigns have centred on promises to stop unauthorised immigration, whether by ‘building the wall’ or by enacting the largest mass deportation in American history. To deliver on these promises, Trump has appointed Stephen Miller—an anti-immigration hardliner who was responsible for the first Trump administration's draconian border policies – to a key White House position. Trump is often described as breaking from liberal-democratic norms; but when it comes to immigration policy, he is following a well-worn path by hiring Miller. This brief commentary places the Trump/Miller brand of anti-immigration politics in historical context, showing how anxieties over labour competition and racial/cultural integrity have led to selective enforcement and restriction, and to the withholding of rights from certain groups of ‘foreigners’ present on US territory. The next four years will most certainly continue to see tight restrictions on asylum and refugee resettlement, and aggressive detention and removal practices, much of it accomplished through executive order or bureaucratic procedures. Amid this more restrictive environment, debates over the relative worthiness of particular groups of foreigners will continue. Indeed, such debates have already erupted among MAGA loyalists around the issue of H1B visas for skilled workers, which tech oligarchs like Elon Musk support, but many far-right commentators oppose. How such debates unfold will reveal the limits of Trump's nativist-populist agenda.

Political asylum is central to the Trump administration's depiction of the United States as a nation under siege and features prominently in the promised offensive against the immigration system. Using the concept of ‘lawfare’, this paper explores specific, less visible tactics the Trump administration will likely use to ‘legally’ circumscribe the scope of asylum, including (1) using the Attorney General's ability to act retroactively and overturn standing precedent through ‘referral and review’, and (2) appointing federal judges at record levels. In addition to overt attempts to end asylum, these tactics may be used to dramatically rescind political asylum protection.

In this commentary, we explore the implications of the 2024 US elections on trans lives. While we focus on the United States, we situate anti-trans politics within emerging fascist movements around the world, as the elections have impacts beyond national borders. We examine four areas of impact: the body, public space, legal geographies and mobilities. Trans healthcare and bodily autonomy are under attack in a myriad of legal and legislative venues across the United States, with devastating consequences upon the health and well-being of trans people, especially youth. These attacks are complemented by legislation that criminalises trans existence in public space, including renewed ‘bathroom bans’ and bans on drag and other gender non-conforming performances. Undergirding all of these efforts is a fascist attempt to ‘eradicate transgenderism from public life’ in order to safeguard the ‘purity’ of the fascist body politic. This imperative is evident in emergent legal geographies of trans lives, which are increasingly imperiled by the denial of state identification and documentation. Ironically, trans mobility depends on these volatile regimes of legal recognition, and renewed anti-trans politics perniciously constricts the capacity of trans people to flee jurisdictions where they are being legislated out of existence. We conclude with a brief meditation about what resurgent gender fascism means for the discipline of Geography, arguing that geographers have an ethical and intellectual obligation to protect trans lives and resist fascism.

The US electricity grid has seen a rapid increase in the amount of renewable energy over the last decade, with many renewable advocates viewing the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 as the catalyst to move the grid towards 100% clean energy. The 2024 elections, however, have significantly muddied the path. In this commentary, I posit what the Trump administration—and related Republican control of both houses of the US Congress—means for the US electricity system. I begin by briefly outlining the contours of federal and state electricity governance, the design of Inflation Reduction Act, the existing drivers of renewable energy growth in the United States, and the potential for electricity demand growth in the United States. I continue by briefly pointing to likely outcomes for the predominant fossil fuels on the grid—natural gas and coal—before pointing to the potential for continuing growth in renewable energy. In the conclusion, I argue that while renewable energy will not cease to be developed, four years of Trump increases the certainty that the clean energy transition will continue to be patchy and, sadly, all too slow.

The care crisis in the United States predates the current administration, but there are early signals that the US government is going to roll back recent policies to expand caregiving support to a wider range of people who provide dependent care. In this short commentary, I hope to illustrate how new attacks on Medicare, housing support, food assistance and other supports for the basic needs of families are layered upon a stubbornly persistent misrepresentation of how family and community care really happens in the United States. The long history of the state devaluing and denying the full breadth and expression of family care, including care undertaken by non-normative caregivers such as children, appears to be accelerating towards a terrifying horizon in which many families will not be able to care for each other.

We reflect upon the ways in which the promotion and endorsement of anti-Muslim hatred by Trump has led to him being named the ‘Islamophobia President’. We discuss his travel bans targeting Muslims, his white supremacist thinking, and his close relationships with key members of the global Islamophobia industry that position him as a central pillar in this transnational network that promotes anti-Muslim hatred and conspiracy theories about Muslims and Islam supported by networks of right-wing politicians, think tanks and the media. We note the concerning impacts of this on American Muslim communities and those who are assumed to be Muslim. In addition, we argue that the re-election of the ‘Islamophobia President’ is such that those wanting to promote Islamophobia are provided with an emboldened international stage from which to do so.

This research focuses on labour turnover and employment dynamics within Ghana's e-waste industry, specifically at Agbogbloshie, Accra's primary e-waste recycling site. The study investigates the factors influencing people's involvement in different roles within the e-waste value chain through qualitative research methods. This involves in-depth interviews and content analysis to comprehend motivations, income structures, age distributions and transitional patterns. The study reveals that health concerns and the desire for financial stability significantly impact individuals' decisions to enter and advance within the industry. The findings also suggest a shift from entry-level positions to more lucrative roles facilitated by financial resources. However, challenges such as income variability, lack of safety measures, and limited resource access persist, particularly for those in lower-level roles. The study recommends the implementation of integration, regulation and support mechanisms to promote sustainable livelihoods and productive employment in the sector, aligning with Sustainable Development Goal 8 (SDG 8). Policymakers are encouraged to establish supportive regulatory frameworks, enhance resource accessibility, promote skill development, foster public–private partnerships, advocate for circular economy principles, and invest in capacity-building and awareness initiatives to address the complex challenges of the e-waste industry. Overall, this study offers valuable insights for policymakers, industry stakeholders, and researchers seeking to promote sustainable development and inclusive growth within the e-waste industry.

Evidence-based policy-making increasingly shapes the practice of advisory bodies, including global environmental assessments (GEAs). Advocates point to the power of evidence (particularly, but not only scientific evidence) to improve policy-making. Here we discuss how political considerations shaped evidence-gathering and use within the World Commission on Dams (WCD), a GEA body which was active between 1998 and 2000. We use insights from semi-structured interviews with participants in the WCD process. First, we argue that the WCD shows that the political nature of evidence-gathering has long been important in GEA processes. Despite rhetoric emphasising the objectivity of its evidence base, the WCD's evidence-gathering was permeated by political considerations, for example in convening stakeholders with opposing views, giving evidence an instrumental purpose in widening participation and epistemic authority beyond just information and learning. Second, we show how a diversity of evidence (in form and substantive content) can challenge mainstream views. Contrary to the conventional emphasis on technical and quantitative data in GEA processes, we show how personal engagement with emotionally charged evidence, including that from grassroots sources and participatory processes within the WCD, created a shared understanding among opposing sides.