Geocategories – Pike & Hurricane

The beauty of who we are

Eman Said Omran — Thu, 04 Nov 2021 10:49:49 +0000

If you have plans for exotic travel, then book a flight to South Asia, Pakistan, in particular. Once you arrive in Pakistan, prepare yourself for an interesting road trip on the famous Karakoram highway, where you will be surrounded by serene nature and breathtaking mountains all the way to the Gilgit Baltistan region. From Gilgit Baltistan, take a shorter ride to Hunza Valley, the land of apricot orchards, peaches, apples, mulberry, walnuts, and grapes. The land of glacial streams and forests of poplar trees. In Hunza Valley you will get to meet the famous Shukrat Bibi, the protector of Hunza cultural heritage and one of the guardians of its identity.

Ms Shukrat Bibi’s shop at Karimabad.
Photo credit: Eman Said Omran

Shukrat Bibi is an 86-year-old artisan who uses her needlework to preserve the cultural heritage of Hunza Valley. She owns a small shop in Karimabad, the capital of Hunza Valley. The shop looks like a safe cave made of rocks. At the shopfront, one can see colourful handmade products, decorated with exquisite embroidery hanging on the door. An enchanting sight that lures you into the shop where you will find many more treasures of meticulously handmade beautiful embroidery. Shukrat Bibi uses her magical needle to sew traditional dresses, handbags, colourful caps and festive accessories.

Ms Shukrat Bibi in front of her shop at Karimabad
Photo credit: Eman Said Omran

At the entrance of the shop, Shukrat Bibi sits with her needle in hand. Dressed in the traditional Hunza attire and wearing a colourful Hunza cap, she welcomes national and international visitors into her world. She has a warm and friendly demeanor, an air of serenity. Hanging on the wall behind her a newspaper article is displayed about her precious work. She sees the article as a sign of appreciation and acknowledgement that she is keeping her Hunza heritage alive and flourishing (The Express Tribune). Inside the shop, one sees the Presidential Pride of Performance Award, an award granted by the President to recognize people with “notable achievements in the field of art, science, literature, sports, and nursing”. Shukrat Bibi’s award clearly acknowledges Pakistan’s gratitude for her hard work in “keeping the delicate art of do sutti karhai (embroidery) alive in the region”.

The Presidential Pride of Performance Award, 1992.
Photo credit: Eman Said Omran

At the age of 10, Shukrat Bibi’s mother taught her the art of embroidery. Now, Shukrat Bibi at the age of 86 has passed her skills and talent to hundreds of women in Hunza. The skills which she has passed on to them have contributed to their financial independence and they have become members of her cavalry fighting to preserve Hunza culture. Shukrat Bibi takes great pride in her efforts to keep the culture of handmade embroidery of Hunza alive and hopes that her students will continue this tradition.

Nowadays, the world has become a village. Today, the exotic Hunza Valley is a famous touristic spot not only for Pakistanis but for international travellers alike. Visiting Hunza brings benefits not only for the travellers themselves lucky enough to see it but for the district itself and for Pakistan as a country. However, it is important that the Hunza Valley retains its identity and unique charm in this age of globalization. Hunza Valley is blessed to have inhabitants like Shukrat Bibi and all of her students. A talented group of women who love their culture and identity and are proud to share their timeless history in our modern, globalized world.

The post The beauty of who we are 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 Olympic Games Tokyo 2020(1): Can it change the way the Olympics Games are held in the future?

Rozarina Bakher — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:11:09 +0000

The coronavirus pandemic has seen many events either postponed or cancelled. The most globally known event by far would be the 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo which was originally scheduled from 22 July to 9 August.

The global sporting event is now rescheduled to be held from 23 July to 8 August 2021 instead, but will still retain the name as the Olympic Games Tokyo 2020. Despite general worry from the Japanese population on the pandemic and its aftereffects, The International Olympic Committee (IOC) has announced that there is no “Plan B” and that the games will go ahead as planned. Around 206 National Olympic Committees are scheduled to participate and approximately 11,091 athletes in various sporting games are expected to compete. The choice for the organizer to carry out this event is being met with declining support from the general population over renewed concern of a new strain of the coronavirus. Japan will only begin its vaccination program late February (as of the date of this article, Japan has begun local clinical trials with the Moderna vaccine in January). Many believe vaccination of its 127 million citizens is crucial for the game to take place. A massive $14 billion has been set aside by the government to roll out the vaccine before the games begin, despite growing uncertainty amongst a population which has a history of being deeply wary of vaccines.

A question remains, why is the Japanese government planning to go ahead with its plan to host these Olympic games amidst the threat of the pandemic?

Surely, a potential Plan B would be to cancel it all together? In the Olympics history, the games have been cancelled three times before, in 1916, 1940 and 1944. In fact in 1940, both the summer and winter Olympics were scheduled to take place in Japan but were cancelled due to WW2.

Too far gone

Hosting an Olympic is a big deal for any country, but it also carries huge financial implications. Going ahead with it is a way to recoup the investment that Japanese government and its public sponsors have spent on the games. Japan reportedly spent $75 million for the campaign to host the games and provided a $7.3 billion budget during its bidding in 2013. The coronavirus delay reportedly cost around $2.4 billion, and since then the Tokyo organizing committee has upped the outlays to $15.4 billion. It is now set to be the most expensive summer Olympics. So, the show must go on as the IOC depends on selling broadcasting rights and sponsorships which accounts for 90 percent of its revenue. Note, that this game could go ahead without the anticipated spectators that would bring additional income through ticket sales. It was reported that around 70 percent of tickets are reserved for buyers in Japan and sales are expected to be worth $800 million to local organizers. The remainder is reserved for overseas visitors, who may not be able to travel if the pandemic’s infection numbers continue to rise.

Postponing the game further would also jeopardize plans for the 2024 Olympic games to be held in Paris. A few reasons put forward by IOC President, Tomas Bach was that they simply cannot have overlapping games one after another, the next Olympic game scheduled, the Beijing Winter Olympics in February 2022, is only 6 months away, neither can the committee keep employing the 3,000 – 5,000 people for an indefinite time. If Tokyo Olympics 2020 does not go ahead this year, it could lead to the games taking place further along in 2024, Paris will be 2028 and LA in 2032.

The proud nation

Tokyo Governor, Yuriko Koike has a vision for Tokyo and is betting on Hong Kong’s losing appeal after Chinese crackdowns and Singapore becoming more expensive for investment, that Tokyo will win back some of its former glory as a regional hub for foreign companies in Asia. The Tokyo metropolitan government has launched marketing campaigns, particularly aimed at high-tech and fintech firms, and the Olympics are an excellent chance to highlight the city.

There is also a sense of pride in reliving the 1964 Tokyo Olympics in which Japan gained fame for showcasing to the world how the country recovered from the devastation of the WW2 less than two decades later and how it reformed from an aggressive empire-seeker to a model of peace and democracy. It still craves to showcase the glory of the ’64 successful event, and what better way to reclaim the fame than by hosting the very event that demonstrates the best of Japan and help the world celebrate as it turns the corner on the Covid-19 pandemic.

Forfeiting the games is not an option, as the world’s next global sporting event will be the Beijing Winter Olympics 2022. In the realm of Asian rivalry, this is one that Japan would not want to see itself losing. Japan was the 2nd largest economy after the US from 1968 to 2010, before losing the spot to China, and a few billion dollars to make the games happen may be a small price to pay for a chance at glory.

At this point, pulling off the Olympics is not just a matter of economic damage-control. It is a national project, a matter of honour and saving face from being seen as a nation of give-ins.

The Playbook

The IOC announced on February 3 that the game would take place and have issued the Tokyo Olympic playbooks meant to outline measures against Covid-19. Some of the actions-in-plan from the playbook which aims to keep participants and citizens of Japan safe are:

A vaccination will not be compulsory for those attending the games, although a negative test for Covid-19 is required four weeks leading up to the event and athletes will be tested every four days.
Those coming to the games will be asked to cheer by clapping instead of chanting or shouting.
Athletes, and those attending the games will not be permitted to visit tourist sites or travel on public transport.
A 14-day activity plan is to be submitted ahead by those attending.

In addition to the above, plans are in place to keep strict attendance numbers in the opening ceremony on July 23. Athletes cannot check into the Olympic Village more than five days before the opening and must leave two days after finishing their competition.

Despite all the measures in place, will it be enough to not turn the Olympic Games Tokyo into the “mother of all super-spreader events”?

Certainly, the Tokyo Olympics will be very different from what we are all used to in the past, with a stadium full of spectators cheering and waving their nations’ flag and will be without the grandeur of the opening and closing ceremonies. The IOC have stressed the focus is to host a sporting event without the extravagant hoopla that has become a part of the Olympics. For a while now, the Olympics have been known to cause economic strain to the country that hosts them. Some past examples: Athens spent $15 billion to host the 2004 Olympics, taxpayers in Athens will continue to be assessed annually until the debt is paid and most of the facilities built during the games remain empty. In a nearly similar example of another endemic, the 2016 Olympic in Brazil was affected due to the Zika virus. Extra accommodation was built for the expectation of tourists; however, the virus scares saw the decline in tourists expected during the Games.

While Tokyoites and the rest of the world are Covid-weary, and despite the budget to host the Games having risen, the IOC is still head-on strong to proceed with the Olympics 2020, even if it could mean less spectators and a potential loss in income. The Olympics history has showcased a few past examples as to how the games have caused economic strain to its host country and perhaps the Tokyo Olympic 2020 Games can serve as an inspiration for future Olympics Games and other countries to look for alternative, more cost effective and sustainable ways of hosting.

Note: All currency is in US$

Related articles:

A Volunteer’s View of the Rio Olympics

Photo credits:

Tokyo Tower Special Lightup by t-mizo (CC BY 2.0)

Tokyo Olympics 2020 by Danny Choo on Flickr (CC BY-NC-SA 2.0)

The post The Olympic Games Tokyo 2020(1): Can it change the way the Olympics Games are held in the future? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The #strajkkobiet phenomenon

Ioana Pavel — Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:11:08 +0000

The #strajkkobiet phenomenon in Poland is made up of two sides. The first can be grossly defined as the hundreds of thousands of women protesting and demanding unencumbered access to legal abortion, and the Government vehemently trying – and ultimately succeeding – to restrict this particular right. How is the phenomenon unfolding?

On October 22, 2020, Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal imposed a near-total ban on abortions. The ruling allows for abortions in cases of sexual assault, incest or when the mother’s life in danger, but bans it in cases of fetal abnormalities, whereas around 96% of abortions in Poland have taken place in cases of fetal abnormalities. The ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) has been pursuing an agenda of restricting abortions since the beginning of its mandate, and has promoted it as a campaign promise. Since February, the decision has taken effect.

Both sides use human rights rhetoric to justify their positions. Government rhetoric argues that a human life must be protected from the moment of conception until death, citing the right to life as well as the freedom of conscience and religion, as protected by the Polish Constitution. Meanwhile, the protesters speak of women’s sexual and reproductive rights, arguing that the ban will not prevent abortions, but merely force women to seek them illegally. Beyond the approximate 1,000 abortions carried out legally, women’s rights groups estimated that 200,000 polish women still seek abortions either illegally. Those who can afford it will seek an abortion abroad. Those who carry out illegal abortions and those who aid women in seeking out illegal abortions risk a sentence of imprisonment for up to three years. About a dozen convictions of this kind take place annually.

A key player on the Government’s team is the Catholic Church, which supports the ban wholeheartedly. In 2015, 92% of the population identified as Catholic and 61% said that religion has a very high or a high importance in their life. Whereas the state and the church are by law supposed to be independent from each other, a Reuters analysis shows that priests have been known to display election posters on parish property and talk about the elections during mass.

Meanwhile, a key player on the protesters’ side is the European Union, which nonetheless has no competence to impose law on reproductive rights. It does, however, take a stand on the issue. In a 2020 submission by the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, the Commissioner found that “since 2014 almost 4,000 Polish doctors have signed a “Declaration of Faith of Catholic doctors and medical students regarding human sexuality and fertility”, through which they expressed their commitment to following “divine law” in their professional work and to reject abortion, contraception and in vitro fertilisation.” Whereas a doctor who signs such a declaration must refer the patient to another practitioner, in practice, timely access to an abortion is severely and systematically hindered. According to the same submission, in some areas and in some hospitals, virtually all doctors have signed such a declaration and women are forced to seek an abortion illegally.

The same report found that sexual and reproductive health is further dampened by a 2017 decision that the emergency contraceptive pill would be made available only on prescription, as opposed to over-the-counter. However, prescriptions are delayed by doctors who refuse to sign them based on the same freedom of conscience and religion clause, the long wait or the cost for an appointment, and the fact that minors need a legal guardian to accompany them when making such an appointment.

In a press release on November 26, 2020, the European Parliament has spoken out against the ban, citing that women’s rights were being violated and their lives were put at risk. The EP had found that access to prenatal screening, which could find fetal abnormalities and result in a request for an abotion, was being restricted by doctors using the conscience clause. Meanwhile, Poland has announced that it plans to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention, wherein member States of the Council of Europe vow to “protect women against all forms of violence, and prevent, prosecute and eliminate violence against women and domestic violence”, on that grounds that the Convention imposes “a leftist ideology”. It is up to the same Constitutional Tribunal to review the Istanbul Convention and make a final decision.

Meanwhile, the #strajkkobiet phenomenon is not about a protest against one particular ruling by the Constitutional Tribunal. The phenomenon is about a system of oppression that pushed women to break the law in order to have access to the same rights that other European Union countries choose to protect. Women who do not have the means to go abroad for an abortion will end up getting an illegal one. The lucky ones will be under some kind of medical supervision. Those without that option will go for an at-home improvisation that will, in some cases, be fatal. The #strajkkobiet phenomenon is about a system of oppression that left women with no choice but to protest.

Related articles:

The legality of abortion

Photo credits:

The post The #strajkkobiet phenomenon 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.

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.

Nowhere to Stay Home

Maya Diekmann — Fri, 22 Jan 2021 19:03:56 +0000

It is a challenge to find positive side-effects that a deadly global pandemic may bring to the world. With so much uncertainty, pain, fear, exhaustion, and death immediately surrounding us every day, the silver linings are hard to spot. Often, these silver linings turn out to be temporary: Healthcare workers that reaped applause from the balconies of this world several short months ago, are now expected to treat the organizers of anti-lockdown demonstrations with the same means as someone who has, for the last ten months, tuned down their personal whims in favour of a safer and more effective pandemic response. Those states that once delivered personal protection items and financial aid to less well-equipped parts of the world, are now hoarding vaccine doses that don’t even exist yet. How can you see the opportunities that an economic crisis might bring for the implementation of a promising European Green New Deal, if you have just lost your job and don’t know how long you can provide dinner for your family? How can you see some of the most effective responses to homelessness in years, while simultaneously so many people around the globe are pushed to their existential minimum, to the brink of losing their own homes?

The ones who cannot stay home

Upon giving out their first lockdown orders, many European governments quickly realized that to stay home, one must have a home to begin with. In one of their most rapid homelessness policy executions in years, the UK’s government ordered for almost 15,000 persons without permanent shelter to be relocated to empty hotel rooms, student dorms, and vacant housing. Similar governmental projects have been undertaken in France, Australia, and the U.S. In Germany, where coherent nation-wide policies on homelessness solutions not just during the corona pandemic are sparse and slow, non-governmental organizations have taken the lead when it comes to organizing hotel rooms for persons in need.

The message conveyed by a response such as the U.K.’s makes apparent how far policies to combat homelessness, provided they are backed up with sufficient funding, can come. Yet, it is also obvious—and so it has been for years for those engaged with this issue—that one emergency response upon another is not enough to overcome the issue once and for all. The urgency with which the matter has been addressed during times of crisis needs to become a new normal, if homelessness is to be confronted successfully.

Addressing homelessness is as complex as the diversity of the problem’s root causes. Among the main factors that push people on the street are stagnant wages and unemployment, matched with a lack of affordable housing and healthcare, discrimination, domestic violence and family problems.

4 Million people in the EU are homeless, 700,000 people sleeping rough every night—a figure that has increased by 70% in the last ten years alone. The disproportionate development of housing prices and inflation rates on the one hand and minimum income on the other put more and more individuals inside the EU in precarious situations. Over the past 10 years, the EU consumer price index (CPI) has increased by about 15%—inflation that remains unmatched by the increase in minimum wages, averaging 4.4% in the same time span. On top of this, housing costs in major European cities are skyrocketing: Rent has increased by 35% in Barcelona between 2010 and 2018, by over 50% in Paris between 2004 and 2019, and by over 70% in Berlin between 2004 and 2016.

Housing is becoming an especially disproportionate burden for low-income earners: In 2018, over one third of those households at the risk of poverty in the EU spent 40% of their income on housing. This makes livelihoods extremely prone to economic hardships—such as unemployment, furlough, or short-time allowance. U.K. authorities are gloomily predicting that “as many as half a million households could be at risk of homelessness once the full economic impact of the coronavirus is realized.” In other words: Mix unaffordable housing with a weakened economy, as we see it in times of the corona pandemic, give it a good stir and you have the perfect potion for a very real crisis.

The case of Vancouver provides a tragic example of the damage such an explosive cocktail of unaffordable housing and stagnant income can cause. The cut of governmental support for housing in the 1980s kicked loose a wave of homelessness that even caused the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (UNCESCR) to urge the Canadian government to declare the situation a national emergency. Within three years, between 2002 and 2005 the number of those without shelter in the Vancouver area nearly doubled, from 1,121 to 2,174. While the growth has been significantly slowed down since 2005, the trend has not yet been reversed and the most recent count in 2019 marked a peak of 2,223 people living on the streets of Vancouver.

In Canada, emergency responses, such as overnight shelters, have long been at the centre of homelessness management. While indispensable to addressing the issue, they are no sustainable solution to combat it in the long run. Unconditional access to permanent housing, known as the Housing First approach, has been identified as a key contributor to improve the situation of homeless people and communities in Vancouver. The Vancouver at Home (VAH) study, investigating a Housing First trial among homeless adults suffering from mental illnesses, has found that Housing First as compared to standard responses “produce significant benefits for participants, improve public safety and reduce the use of crisis and emergency resources.”

The City that Never Sleeps Rough

Similarly positive attitudes toward a readily accessible housing market are reflected by organizations around the world who stress that those provided with permanent shelter are more likely to seek help in other areas of their lives, too. One of the flag store implementations of the Housing First approach can be found in Finland: by investing over 250 million euros into affordable housing and support workers, the Finnish state, together with regional and non-governmental actors, has one of the most successful homelessness response mechanisms and prevention systems in the world. As a result, Finland is the only EU member state in which numbers of homeless are decreasing, with its capital Helsinki having virtually eradicated rough-sleeping.

While there are multiple success stories of individual cities’ and regions’ approach to homelessness—such as that of Trieste in Italy tackling homelessness by improving its mental health care system—the only lastingly effective approach is a systematic one. Only with common standards within a given state, or even beyond, can homelessness be eradicated once and for all. And what better way to create common standards than through common institutions? In a resolution from November 2020, the European Parliament urges the EU and its member states to end homelessness by 2030. While a detailed agenda is yet to be published, the Parliament recommends better access of homeless individuals to the labour market and healthcare, and a shift of focus from emergency responses to Housing First and prevention mechanisms. Concerning the latter, they recognize the pressing problem of unaffordable housing in European cities and announce a proposal to guarantee more inclusive housing markets. It might be just another policy proposal. But at least it is the long-overdue first step towards solving a problem that has been invisible, yet ever present on the horizon, for so many years.

In the summer of 2020, Barcelona cracked down on companies owning vacant apartments in the city by implementing a law that would allow the city to buy empty apartments at 50% of market values. In an unprecedented effort to create affordable housing, local authorities presented companies with an ultimatum of either renting out available apartments within a month or be subjected to compulsory sales at the described conditions. Paris, where as of 2017 over 26% of apartments are vacant, is imposing harsh fines on apartment owners breaking rules for Airbnb rentals, which “encourage property speculation and reduce the housing available to residents.” Berlin has implemented a temporary rent freeze for the year of 2021 and a permanent rent cap that regulates the allowed increase in rent in the following period.

The author Jonathan Safran Foer once wrote: “It’s always possible to wake someone from sleep, but no amount of noise will wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.” The pandemic has unleashed a crisis on so many different levels, producing so much noise that it becomes difficult to decide which problem to focus on first: healthcare professionals—to mention just those essential workers most immediately linked to the question of life and death—are ridiculously underpaid and undervalued, yet they remain equally taken for granted. Shutting down an entire economy, or at least having it run on low power mode to unburden healthcare workers, threatens the livelihoods of small businesses and their owners while feeding into the hands of enterprises. Limiting children’s right to education—while absolutely necessary when classrooms become a turnstile for a deadly virus—bears and exacerbates immense inequalities in opportunity. Living in a city and losing one’s job in the middle of all this very easily becomes an eviction notice. But all this noise, as overbearing as it might be, has also opened many eyes. We have to keep treating the invisible crises that the COVID-19 pandemic has brought to light with the urgency they deserve. We have to make sure that people can stay home. We must not go back to sleep.

Related articles:

Such a big world and still not enough space to live?

Photo credits:

By The Humantra on Unsplash

“On the scrapheap”, by Jon Berkeley on behance, CC BY-NC 4.0

“Balconies”, by unitednations on Unsplash

The post Nowhere to Stay Home 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.

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.

An Ideology of Selfishness — How Misinformation Propagates Inequality

Filip Zahariev — Mon, 02 Nov 2020 15:26:39 +0000

Since the 2010s, a sharp uptake in the levels of misinformation can be observed, in the push for so-called austerity, in the war on facts, in the bold attempts of different socio-political organizations to exchange fact for opinion.

The mechanisms of propaganda have mastered their most powerful array of tools yet––social media. That’s not to say misinformation hasn’t gone hand in hand with print media; it has walked hand in hand with factual information, since as long ago as the fifteenth century, when the printing press took off. In the intervening centuries, human society has, collectively, found ways to combat misinformation through methods of verification which, the hope was, the Internet would make foolproof. But rather than provide a higher standard, the rise of the Internet (and of social media, in particular) has seen the decline of hard journalism along with the printed press.

Nowadays, criticism is systematically dismissed as “fake news”––if not outright silenced––, no matter the source or topic it is aimed at. It would be easy to pin the blame on a name or on a score of them. Easy but misguided. The Trumps and Bolsaneros of the world are a symptom of an economic system at odds with itself, much like the ouroboros swallowing its own tail, at once hungry and suffering from agonising convulsions.

Marilynne Robinson, in a piece for the NYRB in June, “What Kind of Country Do We Want?” described this economic system as:

“…the snare in which humanity has been caught––great industry and commerce in service to great markets, with ethical restraint and respect for the distinctiveness of cultures…having fallen away in eager deference to profitability.This is not new, except for the way an unembarrassed opportunism has been enshrined among the laws of nature and has flourished destructively in the near absence of resistance or criticism.”

This is, Robinson writes, a “system now revealed as a tenuous set of arrangements that have been highly profitable for some people but gravely damaging to the world”. And not just the world––growing economic inequality is as high as it has ever been.

Inequality – A Cancer Eating Away at Society

Inequality affects “more than 70% of the global population,” according to a UN report, but nowhere is it more jarring, more on focus than in the richest, most powerful and prestigious countries in the world. To this end, it’s time to turn the reader’s attention to several recent developments, first in the USA and then in the UK.

Robinson describes the USA as “having been overtaken with a deep and general conviction of scarcity, a conviction that has become an expectation, then a kind of discipline, even an ethic. The sense of scarcity instantiates itself. It reinforces an anxiety that makes scarcity feel real and encroaching, and generosity, even investment, an imprudent risk.”

It is this sense of scarcity that drives society towards polarization, which Robinson in turn characterizes as “a virtual institutionalization in America of the ancient practice of denying working people the real or potential value of their work.” This institution couldn’t work without popular support. It is here that the mechanisms of branding––dare we call it by its non-politically correct name, propaganda?––enter into the scene. With them come their main beneficiaries, would-be demagogues whose interest lies in reinforcing the status quo.

Through the benefits of unified branding, large swathes of the population are persuaded to vote against their own interests. This branding rarely has a basis in fact, as is the case with perceptions of economic competence in the USA, for example. Every Republican administration from Reagan onward has overseen a recession, and every Democratic administration has overseen a strong recovery and an economic boom. Do Americans trust Democrats more to do a good job with the economy? On the contrary: the GOP enjoys a durable advantage, recently at eight points. The pandemic may agitate sentiments and approval numbers, but even in the chaotic era of President Trump, Americans irrationally trust in the GOP’s longstanding image as the party of practical, “fiscally conservative” businessmen who know how to run things efficiently and profitably. (Joseph O’Neill, “Brand New Dems?” for the NYRB)

This is no small feat of misinformation, but a wilful spread of what is equivalent to a mass delusion over decades. So, too, with migration; despite migrants performing jobs the vast majority of Americans do not want, their contribution to society is denied.

A Universal Problem

This is not a uniquely American issue, though the USA is perhaps the most extreme example––and the richest country in the world. If we turn to the UK, much the same can be seen, both in terms of a push for austerity and in the divorce from facts. For a decade now, British austerity has gutted the NHS (National Health Service)––in a time of a pandemic, the fault lines of this act couldn’t be more pronounced.

The “Leave” campaign was successful on the grounds of false claims, as well as racism and a perceived economic victimhood of the English (more so than any other group) at the hands of migrants. At the UK’s great economic loss over membership taxes to the EU, as well. Why is it, then, that British farmers were faced with the possibility of their harvest rotting, unpicked, on trees? This is an issue exacerbated by the coronavirus, certainly, but with its roots in the Eastern European migrant labour force that so offended English sensibilities, despite performing a job that no Britons are interested in.

And in February, Business Insider estimated that by the end of 2020, the British government will have spent £200 billion to leave the UK, more than all its payments to the Union over forty-seven years of membership. One cannot help but wonder what these funds might’ve accomplished, were they aimed at reducing economic inequality within the UK, rather than spent on a divorce bill.

What becomes clear through these examples––and many more like them––is that the drive towards ever greater profitability at the core of our economic system is not only flawed, it is a pandemic more deadly, more divisive than COVID-19 could ever be. Its tools seek to propagate an ideology of selfishness. And it is easy to drink its bitter message in. What’s required is only passive consent, a wilful lethargy, an unwillingness to look away from the screen.

Or… a different choice can be made. We can examine humanity through a prism not of its greed or rugged individualism, but through an outrage for the injustices embedded in our society, and most of all, through a shared human experience and selflessness.

Related articles:

A Stark Case of Propaganda

The Social Network of Ethnic Conflict

Photo credits:

Astroturf by hanne jatho, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

INEQUALITY by Teeraphat Kansomngam, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Paul Harrop / Poster site, New Bridge Road, Newcastle / CC BY-SA 2.0

The post An Ideology of Selfishness — How Misinformation Propagates Inequality appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.