Subscribe to our free biweekly newsletter!

The Red Folder

Archived from October 14, 2024.

Key stories for the week, brought to you by Lindsey Zhao and the Red Folder team.

Reading for the sake of reading sucks. Telling yourself to read to win a round is nice but ineffective. This condensed news brief helps you understand current domestic and international issues, analyze the news, and gives you opportunities to read more.

Publishing since January 2024.

Click here to test your knowledge of Red Folder articles with our weekly Extemp Questions!

International Stories

4 key international stories for the week:

1) G’Bye Mate! Lindsey Zhao

Ignoring your boss finally became legal! Kind of. And only if you’re Australian. I know some of y’all got excited. Australia recently passed a ‘right to disconnect’ law, essentially protecting the right for workers to ignore work communications after hours. The first of its kind, Australia’s new policy opens doors for the future of equitable working hours and the restriction on overworking and burnout that seems to be increasingly common among the global working population.

During the pandemic, most Australian workers, if their job allowed, switched to mostly remote work. In fact, the number of people that reported working from home most or all of the time went from 13% in September 2020 to nearly 30% in February 2021. Today, Australia’s government has started encouraging workers to go back to in-person work ⅗ days of the week. Statistics from the Australian Bureau of Statistics found that today, 37 per cent of Australians worked from home regularly, and 88% of Australian workers would like to work from home at least partially.

It quickly became apparent that the trend of remote working, which has upended businesses across the world and caused, for example, empty office buildings in San Francisco, was here to stay. But the rise in remote working exacerbated a longstanding issue in the Australian workforce- unpaid, unintentional overtime. Every year, Australians work an average of 281 hours of unpaid overtime annually. nearly 70% of 10 Australians reported working overtime and experiencing stress and anxiety as a result. Valuing labor at average wage rates, it was estimated that Australians were losing an average of $7500 USD per year. Traditionally, this problem came from after-work communications from their bosses to pick up an extra assignment, project, or budget report- well after they had gone home from work. With more remote workplaces, workers found themselves constantly connected digitally to their bosses- blurring the boundaries between workers’ personal and work lives.

That’s where the ‘right to disconnect’ law comes in. While more than 20 countries across the world- mostly in Europe and Latin America- have passed similar policies in the past, Australia’s Fair Work Ombudsman introduced the Right to Disconnect as part of the Fair Work Act. It was approved in February of this year and went into effect a little more than a month ago for businesses with 15 or more employees. For ultra small businesses of less than 15 employees, this policy will go into effect next August.

By establishing a clearer boundary between work-time and personal-time, Australia hopes to reduce worker burnout, support mental health, and increase productivity. Employers are required to respect the boundaries of their workers and employees are protected from being obligated to monitor, read, or respond to work communications once the workday is officially over. The law leaves room for exceptions in the case of emergencies, pre-agreed arrangements, or critical business needs. The Fair Work Act doesn’t stop employees from working extra hours when they have agreed to do the work for payment. It was mostly put in place to deal with ‘unreasonable contact’ and unpaid overtime.

From now on, businesses are likely to be required to update a more distinct policy on their official working hours, provide official HR support for workers facing unpaid overtime, clearly define exceptions to the rule, and implement new training procedures to adjust.

Read more here:

3) THAAD’s a Big Issue Ruhaan Sood

Earlier this year, Ohio government officials discovered an inert nuclear missile sitting in a man’s garage. This missile in question could have contained a 1.5kt nuclear warhead. This basically summarizes the United States “open-door” policy, at least when it comes to just handing over missiles and warheads to other countries.

In a rare and significant move, the United States will deploy supporting troops and an advanced anti-missile system to Israel, bolstering the country’s air defenses following recent missile attacks by Iran. The decision comes as part of U.S. efforts to support Israel while also urging restraint to prevent a broader conflict in the Middle East. President Joe Biden announced the deployment of the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, citing the need "to defend Israel." Tensions have escalated since Iran launched over 180 ballistic missiles at Israel on October 1, some of which breached Israel’s missile defenses. Israel is now weighing potential retaliation, though U.S. officials are pushing for a measured response to avoid sparking further violence in the region.

Pentagon spokesperson Major General Patrick Ryder emphasized that the deployment was part of broader U.S. military adjustments in recent months aimed at defending Israel and U.S. personnel from Iranian-backed attacks. However, the U.S. typically avoids deploying troops directly to Israel outside of joint military drills, making this action highly unusual.

The THAAD system, developed by Lockheed Martin and equipped with Raytheon radar, is capable of intercepting short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles. A single battery of THAAD includes six truck-mounted launchers and requires around 100 U.S. troops to operate.

Iranian officials have condemned the U.S. deployment, warning that it places American troops at risk. Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi stated that the country has "no red lines in defending our people and interests," while experts note Iran's efforts to avoid direct conflict with the U.S.

The U.S. military has previously supported Israel from bases outside the country but has not stationed personnel directly in Israel since a THAAD system was used in drills there in 2019. The exact timeline for the system’s deployment remains unclear, but it underscores heightened tensions in a region on the brink of further escalation.

As the United States prepares to deploy the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system to Israel in response to escalating missile attacks, the past has been done with states like South Korea. While THAAD is often framed as a purely defensive measure, its potential impact on regional stability in the context of the Israel-Gaza conflict—and the broader Middle East—may create new tensions rather than resolve existing ones.

When the U.S. installed the THAAD system in South Korea to counter North Korean missile threats, the move initially seemed like a strong defensive strategy. However, it soon became clear that the system was entangled in more complex geopolitical consequences. China, seeing THAAD as a threat due to its advanced radar capabilities, retaliated economically and politically, heightening tensions in the region. Although THAAD’s official target was North Korea, China’s concerns about the system’s potential to monitor its military movements exacerbated regional instability and hurt South Korea’s economy.

Similarly, in the Israel-Gaza conflict, the deployment of THAAD could have far-reaching consequences beyond its stated purpose of defending against missile threats from Gaza or Hezbollah. While it may bolster Israel's already formidable missile defense system, it could also escalate tensions with Iran, which sees Israel as a major regional rival. Iran, like China in the Korean Peninsula, may perceive the deployment of THAAD as a broader strategic threat, especially given the system's ability to monitor missile launches and military activities at great distances. This could further inflame an already volatile situation.

Iran’s response to THAAD’s deployment in Israel may resemble North Korea's approach in the face of upgrades to THAAD in South Korea: continued missile tests, increased military activities, and strategic "interactions." In fact, we are already seeing signs of this. Iran recently launched over 180 missiles at Israel, showing that missile defense upgrades like THAAD are unlikely to deter such actors and could provoke further retaliation instead. The deployment may also encourage Iran to strengthen its ties with Iranian-backed groups like Hezbollah, potentially broadening the conflict beyond Gaza.

Another major risk is that THAAD could drive a new arms race in the Middle East. As in Northeast Asia, where North Korea continues to develop more advanced missile technologies despite THAAD's presence in South Korea, Iranian forces could similarly double down on efforts to develop weapons capable of bypassing Israel's enhanced missile defenses. This could involve increasing investment in drone technology, cruise missiles, or cyberattacks, pushing the region further into instability.

From a broader strategic perspective, the THAAD system might alienate other regional players. Just as the system strained relations between South Korea and China, it may deepen the divide between Israel and Arab states, some of which may perceive the growing U.S.-Israel military alignment as a threat to regional power balances. This is particularly concerning at a time when diplomatic efforts to normalize relations between Israel and some Arab countries have made progress, as seen in the Abraham Accords. The introduction of THAAD could derail those efforts and set back potential peace agreements.It may ultimately foster a more permanent state of confrontation, particularly in an already complex and fragile Middle Eastern landscape.

4) India Accused of Murder Paul Robinson

India is on the rise. It has a larger population than any other country and a sprawling tech industry, but perhaps its most impressive trait is the ability to make Canadians mad. On Monday, Canada expelled six Indian diplomats for their connection to the murder of Sikh separatist leader Hardeep Singh Nijjar on Canadian soil. Canada could not arrest them because they held diplomatic immunity, a status given to representatives of a sovereign state who are sent as representatives to another state; diplomatic immunity makes the holder immune to prosecution. Canada had previously asked the government of India to waive the immunity of the diplomats, but India refused.

Canada is home to a higher population of Sikhs than any other country save for India itself. They have engaged in demonstrations which have been critical of India’s government over the past few years, as Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has pursued more Hindu-nationalistic policies which many believe leaves minorities, including the Sikhs, in the dust. Canada believes that Mr. Nijjar was murdered because of his criticism of the government of India, and, much more significantly, India could have something to do with it. India, of course, denies these accusations, and has accused Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeu of pursuing a ‘political agenda’.

If Canada’s accusations are true, it would greatly change the way the world thinks about India. The best comparison is the case of Saudi Arabia, who in 2018 murdered a journalist at their consulate in Istanbul. They were condemned by their strongest ally, the United States, for their actions. Saudi Arabia’s ruler had presented the country as reformed, but the murder disabused America and its allies of that illusion.

Unlike Saudi Arabia, India’s allies might not be quite as upset. It is not in Washington’s corner in the way Saudi Arabia was, and thus it cannot be influenced quite as much. India has continued trading with Russia, for instance, ever after the country invaded Ukraine in 2022. The West is already worried that India will become truly a Russian ally, and thus wants to avoid alienating it if possible. It is possible that countries like the United States or United Kingdom could let the dispute stay between Canada and India, and refuse to get involved.

Not holding India accountable for their actions may keep them from fully turning to Russia, but it also gives Modi the green light to do whatever he wants without the fear that Western powers would try to hold him accountable. Washington especially still has a lot of leverage, and can afford to use it for the sake of human rights. The question then becomes whether they will do so or not.