Introduction:

Alberta’s separatist movement has been a prominent issue in Canadian politics since 1974, with the introduction of the Independent Alberta Association. Issues such as the price of Alberta oil, the increased alienation of the province, and no return on investment for Equalization Payments have made Albertans feel unwelcome in their own country. This has sparked a new wave of separatism, which has made substantial changes in the past months.

History of Alberta’s Separatist Movement:

As mentioned previously, the idea of separatism sparked in 1974, with the creation of the Independent Alberta Association. The province of Alberta is one of the few Prairie Provinces with substantial levels of oil, gas, and coal. It holds one of the largest oil and gas reserves in Canada, and is a prominent contribution to the Canadian economy. Many Albertans feel as though their contributions do not equate to their representation in Parliament. Canada’s parliamentary voting system is different from the United States’ presidential system. During federal elections, citizens vote for a Member of Parliament who represents their constituency. Whichever party has a higher number of elected MP’s becomes the government, and elects their leader as Prime Minister. Provinces such as Ontario and Quebec have a larger population, which means that there are more constituencies in those areas. In total, Ontario has 122 federal ridings, and Alberta has 37. Ontario, therefore, has more influence towards federal elections. This has caused a feeling of alienation among the citizens of Alberta, which is one of the many driving factors of their separation.

Secondly, the oil which Alberta exports is heavy crude oil. This oil is distributed to other provinces in Canada as well as the United States. Heavy crude oil is more difficult to refine, requiring specialized refineries and more processing to turn into a consumer good. Because of this, it is shipped off to other areas of Canada to be refined and then sold. Factors such as the transportation and the amount of processing needed for the oil have reduced the price of Alberta’s oil. The West Texas Intermediate (WTI) is considered the world price of oil on average. The Western Canada Select (WCS) is the heavy crude oil exported from Alberta. The WCS tends to be about $12-$16 USD cheaper than the WTI. This price difference has been one of the most prominent grievances throughout the separatism movement.

Additionally, the province faces many grievances against Canada’s Equalization Payments. Equalization payments fund social programs and services that are offered to provinces with lower economic stability. Alberta is one of the highest profiting provinces, and because of this, they are unable to claim equalization payments for their programs. It is considered that Alberta can pay for their own public programs and services, but this has become an issue among Albertans. The Equalization payments are funded by the government, which comes from everybody’s taxes. Because Albertans pay taxes, but do not receive the benefits of the programs their taxes are funding, many Albertans see their tax money going towards other provinces besides their own.

Furthermore, to increase exports all across Canada, Alberta has continuously requested to build a pipeline to British Columbia. BC is the westmost province in Canada, and holds the Canadian Rocky Mountains. The pipeline towards BC is particularly difficult for multiple reasons. The first reason is that many of

Canada’s indigenous tribes reside in the Alberta-British Columbia land. Many indigenous groups have formed strong connections with Canada and the United Kingdom, and do not consent to having their land disrupted. The second reason is that the pipeline poses severe environmental threats which Canada is not willing to risk. Recently, the Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of Alberta, as well as the premier of British Columbia have been discussing the prospect and hypotheticals of building a pipeline. This new development has been an attempt to appease Alberta, and make Albertans feel that their voices are valued and heard. The pipeline will bring additional costs to Alberta because of the increase in production, which will be paid for by increasing the price of the WCS. Economists predict that this rise in oil cost will make it uncompetitive compared to other heavy crude oil companies. The new agreement between Ottawa and Alberta also includes a requirement to increase Alberta’s industrial carbon tax, which further drives up oil prices.

Alberta’s Referendum:

The leader of Alberta, Premier Danielle Smith, announced a referendum for October 19th, with 10 questions regarding separation. The first nine questions were regarding issues such as immigration, voting, and constitutional amending issues. The tenth question is: should Alberta remain a province of Canada, or should the Government of Alberta hold a legally binding referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada. If the majority of votes conclude to separate Alberta into its own sovereign nation, the government of Alberta will hold what is called a binding referendum, which begins the legal process of separation. Many people, including Premier Doug Ford of Ontario and Premier David Eby of British Columbia have accused Premier Smith of supporting the separatism movement. Though she frequently speaks of a united Canada, she lowered the required number of signatures on a petition to trigger a referendum. The previous requirement was 301,000 signatures to trigger a referendum. It was lowered to 178,000. That is roughly 10% of registered voters in Alberta. Smith claims she wants to support all Albertans, and that includes hearing the voices and complaints of all citizens.

If Alberta Separates:

Many think Alberta’s profits will increase after separation from Canada, but this is not entirely the case. If it decides to become its own sovereign nation, it becomes landlocked between Canada and the United States. Alberta would need to make negotiations with both countries. Alberta would lose the protection offered by Canada, and would need to rejoin all existing organizations such as the United Nations, CUSMA, and NATO. Furthermore, they would have much more difficulty convincing Canada to build a pipeline towards British Colombia. Historically, all talks about building the pipeline were to incentivize Alberta to stay in Canada. Furthermore, Alberta would be able to sell its heavy crude oil to Canada at world price; however, the cost of refining it would increase heavily, because Alberta exports much of its oil to be refined and processed, and because the demand for heavy crude oil is lower than light crude oil. If Alberta was no longer part of Canada, the latter would have no obligation in helping Alberta with its specialized refineries. It is highly likely that Alberta will increase exporting to the States. Many sources cite meetings between US officials and separatist leaders discussing building another pipeline from Alberta to the US, increasing oil exports and becoming a stronger partnership. By April 2026, US State Department officials had already met up with the leaders of the Separatism movements three times. US Treasury Board officials have been in support of an independent Alberta, and have even discussed a 500

Billion USD line of credit to support a smoother transition to independence. Many talks between US officials and separatist leaders were informal, but there were talks of the US supporting Alberta in developing an Alberta military. If separatism occurs, it is likely that Alberta would join the United States to become another territory.

Conclusion:

Alberta’s feeling of alienation is not a new issue. Alberta is a major contributor to Canada’s economy, and has been an employment hub for many Canadians because of their oil sector. Many citizens of Alberta believe that their efforts and contributions do not equate to their representation and voice in elections and other government issues. Another prominent issue that sparked Alberta separatism was the reduced price other provinces received of Alberta’s crude oil. Alberta has requested it be the same price as world oil, with little success. Another driving factor is the pipeline from Alberta to British Columbia that was not allowed to be built for many reasons, despite it increasing profits dramatically. Lastly, because Alberta is a higher profiting province than others, many Albertans feel that their taxes go towards programs and services that do not even benefit them. All these issues combined have created grievances against the Canadian government. The Independent Alberta Association has gained more traction since getting enough signatures on a separation petition. The Alberta referendum that will be held in October will have big implications on the future, and Alberta’s relationship with the United States.

- Guneet Bal, WACNH Intern

Encouraging responsible global citizenship is key to progressing international diplomacy. As inhabitants of the earth, we owe it to ourselves and communities to cultivate a prosperous environment that is respected by all. Healthy participation in civic debate progresses the idea of civic discourse. In an era marked by polarization and conflict, “The 10 Virtues of the Modern World” offer a practical and effective guide for promoting understanding, respect, and meaningful communication across differences.

The ten virtues encompass themes of resilience, empathy, patience, sacrifice, politeness, humor, self-awareness, forgiveness, hope, and confidence. Skillful diplomats truly embody these morals to facilitate meaningful and successful interactions with their fellow peers. Those who embrace and practice these virtues are well-positioned to achieve greater levels of self-actualization and personal fulfillment. Abraham Maslow, a renowned American psychologist, coined the term self-actualization, describing it as the psychological process of one fulfilling their highest potential.

A responsible global citizen must develop a clear understanding of their passions, values, and life goals. This process aligns closely with the principles outlined in the hierarchy of needs developed by Abraham Maslow, which emphasizes the pursuit of personal growth and self-actualization. According to Maslow, reaching the pinnacle of his hierarchy requires the fulfillment of fundamental needs first. One must start at the grassroots level by satisfying the basic survival needs of food, water, and rest, as well as security and safety. Upon meeting these lower-level needs, individuals are able to pursue belonging through friendships and relationships, while also striving to satisfy esteem needs associated with competence, achievement, and recognition. It is not until all these lower level necessities are satisfied that one can focus on the highest point of the pyramid - the self-actualization level.

The qualities that characterize an accomplished diplomat are often rooted in a high degree of self-actualization and a well-developed sense of personal purpose. The path toward this goal is supported by the 10 Virtues of the Modern World, especially through the development of humor, empathy, and hope as guiding principles. Humor connects people, as it offers a unique sense of unity, a way of having a shared experience to smile over. Understanding the intentions of others through empathy has a similar power. An empathetic individual uses emotional intelligence to recognize the diverse perspectives of others. Channeling ideals of empathy and humility allows one to truly adopt a hopeful outlook on the world. Practicing gratitude and believing in the goodness of life fuels the psychological weapon of hope. By doing so, one develops their achievement potential, as they create a “can-do attitude” by focusing on the good to come out of their dedication and resilience.

Fostering the virtues of humility, empathy, and hope is the guiding force behind learning to be a proficient diplomat, especially in today’s high-stress environment, where appreciating the complexities of conflict is a valuable asset. During times of divided debate, humor can be used to de-escalate emotions and redirect the conversation to a more collaborative space where empathy is used to foster a welcoming environment. A hopeful international community can be curated through educating the youth on these particular morals. Furthermore, individuals who have learned how to perform at their highest self-actualization level will do so by incorporating the highlighted three virtues.

The successful resolution of global challenges depends, in part, on a commitment in younger generations to cultivate the principles and perspectives previously discussed. It must be emphasized that anyone can be a diplomat, and in order to develop the confidence of young people, they need to be given the opportunity to do so. Dedicated educators can reference the resources The World Affairs Council of New Hampshire provides and use them as tools to guide future generations on the path to harnessing the true powers of responsible global citizens.

By Ava Popielarz, Bow High School Rising Junior.

Students at Kingswood Regional High School students participate in a WACNH lead Diplomacy Simulation on the Darfur Crisis.

The most recent (2023) survey of young Americans’ attitudes about world affairs is undoubtedly dated in these turbulent times. But the starting point is valid when it comes to what we might expect from high school participants in our Diplomacy Simulations.

The Chicago Council on Global Affairs study (Young Americans Question US Global Engagement | Chicago Council on Global Affairs) found

• While a majority of Gen Z (age 14-29 in 2026) express interest in news about US relations with other countries, they are much less likely (69%) than older generations (88-90%) -- to do so.
• Gen Z are nearly evenly divided (50%-47%) on whether it is best for the United States to take an active part in world affairs or stay out, while older generations support getting involved (64%-35%).

However, the third survey takeaway was: “Leading international cooperation on global problems is the top foreign policy priority for the youngest generation of American adults.” Older generations said their top priority was military protection of the physical security of the country.

In Diplomacy Simulations WACNH conducted in June with a class of 9^th graders at Pembroke Academy and with three freshman global affairs classes at Kingswood Regional High School in Wolfeboro – a total of about 70 students – interest, enthusiasm and connection beyond the materials we provided were all rampant.

Admittedly, it took some time to get traction. The three teachers had provided introductions to the material – the Water Crisis simulation for Pembroke and the Darfur Crisis for Kingswood – and the students were supposed to have their preliminary statements ready for the first round. But, as the Chicago survey might suggest, they were slow to engage in their respective positions (one of four ‘sides’ in each case) on the first day.

But by the end of that first day, after two rounds of both team goal-setting and group negotiations, they were beginning to identify with their roles and responsibilities and thinking critically as their nations, NGOs and State Department delegations rather than as observers to the process. By the second day, after the animated conversations that had followed them out of the classroom at the end of Day 1, and even some pre-session homeroom consultations with members of their teams, they were ready to argue passionately for whichever side they had been assigned.

“So ready!” was the answer that came from one young man at the start of session two at Kingswood.

And that dynamic is what Diplomacy Simulation is all about.

Asking the teachers what they thought of the experience, all three focused on the process. How it drew out one young woman who thought she was too shy to speak “in front of people” to become the spokesperson for her team. How another young man who spoke so quietly at the start it was hard to hear his position turned into a forceful proponent for what the US State Department could bring to the water rights impasse.

Pegi Frostholm, the teacher at Pembroke, told Tim and me she was delighted with the participation and the opportunity it gave her social studies students to speak their minds rather than just repeating what they thought she wanted to hear from the lesson plan. Doug Skelley and Kim Kelliher, both teachers at Kingswood, agreed that while their kids were always looking for confirmation and reassurance, the Diplomacy Simulations brought out their competitive streaks. “They want to win,” said Skelley as he watched a team of young women representing the Sudanese Government animatedly argue their case to the African Union team.

As they filtered into the room the first day, the students were individual teenagers looking like they weren’t sure what to expect. When they returned from lunch, already gathered into their team sub-groups, they came in discussing their positions and what their next arguments should be.

It’s that secret sauce on which WACNH Diplomacy Simulations thrive, that brings us back to the same schools to repeat the process with new classes of kids. All three teachers are already planning Simulations in the next school year, possibly even one in the fall and another in the spring. “I would love to teach everything this way,” said Skelley, “But I just don’t have the bandwidth to create the same sort of in-depth materials you give us.”

It’s why WACNH secures that ‘unobtanium’ of access and classroom time in a high school social studies teacher’s curriculum. And why the most rewarding – priceless -- part is watching students embrace and internalize the role-play.

At Kingswood that people-to-people connection came solidly home when one young man came over to thank us at the end. He had me at his handshake.

- By Stephanie Seacord, WACNH Events & Education Coordinator

World affairs can often feel distant, but through WACNH’s speaker series they become part of a shared human experience. As an intern for the past several months, I’ve had numerous opportunities to engage with global topics by participating in these conversations. However, I had always gone to these conversations online. Although, viewing these events online certainly increases accessibility, I always felt as if I was missing a piece of the puzzle. Ultimately, being there in-person adds a unique community atmosphere and sense of excitement that bridges individual differences and makes distant issues feel more relevant.

In March, I attended my first speaker event in person. Arriving a few minutes late, I stepped into a room buzzing with curiosity and intent. Over the next hour and a half, Dr. Stephen M. Walt, a leading voice in international affairs, walked the audience through what world leaders forget about global politics. From the importance of historical context to the need to engage diverse perspectives, this conversation deepened my own insights on the multitude of issues shaping the world today. As I took a seat in one of the few remaining chairs, I soon found myself swept up in the audience’s energy. In that moment, I felt myself becoming part of a broader global community.

More importantly, participating in this conversation reaffirmed that civil dialogue has the ability to shape the world. Upon entering the room I quickly realized that I was one of the youngest people amid a crowd of unfamiliar faces. Yet, that unfamiliarity quickly gave way to a shared curiosity that bridged differences in age and perspectives. What could have served as a barrier to global conversations soon became a catalyst to understanding the complexities of world affairs. In particular, being in-person gave me the opportunity to build real, human connections. By fostering this environment of mutual understanding, global issues became less individual and more communal. Overall, civil dialogue reminds us that the solutions to global issues don’t lie in individual knowledge, but in community discussions.

As the event wrapped up, the whole puzzle finally snapped together. I walked away with a renewed perspective on how world leaders should approach decision-making. More importantly, however, I knew that I was now part of a community that looked for global solutions amongst both our similarities and our differences. What began as a rushed entrance into a room of strangers ultimately became a powerful reminder that genuine engagement - driven by shared energy and open dialogue - can reshape both how we understand global issues and how we take part in addressing them. Overall, WACNH provides the rare opportunity to truly make your voice heard in a world where global decision-making can seem so far removed. So step into the conversation, join an event, and experience for yourself the impact that you can have on world affairs.

By: Luke Wolfe, WACNH Intern

---

---

Today’s most consequential battles are no longer confined to traditional warfare settings. Instead, actors increasingly rely on hybrid warfare tactics, including cyber operations, disinformation campaigns, covert actions, and economic pressure to achieve strategic objectives. By employing these unconventional tactics, actors deliberately exploit the grey zone - an area that exceeds normal peacetime relations but remains below the legal threshold for the use of force. Since the end of World War II, the grey zone has grown alongside the rapid expansion of international law and technological advances, altering traditional methods of interaction between states. Although the grey zone challenges the scope and perceived relevance of international law, it also underscores a strength of the system: its capacity to adapt to a dynamic and evolving global order.

In recent decades, international legal institutions have sought to add clarity to international law. After World War II, the UN Charter codified when force could and could not be used. Article 2(4) is the central provision prohibiting UN member states from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. However, Chapter VII recognizes the need for force in certain situations and develops the legal basis for the UN Security Council to authorize action. Article 51 then permits the use of force that is both necessary and proportionate in order to uphold the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense. Overall, these provisions seek to safeguard international peace and security by narrowly defining exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of force.

While international law draws a firm boundary around the use of force, it remains relatively silent on actions that do not meet this threshold. Because international law draws a sharp distinction between armed force and non-forceful conduct, it leaves room for actors to engage in coercive behavior that exceeds normal peacetime competition without crossing the line into legally recognized armed conflict. It is within this space of legal ambiguity that hybrid warfare tactics have flourished. In this way, the international legal system reflects a complicated paradox that simultaneously promotes security while creating the capacity for actors to operate along its margins.

Ongoing tensions between China and Taiwan exemplify how such hybrid warfare tactics can undermine an adversary. In 2023, the Matsu Islands lost internet connectivity for several weeks after an underwater telecommunications cable was severed, an incident that the Taiwanese government blamed on China. In 2025, Taiwan again accused China of disrupting the submarine Trans-Pacific Express Cable System. Such actions disrupted civilian life and economic activity while creating strategic ambiguity. More importantly, these attacks indicate that China felt compelled to act within the grey zone. In other words, China implicitly acknowledged the relevance of the international legal system by conforming to the bounds of international law. Furthermore, China employed disinformation campaigns including AI-generated stories and deepfakes (media that is altered to make someone appear to say something they never actually did) to successfully influence the outcome of Taiwan’s 2024 elections. This striking ability to shape Taiwanese political processes and public life without using any force has exacerbated existing tensions and transformed China-Taiwan relations into a condition of coercion, aggression, and deception that targets Taiwan’s strategic autonomy without triggering formal conflict. Most importantly, by operating in the grey zone, China acknowledges the legal boundaries to which it must adhere, thus reflecting the continued relevance of international law.

Furthermore, the Russia-Ukraine conflict demonstrates how hybrid warfare techniques can operate alongside conventional military operations in an active war setting. Following the 2022 invasion, Russia increasingly integrated grey zone tactics such as disinformation campaigns, information suppression, and attempts to control digital infrastructure into its conventional military operations. Efforts to sever internet and mobile connectivity, combined with persistent narratives framing the invasion as “denazification” or genocide prevention, sought to weaken Ukrainian morale, confuse Western audiences, and influence global opinion. This blending of conventional force with grey zone activities illustrates how hybrid warfare can amplify military objectives while complicating legal accountability. By operating along the peripheries of international legal structures and normalizing low-intensity coercion as a tool of global competition, Russia illustrates how hybrid warfare is reshaping both international law and global power dynamics.

While many claim that the ambiguity found in grey-zone conflict is a weakness of the international legal system, it is actually a necessary feature of its continued relevance. International law was never designed to freeze conflict within a particular historical frame. Instead, it provides a foundation capable of adapting to new technologies, tactics, and strategic realities. As cyber capabilities, information warfare, and economic interdependence continue to reshape international relations, legal ambiguity allows competing interests to coexist, functioning as a mechanism that places checks on the unilateral exercise of power. In this way, the grey zone reflects an adaptive legal order that constrains unchecked power while enabling actors to respond to a dynamic global landscape.

Ultimately, the existence of grey zone conflicts indicates that states acknowledge legal thresholds and legitimacy. Moreover, by operating within the grey zone, laws governing the use of force achieve precisely what they were designed to do: limit the violent resolution of conflicts. While the grey zone offers the space for actors to advance strategic objectives, its adaptive capacity also enables the international community to respond to novel threats and unchecked exercises of power. The very existence of grey-zone tactics therefore underscores legal legitimacy in international relations. Rather than signaling the failure of international law, grey-zone conflict demonstrates how deeply embedded it remains in the decision-making process and power dynamics.

By Luke Wolfe, WACNH Intern

Most have heard phrases similar to, “our children are the future”, and while this is true, it doesn’t explain reality in full. These kids are essential to the civic world of the present, so, how do their beliefs and actions shape the way the world views diplomacy? How does classroom participation drive students toward diplomacy? Lastly, how will the young generations of the present shape the world in which we live?

            As a high school junior myself, I have been able to witness many conversations pertaining to this topic, and gain a lot of insights on my generation’s perspective of the world. I’ve watched many people change their minds based on discussions they’ve had. It’s not that they’re changing every belief they’ve already established, but they hear something that they really resonate with. If you haven’t personally experienced this shift, you likely haven’t been involved with civil discussion in its true essence.

            So, the classroom is a domain for civic engagement, but how do these seemingly mere class discussions expand their horizons to the society in which we live? The students that participate in these discussions are also the students who go home and see what's on the news, the students that read the headlines, the students who repost current events on their socials, and the students, who like the majority of people, ultimately want what’s best for the world. This age is absolutely vital in how current students will turn into our world leaders. This generation is taking the initiative to become educated, put themselves out there, and truly proliferate their messages.

            So, how do students demonstrate this passion for diplomacy in the classroom? I have been lucky enough to participate in several World Affairs Council of New Hampshire diplomacy simulations, in which students study numerous perspectives of different unions, countries, and organizations focused on a critical global issue. These simulations allowed students to step out of their comfort zone and experience diplomacy. The reason all students get excited over these sorts of discussions stems from the fact that they are equal with their peers. This peaceful environment allows for students to be more comfortable than a more competitive domain. While many students tend to disengage during their history classes, diplomacy simulations allow students to step out of their comfort zone and learn through experience.

            So, how can we all learn from the students of today? There is substantial generational change happening in the world, that of which may feel foreign and uncomfortable to older generations. But, this change is necessary for our world to grow and develop; nobody has gone anywhere from staying exactly the same. This idea can be summarized by what Nick Watson, my world history teacher, said about this topic. He stated, “Through passing the torch, we learn what worked and what cycles we have to break.” Overall, the future is reliant on how we encourage and nourish the passion and education of our youth, as well as flexibility and acceptance of new ideas.

- Charlotte Lewis, Bow High School Student

Social media provides powerful tools that not only shake conventional understandings but also reimagine a new and complex landscape of global interconnectedness. In just the past two decades the world has witnessed an unprecedented level of connection and exchange of ideas. Social media has been used to give voice to the peripheries of societies, inspire popular protests worldwide, and shape diplomatic relations. Yet it also supplies methods for repression and misinformation. As citizens around the world increasingly use digital platforms to mobilize, social media has become a battleground where longstanding and emerging conflicts over identity play out.

This global digital transformation was illustrated early on when protestors filled Cairo’s Tahrir Square in January 2011 to call for the removal of the Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. After years of dictatorial rule, limited economic opportunity, and governmental corruption, Tahrir square - officially renamed after the 1952 revolution that replaced a British-influenced constitutional monarchy with a republic - once again became the center of competing visions for Egypt’s future. As labor unions, islamists, leftist parties, youth activists, and the military all clashed together, Tahrir Square emerged as a powerful symbol of a contested national identity.

The 2011 Egyptian Revolution was a part of the Arab Spring - a series of democratic and popular movements across the Middle East and North Africa between 2011 - 2012. Importantly, it was one of the first movements that used social media to organize mass protests. Platforms such as Facebook and Twitter extended the Arab Spring beyond national borders by connecting Arabs to common struggles. Egypt thus became an early example of how digital tools could reshape political participation and redefine how people understood themselves in relation to the state. Today, an ancient obelisk from the time of Ramses II occupies Tahrir square - a politically safe attempt to connect Egyptians with a common ancient past while sweeping aside the tumultuous memories from a decade earlier. Indeed, contrasting perceptions of nationality are nothing new, and social media has only recently become an important part of the legacy of ongoing identity struggles.

Today, social media in the hands of protestors has evolved into both a megaphone and a mirror - amplifying grievances while reflecting new perceptions. In a recent episode of the Global in the Granite State podcast titled “Protesting with Rizz - the Gen-Z Protests”, Dr. Janjira Sombatpoonsiri, a research fellow at the German Institute for Global and Area Studies, discusses social media’s role in current popular movements across the globe. She notes that many recent demonstrations are driven less by overt democratic demands and more by deepening economic frustrations - especially those felt by youth facing limited opportunities and widening wealth inequality.

Citizens are now using these digital tools to redefine what it means to partake in civil society. The podcast emphasizes that social media has created increasingly decentralized movements. While this can broaden participation, it also creates challenges. Individuals often hesitate to assume personal accountability for organizing, and online engagement can devolve into “slacktivism”—symbolic support, such as liking or reposting, that rarely translates into long term change. At the same time, governments have become adept at using these same digital tools to suppress dissent. They spread disinformation, monitor dissidents, and deploy cyberattacks, highlighting the importance of responsible usage. Indeed, social media creates a complex landscape for government-citizen relations, with younger generations using new forms of participation to gain recognition.

Building on these shifts in digital participation, social media has also shaken conventional conceptions of identity as traditionally marginalized voices are expanded. For example, in Iran apps such as Clubhouse and Instagram are becoming especially influential among young people who use them to push back against the state’s attempts to impose a singular social identity. Importantly, these platforms also connect Iranian citizens with those in the diaspora - a population that challenges the state's attempts to unify the Iranian identity and that has been antagonized by the government for years. Together, these digital spaces reveal a society negotiating multiple, competing identities despite efforts to suppress them.

Iran additionally offers a striking example of the very protest dynamics Dr. Sombatpoonsiri described. The death of Mahsa Amini in 2022 who was beaten by Iran’s morality police for not wearing a hijab - a charge Iran’s government denies - revealed long standing cultural conflicts in Iran, ultimately igniting widespread protests across the country. This movement especially used social media to document violence, making it difficult for the regime to spread disinformation. In fact, the large-scale role of social media in mobilizing these protests was reflected by the government’s subsequent restriction of internet access. However, online spaces quickly displayed the broader conflict, as anti-government protesters faced counter-campaigns branding them ‘Israel’s soldiers.’ This clash between a state-endorsed religious identity and more progressive visions of Iranian society reshaped not only citizens’ relations with the state but also reimagined Iran’s place in the world. Today, Amini’s tombstone reads, “Beloved Mahsa, you will not die. Your name will become a symbol.” Just as Tahrir Square resembles social media’s recent role in shaping enduring conflicts in Egypt, the digital landscape has cemented Amini’s legacy in Iran’s ongoing struggle for identity. Overall, the plurality of Iranian society has become evident through social media, giving rise to new identities as well as those that have been silenced for decades.

As societies continue to navigate this complex digital environment, strengthening accountability and fostering responsible online engagement remain essential. Ultimately, social media can amplify collective action, but it cannot replace genuine participation in civic life. The most enduring change emerges not only from the online sphere but also from the real public spaces where people gather, protest, and imagine new futures together.

- By Luke Wolfe, WACNH Intern

There’s a truth that I’ve come to believe more profoundly with each year I teach:
 If you give students the room, they’ll rise.

It’s rarely immediate, and almost never in the way we expect; yet when students are given real space to think, reflect, and connect, you begin to witness something remarkable: clarity rising from noise, courage forming through friction, and leadership emerging from mutual trust.

This is what energizes me as I walk into my classroom each day.
 This is what keeps my passion for teaching alive.

The First Day Shift

In my first blog I wrote about the noise, how headlines, algorithms, and pressure often overwhelm students before they can even begin to engage with the world, which is why we start things a little differently in our classroom.

On the first day of World Studies, my teaching partner and I offer our students something simple, something human; not a syllabus, but a challenge:
 

“Without our help, line yourselves up in alphabetical order by last name. You’ve got two minutes. Go.”

It sounds simple. It never is.

Sometimes, one student will jump in to lead. Yet more often, small pockets form, others linger on the sidelines, and a few look to us for intervention. We stay silent. Eventually, the students will form a line, but it’s usually only partially correct.

We then take a pause and ask, “What worked? What didn’t? What did you notice?”
 We let the students process and reflect, then we try again.

What starts as an awkward icebreaker becomes something deeper. Students begin communicating. They begin to listen; they adapt. They realize that getting in line isn’t about control, nor is it about simply completing a task, but it’s about collaboration and cooperation; it’s about learning how to work as a team.

This is leadership; and it starts on day one.

The Classroom as Learning Studio

In Blog #2, I described how we build our course around shared values and interpersonal trust. We don’t jump into content until we’ve established the human infrastructure: a culture grounded in virtues like empathy, resilience, and humor.

Once that foundation is laid, we shift into something more active.

We turn the classroom into a learning studio, where students don’t just study the world, they step into it.

In just the first few weeks, students have:

●      Delivered elevator pitches responding to: How does knowledge become wisdom?

●      Explored totalitarian regimes through Socratic dialogue and primary sources.

●      Prepared for a full-scale Suez Canal Crisis of 1956 diplomacy simulation.

●      Engaged with real-world voices including leaders from the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, the Armed Forces and Merchant Marines.

Each moment builds on the last. Our students aren’t just absorbing information, they’re learning how to move through complexity with clarity and purpose.

Diplomacy Simulations: Practicing Leadership at Scale

The heart of the above mentioned work comes alive within our diplomacy simulations. The partnership we have developed with the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire has allowed our experiences to truly expand past the walls of our school. These simulations are not performances. They are living laboratories where students must negotiate, compromise, and lead through tension.

Over the course of the year, students step into pivotal moments of global history and humanitarian crises:

●      They contested the Suez Canal Crisis, balancing Cold War rivalry against international law.

●      They serve as peace negotiators in the Darfur Peace Simulation, confronting humanitarian emergencies, power-sharing compromises, and fragile agreements.

●      Although not a product of the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire, students reimagine the Berlin Conference (1884-1885), wrestling with themes of sovereignty and exploitation.

Through these experiences, students discover that leadership is not about control. It’s about stewardship, listening deeply, balancing competing interests, and building fragile trust. These simulations connect directly to the skills they’ll need in civic life and global citizenship: clarity of thought, courage to act, and responsibility to community.

Leading Without Permission

In Blog #2, I also wrote about giving students space to find their voice.
 Now, we give them responsibility.

We stop waiting for students to “earn” leadership and instead embed it directly into the way they learn. In our classroom, leadership shows up in ways both big and small:

●      Students moderate Socratic seminars, setting norms and guiding inquiry. These 10-minute roundtables have no teacher intervention. Students manage silences, redirect conversation, and support one another’s thinking. We do this twice per unit. By the end of the year, the transformation is undeniable.

●      They serve as ethics officers or debrief captains, helping their teams reflect after simulations. These roles evolve from the same feedback routines we practice during elevator pitches and discussion circles.

●      They edit class newsletters, documenting our progress for families and community members. They learn not just communication skills, but the power of voice and message, how to shape narrative with responsibility.

These are not performances for a grade, they’re exercises in stewardship.
 Students are learning to care for the tone of a conversation, the depth of collaboration, and the integrity of their own voice.

Designed Clarity, Not Chaos

As I shared in Blog #1, clarity in a noisy world doesn’t come from shutting it all out. Instead, it comes from tuning in with intention.

Student-led learning can feel messy, but it is not chaos.
 It’s not about stepping back, rather it’s about designing as we move forward.

We create structure that supports meaningful freedom:

●      Shared norms grounded in our 10 Virtues for the Modern Age

●      Cycles of reflection and revision

●      Collaborative systems that mirror the real world

These systems are the backbone of our course, and of my philosophy as an educator. They give students the structure they need to lead with confidence, not confusion.

Participation Isn’t the Goal, Stewardship Is

This is a progression: From grounding (Blog #1), to culture (Blog #2), to stewardship.

There’s a difference between being involved and being responsible. The goal isn’t participation, but ownership and care.

Stewardship says: This space matters. I help shape it.

We don’t hand students the mic and walk away. We build the stage; we test the sound; we sit in the front row, ready to support, challenge, and witness.

This is because the goal isn’t just about the student voice, it’s about the student’s vision. Moreover, when we give that vision room to grow, students don’t just learn, they lead.

The Courage to Trust

To bring it all full circle: If we want students to lead, we must trust them, early, often, and genuinely.

This trust must form not after the assessments, nor once the rules have been memorized, but starting from the very beginning.

Clarity, courage, and complexity aren’t traits students acquire at the end of the unit. They are capacities we build together through trust, through iteration, through real, and sometimes messy, responsibility.

So when the room feels chaotic, when a simulation takes an unexpected turn, or when a student surprises us with a breakthrough idea, that’s success in motion.

That’s the spark where growth takes hold. This is the incredible energy that brings us back, again and again, to the classroom.

When we trust, when we build, and when we give students the room, they will rise.

By Nick Watson, Social Studies Educator and Board Member, World Affairs Council of New Hampshire

You may have heard about the White House's efforts, which are being challenged in the courts, to cancel $4.9 Billion in funding through a mechanism called the "Pocket Rescission". While many people might have never heard the term rescission, even fewer people were alive the last time a President used the "Pocket Rescission" process to cancel previously appropriated funds.

Let's start with what is a rescission?

This is a process by which the President or Congress, with the consent of the other branch, can remove the budget authority for previously budgeted, but unallocated government funds. In layman's terms, it is a way to not spend money in the way it was originally budgeted for, so long as it has not already been spent. When initiated by the President, the Administration must notify Congress of their desire not to spend the funds, which allows for a 45-day period where Congress reviews the request and votes to accept, reject, or revise the Administration's desired cancellation of budget authority. This is a process that was used by every President from Ford to Clinton.

What makes for a “pocket rescission”?

A “Pocket Rescission” is not a legal term and is something that is being litigated by the Administration at this point. It references a rescission request that is sent to Congress with less than 45 days left in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). The idea being that Congress can run out the clock on the FFY and not have to vote on the rescission request, effectively stopping the expenditure of those funds. This is due to the Federal Government’s budgeting process, where any unspent funds must be returned to the Treasury at the end of the FFY. However, just because Congress has 45 days to act, does not require that they take 45 days to act. If they had the political will, Congress could vote on this immediately to ensure enough time to implement the will of the two Chambers.

An interesting note.

Rescissions take only a simple majority to pass and can move quickly through the House and Senate, if there is the political will. However, the rescissions package from earlier this year took the full time to get passed and signed into law. There were changes to the President's request, as about $400 million in funding was restored for the PREPFAR program. 

What is in the recent rescission request?

With a total request to cancel $4.9 billion in funding, there is a lot to unpack here. This includes $3.2 billion from USAID development assistance programs, $393 million from the State Department’s peacekeeping activities, $322 million from the State Department’s democracy promotion fund, and over $444 million in other peacekeeping activities. 

What does this mean globally?

Of course, a lot is left to be written about the impact this will have on the world, both good and bad. The unintended consequences, as well as the intended ones, will take time to develop and morph.

Rarely does a high school student in New Hampshire have the opportunity to engage directly with Artificial Intelligence professionals as they tour the state to share global best practices. Even less often does this opportunity connect people across cultures, as I experienced on my first day as an intern at the World Affairs Council of New Hampshire. Being a Brazilian-American growing up in Manchester, the opportunity to spend a day with Al professionals from Brazil during their International Visitor Leadership Exchange Program, I connected with this group on a deeply personal level.

The group, made up of AI leaders from all across Brazil, came to the Granite State to exchange ideas with local experts and policymakers. Over the course of a few days, they met with people like Shaun Mulholland, former City Manager of Lebanon, NH, who helped pioneer a municipal AI initiative. They also visited the University of New Hampshire’s Intelligent Systems Research Group, the NH AI Task Force, and Seacoast AI to explore topics like generative AI in education and robotics in the home. WACNH designed these meetings as a two-way exchange of ideas between working professionals and the visitors, with both sides sharing as many insights as they learned. Seeing first hand the power of exchange, I grew excited for future opportunities.

The shared nature of these exchanges highlighted, for me, the similarities and differences between these two regions that my own identities straddle; NH and Brazil. As someone with a growing interest in public policy and international affairs, I found it fascinating to observe this diplomatic effort that allowed for both sides to benefit from the exchange of ideas. While challenges certainly can cause issues with implementing the right policies, I felt inspired by the dedication of these people to make their communities better places for everyone. The meeting to discuss the AI initiative in Lebanon's City Government highlighted this dynamic for me, as each person in the conversation came from a unique perspective, but rather than dividing people it actually brought them together in deeper conversations. For me, I realized how different perspectives can create a fuller picture of understanding, showing me that I do not need to choose between perspectives or identities in order to engage with the world.

But one moment stuck with me in particular. Over lunch, one of the Brazilian participants, Sidney, turned to me and said, “You are lucky. You have a foot in both worlds. Use that.” That single sentence reframed the way I saw myself. I wasn’t just observing the exchange; I was part of it. I could communicate within the languages and the context. I could connect innovation in the U.S. to realities in Brazil. And I could help build bridges between people who may never otherwise cross paths.

This wasn’t just a professional development opportunity. It was a turning point. I left with a better understanding of AI and government, but I also felt more motivated with a renewed sense of purpose. Exchange programs like IVLP don’t just educate international visitors, they transform the perspectives of the people here in New Hampshire who engage with them; people like me.

Thanks to the WACNH, I now see how international exchanges, such as this one, can shape identity, spark insight, and show young leaders, like myself, where we can truly play a role in the world.

By: Jeremiah Gomes, WACNH Intern