The world watched with bated breath on Sunday to see if the tide of nationalism sweeping through Western democracies would rise even higher in France. By voting in Emmanuel Macron–a proponent of the European Union–the French people, for the time being, stemmed that rising tide. But Sunday’s election, in which Macron won over 66 percent of the vote, was not a death knell for populism.

Marine Le Pen, the face of France’s populist movement, was roundly defeated by Macron, but one-third of the country supported her populist nationalism and anti-EU posturing. Equally as important to the future of France, however, is the parliamentary elections set to take place between June 11 and 18, which will shape France’s government and determine the length of Macron’s leash as he pursues his agenda.

As France moves beyond this divisive election, it is unclear exactly where it is heading. For one, Le Pen’s National Front party resonated with some 10 million people, a great deal more than it did in 2002 when her father was crushed in the run-off by Republican Jacques Chirac. But the far-right National Front was not the only fringe player this time around. Far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon attracted hordes of young people and others who are equally as disaffected by the European project and its moneyed elites.

Populist yearnings, or at least curiosities, will not simply vanish because of Macron’s resounding victory. In 2017, for the first time in decades, France’s top two parties were not of the traditional left-wing, right-wing dichotomy. People in France–and, seemingly, around the globe–are craving change. If Macron is able to deliver tangible benefits to the people–from the factory worker in France’s hinterlands to the young, unemployed Parisian–then perhaps he can bring about a new stability that will defend against hard-liners like Le Pen and Mélenchon.

The first test of Macron’s effectiveness will come next month, during the two-round parliamentary elections, which follow the runoff format used in the presidential election. His En Marche! (Onward!) party, formed last year, will have to attract a sizable swath of parliamentary seats to carry out Macron’s centrist vision.

Conditions in France have clearly enabled populism to grow–on both ends of the political spectrum. Macron’s most important–and most challenging–task will be to appeal to those who voted him in (many who did so reluctantly, more against Le Pen than for Macron), and to create conditions and opportunities that snuff the growing populist flame. After Sunday’s vote, Macron appeared ready for the myriad challenges that face him and the republic he will now lead.

“I understand the divisions of our country that have led some to vote for extremists,” he said. “I understand the anger, the anxiety, the doubts that a great part among us have also expressed.” Later Sunday evening, Macron, standing in front of the Louvre, pledged to make good on his all-inclusive platform: “I will do everything I can in the coming five years to make sure you never have a reason to vote for extremism again,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Emmanuel Macron Won the French Election, but Populism is Not Dead appeared first on Law Street.

“America First,” President Donald Trump’s ubiquitous campaign slogan, is apparently contagious. Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull proposed a set of rules on Thursday that would make it tougher for refugees and immigrants to become Australian citizens. And last week, Turnbull announced plans to raise the barriers for migrants hoping to come to Australia for high-skilled jobs on a temporary work visa.

Among the citizenship rules the prime minister proposed on Thursday is an “Australian values” test, more stringent requirements for the citizenship test, and a four-year wait period. Hopeful citizens would also be expected to have a greater knowledge of English than currently required. In a statement, Turnbull explained his crack down on migration:

“We must ensure that our citizenship program is conducted in our national interest,” he said. “Membership of the Australian family is a privilege and should be granted to those who support our values, respect our laws and want to work hard by integrating and contributing to an even better Australia.”

Australia is a multicultural bastion, often overshadowed by the “melting pots” of America, Canada, and other Western nations. In fact, 27 percent of the population is foreign-born, double the foreign-born rate in the U.S. and England. Australia is represented by migrants from 200 countries. The new rules, which must be approved by parliament, would stiffen an already stringent citizenship process.

For instance, prospective citizens must already have solid enough English skills to take the citizenship test, which is only offered in English. Under the proposed new rules, three test failures would spell the end of an immigrant’s or refugee’s chance at citizenship. According to Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection, 102,029 people took the citizenship test between 2015-2016. Nearly 3,500 people failed it over three times. Prospective citizens must also sign an “Australian values statement.” Here is an excerpt:

Australian society values respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual, freedom of religion, commitment to the rule of law, Parliamentary democracy, equality of men and women and a spirit of egalitarianism that embraces mutual respect, tolerance, fair play and compassion for those in need and pursuit of the public good.

Around the world, populism and nationalism are on the rise. France may elect the populist, far-right firebrand Marine Le Pen. England left the European Union. Turkey’s president just effectively cemented his hold on power until 2029, a move likely to alienate Turkey from the West. But until now, at least to the outside world, Australia seemed to be eluding the populist trend. But some analysts see Turnbull’s proposals not as a turn toward nationalism, but as a way to placate Australia’s populists.

“These new laws are about trying to keep traditional coalition supporters from turning to the far-right parties,” Haydon Manning, a political analyst in Adelaide told Bloomberg. “Turnbull will be aware that he doesn’t have much to offer voters in the budget because the coffers are bare, so this is a way he can show that he’s still thinking about them and addressing their concerns about jobs and security.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull Proposes a More Difficult Path to Citizenship appeared first on Law Street.

On April 23, French voters will choose two presidential candidates–the two highest vote getters–to advance to a run-off scheduled for May 7. Recent polls suggest a tight race. The projected victors of the first round–National Front’s Marine Le Pen and En Marche’s Emmanuel Macron–are both expected to net 22 percent of the April 23 vote. But after two successful debate performances, far-left candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon is hovering just behind the front-runners at 20 percent. Francois Fillon, the conservative candidate who is ensnared in a corruption scandal, is right behind at 19 percent of the first-round vote. Though 11 candidates are in the mix, one of these four is likely to be France’s next leader.

Marine Le Pen

Le Pen, the self-professed “candidate of the people” needs no introduction. A populist firebrand in the same vein as U.S. President Donald Trump, Le Pen heads the National Front Party on a platform steeped in anti-immigrant and anti-EU messaging. With a potent brew of Islamaphobia and nationalism, Le Pen has stunned political observers with her success so far, especially considering her family tree. Her father, the former National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, was a blatant anti-Semite and racist. Under his leadership, the party was a fixture of France’s fringe, but never gained traction with a large chunk of voters. That is changing under Marine.

Francois Fillon

Fillon’s campaign has been marred by a corruption scandal that has overshadowed his policies. Fillon has been accused of paying his wife Penelope a hefty salary for a job that didn’t actually exist when he was a member of Parliament. His politics resemble a traditional conservative in the U.S.: he has pledged to cut taxes, open up the market, cut public spending, and increase the number of law enforcement officers.

Emmanuel Macron

A centrist and political novice–though he did serve as Minister of the Economy–Macron’s campaign has surged in recent months as French voters seek a candidate without Fillon’s establishment ties or Le Pen’s anti-EU nationalism. Macron is pro-EU. He has proposed a tax cut for corporations, and an influx of public spending. His social views are largely liberal, and he supports France’s secular society; he has said, however, that Muslim head scarves should not be banned at universities.

Jean-Luc Melenchon

In recent days, Melenchon, a 65-year-old admirer of Mao Zedong and Hugo Chavez, has been biting at the heels of Macron and Le Pen. His views are so far left that some worry he is an undercover communist. He would like to see a huge increase in public spending, he is skeptical of the EU, and he proposes France leave NATO. This is not his first rodeo; Melenchon ran in 2012, capturing 11 percent of the vote. But with his competitors stalling, and as France, like much of the rest of the West, seeks radical solutions, his star is on the rise.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet the Top Contenders in France’s Presidential Election appeared first on Law Street.

He is running on a nationalist, anti-Islam platform. Yet his mother’s family is from Indonesia, the largest Muslim country on the planet. He fashions himself a political outsider. Yet he has spent his entire career in politics. Meet Geert Wilders: the 53-year-old paradox vying to be the next prime minister of the Netherlands.

Wilders has been called the “Dutch Donald Trump.” For one, his hair, dyed blonde and coiffed, is central to his image. But it goes a bit deeper: he has proposed banning the Quran. He would like to see all mosques in the Netherlands shuttered. And, like his populist peers in the rest of Europe, has promised a “Nexit” (a referendum vote for the Netherlands to exit the European Union) if he wins the March 15 election.

At a political rally three years ago, Wilders led an exchange that underscores his anti-Islam, and anti-immigrant views. “Do you want more or fewer Moroccans in this country?” he asked the crowd, which replied: “Fewer, fewer, fewer!” Wilders, then a member of parliament, smiled and said: “Well I’ll arrange for that then.”

There are a few qualities that distance Wilders from the popular perception of other far-right political candidates in Europe. He supports gay marriage. He supports drug legalization and legalized prostitution. And his supporters see him as a protector, not an opponent, of the Netherlands’ liberal ethos, unlike France’s Marine Le Pen and the nationalist candidates in Germany. In Wilders’s world, Islam is the enemy of liberal values, not of orthodox conservative values or values steeped in Christianity.

By most accounts, his extreme stance against Islam began in 2004. Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh made a film that was critical of Islam. Soon after its release, Van Gogh was killed by a Muslim extremist. This ignited millions of people to take to the streets in the name of free speech. Wilders, a member of parliament at the time, was a vocal opponent of Muslim immigration to the Netherlands. Dutch officials discovered plots to take his life, and Wilders has been living a reclusive lifestyle ever since.

He lives in a safe house. His office at the Dutch parliament is on a different floor than his fellow MPs, and is heavily guarded. He has rarely made public appearances in the weeks and months leading up to the March 15 election. And as befits a man often compared to Trump, Wilders uses Twitter to directly communicate with his followers.

His message is resonating with a large swath of Dutch voters; his Party for Freedom is leading most national polls. But the Dutch governing system is ruled by a coalition of parties–usually four or five–with a prime minister usually, but not always, coming from the party with the most seats in parliament. Other party leaders, including current Prime Minister Mark Rutte, have said they will not govern with Wilders at the helm. Whether or not he becomes the prime minister, Wilders has surely nudged the government to the right, and his message will influence the future leader.

During a recent interview, Wilders summed up his governing philosophy: “I’m a patriot, and I believe there’s a ‘Patriotic Spring’ going on in the world today, in the Western world,” he said. “Donald Trump did the job in America, and I hope that here in Europe, we will see a patriotic spring in Holland but also in Germany, France — many other countries where parties like mine are getting stronger every day.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meet Geert Wilders, the “Dutch Donald Trump” appeared first on Law Street.

The 2017 French Presidential Elections are quickly approaching and Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right Front National (FN), leads in the polls. Like much of the western world, France has seen an upsurge in far-right, nationalistic sentiment. When comparing the 2017 race to French and European elections gone by, it is difficult to envision Le Pen’s path to the presidency. However, even if she is defeated, Le Pen’s far-right platform will remain a definitive political force in France for the foreseeable future.

The Situation in France

According to recent polls, Le Pen leads a handful of candidates with 26 percent favorability. Assuming polls hold steady, Marine Le Pen will win the first round of voting, scheduled for April 23, but will not accrue the majority required to win the election outright. Le Pen will have to compete in a run off election against the second most popular candidate.

This will not be the first time a Le Pen reaches the run off round of a presidential election. Jean-Marie Le Pen, Marine Le Pen’s father, came second in the first round of votes to earn one of two places in the run off round of the 2002 election. In the first round of voting, Jean-Marie Le Pen earned 16.9 percent of the vote compared to the center-right Jacques Chirac’s 19.9 percent. In the run off, Le Pen lost in a landslide. Le Pen was barely able to improve his 16.9 percent share, while Chirac’s share of the vote soared to 82.2 percent. Chirac was scandal ridden and highly unpopular. However, his left wing opponents backed him in the second round, calling on the French public to “vote for the crook, not the fascist.” Chirac won because he was seen by a Le Pen-fearing coalition as the lesser of two evils.

It is important to note that Jean-Marie Le Pen was an underdog, whereas his daughter is expected to win the first round. It is therefore unlikely that Marine Le Pen’s fate will perfectly map that of her father. However, Le Pen’s defeat to an anti-right wing coalition in the run off still seems imminent. If results in Austria’s 2016 presidential election are anything to go by, even the most popular of right wing politicians can struggle to overcome a two-round electoral system.

Lessons from the Rest of Europe

Like France, Austria’s elections make use of the two-round system. In the run-up to Austria’s first round of voting, Norbert Hofer, a far-right nationalist, held a sizable lead over his competitor. The Austrian nationalist ended up winning the first round by 13.8 percent. However, after an annulled run off election that was too close to call, Hofer lost the rerun by 7.6 percent. Hofer’s lead going into, and coming out of, the first round of voting was considerably greater than the lead Le Pen currently enjoys. Hofer’s first round victory was not particularly shocking. However, even with his sizable first round victory, the Austrian nationalist was unable to overcome the the anti-right wing coalition that formed in the second round.

Over the last few years, there have been a slew of analyses discrediting the viability of a right-wing populist movement. Such predictions were almost invariably disproven. While a Le Pen victory might be unlikely, it would be hardly come as a total surprise considering the state of contemporary western politics. Regardless of whether Le Pen overcomes a prospective anti-FN voter-bloc in the second round, her style of right wing nationalism will demand a response from whomever holds power. In France and elsewhere, far-right mobilizations have now entered the political mainstream.

Though Hofer was unable to win the largely ceremonial presidency, the centrist-controlled Austrian Parliament has already begun to pander to the far-right. In January, the parliament passed laws that would require asylum seekers undergo an “integration year” during which they would be expected to learn German. Austria has also become the latest European country to ban Muslim women from wearing full-face veils in public spaces–a entirely symbolic move considering only about 150 women in Austria wear such veils.

In the UK, the center-right Conservative Party has similarly worked to appease nationalists. Former Prime Minister David Cameron made the decision to call a referendum on EU membership that was seen by observers as a way of appeasing the far-right UK Independence Party and the more conservative members of his own party. Cameron expected the referendum to fail and hoped the public’s support would neutralize his far-right opponents. His plan backfired. The public voted to leave and Cameron resigned. In spite of the fact that a majority of parliamentary conservatives wished to remain in the EU, Theresa May, the new conservative leader, claims she is firmly committed to imposing the type of hardline immigration policies demanded by British nationalists.

The Netherlands has a general election scheduled for March 15 and the center-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD) is scrambling to maintain control of the government. Geert Wilders’ far-right Party for Freedom (PVV) leads in the polls. Though Wilders’ PVV will not win enough seats to form a government outright, his party is currently projected to win the greatest number of seats. Though Mark Rutt, Prime Minister and Leader of the VVD, has ruled out the possibility that his party would form a coalition government with the far-right PVV, he has been pandering to an increasingly nationalistic public. Last month, he ordered immigrants to “act ‘normal’, or go away.”

What Does this Mean for Far-Right Movements?

Far-right mobilizations have gained, and will likely continue to gain, power, irrespective of whether or not they win elections. Marine Le Pen’s run for the presidency could very well fall short, but her surge in popularity over the past few years is indicative of France’s entrenched far-right movement. Assuming Le Pen loses, the party that achieves power will not have done so by inspiring a united support base or platform. The party in power will reflect a disjointed majority that will collectively disagree with Le Pen but might not agree on that much else. A fragmented leadership will only favor the far-right. As France’s far-right continues to voice their concerns, those in power will be forced to respond. This response will never disarm the far-right if those delivering it are politically impotent and ideologically incoherent.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Even if Marine Le Pen Loses, French Nationalism Will Still Win appeared first on Law Street.

French presidential hopeful Marine Le Pen’s campaign officially began with a speech on Sunday, where she painted France in the same grim, dystopian hues that propelled President Donald Trump to victory in America. In front of thousands of supporters in Lyon, Le Pen delivered a screed against Islam, the European Union, and globalization. As the tides of populism, anti-globalization, and nationalistic fervor grip much of the Western world, France is the next liberal democracy that could retreat inward.

Le Pen, the leader of the far-right National Front party, opened her speech with a populist motto straight out of Trump’s playbook: “I’m against the Right of money, and the Left of money. I’m the candidate of the people!” she declared. As Le Pen spoke, a screen behind her read “In the Name of the People.” Images of the ideas Le Pen rails against flashed on the screen as well: criminal immigrants, jihadists, and, slightly out of place but equally as dangerous in Le Pen’s view–EU bureaucrats.

“After decades of cowardice and laissez-faire, our choice is a choice of civilization,” Le Pen, 48, said. “Will our children live in a country that is still French and democratic?” Le Pen praised Trump, called the EU a “failure,” and, citing the knife attack at the Louvre last Friday, said France is threatened by the “yoke of Islamic fundamentalism.” She promised to secure France’s borders, pull out of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and renegotiate French membership in the EU, possibly even holding a referendum on membership for a so-called “Frexit.”

Recent polls suggest Le Pen’s populist message is connecting, and will likely fuel her to the run-off round of France’s two-stage election process. The first round, a popular vote contest between a handful of candidates is set for April 23; the second, a run-off between the top two vote-getters, is two weeks later. While her nationalist, anti-elite ethos is certainly resonating, Le Pen’s greatest boon could be her opposition.

Seen until recently as the likely victor in the spring election, Francois Fillon is embroiled in a nepotism scandal that is threatening his candidacy, though he is staying in the race. But between the crumbling Fillon and the ascendant Le Pen is a third candidate who could win the day: Emmanuel Macron. The 39-year-old independent centrist is running on a starkly different platform than Le Pen–pro-EU, pro-globalization, pro-immigration–that could ultimately capture the majority of ballots.

Like Le Pen, Macron, a former banker and economics minister, is running as an outsider. In fact, his party, En Marche! (Let’s Go!) is less than one-year old. In his campaign kick-off speech on Saturday, Macron, in front of 10,000 supporters, spread his message beyond France’s borders, and reached out across the Atlantic: “I want all those who today embody innovation and excellence in the United States to hear what we say: from now on, from next May, you will have a new homeland – France,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post French Presidential Hopeful Marine Le Pen: “I’m the Candidate of the People!” appeared first on Law Street.

National Action is likely to be the first far-right group in Britain to be deemed a terrorist organization, which would effectively make joining and supporting the group a criminal offense. The group regularly invokes Nazi symbols at its rallies and online, and earlier this year, the group praised Thomas Mair for killing a member of Parliament, Jo Cox.

“I am determined that we challenge extremism in all its forms, including the evil of far right extremism,” Homes Secretary Amber Rudd said when Mair was convicted in November. On Monday, as Parliament signaled it will be proscribing, or banning, National Action, Rudd called the group “a racist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic organization.”

Under Britain’s Terrorism Act 2000, groups can be classified as “terrorist organizations.” Seventy groups have been proscribed under the bill so far, most of which are Islamist groups. The act says a group classifies if it “commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.”

While it’s unclear if National Action members have committed a violent act of terrorism, they have certainly incited violence, and proselytize hateful rhetoric. For instance, members once sent out a tweet referring to Jewish people by a derogatory term that was used during the holocaust: “Tykes gassin [K*kes] is our motto, #Yorkshire needs you #AntiCommunism #ProNationalSocialism #DefendBritain.” The group’s Twitter account was suspended. In the website’s November update, National Action, which brands itself as a “nationalist youth movement,” addressed the potential ban. “We neither sanction or endorse terrorism,” the group said.

Being added to the government’s official list of terrorist organizations is not necessarily the right approach, the Anti-Fascist Network tweeted on Monday. Saying they support “community and class action, not state bans,” the group added: “They can avoid charges by simply re-branding as a ‘different’ group, and it’ll lend them an aura of action and danger.” But Parliament is moving full steam ahead with the ban. They will be discussing the ban this week, and it is expected to go into effect on Friday.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post British Parliament to Classify Neo-Nazi Group National Action as Terrorist Organization appeared first on Law Street.

For millennia, flags, banners, and standards have been points under which causes have coalesced and people have united. Now the entirety of Planet Earth and all of its inhabitants may have a single flag to call our own.

Oskar Pernefeldt, a student at Beckmans College of Design in Stockholm, Sweden, has created a banner to represent the entire human civilization and the rock we inhabit. It features simply seven interlocking rings on a blue background. Pernefeldt envisions this flag on the flight suits of astronauts, being waved at sporting events, or being hung outside one’s home.

Pernefeldt’s flag design. Courtesy of Oskar Pernefeldt/flagofplanetearth.com via Wikipedia.

On the official website, Pernefeldt points out that space missions thus far have represented the particular nations that have launched them; but such actions are representative of Planet Earth itself. One might further this argument by pointing out the collaborative nature of such things as the International Space Station, or the rise of private space agencies that do not necessarily have a nationalistic agenda. In addition, Pernefeldt feels that this flag would be the most suitable one to headline the possible Mars colony in the near future.

While the grand symbolism of the flag suggests an end to the squabbles and struggles that have plagued human civilization for so long, to be replaced with a harmonious and symbiotic cooperative way of life for all civilization, the more immediate practicality of the flag with regard to space missions is evident. Supposing, in our ever increasing and geographically expansive travels into the depths, we encounter other life that asks from whence we came, Pernefeldt poses hypothetically. We would simply point to the Earth, as opposed to attempt a complicated explanation of national divisions and identities. A resident of another planet may not immediately care with what subdivision an Earthling identifies himself, but simply what planet.

There are strong environmental themes and metaphors in the flag. The seven rings represent the seven continents and, as the designer explains, they form a flower at the center, which is a symbol for life on Earth. Further, the rings are connected to each other, demonstrating the interrelatedness of everything on the planet. Finally, the blue stands for the oceans. Yet the structure is such that the seven rings together can be looked at as the planet itself, and the background the Universe.

Many national flags represent that nation’s history and heritage. The stars and stripes of the American flag are an obvious example, remembering the original colonies and the present states. Considering the diversity of the inhabitants of Planet Earth, pinpointing an international identity is quite a challenge. One thing that we all share is the environment. The fragile Earth and its ecosystems are a concern with which everybody is–or ought to be–involved. It is something that affects us all, and is a universal source of beauty, tranquility, and happiness. We all owe our existence and health to the bounties and life-giving forces of the environment.

The efforts to pursue more sustainable lifestyles transcend national borders, languages, and cultural barriers. It is something to which all people can aspire regardless of their religious or geographic orientation; embodying these themes in a planetary flag is an ingenious move. There are no moves to officially adopt this flag for its purpose, and there is likely much time before it ever could be planted on foreign cosmic soil in the name of a united human race. Yet it already sends a powerful message of cooperation in the name of environmental conservation. To these ends, it may already be a rallying point.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can a Flag of Planet Earth Unite the World Beyond National Boundaries? appeared first on Law Street.