Politics – Pike & Hurricane

The China Dream – A Utopia of Chinese World Hegemony?

Franziska Fink — Wed, 27 Oct 2021 16:08:28 +0000

These days it is easy to fall into a bad – or even a hopeless – mood. One just has to open a newspaper to be immediately reminded of the desperate state our world is in. Michail Schwanetzkij, a Russian satirist, famously coined the phrase “Crisis is our normal state”, and, unfortunately, he was not joking for once.

Trade wars, the Taliban in Afghanistan, a rise in populism, Covid-19 – to name a few – the worsening of the climate crisis lingering in the back… The world as our parents used to know it, is falling more and more apart at its seams. The postulation that each kid will once have a better life than their parents, a premise long uncontested, does not hold validity anymore these days.

But there is another promise, another vision of world order – pledging peace, prosperity and harmony – this time coming from the East. China has ambitious plans to restructure the world as we know it. Recently, the voices of Chinese politicians have become louder and adopted a more assertive tone, in propagating a promising new world, with China at its centre. Xi Jinping does not leave out any opportunities to proclaim the realization of the “China Dream”: “We must make persistent efforts, press ahead with indomitable will, continue to push forward the great cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and strive to achieve the Chinese dream of great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.”

Xi’s ideas are often said to be associated with the book China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Posture in the Post-America Era in 2010 by Liu Mingfu, a retired Chinese colonel. In his best-selling book, Liu tells the story of how China will reassert its righteous place as the world’s dominant power and what life under Chinese hegemony would look like.

The “China Dream” and the possibility of a global Chinese hegemony could sooner turn into reality than one might think. China has been consistently and carefully rising among nations in the past thirty years. Starting in the 1990s, China began experiencing double-digit GDP growth. Even at its lowest GDP growth of 2,3% in 2020, the year of the Covid-19 related financial crisis, the Chinese economy is still expanding, making it one of the only G20 countries to not go into recession. By comparison, while the USA still has a higher GDP than China, its annual growth rate has been unstable and never exceeded one digit. The latest estimation is that the Chinese economy is on course to surpass the GDP of the US by 2028 or 2029.

Drawing on its economic advantage, China is developing and modernizing its military. By 2049, right on time for the 100th anniversary of the PRC, the People’s Liberation Army should be transformed into a “world-class” military.

All of these ambitious goals strive towards one thing only – the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Among Chinese decision-makers, the Western discourse of “China’s rise” is a sensitive issue, because in their eyes, China is not “rising”. It is simply reasserting its rightful place as a major power, as it used to be centuries ago. This narrative is derived from China’s past, ancient texts and cultural virtues. Texts by philosophers like Confucius and Mencius introduce the possibility of a different model of leadership, that of ‘true kingship’ or ‘humane authority’, known as Tianxia. It is a form of leadership that does not rely on hard power, but rather on cultural attraction and “winning the hearts of the people”, as well as on voluntary submission. So when Chinese politicians and key strategists speak of the world’s and China’s future, they are often referring to this narrative reassuring that China’s rise will not threaten the stability of the existing international system and in fact, will actually lead to greater global stability. This is because China will behave very differently than the US, as it will mainly rely on political power that is rooted in virtues and personal morality of the leaders.

However, Chinese officials are often accused of “selectively remembering” Chinese history to serve their political objectives and that they purposefully reconstruct China as an overly benevolent center of East Asia. Adversaries, such as scholar Teufel-Dreyer claims that “supporters of the revival of tianxia as a model for today’s world are essentially misrepresenting the past to reconfigure the future, distorting it to advance a political agenda that is at best disingenuous and at worst dangerous”.

Leaving all of this aside however, if it came true, what would life under the Chinese Dream look like? Amongst the consequences of the rising China narrative is a view on ‘Otherness’ that advocates conversion rather than coexistence. The best way to understand the establishment of a harmonious world is with the Confucian idea of “cultivating the self, regulating the family, governing the state, and pacifying the world”. This means that a wang ruler (sage king) “brings peace to the world” by first “cultivating his own moral value”, then the moral values of those he rules over.

Another influential ancient philosopher, Mozi, presents an even more radical approach, based on his notion of universal love. Mozi notes that all people have different opinions; therefore, when individuals act purely out of self-interest and rulers act only in the interests of their own nation, conflict arises. The emperor, if benevolent, unifies the opinions of state leaders and through them all the people. Yet, this involves not just a radical reordering of people’s preferences but the construction of new identities, such that all become part of “one world, [with] one dream”. This process of “harmonizing the world”, requires hence the complete erasure of difference in the world. It requires the creation of new identities such that all belong to the new harmonious world order, leaving little room for those who may not wish to belong.

By Franziska Fink

Related articles:

A Vision for the World with Chinese Characteristics

One Belt, One Road – China’s Path to the West

Photo credits:

“Xi Jinping at the EP” by European Parliament is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

US National Archives & DVIDS – GetArchive | PH1 WINSTON C. PITMAN, USN, Credit: U.S Navy

“Confucius” by JayPLee is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post The China Dream – A Utopia of Chinese World Hegemony? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Power of Memes: More than Jokes

Franziska Fink — Sat, 10 Jul 2021 11:00:57 +0000

No one really can explain how they have developed, and everyone will define them differently. Yet, they have altered our discourse within the digital arena fundamentally, and by that subsequently created a whole new way of how (online) communities are formed: Memes. Images, usually accompanied by a brief and well-pointed text, are basically digital jokes, and the uncontested form of humorous communication across all of our social media platforms.

Memes exist in all imaginable formats, serving all kinds of humor and satire in regard to… well, everything and nothing. Which is what is making this entire online phenomenon so particularly hard to explain, especially to non-digital natives. “What are you laughing at?” is a question commonly asked by parents when their kids are scrolling through the latest memes plastered all over their Instagram feed. But when these poor parents then take a look themselves, instead of a smile, bafflement spreads over their face, followed by the innocent question what those “memes” are and why they seem to be so entertaining?

In this lies the whole essence of how memes function and how they create a novel sense of belonging. Because they often serve a particular form of humor, that itself is intertwined with specific events, groups and topics, they are exclusive in the way that not everyone can relate. Not everyone (not just your mom) gets the joke. But if you do laugh, you automatically belong to a community that shares more or less the same perspective of the world or, at least, has the same humor and interests, as general as those might be.

In contrast to what the general public might think, the concept of a meme was not introduced by a 13-year-old Influencer, but by evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins. Dawkins however did not come up with the online memes as we know and love them today, the word “meme” rather originated with his 1976 publication The Selfish Gene, a book about evolution in which Dawkins uses the term to refer to cultural entities. According to his initial definition, a meme is the cultural analog of a gene: “Like genes, memes spread, and, in their spreading, they take on a life of their own. Genes make up organisms and memes make up cultural agglomerations of organisms.”

Funnily enough, Dawkins’ 45-year-old definition also perfectly describes the memes that are nowadays generated, uploaded and shared millionfold in our social media feeds as well as their way of how they contribute to the forming of our identities.

The ancient Greek saying “Show me your friends and I will tell you who you are”, means in 2021 “Show me the Instagram accounts you follow and I will tell you who you are” (obviously, there is a corresponding meme for that!).

This observation has not gone unnoticed in academia either. Elizabeth Cantalamessa, a scholar working on memes at the University of Miami states that “memes work with ideas, including complex socio-political ideas […] They can be a way of orienting oneself in the world.” This also includes any form of political orientation. Cantalamessa mentions in this connection the rise of intersectional and feminist meme communities.

The memes that originate from communities like these differentiate themselves by using them not just for internet humor but to address complicated issues of race, class, gender, and politics. The virtual communities consuming these memes then use them to build a sense of belonging and unity among their members. What is crucial to understand however, is that when members create such content, they not only express group identity and experiences, they are much more “creating a polyvocal discourse in which various ideological standpoints are expressed”, as Ryan Milner, an Associate Professor of Communication at the College of Charleston, writes and by that partake in norm formation which also finds application in our analog world.

This transition of norms from the digital to the real world is captivating because it openly challenges the way norms have been traditionally created and spread. Finnemore and Sikkink, scholarly coryphées in the field of international politics, have long held the most popular explanation of how norms emerge and spread. They describe the “life cycle” of an international norm to have three stages: emergence, cascade and internationalization. Finnemore and Sikkink’s theory implies that a norm usually emerges among dominant norm makers and is then distributed within the system until it reaches a universal acceptance.

Memes however are now democratizing this process, dethroning the dominant norm creators and allowing every ordinary person with a smartphone to participate in the process of norm formation. It does not even require them to play an active role and create memes themselves, it suffices if they share them in their network and help them gain popularity and thus, leverage.

Such new and participatory forms of digital technology have hence facilitated a dramatic shift in minorities’ accessibility to public discourse. They have enabled virtual public spaces to become signiﬁcant sites for collective identity formation, on which especially marginalized groups have found a place to voice their interests and to create narratives that deviate from the dominant hegemonic line (Gal and Kampf).

So, memes are definitely more powerful than the average consumer might think. Regardless of their power, they should not be overthought too much. Sometimes, you just need a good laugh and that is what they are here for as well

Related articles:

Information Overload

Hitting the (Pay)wall

Photo Credits:

By Asterfolio on Unsplash

By Leon on Unsplash

By Karsten Winegeart on Unsplash

The post The Power of Memes: More than Jokes appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Unnatural cycles of violence

Oliver Etchells — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 10:28:20 +0000

It seems that there is a consensus forming that is as rare as snow in the Sahara, shared by right and left-wing media outlets, among academic circles, and military strategists alike: Relations between the US and China are becoming increasingly sour, and if something is not done to change course, they might enter a collision course that culminates in armed conflict. Voices from the right of the political spectrum cite China’s expansion into the South China Sea and enhanced military power as proof of the threat, whilst leftwing voices point towards the US’s trade wars, and increasing nuclear stockpile. The discourse surrounding China/US relations is nothing if not foreboding, but it is supported by a questionable theory which represents deteriorating relations as a predictable and unavoidable event in the cycle of global hegemonic powers.

Long cycle theory, developed by the Polish political scientist George Modelski, is a way of explaining the relationship between economic and political supremacy, and cycles of great power conflict. It is predicated on the logic that the relative stability of the international order since 1945, a period the Historian John Lewis Gaddis termed ‘the long peace’, is maintained by the presence of the US as the global hegemon. But according to long cycle theory, this long peace is coming to an end.

Since the 1600’s each period of relative global peace has been maintained by the presence of a hegemonic power which on average lasts around 70-100 years. At the end of this period there is a process of delegitimisation and decline of the hegemonic power, followed by the rise of a challenger, and great power conflict. Thus, the next cycle begins, with another hegemon. According to Modelski, there have been five cycles since the 16th century. Portugal emerged as the hegemonic power in the 16th century proceeding the Indian oceanic wars from 1496-1516. After the Spanish-Dutch wars at the end of the 17th century, it was overtaken by the Netherlands which, in turn, was proceeded by the wars of Louis XIV and the emergence of the UK as hegemon in the 18th and 19th century. Then begins the more familiar story: World War 2 upsets the global order and the US takes its place as the hegemon after 1945 until today.

You will see why the prospect of great power conflict between the US and China has garnered such attention when it is viewed as the inevitable time bomb waiting at the end of this cycle. 76 years have passed since 1945, roughly the length of one cycle and the BBC predicts that China might overtake the US as the global economic power in 2028, five years earlier than previously thought, due to the global coronavirus pandemic. The question therefore becomes: What will happen when this transition of power takes place? Is conflict between the US and China inevitable at this point?

Much of the frantic media and military discourse has already shared predictions in line with long cycle theory. Just to name a notable few, Shi Jiangtao, writing in the South China morning post that ‘there is a growing risk of an unplanned confrontation as relations unravel at unprecedented speed’ whereas journalists writing in the left-leaning Guardian warn that the US and China are entering a ‘new cold war’. Christopher Layne, professor of foreign affairs at Texas A&M University predicts that war between the US and China ‘in the coming decades is not only possible but probable’, and an editorial in the New York Times suggested that with Biden in the white house, ‘China wants to lead a new world order’.

The US’s military strategy seems to echo these sentiments, with the 2020 US defense report regarding China stating that ‘the PRC’s (People’s Republic of China) national strategy and military aspirations will have serious implications for US national interests’. The way that China and the US relate to one another both in long cycle theory and in the wider discourse is framed as fundamentally antagonistic. The problem is that this kind of thinking is highly oversimplified, deterministic, and predicated upon an outdated and incomplete view of human nature.

Within long cycle theory war is not just probable, it is, in Modelski’s words a ‘natural product of the long cycle’ that is ‘part of the living processes of the global polity and social order’. The end of each cycle of hegemonic power, and the chaos and conflict that follow are represented as predetermined, a ‘systemic decision’. The glaring problem with this is that it denies any agency to geopolitical actors, or indeed to ourselves to stop this outcome. Following this reasoning, no changes in government, large scale protest, or new legislation will stand in the way of this dark prophecy, because the outcome is historically determined. It necessitates the logic that not only is agency absent from these cycles, but that none of the changes that occurred in-between cycles will have any effect on the outcome.

US and PRC delegation at the 2018 G20 Buenos Aires Summit

The rise of globalized capitalism, the advent of international law, and the proliferation of powerful non-state actors are simply not considered to be variables. Furthermore, long cycle theory is built upon outdated assumptions about human nature that seem untenable to many: The belief that humans, no matter their cultural and ethnic background are inherently selfish beings that, given the chance, will try to dominate others, and the only way to oppose being dominated is to dominate. It is an ideology that is predicated on paranoia and suspicion of the other because like us, they are only looking out for their own interests. Furthermore, if one opposes this mode of thinking, they are living in a dream world, unwilling to accept the inherent ugliness and reality of the world as it is today. Within this discourse, there is no alternative, and the possibility of hope that things could be different is represented as a dangerous illusion.

All of this makes it a highly flawed model, but that does not make its underlying assumptions any less attractive to political and military actors. By adhering to its structural determinism, the model absolves political leaders from any kind of responsibility to reduce the size of their military budget and act in accordance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaties signed after the cold war. Long cycle theory is the trump card in terms of realist military strategy that allows foreign policy hawks to claim innocence whilst spending vast amounts of money on amassing even greater militaries. ‘It isn’t our fault’, the standard defense goes, ‘we would love to reduce our nuclear stockpile, but the decision is simply out of our hands’. There is certainly irony in the idea that the kind of self proclaimed ruthless pragmatists that deny the historical determinism of Marx’ writing are more than happy to be caught up in a process that denies them a place in the driver’s seat of history.

We can expect this kind of ‘mine’s bigger than yours’-style nuclear posturing from states, but what is concerning is the degree to which the media seem to be complicit in the idea that great powers are fundamentally adversarial, and each of them will turn to violence at the drop of a hat. Knowingly or not, much of the media discourse has blithely accepted the pessimistic assumptions about human nature and an unshakable belief in historical determinism that theories like long cycle theory are built on.

It is neither that the US and China are or have the possibility to be inherently benevolent buddies, nor are they inherently adversarial. The point is that the nature of their relationship is produced through representations disseminated in the media that in turn affects perceptions of their relationship that serve to inform state actions. The representation on offer in 2021 is a casual acceptance of a zero-sum game that starves alternative explanations or solutions of oxygen. At its worst, this discourse takes away our ability to honestly evaluate the complex geopolitical polities of the US and China in all their imperfections and achievements, and turns the debate into an issue of us vs them, eat or be eaten. This is precisely because long cycle theory and the militarized discourse which supports it leaves no room for alternatives. Whether China or the US is viewed as the problem is of less importance, what matters is that from left to right the outcome of a transition of power is seen to pose an existential threat to peace.

Is this really the kind of discourse that should be reproduced? A point of view that sees the next human produced catastrophe as something not only likely, but inevitable, and outside of our control? The term ‘sleepwalking into war’ is often used in this context for a reason. It represents a mode of thinking that says we don’t yet know what the spark will be, nor exactly when it will come, but like an erratic drunk, it will only take one prod to begin the domino effect that leads to war. When an event takes place that causes tensions to rise between US and China, that causes grief and anger amongst their populations and nervousness among their leaders, long cycle theory and the discourse that tacitly supports it simply does not have the vocabulary to explain how states would intervene to de escalate tensions, redirect anger, and put creative human agency to work on finding a solution.

Related articles:

International Relations Theory: An Interview with Barry Buzan

The Tension of Action & Theory

Photo credits:

Lightning flashes over the South China Sea in front of USS Nimitz (CVN 68) by John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released, via Official U.S. Navy Page on Flickr, CC BY 2.0

US and PRC delegation at the 2018 G20 Buenos Aires Summit, by Dan Scavino, Public domain via Wikimedia Commons

The post Unnatural cycles of violence appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Anti-Asian: The patterns and cycle of racism

Rozarina Bakher — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 10:00:45 +0000

On March 16 2021, a lone gunman shot and killed eight people in Atlanta, the capital city of Georgia, USA. Among those killed were six women of Asian descent, raising suspicion of hate crime. Since then, the social media has been sharing and tweeting #StopAsianHate.

The attack has spiked fears in the Asian American community, which has been experiencing an increase in attacks and harassment since the coronavirus pandemic began. Former US President, Donald J. Trump has been cited as one of the instigators towards the increased attacks during his presidency by using terms such as “the Chinese virus” or “Kung Flu” as a moniker for the virus. Between March 19, 2020 to February 28, 2021, around 3,800 anti-Asian hate incidents were reported.

The tragedy has prompted me to open up about discrimination against Asians, in particular Asian women. As an Asian woman living in Scandinavia, I have had all kinds of “jokes” and casual racism remarks thrown at me; stereotypes, such as us all looking alike, working as nurses or housekeepers, running a nail salon and massage parlour, or that we are the trophy wives to elderly white men.

The objectification of Asian women

An article published by Forbes.com in June 2020, reported that Asian-American women are less likely to progress and advance into senior leadership. Due to their apparent success in education and in the corporate world, Asian-American women are subjected to higher pervasive discrimination when it comes to advancing into supervisory responsibilities. The article cited how Asian-American women find it difficult to advance the corporate ladder which is created by two competing sets of stereotypes. On the one hand, they are seen as intelligent and hardworking, however, on the other hand as modest and low in social skills. Which led to a dilemma whereby, if they behave submissively to be “quiet and nice” they are seen as Lotus Flower or China Doll, however, if they are to speak up to express ideas and opinions, they are then seen as the Dragon Ladies.

Where did all these references come from? Lo and behold, the pattern and cycle of objectification of Asian Women began with how Asian women are portrayed in films, especially in the Western movies. Hollywood and American media corporations have long contributed to the culture of paranoid xenophobia and presenting a mythological “Other” through two Hollywood archetypes of the submissive, delicate, and overly emotional China Doll, and the threatening, cold Dragon Lady, which were the popular media productions of binary representation of Asian women.

Bruce Lee from “Enter the Dragon”

Shortly after the shooting, ephemeral Twitter users were tweeting “no happy endings” to refer to a colloquial term for offering sexual release to a client at the end of a massage. The reference of “happy ending” massage has been associated with the hyper sexualization of Asian women. Asian women have long been reduced to dehumanizing stereotypes, whether meek and speechless or aggressively sexual robots whose only purpose seems to be servicing white men.

When it comes to racism, there is a pattern that follows the severity of an act, and that pattern is gender. Women were more than two times more likely to experience discrimination this past year, according to a Stop AAPI Hate report. Russell Jeung, professor of Asian American studies at San Francisco State University, told NBC Asian America that the coalescence of racism and sexism, including the stereotype that Asian women are meek and subservient, likely factors into this disparity. “There is an intersectional dynamic going on that others may perceive both Asians and women and Asian women as easier targets,” he said. It came to no surprise that Asian women reported more attacks, as their image has consistently been misrepresented in the mainstream media, making them vulnerable targets for racist violent behaviour and their lack of progression within the corporate ladder in white America.

Brief history of anti-Asian racism in the USA.

Xenophobia against the Asian Americans is not something new, in fact there is a long history of discrimination and racism towards the community. While they have been labelled as the “silent community” and used as a model minority, as the immigrants frequently seen as having successfully integrated themselves into western communities, Asian Americans have also long been considered a threat to a nation that historically promoted a whites-only immigration policy. In 1882, the Chinese Exclusion Act was enacted for the purpose of prohibiting all immigration of Chinese labourers. In the early 19th century a xenophobic propaganda by white nativists about Chinese uncleanliness circulated around the area of San Francisco, referring to them as a “yellow peril” and unfit of citizenship.

The Asian-Indian community was not spared the xenophobic propaganda. They were called “dusky peril” in the fear described as “Hindu hordes invading the state” and by 1917, the Asiatic Barred Zone Act was enacted which prohibited immigration from British India, most of Southeast Asia, The Pacific Island, and the Middle East. During World War 2, more than 120,000 Japanese American, many of whom US citizens, were sent to internment camps after the attack on Pearl Harbour.

In 1982, at the height of Japan’s powerful auto industry, a Chinese American, Vincent Chin, was beaten to death by two white males. They mistook him for Japanese, the attack came at a time when Americans were losing manufacturing jobs. Vincent’s death a few days before his wedding saw the mobilization of the Asian-Chinese community to fight for their civil rights.

Is there a pattern of violence in the USA towards the Asian community that seems to occur only when there is an economic crisis, and the privileges of white Americans are at risk?

Anti-Asian: The aftereffect of global pandemic?

Anti-Asian racism is not isolated to the USA. In Australia, where there is a large community of Asians, reports of increased anti-Asian racism since the pandemic continues. One of the sensationalized events was when two sisters of Asian descent living in Sydney suburbs, were spat on and verbally abused by an assailant who called them “Asian dogs”.

Australia too has had a long-racialized history with its Asian communities since the early gold-rush era that saw massive migration of Chinese workers into the continent. It adopted the White Australia Policy 1901, the purpose of which was to limit the immigration of Asians into the country and restrict the labour of the community to specific industries.

In Europe there has also been an increase of reported abuse and acts of violence towards Chinese and other Asian-looking individuals since the pandemic. In Sweden, a journalist of Korean descent, raised in the country, wrote about how, since the pandemic, people had begun to ask of her origin, or tried to avoid her in public transports.

The EU has been criticized for lacking to show the actual make-up of European societies. In the European Parliament, for example, people of colour make up only 3 percent of MEPs; they exist on the margins and have little possibility to challenge the established norms and values within EU institutions in any fundamental way.

There has always been a pattern of discrimination targeted at the Asian community: the pandemic has brought attention to the casual and subtle racism members of this multifaceted community have continued to suffer in silence. Does society at large have to allow for a tragedy to happen to react against anti-Asian racism and other forms of racism? Or can society proactively engage itself to change its behaviour and stop discrimination and racism altogether? There seems to be a pattern and cycle that clearly needs to be disrupted.

Perhaps only by promoting a greater Asian representation in the process of equality policy-making and changing the perceptions and portrayal of Asian men and women in the media and in society at large can the Anti-Asian phenomenon cease to exist for good.

Related articles:

Unheard South Solidarity: The Asian-African Conference

The Social Network of Ethnic Conflict

Photo credits:

#StopAsianHate Community Rally in San Jose by Jason Leung on Unsplash

Bruce Lee from “Enter the Dragon” by Lexinatrix (CC-BY-NC-ND-2.0)

The post Anti-Asian: The patterns and cycle of racism appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Battle of the Grandmasters

Franziska Fink — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:10:56 +0000

Whilst reading a newspaper, one will often stumble upon catchy headlines such as “What Is the End Game of US-China Competition?” (The Diplomat), “Russian lawmaker on US-China power game: Don’t play us ‘as a card’” (Nikkei Asia) or “Erdogan’s great game: The Turkish problem on the EU’s doorstep” (The Financial Times). Each of these examples makes use of a metaphor depicting politics as a game of some sort. Of course, those headings are phrased as enticing as possible to win the reader’s interest. But by the same token, they subtly (and, most likely, unintentionally) reveal a core feature of political theory and practice.

It is not by a whim of nature that state leaders, transnational corporations and even whole nations are repeatedly referred to as “players” within the discourse of global politics. There is even an entire political and economic theory which is built around the analogy of politics as a game, the classic game theory. Scholars of International Relations, for example, make frequent use of this theory to showcase how international conflict and other political phenomena occur as a result of decisions made by people.

This politics-as-a-game allegory is even further underpinned by one of the oldest and most successful games known to humankind. Chess, which used to be especially popular among the Shahs of Persia and has since enjoyed great renown as a sophisticated leisure time activity of known politicians and state-leaders (Napoleon, Queen Elisabeth II, Willy Brandt and Jimmy Carter to only name a few), is currently enjoying a revival even outside political circles (which, to be fair, might have to be accredited to the less sophisticated leisure time activity of us mortals watching The Queen’s Gambit on Netflix, an exceptionally well-made show that follows the life of an orphan chess prodigy, Elizabeth Harmon, during her quest to become the world’s greatest chess player).

Chess is often described as a battle-game, during which both players are attempting to beat their opponent by taking down the king. But the king is of course very well protected and in order to get him into a position from which he cannot flee anymore (to put him in checkmate), you need to move around your pieces on the board tactically and follow a thought-through strategy. It is important to think long-term and often it is an enduring, nerve-racking process during which many victims and losses will occur.

Basically, chess is a miniature version of world politics. This might explain its frequent use among journalists, since the usage of chess terminology is an easy yet helpful way of breaking down complex events into vivid game metaphors. This comes in especially handy when trying to make sense of geopolitical issues.

Even though the Cold War was officially frozen for good by 1991, a new tension between the East and West has become more and more visible. With the difference however, that the Soviet Union has now been replaced by the new warily observed opponent of the US: China. Since 2013, China has massively invested into the establishment and expansion of its intercontinental trade and infrastructure networks. Within the framework of the One Belt, One Road initiative (BRI), China is subtly yet determinedly reaching for a shift in the balance of power among the world’s political players in its own favour. What on the surface seems to be nothing more than an infrastructure project, is actually an immense use of soft power executed by the Chinese state.

To translate this into the world of chess: If the US hegemony was the black king on the chess board, even though still well-protected by its many pawns of economic and military superiority, the white army, China, would be bringing its figures in a seemingly innocent, yet threatening position …

One of the many “points of attack” of the BRI that China is working on can be found in Nicaragua. Through a country that is rather rarely mentioned in the major international headlines, China is building a canal with the purpose of connecting the Atlantic and the Pacific Ocean. This is neither a new nor a groundbreaking project, since it has already been realized in close proximity to Nicaragua. The Panama Canal has the exact same purpose and has furthermore already been in place since 1914. Why are the Chinese building another one, you ask? Remember: in chess, no unnecessary moves are made. They all have a purpose and follow a grand strategy. In this case, it is to pose a direct threat to the US which is a great ally of Panama. Together, the American and Panamanian marine are securing the Panama Canal. So even though the canal itself is an internationally neutral corridor, its passage depends on the benevolence of the US.

Of course, as an ambitiously ascending superpower, China does not put up with that and instead simply builds its own canal.

Yet, Central America is not the only arena where the two world powers are settling their disputes. China’s massive BRI investments in Africa, for example, have been given much more attention in the international press coverage. It is nevertheless crucial to maintain a global perspective, in order to keep track of all the moves the two grand masters are making during this enthralling game of East versus West.

Related articles:

A game of chess at the Greek-Turkish border

Between waters: the dilemma of the Nicaragua Canal

Photo credits:

Putin vs Obama by Svenn Sivertssen (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-76052-0335 by Ulrich Kohls (CC-BY-SA 3.0)

The post The Battle of the Grandmasters appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Clash of the Titans – Public Figures against the Tech Giants

Julia Kavanto — Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:17:53 +0000

President Donald Trump of the United States of America became the first president to achieve many things. He was the first US president to be impeached twice, and his administration was the first to declare that China was committing genocide on Uighurs, but now I am talking about Trump being the first world leader to be permanently suspended from Twitter.

Trump supporters stormed the halls of the United States Capitol on January 6th, and their agenda was to stop the inauguration of Joe Biden. Soon after the coup, Trump’s Twitter account was first suspended for twelve hours, and then for good, as he continued to violate the community rules of the platform.

Multiple social media platforms followed Twitter’s example and suspended Trump’s accounts. We are having this discussion because permanently suspending a person of authority is considered a threat to the freedom of speech. The concern is valid. The common social media platforms, especially Twitter, are crucial to the hectic politics of the modern world; it is there where the political debate is the most heated. So, is it right to suspend a political leader permanently?

What is freedom of speech? What is it not?

Freedom of speech essentially means that any individual should have the right to express their thoughts and feelings without fear of sanctions. The right is universal, so it applies to everyone regardless of status, race, religion et cetera. There is a limitation to it, though. Freedom of speech should not be exercised to harm. A very important question to this is that who decides when someone or something has been harmed. One would think that the person who is harmed decides if they have been harmed, but then there is the question of people who cannot reply or, for example, non-human entities like nature. Who decides for them?

Twitter decided for the people who were injured in the coup of Capitol. Five people died in the attack, and Twitter understood President Trump’s tweet on the 8th of January about not joining President Biden’s inauguration was an invitation for his supporters to be violent. Trump’s use of words was interpreted as violating the platform’s glorification of violence policy.

Yes, Twitter can decide, and they did right to protect American citizens from further acts of violence. However, this does not mean that there should not be a more democratic way to decide. The board of Twitter who presumably called the shot to suspend Trump’s account was not selected democratically, and should not, therefore, have the right to take away the freedom of expression, even from Donald Trump.

On the other hand…

The Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny travelled back to his home country from Berlin where he was treated after having been poisoned in August 2020. Navalny was immediately detained upon his arrival on the 17th of January, and he soon posted a video on Twitter where he urged his supporters to “take it to the streets” because of his jailing. The protests were unauthorized, but successful, as the demonstration was organized in 100 Russian cities and there were 40,000 participants only in Moscow.

It is no surprise, then, that someone got hurt in the protests; Navalny must have known that the riots were unauthorized and would be met with violence. Videos show how the police are dragging people and using batons relentlessly. For the western democrat, it seems obvious that Navalny, Putin’s arch-rival, would not be banned for social media. That would be a victory for tyranny. But essentially, Navalny and Trump used Twitter for the same: for rallying supporters to protest against the government. It can be that Navalny’s tweets were not seen “to incite violence”, as Trump’s tweets were, according to Twitter’s blog post on Trump’s suspension. That, though, is problematic, that there is no universal guideline to fall back on.

Of course, Trump was not banned solely because of the tweet to join him on the 6th, but also because of the countless times he posted fake news on the platform. A certain president of Russia would argue that Navalny has also posted fake news, as the opposition leader recently uploaded a video to Twitter exposing Putin’s palace of corruption. Putin denies that the palace is his or any of his close relatives. The media in the United States seems to have agreed that Trump often tweeted lies. The same could be said about the Russian media breaking the news of Navalny’s accusations, as Pravda and Russia Today repeat Putin denying that the palace is his. American media agrees that Trump posted lies, and Russian media that Navalny posted lies, but the reception is very different.

There needs to be a universal guideline for social media usage, which states when a person has crossed the line of what is accepted. The board of directors of tech giants should not be the ones who decide who has the right to be heard. There are many questions regarding the universal guideline for social media that I am suggesting, such as who should be trusted to tell the truth i.e. who says what is “fake news”. Russian media argues against Navalny’s allegations of Putin’s Palace, but the allegations are still not put down by Twitter as lies.

Navalny joined the suspension discussion

Navalny himself responded to the suspension of President Trump negatively by saying that it “is an unacceptable act of censorship”. He says that Twitter’s decision to suspend Trump is based on personal political views. Therefore it can be said that the decision was not democratic. But does it even have to be in a private company? I think so, as they carry so much power in the public speech arena where freedom of speech is exercised. It is a slippery slope that Twitter has entered, as with permanently suspending Trump they open the possibility to suspend other people who do not follow the prevailing ideology. Silencing people is too great a power for any company to have.

No matter how much I disagree with Trump’s views, he, too, has the right to be heard. Imagine if Navalny was suspended. How radically would the Western world react to silencing the one figure who is against the all-mighty Vladimir Putin? In a democratic world, everyone needs to be heard, regardless of views. In a democratic world, everyone is treated equally, and with the universal guideline of social media usage, the same rules would be applied to everyone, regardless of power they possess.

Related articles:

Delusive Donald

The Social Network of Ethnic Conflict

Photo credits:

Tech/Book Special NRC Handelsblad, by Jenna Arts, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Freedom of Speech, by Vladan Nikolic, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

The post The Clash of the Titans – Public Figures against the Tech Giants appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Vaccine Diplomacy Clouds Over Southeast Asia

Carl Widegrip Dominguez — Wed, 10 Feb 2021 20:10:06 +0000

On January 20th, Thailand’s government filed criminal charges against Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit, a 42-year old politician, for alleged violations of a draconian lèse-majesté law which protects the monarchy from insult or defamation. The offense carries harsh penalties of up to 15 years in prison.

What, then, did Mr. Thanathorn do to prompt such heavy-handed punishment?

Two days earlier, during a Facebook livestream, he expressed concerns over what he felt was an opaque procurement and distribution vaccination scheme laid forth by the Thai government. Additionally, he questioned why the British-Swedish pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca had granted exclusive local production rights of their proprietary COVID-19 vaccine to Siam BioScience, a biopharmaceutical lab wholly owned and managed by the Crown Property Bureau. The bureau itself is a quasi-governmental agency dedicated to managing the assets and property of King Maha Vajiralongkorn. Like all affairs of the Thai Royal family, the bureau and its subsidiaries remains bereft of public scrutiny.

For his indiscretion, the former political opposition leader now finds himself staring down a lengthy prison-sentence, which may be compounded further if he’s found guilty of multiple counts of lèse-majesté or of the notoriously vague Computer Crime Act.

Yet Thanathorn’s case is merely the tip of the iceberg in a region-wide struggle which pits public safety against political interests.

In what can only be described as vaccine diplomacy, governments around Southeast Asia appear to be favoring unmonitored bilateral relations for political support and economic gain over effective and affordable treatment for their citizens.

Beyond the gaffe between AstraZeneca and Thailand, Southeast Asian nations have struck a string of questionable trade deals on vaccine imports and production. That the vaccines have been commodified for negotiations does little to alleviate the woes of international supply shortages and a near-complete lack of local production capabilities in a time of dire need. Of all the major vaccines available on the market, the biggest player on the Southeast Asian negotiation table is China’s Sinovac Biotech Ltd.

Foreign interests and domestic oversights

The public concerns over inadequate transparency surrounding the vaccine rollouts in Thailand are not unique to the nation, but rather endemic of a larger trend of foreign appeasement present among all member states of the chief regional intergovernmental organisation Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).

Over the past decade, growing Chinese influence in the region combined with low levels of domestic accountability has created a precarious political climate.

Prior to the pandemic, China accounted for the largest single group of international visitors to Southeast Asia. This large presence provides a substantial source of tourism revenue, which certain areas are completely reliant upon. Moreover, China has poured in foreign direct investment into Chinese tourism hotspots such as Sihanoukville in southern Cambodia and Hat Yai in southern Thailand, and a myriad of large-scale joint infrastructure developments has been initiated as part of their Belt and Road Initiative, as well as multiple massive hydropower dam constructions on the Mekong River in Laos.

This asymmetric economic dependence is reflected both in political culture and foreign policy. The negative agricultural impact and environmental degradation stemming from the Mekong River projects have been tacitly accepted. China’s expansionist ambitions in the South China Sea are mostly quietly brushed aside. And when China comes knocking for a show of public support, the ASEAN members are usually happy to oblige them.

Nam Gnouang Dam on a tributary of the Nam Theun River in Laos.

So before many prominent vaccine manufacturers had even published reliable data from their late-stage clinical trials, many Southeast Asian nations had already decided to go with Sinovac as their premier choice.

Indonesia is one such example. After vocalizing early support, authorities signed an agreement with Sinovac as far back as August 25th, 2020—just two weeks after the launch of an Indonesian clinical trial—to import three million doses from China by January 2021 and to later initiate the localized production of at least 40 million additional doses via an Indonesian biopharmaceutical company.

First in line to receive the shot was Indonesian President Joko Widodo on January 13th. In a public display of cosy Indonesia-China relations, a broadly televised event showed President Widodo receiving the initial dose live, along with close-up shots of the Sinovac boxes.

The date is of note, too; two days earlier, on January 11th, Indonesia’s Food and Drug Authority reported their interim findings of the aforementioned clinical trial and claimed the vaccine was 65.3% effective, and was granted emergency use authorization. The next day, Brazil’s local production partner of Sinovac, Butantan, determined the general efficacy of the vaccine at just 50.4% in their late-stage clinical trial.

So while still technically fulfilling the vaccine guidelines set out by the World Health Organization of minimum 50% efficacy, one might expect such low figures to cast the televised publicity stunt into question, or cause some trepidation in the subsequent mass rollout. However, the Indonesian government proceeded with their plan unaltered, and health authorities defended the move citing an urgent need to protect its health workers.

Indonesia is not alone in this regard. Negotiations for the import of hundreds of millions of Sinovac vaccines in aggregate across Southeast Asia have already concluded. The Philippines committed themselves to 25 millions doses due for import in February, at allegedly dubious price mark-ups. Vietnam is primarily looking at importing the AstraZeneca vaccine, but is still in discussions regarding possible Sinovac additions. Malaysia, Singapore and Thailand each had millions of Sinovac doses slated for delivery, but all deals are currently on halt pending more clinical trial data from China after Brazil’s disappointing findings.

Laos and Myanmar, two of the region’s poorest nations, are both notable cases of vaccine diplomacy. Labelled “priority” recipients by China’s foreign minister Wang Yi, the two nations’ low bargaining power and weak international clout render them especially susceptible to foreign interests.

Laos is one of the few nations set to receive the Russian-made vaccine Sputnik V, but is concurrently in talks to supplement national rollout with Sinovac.

Local publication Myanmar Times reports that a multitude of behind-closed-doors bilateral talks between Myanmar’s Ambassador in Beijing and China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs resulted in an agreement to ship the Chinese vaccine to Myanmar by early 2021. In order to secure the deal, Wang Yi sought the support of Myanmar’s ruling military junta for the China-Myanmar Economic Corridor—a localized subsection of the larger Belt and Road Initiative.

The afflictions of politics

While negotiations for the right product at the right price occurs all over the world, Southeast Asia’s propensity for non-transparency in foreign affairs create distinctive issues. There are many economically impaired areas in the region without access to adequate healthcare and which lack a strong international voice to bring attention to any shortcomings of governance. Putting the lives and safety of these peoples and front-line workers at risk, to employ under-the-table dealings to cement diplomatic allegiances is unethical at best and possibly devastating at worst.

As mentioned at the start, not only does this secrecy create civil and legal issues for people who dare to ask the tough questions—as for Thanathorn Juangroongruangkit—but create far reaching public safety issues as well.

After being alerted of the legal charges the Thai government levied against Mr. Thanathorn, AstraZeneca may be showing signs of reconsidering their partnership with Siam BioScience, as a planned news conference on the authorization of the vaccine was abruptly cancelled on January 22nd. The fear of getting dragged into political hot waters may be an understandable disposition for AstraZeneca, but it also means that 50,000 doses that were scheduled to be administered in February might now be in jeopardy.

With the Sinovac rollout now also being temporarily suspended, uncertainty looms large over Thailand’s vaccination scheme. With a population of nearly 70 million, and with no available vaccines at the ready, more victims and economic hardships are sure to follow in the wake of callous vaccine diplomacy.

Related articles:

Unheard South Solidarity: The Asian-African Conference

One Belt, One Road – China’s Path to the West

Photo credits:

“Wat Pho. Bangkok.”, by Adaptor- Plug on flickr, CC BY-NC 2.0

“Nam Gnouang Dam (60MW), on a tributary of the Nam Theun River in Laos”, by Eric Baran, via WorldFish on flickr, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Vaccine Diplomacy Clouds Over Southeast Asia appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

A Vision for the World with Chinese Characteristics

Emilie Yung — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:20:46 +0000

When Xi Jinping, leader of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), began to speak of ‘the China dream’ in 2013, many were unsure as to what exactly this dream encompassed. Some understood it to be anything that comes to mind. Studying hard, working hard, doing something good for the country. The nationalist undertones were exactly what many thought to be the goal of the China Dream; to raise the popularity of the CCP amongst the broad population and strengthen nationalism whilst ensuring internal stability and political legitimacy. In other words, it was believed to be a ruse, a simple propaganda campaign to solidify the Communist Party’s power.

The rise of China

Since 1979 East Asia has experienced massive economic growth and the region has since become the core junction of the global economy. The international market and politics have now pivoted to East Asia increasing the tension between key actors; China, the United States, Japan, South Korea, North Korea and Taiwan. The region is ripe with territorial and maritime disputes, military arms’ races and concerns of North Korean activity, all factors that might punctuate the equilibrium. Especially noteworthy is that the rise of China has enabled them to challenge the US-led international order and position themselves as a force to be reckoned with. Not only does the rise of China’s economic and military power upset the global power balance, but leaves us with no choice other than to pay close attention to whatever political vision they bring forth for the world.

A unique hybrid

A main priority for the CCP is to maintain the rapid growth they have seen in the last decades. Continued growth will ensure domestic stability and broader geopolitical stability, making economic growth a prime object to fulfill in various aspects. It has long been argued by political scientists and Western scholars that sustained economic growth would eventually lead to political realization – and sustained economic growth, in fact, required the latter. So, for China to have kept their one-party rule system for so long, while developing their economy, has been quite surprising. For a long time, the United States’ policy towards China was to induce change, to give economic benefits to China with the belief that China would open their economy and allow for democratization. Despite such expectations, China has stayed on its own course, and has undertaken political and economic reform via bureaucratic means, reaping the benefits of democratization while simultaneously tightening its grip on the state-led economic model.

Hence, China has in fact become an authoritarian capitalist machine and “ha[s] created a unique hybrid: autocracy with democratic characteristics” (Ang, 2018, p. 39-40). China has utilized economic growth as a means of securing the legitimacy of the Communist Party while avoiding the luring possibility of political liberalization.

The Xi manoeuvre

In the obvious power vacuum created by the U.S. President Donald Trump after withdrawing from essential political goals such as the Paris Climate Agreement and the exit from the World Health Organization in one of the most trying times – you know, with the raging pandemic and all – China has been welcomed onto the world stage. The United States’ withdrawal from multilateral partnerships has left a wound to be tended to, one in which Xi Jinping has happily emerged as the new global protector. At the UN 75th Annual General Assembly, Xi Jinping presented the Chinese vision for the world. He pledged to strengthen multilateral cooperation, ensure global public health, and distribute Chinese-developed vaccines to the Global South. Covid-19 has shown itself to be the perfect opportunity for increased Chinese-led leadership, however, it is not the only seized opportunity. Global governance reform, continued globalization and the climate change challenges were important talking points and Xi Jinping seemed to desire to take up the mantle. In direct opposition to President Trump’s political vision of putting America first, China wishes to strengthen multilateralism and live up to their responsibility as a powerful nation underpinning their slogan “community with a shared future”. The China dream manifests, for Xi Jinping at least, as the global technological, military, cultural and economic power to be fully realized in 2049. It is the population’s ultimate reward for keeping the Chinese Communist Party in power.

The Chinese dream has caught on and the promise of a great future has allowed for certain political manoeuvres within the CCP. The term limit of two consecutive presidencies, put in place as a precaution by Deng Xiaopeng in 1982, was removed by the CCP in 2018 allowing Xi Jinping to rule until his death (allegedly with broad popular demand despite no evidence released on the matter), much like the infamous Mao Zedong – and the similarities do not end here. Xi Jinping has had his own political philosophy added to the constitution and with his position as president, head of the CCP, and head of the military, he may just be the most powerful political Chinese leader since Zedong’s rule – possibly even in the world.

A vision or a nightmare?

In Xi Jinping’s closing statement at the 75th Annual General Assembly, he praised values of freedom, democracy, peace and justice and encouraged to show support for a new international order built on such values. Despite the promising and intriguing nature of such a statement, not least in the light of a crumbling United States, let us not forget the authoritarian tendencies that operate within the political decision-making in China. The unique hybrid, that is China, can leave many confused with the true nature of Chinese rule and obscure present actions and future intentions. The China dream does certainly not apply to all peoples of the world. The arbitrary detainment of Uighurs (a religious minority living in the Xinjiang province) in internment camps where they are ‘schooled’ can only be seen as modern ethnic cleansing and so it seems that self-determination and acceptance of minorities are, as a matter of fact, not included in Xi’s vision. The words uttered at the General Assembly and the human rights’ abuses within Chinese borders are best described as paradoxical.

So, what is in fact the China dream and Xi’s vision for the future? It is not yet clear whether an expansionist agenda to safeguard internal rest and economic growth (that will undoubtedly stir up tension in the East Asian region) and the increasing human rights’ abuse led by the CCP will prevail or if China will commit itself to international cooperation, peace, tolerance and security above all else. The China dream’s ambiguity is evident and we may not know its true meaning until we face 2049. However, it cannot any longer be viewed as a ruse to legitimize the CCP’s power since global leadership is without a doubt pivoting to China. It seems only one person carries the answer and he is setting the tone for the global future. To that we should all pay close attention.

Image: 9-COP21_Xi Jinping, Presidente de China, by ConexiónCOP Agencia de noticias, CC BY 2.0

Related articles:

One Belt, One Road – China’s Path to the West

The “Boiling Pot” of Identities

The post A Vision for the World with Chinese Characteristics appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Don’t Read The News

Eje Brundin — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 18:00:39 +0000

This is a featured article from Pike & Hurricane’s partner magazine The Perspective of Lund University.

What is the state of the world today? Where have we been, where are we, and where are we going? Weapons of mass destruction, famine, climate crisis, asteroids hitting the earth, future pandemics, arms races, overcrowded refugee camps, super-volcanoes, fascism and alternative facts are only a few of the numerous problems that humanity faces. It can get overwhelming when trying to process all of this. However, the news tends to prioritize war over reality—when, in fact, humans are doing pretty well.

As a student of Peace and Conflict Studies at Lund University, I see patterns of polarization, violence, and the breakdown of states everywhere I look. Democracy is in global decline, rape is used as a weapon of war, nuclear arms deals are failing and social media is polarizing us into frightening bubbles of self-righteous, aggravating rhetoric. The problems are huge and complex, and affect people and families all over the world. Being hopeful is difficult, but let me help.

“Where cooperation has created death and destruction it is also the solution.”

When we see war and cruelty, there are deep patterns of cooperation that we tend to overlook. We read about war, murders, environmental degradation, and then think that human nature is greedy, selfish and cruel. However, when we say that the winners write the history books, we forget what made the writer a winner: human cooperation. You have a war? That is two or more sides, each one cooperating to win over the other. You have a nuclear bomb? It was created by scientists that cooperated through sharing knowledge. You have THE PERSPECTIVE in your hand? I am happy to say that we cooperated to get this delivered to you. Human cooperation is everywhere and we take it for granted. War and nuclear bombs are horrific things, but where cooperation has created death and destruction it is also the solution.

Cooperation is what makes humans unique. In the widely read novel Lord of the Flies by William Golding, the stranded boys slowly descend into chaos and are described to hold a beast-like quality in their human core. Rutger Bregman, a Dutch historian, found the real-life example of Lord of the Flies. It turns out six boys stranded on an island in Tonga constructively cooperated to survive for more than a year. One even broke a leg, and the others compensated to let their friend heal. Lord of the Flies is a good novel, but that’s all it is. In reality, we usually do better. We are the only species on the planet that can cooperate in large numbers with other unknown humans. This is an incredible advantage we have over other animals. Animals like wolves or monkeys can only cooperate in small numbers and not outside their circle or kin. Put ten million chimpanzees in Paris and you get chaos, but in the same space ten million humans manage to cooperate and co-exist. Human reality tends to lean toward cooperation and we see it in international politics, too.

Last year the United Nations celebrated 75 years of existence. It can be considered the pinnacle of human cooperation. It has served an instrumental role in creating peaceful international relations. States across the globe come together to discuss issues, to reach agreements and to ensure international peace. This inter-state organization has been an incredible success. Since its creation, there have been no superpower-wars. Let me say that again: there have been zero wars between superpowers while the United Nations has existed. This point might sound trivial, but oh, so important to make!

The existence of the United Nations is taken for granted today. According to Our World in Data, out of the world’s population in 2019, less than 8% is 65 years or older. This means that almost nobody alive today was of an age to witness and understand the creation of the United Nations. The pinnacle of human cooperation, to us, has always been there. Our standards of international relations and peace are very different than those who lived through the first and second World Wars. To put it into perspective, imagine instead what might have happened if there had been no United Nations at all during the Cold War. The UN has given the world the Laws of War and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and much more. Without it, wars today would be much worse than what they currently are.

This positive development is a slow and long-term one, but it is an important one. There is much data to support this worldview. Since 1945, global life expectancy has gone up, child mortality has gone down, hunger has decreased, access to electricity has gone up, democracies have increased, war deaths are decreasing, homicides are decreasing—I could go on and on. This has only been 75 years. If we instead look back 300 years, it is fair to say that humanity has progressed just fine. If you want to know more, look at all this data by yourself through Our World in Data.

Now, compare these hard facts to the news. Have you ever heard reporters say “Today 137,000 people escaped extreme poverty” every day for the last 25 years? The answer is no, despite this being a truth of global human development. Our human reality is a reality of positives and negatives merged into one world. You almost give up on humanity when you read the news, but that is because these slow, positive developments are not covered in popular media.

“Humans are not problem-oriented; we are solution-oriented.”

In exclusive correspondence with THE PERSPECTIVE, Dr. Steven Pinker, a cognitive psychologist, writes that “peace consists of nothing happening, which by definition is not news.” News media tend to follow the motto of “when it bleeds, it leads,” but reality is not a big pile of blood. To understand the world, you cannot only look at the news. When you look at countries at war, look at the countries at peace at the same time to get the whole picture. To be fair, the fact that the news media mainly covers problems and human suffering is a very constructive and cooperative act in and of itself as well. While being aware of the positive progress humans are making, you are also getting information about problems humans have to solve to improve human life even further.

Humans are not problem-oriented; we are solution-oriented. Dr. Pinker emphasized that by looking at data and seeing trends in the long-term, we can “muster the energy to reduce [war] further.” We learn from looking at what we did wrong in the past. We also learn by looking at what we are doing right, and it seems we have more to learn about what we’re doing right. It is difficult to process all the problems we face today, but it is because we are more aware and know more about all of our problems today. We are facing immense inequality, traumatizing wars and environmental crises. Alone, it can feel impossible to deal with it, understand it, and try to change it. Luckily, we are by nature experts at cooperating and in the last centuries we have (statistically) passed the challenge of progress with flying colors.

Featured image: Japanese Women Visit Lake Success, by United Nations Photo, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Don’t Read The News appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Eternal Putin

Maya Diekmann — Sun, 06 Dec 2020 18:33:49 +0000

How does one leave the Kremlin after nearly two decades in office? And can one leave it gracefully and even more importantly—perhaps—alive? Russia’s Vladimir Putin has little to learn from his predecessors. Of the nine de facto Russian leaders since Lenin, five died in office, two were more or less officially exiled and eradicated from the Russian political scene, one became one of “the most reviled men in Russia”, and the last one remains nothing but the drunk memory of Russia’s chaotic stumble into the 21st century. Putin, the founding father of post-Soviet Russia, surely has no interest in following in his immediate predecessors’ footsteps or becoming yet another Russian leader among many.

Till death do us part

Recent constitutional reforms in Russia, initiated by the president, have commentators pointing to the possibility that Putin might in fact be choosing the more popular mode of transportation out of the Kremlin—that is in a coffin. With the annulment of his presidential terms, Putin could seek reelection in 2024 and technically stay president until 2036, ensuring him a de facto presidency for life, given that the life expectancy in Russia averages 67.75 years for males—an age which Putin has already exceeded.

Putin’s legacy is withering away, unless he makes one of two decisive moves: Tightening his grip on power or—almost unimaginable—letting go.

But why go to such lengths of reforming an entire constitution to be re-elected president if playing a game of musical chairs with a designated side-kick, in Putin’s case Dmitry Medvedev, is just as effective? Unless, of course, the partner is increasingly weak and no longer suitable for the game, as Medvedev’s plummeting approval ratings after 2014, from which the former Prime Minister never managed to recover, indicate. Only after Medvedev resigned upon Putin’s proposition for constitutional changes, and Mikhail Mishustin assumed his position, have the approval ratings for the new Russian Prime Minister started to recover. Perhaps, Putin has found a new president-in-waiting in Mishustin. Though this still wouldn’t explain the constitutional reform.

More realistically, Putin may have realized that his own image might just never fully recover either, after the 2018 anti-government protests—least when the organizer of these protests and Putin’s main political opponent almost miraculously survives a “mysterious” attempted assassination. And only so many political opponents can end up poisoned before an explanation to the Russian people and the international community is inescapable. Approval ratings will unlikely ever reach those peaks of Putin’s early presidency and opposition is only likely to grow louder. In other words, Putin’s legacy is withering away, unless he makes one of two decisive moves: Tightening his grip on power or—almost unimaginable—letting go.

The last responder

If Putin does in fact want to be reelected in 2024, he needs to have sufficient support from the people of Russia, meaning he needs to stabilize his approval ratings. Those are in fact looking pretty stable—albeit not great—even if one accounts for a temporary corona-induced low. Yet, if he actually plans to retire, doing so with such mediocre ratings—a far cry from his heydays—would leave a bitter aftertaste for the man who has been ranked Russia’s second greatest leader after Stalin by the Russian people. Whenever and however Putin leaves the Kremlin, he will want to do so on a high note. Since Putin first assumed power he has only experienced two major crises in approval ratings—not counting the most recent one triggered by the Kremlin’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. The first were the large scale anti-government protests between 2011–2013, that were, among others, motivated by Putin’s decision to run for reelection. It was essentially Russia’s suspiciously successful performance at the Olympic Winter Games in Sochi—cue: the 2017 documentary “Icarus”—that propelled Putin’s ratings back up after these protests.

The second were the large-scale anti-corruption protests against the government between 2017–2018 and although not immediately linked to Putin’s reelection, these—once again—occurred in the year of the Russian presidential elections out of which Putin would emerge victorious. Unfortunately for him, there were no more major sports events scheduled in the near future that could prove handy to Putin’s agenda. If the Kremlin wants to keep an already strained Russian population under control for the next presidential election—or even just until then—they need to find a remedy for the dissatisfaction. And how better to please the opposition than to give them what they have been asking for ever since the President circumvented the constitution in 2012: a Russia without Putin.

A Piece of Eternity

Enter the constitutional reform. However near or far the amendments project the end of Putin’s reign, it does project it. It is almost a guarantee for no one like Putin to ever happen to Russia again. And Russia was thrilled about that: A sweeping 78 percent of Russians approved Putin’s suggested reforms, even in a time where the President’s popularity itself was scraping at a corona pandemic induced near all-time low, and even at the risk that Putin might in fact run for another term. At least the end is in sight.

“But Putin’s reform might just prove successful, regardless of future presidential terms or even approval ratings.”

Had the corona pandemic not happened, Russians might have even been thankful enough for their president offering his own head, to spare some more positive opinions towards him, too. Then Putin’s master plan might have worked out––he could have left with a bang or ridden his wave of approval a bit longer. But Putin’s reform might just prove successful, regardless of future presidential terms or even approval ratings. In the end, the reforms have gifted Putin with one thing: He has enshrined his legacy—his rediscovered Russian greatness—into the heart of the Russian state, while ensuring that no president after him will even come close to this legacy. And that itself is a piece of eternity for Putin.

Related Articles

Freedom in the Russian neighbourhood

The Grand Chessboard 2.0

Photo credits

Kremlin, Luigi Selmi, CC BY-SA 2.0

Chris Liverani, Unsplash

The post Eternal Putin appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.