Trump – Pike & Hurricane

Nambia: Is the “i” silent in “dplomatc relatons”?

Nina Kolarzik — Mon, 06 Jan 2020 19:46:27 +0000

Two years ago, the president of the United States of America managed to give debates on his competence and capacity for remembering new fuel. At a meeting of the United Nations, when he spoke to African leaders, Trump was referring twice to the country “Nambia”, praising its increasingly self-sufficient health system. The world wide web quickly picked up on it since no-one knew about a country with such a name. While Zambia, Namibia and Gambia are real countries, some rumours suggested that the US president was simply inventing a new country. In an official transcript that was published later by the White House although, the error was corrected and it became clear that the Trump was referring to Namibia, which he mispronounced. Twice.

Next to criticism specifically in regards to the US president and his lack of knowledge or interest in a whole continent, this incident also raised questions about dependency relations that are often inherent in developmental assistance aid.

A critical case of foreign aid

One would expect a wide outrage as a reaction to such an ignorant mistake on a high diplomatic level. Imagine the reaction if the Namibian president Hage Geingob was calling Trump the president of the “United States of Amrica”. But on the official level no outrage followed. Geingob, who was present during the speech, showed no reaction. While this could be due to diplomatic protocol, it is also suggested that it was for the sake of good relations between Namibia and the US. For the latter speaks, that also in the following the Namibian government did not respond to it and the issue of “Nambia” was remarkably absent from the conventional Namibian media.

Developed and developing: unequal relations in foreign aid

Let’s use this case as a reason to look into the unequal relations that can be inherent in foreign aid, or official development assistance (ODA) as it is often called. Bilateral ODA (means through states or their agencies) is the most common aid flow. There is a wide range of scepticism when it comes to foreign aid regarding efficiency, conditionality or distribution and the global aid system is criticised as in-transparent, corrupt, in need of reforms and even as a new version of colonialism and imperialism. One major critic is written by Dambisa Moyo in her book Dead Aid.

One critical point is the intention behind ODA. Is it primarily intended to benefit the receivers or the donors? The motivation is often oriented towards the economic, political and strategic objectives of the donors and it becomes problematic latest when additional problems for the receiver emerge. Of course it is hard to see the true motivation and to differentiate between developmental and non-developmental reasons, official statements and truth. Roger C. Riddell, author of Does Foreign Aid Really Work?, compares ODA with a Trojan Horse. Common knowledge tells us that nothing is given without costs but that for the things we seemingly get for free, we often have to pay a high price in the end.

The United States: the helping hand to the world?

In context to the mentioned relation between Namibia and the US agency USAID, it is time to talk about the creation of dependency. Power inequalities in the global aid system come into being due to economic and political structures that are created to keep the poor receiver countries poor and give the donors power over them. One example to visualize this is trade. While on one hand developing countries are demanded to bring about market liberation, OECD countries on the other hand have tariff barriers to block free market access and protect their economies. This serves donors own trade interest.

Their domestic markets are increasingly mature and suffer from under-consumption, therefore they search for markets overseas. In less developed countries there is more consumption potential that only waits for more spending power. Aid provision serves here to increase the ability to consume. Dependency structures are built even more clearly when it comes to so-called tied aid, for example when it comes with the condition to consume goods and services from the donors. It makes the receivers not only dependent, but also increases costs instead of empowering the local market. These structures aim at preserving the status, wealth and power of the donor countries.

In the emerging discussion of China as an increasing donor of ODA in African countries and a future competition about access to natural resources between Chinese and Western interests, the discussions around ODA gain new relevance.

At the moment, the US is still the biggest bilateral donor. According to its state agency USAID, the twofold purpose of its ODA is “furthering America’s interests while improving lives in the developing world”. On its website, USAID stresses that self-reliance and improving the capabilities for the partners to develop themselves are the key objectives. The aid is linked to security, to the creation of democratic, stable societies and expanding the US export market. With that, USAID is part of the US foreign policy and puts its own interest first. America first. When USAID head Mark Green compares the agency to the Chinese approach it is highlighted that China is building dependencies.

But is the US ODA itself free from dependency structures? Fact is that Namibia was in its fight against HIV/AIDS greatly supported by US aid, thanks to the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) that was established with Bush and is set to continue with Trump. The question cannot be answered in this article, since the factors mentioned here are only few of all the relevant ones, but the facts are enough of a reason to raise the the question.

#Nambia

The purpose of this article is not to say there are no altruistic, humanitarian reasons, no empathy and morality. But the potential of aid is bigger then its real effect, since US ODA for example is structured in a way that helps only as long as it is beneficial for the US interests. This can end in politicians of small countries like Namibia not speaking up against the US president, as we have seen.

You could say that state leaders are also just humans and make mistake. That implies although, that they are to be corrected, as everyone else. Since Trump’s administration showed more interest in battling half of the world instead of caring about the international relations to African nations, people were not much surprised by the incident. The citizens of Namibia reacted with both anger and humor, making the best out of a situation, that put their country for once into the spotlight. They now use the hashtag #Nambia to promote their own country.

by Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

“USAID Relief supplies arrive in Port au Prince”, USAID_IMAGES, CC BY-SA 2.0

“#USAIDTransforms_1600x800_Quote-White_Pictograms_6”, USAID_IMAGES, CC BY-NC 2.0

“NaBo11_d60_2834a”, jerryoldenettel, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

The post Nambia: Is the “i” silent in “dplomatc relatons”? appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Fashion, Trump and Other Stories

Ana Carvalho — Mon, 31 Dec 2018 19:15:50 +0000

Fashion is often undermined and labeled superficial, concepts such as trends and style are considered temporal and inconsequential. But if clothes transmit a message, shouldn’t they be as important as words? In that case what kind of messages are we buying? And what kind of messages are we transmitting?

We often hear: “Don’t judge a book by its cover.” Indeed, there is a lot more that can be said by reading it rather than by only looking at it. Nevertheless, excluding the importance of the outside appearance would be a mistake.

Everyday we wake up and prepare ourselves to go out in the world. This decision might be conscious or unconscious, but a decision nonetheless. Occasions and people are carefully considered in order to obtain the perfect outfit. A blazer means professional, red sensual or confident and even those Sunday lazy pants, that we are all so embarrassed about, are telling others something: we couldn’t care less.

Fashion is often undermined and labeled superficial, concepts such as trends and style are considered temporal and inconsequential. But if clothes transmit a message shouldn’t they be as important as words? In that case what kind of messages are we buying? And what kind of messages are we transmitting?

Thinking of fashion as an act of language, we can analyze the process of dressing oneself as a discourse and as a performance. As if the act of using clothes is indivisibly telling and being. Each moment is a different play where we choose who we want to be and what we want to say, just by the way we dress. For instance, a knight wouldn’t be a knight without his shiny iron armour and pointy, lethal sword.

Susanna Schrobsdorf pondered Hillary Clinton’s clothing choice : ”You can trace her rise and fall in white pantsuits. She wore white to accept the Democratic nomination, at her last debate and then, finally, at the Inauguration of Donald Trump, where it was anything but the white of surrender”––the conscious use of a contrasting colour in a, usually, “all-dark-suit” environment portraits Hillary as daring and brave, poised and calm. However the story behind the outfit is not only about who’s wearing it or the combinations of elements and colours but, also about how the combination of the entity and the outfit are interacting with the surrounding environment.

This means that, especially in a political environment, fashion discourses can also be manipulated and altered to the benefit or detriment of an idea or of someone. An example of this is the research done by Cambridge Analytica during Trump’s presidential campaign. People buy clothes which they identify themselves with. So through algorithms on social media, based on fashion and music preferences, a personality estimation chart was made. Wrangler, Hollister and Lee buyers were linked to low levels of openness and mistrust and, therefore, easier to engage with pro-Trump advertisement. They were, then, targeted and bombarded with such. In the end “customers and voters are the same”, either wearing a specific brand or voting for someone, they are buying into the same (identification) message.

The president of the United States wasn’t the first to use fashion as a resource of power. Long before him, Louis XIV gave France the fashionable image by which is still known today. While before, Spain had been the European hegemon, the king of France took that place investing in art, theater, music, innovation and fashion, role that he legitimized around the court of Versaille. About 3,000 to 10,000 people were present at the palace everyday, including nobles and artists from all over the world, both eager to know the latest trends as well as be part of the class of influencers, which made them perfect foreign affairs audience.

Le Roi Soleil was indeed the first to introduce fashion templates portraying the ridiculously lavish noble attire, crafted with silk, velvet, pearls, ruffles and vivid colours. Attires and accessories would change according to season and to the occasion, which meant that in the same day a noble would have changed a minimum of four times. Even the act of dressing and undressing the king was ritualized as symbol of status and power. Fashion journalist Alexander Fury stated: “His courtiers spent so much time dolling themselves up, chasing after the rights to wear red heels and remove the king’s chemise at night, that they couldn’t think about overthrowing him”

By showcasing Versailles as the cultural European centre, Louis XIV re-enforced and spread the discourse of a new and glorified French identity, nationally and internationally.

Another example of enhancing political power through fashion is set by Queen Victoria during her reign. The strict moral values of the time were a blueprint of every outfit composed of tight corsets, high turtle necks and long sleeves. Due to the queen’s grief for the loss of prince Albert, even the mourning period had a dress code, especially strict for the women, composed of first mourning, up until one year of being a widow, second mourning (nine months) and third mourning which lasted three months. The fashion was black and progressively more adorned and by the end of the two years women could follow a more fashionable model of dress in mauve, white or gray. In the case of not following the convention, the widow would be socially shunned. Soon enough the whole world was dressed in mourning with the Queen.

Since the beginning of times human beings have used adornments and markings on their bodies both to differentiate and identify themselves. We could go as far as the cave man’s age and argument on someone’s wealth and status based on which kind of fur they would use. Clothes, even though ordinary, or maybe because of that, play an extremely important role in the way we see ourselves and in the way others see us.

In the end, no matter the period, fashion will always be bias. So we might want to ask: What kind of message am I wearing today?

by Ana Carvalho

Photo Credits:

Fashions in hair, 1788 – The Academie de Coiffure, Paris

Pussy Riot (video – make America great again) – in The 405

The post Fashion, Trump and Other Stories appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Lost in Translation

Nina Kolarzik — Sun, 07 Oct 2018 15:57:42 +0000

Walking through Malmö, you can hear a mix of different languages. The same counts for international congresses, parliaments, round tables, etc. Did you ever think about the information you miss out on because you do not understand the people’s native language. Of course there is the possibility of translation, but what if information and meaning gets lost on the way?

Lost in Translation – What does “I am Groot” mean?

Imagine you live in a country with a centuries-old arch enemy as your neighbour. There exists no open conflict, but they are not far away from that. Then, at a conference, diplomats exchange some highly sensitive sentences. It is a fine line to walk on because they want to appear strong, but not aggressive. The problem is that depending on the context, different translations exist for most words.

Thus, to a certain extent, there is always an interpretation that comes with the translation. What can happen is that one diplomat hears from his interpreter a translation, where a critique sounds more like an insult, intentionally or not. And suddenly the two countries are at war.

It sounds like an over-exaggerated script of a bad movie, but I can imagine it becoming reality. It shows the responsibility and power of translation. We all know of examples in the political history of the world, where few words had a significant impact. If you nail it down, words are the essence of politics. And since international politics takes place in dozens of different languages, one may wonder how much the differences between those languages matter. Some words cannot be exactly translated into other languages. Some meanings might be slightly different. Sometimes the translator might not understand the exact intention of the speaker.

Unnoticed, but Decisive

Because we all are simple human beings, mistakes may happen when translating. And just as a snowball can become an avalanche, one incorrect translation or transcription could make a big difference. For example, some historians argue that the slight changes Bismarck made when he gave the Ems Dispatch to the press were responsible for the outbreak of the Franco-Prussian War.

Usually, the translators and interpreters who work in high positions of politics are not really visible. Their work happens during and in between an international discussion or negotiation. Their task is to enable negotiations and not to record them. The task of translators and interpreters in government services is to equip diplomats with the ability to communicate, negotiate, as well as pass on information to all parts of the world. As an outsider you do not notice the huge significance their job has. But the significance is undeniable since in today’s world politics people with hundreds of different native tongues come together to communicate.

The difference between a translator and an interpreter in this context is, that a translator works with documents that they translate after they are produced, while an interpreter translates simultaneously during a negotiation, so that participants can follow a debate in real time.

Putin, Trump and the third person in the room

It was a politically remarkable meeting of the Presidents Putin and Trump in Helsinki in July this year. It was an unusual situation, that the two state leaders met for more than two hours without anyone else in the room. Usually, when there is a meeting on this level of importance, with this special relationship, there are always some other persons present: aides and official note takers, etc. This time, there were only the two state leaders and their translators in the room, which puts public attention and a level of importance on the translators that they may not have experienced before and triggered some debate about the value, responsibility and right of information.

Since Trump is not exactly known for giving out trustworthy information, many American politicians see the only chance to get reliable insights on what happened in the meeting in the US interpreter Marina Gross . US Congressionals requested her to testify concerning what the two state leaders were really talking about for hours. That caused a loud outcry and fierce debate about what the duties and the rights of translators are.

Tinker Tailor Translator Spy?

The whole community of translators and interpreters got worried about their status as an apolitical “extension of the principal”; somebody who is just there to give the possibility for the politicians to speak to each other as they would if they spoke the same language. Humaira Peroz, an International Relations student of MAU and UF Head Program Coordination, who works as a translator for Språkservice and Tolkresurs, explains the ethical code of the Swedish Kammarkollegiet she has to follow: “We basically have no individual presence during our working hours and are supposed to be a “tool” with no human reaction or emotions”. This ethical code includes that translators are: “‘bound by the strictest secrecy” when they are hired on a high political level, “which must be observed towards all persons and with regards to all information disclosed in the course of the practice of the profession at any gathering not open to the public’” (article 2 of the International Association of Conference Interpreters (AIIC) Code of Professional Ethics for interpreters in diplomatic roles). They compare themselves to doctors or priests, who also vow to treat the information they receive confidentially. Some call them “James Bonds of the linguistic world” to show their secretive importance.

If Marina Gross testifies it could be used as a precedence and no statesmen would ever use an interpreter at that level again, when they know that the confidential information they are dealing with could be revealed. That is what Republicans argue for. It is feared, that diplomacy in itself would be threatened. However, Democrats point out that the public has the right to know, what the meeting was truly about. So far the state department and the justice department protected translators in legal cases from having to testify. But it has also never happened before that in such a meeting no official note-taker was present which makes the situation new and difficult for everyone.

As the New York Times formulates it, the origin for the politicisation of the translator’s is the mistrust in President Trump. Eventually they were able to agree on at least revealing Gross’ notes from the meeting. Despite the ethical questions, the practical issue is that interpreters’ notes are taken for simultaneous translating and not for keeping record. They are taken in a personal shorthand for the short-term memory of translating something in the situation of the moment—they are useless for anyone else and interpreters often cannot make sense of their own notes later anymore. Their ethical code can limit translators “from taking actions in situations where you normally would take a stand”, says Humaira Peroz, “but while one is working it is difficult to know what’s appropriately right or wrong”.

So, what does “I am Groot” mean? – It’s up to you…

What do we conclude from that? That a big deal in world politics is about knowledge. About knowing the truth. That this is not an easy thing to figure out. Many of the stages, information goes through, we do not even see or notice. And we can barely reveal all the influences, that alters information before it reaches us. Think about the news, about when you cannot understand the original because the news interpreter talks over it: how does the image of a situation change through the translation people hear? How differently do we judge happenings depending on the amount and type of information we get? How differently do we understand things within a conversation, on the basis of our different native tongues. How much can meanings be altered through translations?

All these are questions we do not ask ourselves often but the issue has a bigger importance than we might think. So this is my message for you: question and trace back the information you get!

By Nina Kolarzik

Photo Credits

“Flags at the UN”, by http://www.worldislandinfo.com/ (CC BY 2.0)

“Language, Learning, Books” by Oli Lynch (CC0 1.0 Universal)

The post Lost in Translation appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.