Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

The attacks not only shocked the world, but the  of planes crashing into the World Trade Center came to define a generation. In a speech on October 11, 2001, then-President George W. Bush spoke of “an attack on the heart and soul of the civilized world” and declared “war against all those who seek to export terror, and a war against those governments that support or shelter them.” This was the start of the global war on terror.

The Story of the 9/11 Attacks and Retaliation

Osama bin Laden, the Saudi leader of al-Qaeda, inspired the 9/11 attacks. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a Pakistani Islamist terrorist and the nephew of the truck driver convicted for the 1993 World Trade Center , masterminded the operation. The described al-Qaeda as “sophisticated, patient, disciplined and lethal.” It held that the enemy rallied “broad support in the Arab and Muslim world.” The report concluded that al-Qaeda’s hostility to the US and its values was limitless.

The report went on to say that the enemy aimed “to rid the world of religious and political pluralism, the plebiscite, and equal rights for women,” and observed that it made no distinction between military and civilian targets. The goal going forward was “to attack terrorists and prevent their ranks from swelling while at the same time protecting [the US] against future attacks.”

To prosecute the war on terror, the US built a worldwide coalition: 136 countries offered military assistance, and 46 multilateral organizations declared support. Washington began by launching a financial war on terror, freezing assets and disrupting fundraising pipelines. In the first 100 days, the Bush administration set aside $20 billion for homeland security.

On October 7, 2001, the US inaugurated the war on terror with Operation Enduring Freedom. An international coalition that included Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Japan, the UK and other countries, with the help of the Northern Alliance comprising various mujahedeen militias, overthrew the Taliban, which was sheltering al-Qaeda fighters, and took over Afghanistan.

The war on terror that began in Afghanistan soon took on a global focus. In 2003, the Bush administration invaded Iraq despite the lack of a UN mandate. Washington made the argument that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction, represented a threat to world peace, and harbored and succored al-Qaeda and other Islamic jihadists. None of this proved to be true. Hussein’s regime fell as speedily as Mullah Omar’s Taliban.

Victory, however, was short-lived. Soon, returned. In Afghanistan, suicide attacks quintupled from 27 in 2005 to 139 in 2006. Globally, the war on terror saw a “” rise in jihadist activity, with just over 32,000 fighters split among 13 Islamist groups in 2001 burgeoning to 100,000 across 44 outfits in 2015. Terrorist attacks went up from an estimated 1,880 in 2001 to 14,806 in 2015, claiming 38,422 lives that year alone — a 397% increase on 2001.

Boosted by the US invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda spawned affiliates across Asia, Africa and the Middle East, a decentralized structure that remained intact even after the US assassination of Osama bin Laden in 2011 dealt al-Qaeda a severe blow. One of its Iraqi offshoots morphed into what became the Islamic State (IS) group following the withdrawal of most US from Iraq under President Barack Obama in 2011.

After declaring a caliphate in 2014, IS launched a global terrorist campaign that, within a year, over 140 attacks in 29 countries beyond Syria and Iraq, according to one estimate. Islamic State acolytes went on to claim nearly lives across the Middle East, Europe, the United States, Asia and Africa, controlling vast amounts of territory in Iraq and Syria, before suffering defeat by local forces in 2019.

In Afghanistan, despite the war’s estimated price tag, on August 15 the Taliban have taken control of the capital Kabul amid a chaotic US withdrawal, raising fears of al-Qaeda’s comeback. Last year, the Global Terrorism Index that deaths from terrorism were still double the number recorded in 2001, with Afghanistan claiming a disproportionately large share of over 40% in 2019.

Why Do 9/11 and the War on Terror Matter?

While the failures and successes of the war on terror will remain subject to heated debate for years to come, what remains uncontested is the fact that the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing war on terror have forged the world we live in today.

First, they have caused tremendous loss of blood and treasure. Brown University’s project places an $8-trillion price tag on the US war on terror. It estimates that about 900,000 people “were killed as a direct result of war, whether by bombs, bullets or fire,” a number that does not include indirect deaths “caused by way of disease, displacement and loss of access to food or clean drinking water.”

Second, numerous countries, including liberal democracies such as the US and the UK, have eroded their own civil liberties and democratic institutions with the avowed goal of improving security. Boarding airplanes or entering public buildings now invariably involves elaborate security checks. Mass surveillance has become par for the course. The US continues to keep alleged terror suspects in indefinite detention without trial in Guantanamo Bay.

Third, many analysts argue that the attacks and the response have coarsened the US. After World War II, Americans drew a line in the sand against torture. They put Germans and Japanese on trial for war crimes that included . In the post-9/11 world, torture became part of the . Airstrikes and drone strikes have caused high collateral , killing a disputed number of innocents and losing the battle for the hearts and minds of local populations.

These strikes raise significant issues of legality and the changing nature of warfare. There is a question as to the standing of “counterterrorism” operations in international and national law. However, such issues have garnered relatively little public attention. 

Fourth, the 9/11 attacks and the ensuing war on terror have coincided with the spectacular rise of China. On December 11, 2001, the Middle Kingdom joined the World Trade Organization, which enabled the Chinese economy to grow at a speed and scale unprecedented in history. Analysts believe that distraction with the war on terror hindered the US response to the revolution occurring in global international relations and power dynamics. 

Under Barack Obama, the US initiated an explicit that sought to shift focus from the war on terror and manage the rise of China. Under Donald Trump, Washington unleashed a trade war on Beijing and concluded a with the Taliban. Joe Biden has believed that, since the early days of the war on terror, US priorities have been too skewed toward terrorism and that Afghanistan is a secondary strategic issue, leading to a decision to withdraw troops to mark the 20^th anniversary of 9/11.

Biden has that the US has degraded al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and eliminated bin Laden. Despite worrying echoes of George W. Bush declaring the “mission accomplished” in Iraq in 2003, from now on, Biden wants the US to remain “narrowly focused on counterterrorism — not counterinsurgency or nation building.”

While the terrorist threat still consumes US resources, Washington is now shifting its strategic attention and resources to China, Russia and Iran. The Biden administration has deemed these three authoritarian powers to be the biggest challenge for the postwar liberal and democratic order. The 20-year war on terror seems to be over — at least for now.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How 9/11 and the War on Terror Shaped the World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

Trouble has been brewing in Michigan for a while. In May, armed protesters the state capitol building. Such anger has been rising in much of the United States along regional, race and class divides. This year, a spate of ignited outrage and Black Lives Matter (BLM) erupted. On June 6, half a million people turned out in nearly 550 places across the US. According to some analysts, the US is at its most since the 1861-65 Civil War.

Such is the rancor in the country that President Donald Trump has to participate in a virtual town hall debate, accusing the bipartisan debate commission of bias. In the first debate, Trump and his challenger Joe Biden traded insults, causing many to term it the ugliest such spectacle since televised presidential debates kicked off in 1960. This has grave implications for the elections and American democracy itself.

The Story of the 2020 US Election

The US is a young country with an old democracy. On April 6, 1789, George Washington was elected president. This was three months before a mob in Paris stormed the Bastille on July 14, kicking off the French Revolution.

In contrast to the French who now have a fifth republic, Americans have stuck with their first one. The US Constitution is venerated in the same way as the Bible and has been amended a mere since 1787. The last amendment is of 1992 vintage and neither Republicans nor Democrats are proposing further changes. Despite the Civil War, the American republic, its democratic experiment and its Constitution have endured to this day.

American democracy follows a quadrennial cycle. Every four years, Americans go to the polls to elect the president and vice president. At the same time, they also vote in 435 members of the House of Representatives, the lower house of the US Congress that controls the purse, for two-year terms. Voters also get to pick around a third of the seats in the Senate, the upper house that confirms appointments — including those to the US Supreme Court — for six-year terms.

This year, seats are in play at a time when Trump has nominated Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In the US, judges are appointed for life. Barrett is a conservative Catholic while Ginsburg was a liberal icon. The 48-year-old Barrett would give conservatives a advantage vis-à-vis liberals in the Supreme Court. It could potentially lead to an overturning of the landmark 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

Elections for the House of Representatives and the Senate are relatively straightforward. All American citizens above the age of 18 can vote for representatives of their congressional in a first-past-the-post system. They also vote for two senators to represent the state they live in. When it comes to electing a president, the Electoral College comes into play. A total of 538 Electoral College votes are distributed among 50 states. Americans vote for presidential candidates in their states. The candidate who wins the majority in a state gets the Electoral College votes assigned to that state.

To become president, a candidate must win 270 or more Electoral College votes. Most of the time, the winning candidate has won both the popular and the electoral college votes. However, this does not always hold true. In , Al Gore won the popular vote but won only 266 Electoral College votes, while George W. Bush won 271. In , Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, but she only won 227 Electoral College votes in contrast to Trump’s 304 because she lost key states by narrow margins. Currently, Biden and the Democrats lead in most opinion polls, but they have not entirely been accurate in the past.

The US has a two-party system with no space for a third party. The Republican Party is conservative. Historically, it stands for smaller government, lower taxes and stronger national security. Called the Grand Old Party (GOP), it opposes abortion, supports gun rights and wants to limit immigration. The GOP has strong support in the more rural parts of the country such as the South, Southwest and Midwest. The Democratic Party is the liberal political party. Traditionally, it supports greater governmental intervention, higher taxes and more social justice. Democrats support abortion, oppose gun rights and take a more lenient view of immigration. Their power base lies in urban areas that are largely in the Northeast and the West Coast.

Currently, while the Republicans control the Senate and the White House, the Democrats control the House of Representatives. The Democrat-controlled House and the Trump White House have clashed repeatedly over a new package to a coronavirus-ravaged economy. Prima facie, such partisanship and brinkmanship is not new. This is a recurring feature in American politics. Yet this time it is truly different.

Trump’s election in 2016 was a seismic moment. He was the unlikeliest of candidates who emerged on top in the Republican primaries. During his presidential campaign, he survived many a faux pas and a scandal. In the process, both the Bush and Clinton dynasties bit the dust. Trump won power as a populist and has governed as one.

President Trump has ushered in an era of , slapping tariffs on many countries, especially China. He has weakened institutions that the US itself created after World War II by to pull out of the World Trade Organization and not paying remaining dues to the World Health Organization after withdrawing the US from it. Early in his presidency, Trump walked away from the 2015 Paris Climate Accord and jettisoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership that underpinned former President Barack Obama’s Asia Pivot.

Why Does the 2020 US Election Matter?

The US election matters not only nationally but also globally. First, Americans are choosing between two poorly-defined but distinctly alternative visions. Donald Trump champions populist nationalism, while Joe Biden supports the post-World War II order. The former will push protectionism and unilateralism further, while the latter will roll back some if not all of Trump’s measures. Under Biden, there will be freer trade and more US support for international institutions. The election result will change the world.

Second, Americans are deciding between two starkly different ways of handling the coronavirus pandemic. Trump has emerged out of hospital after contracting COVID-19 — the disease caused by the novel coronavirus — to greet his supporters from the White House balcony, take off his face mask and declare that the country must get back to business. Biden believes in prudence, wears his mask and proposes following public health guidelines advocating social distancing, limited economic activity and lockdowns in case of spiking infections. Unsurprisingly, the Pew Research Center puts the economy and health care as the voters’ top concerns. The election might reflect the tradeoff that voters are willing to make between the two.

Third, questions about the election’s legitimacy sound louder than at any other time since the Civil War. BLM marches and militia activity are symptoms of a deeper malaise. The US is deeply divided and trust in institutions is running low. At such a time, postal ballots could play a big role in deciding the election. All states provide for voting by post but rules differ widely. The final result could take days or even weeks. Trump has already cast doubts as to the legitimacy of postal ballots and there are real fears about a peaceful transfer of power.

Fourth, law enforcement and criminal justice seem to be key issues for this election. Many voters fear mass protests in many cities. Others believe that the criminal justice system is unjust and victimizes black people, especially young black men. Both rallies in support of enforcement officials and for the police are taking place across the US. The election will decide the direction of law enforcement and criminal justice in the country.

Finally, the result of the election has immediate global ramifications because Pax Americana is fraying. Like Rome, the US can go to war as was the case with Vietnam and Iraq. Yet like its ancient counterpart, it has been the global guarantor of relative peace. With the US withdrawing from the world stage, countries like Russia, China and Turkey are stepping in to fill the void. Furthermore, what calls America’s “soft power” seems to be waning.

Some surmise that American superpowerdom is unchallengeable. The US has the space program, the air superiority, the deepwater navy, the cutting-edge technology, leading universities, unrivaled innovation, seductive pop culture, cheap gas, bountiful resources and a relatively youthful population to be top dog. Others see the US as Rome in decline, plagued by corruption, division and discord. The 2020 US election might reveal which of these two views might be closer to the truth, with profound consequences for the history of the world.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The 2020 US Election Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

The Republic of India began as and continues to be an audacious experiment. India’s independence came at a terrible cost. In 1947, the departing British partitioned the country into India and Pakistan, leading to violence and the largest migration in history. Despite the violence and chaos, India chose a pluralistic democracy and inspired other colonized nations to pursue independence.

Since then, India has changed dramatically. Some trumpet the country’s great achievements. Others damn its monumental failures. In 2020, India still offers insights and lessons to many other nations around the world. With a population of more than 1.3 billion people, the state and health of the Republic of India is a matter of global importance.

The Story of the Republic

In seven decades, Indians have become much better off physically and financially on aggregate. For a start, they are living . Life expectancy in 1947 was 32 years. Today, it is over 69. During British rule, was a part of Indian life. It began with the Great Bengal Famine of 1769-70, which killed 10 million people, a third of the population of Bengal. During World War II, an estimated 3 to 5 million people died as Bengal’s grain was diverted to the overseas British war effort. Since independence in 1947, India has suffered no major famine and has achieved food security for the first time in centuries.

There are many other achievements. India’s has improved dramatically. Literacy has increased from in 1947 to as per the 2011 census. Social mobility for women and members of lower castes has increased. A Dalit (India’s lowest caste) woman has held office as chief minister of India’s largest state and a woman has been prime minister. India now has nuclear and space programs and is on the verge of great power status.

Yet there are warts in the picture. Cambridge economist had a lifelong love affair with India and famously , “Whatever you can rightly say about India, the opposite is also true.” Her observation holds true today.

Indians may not be dying of hunger, but too many of them are still struggling to get enough food or water. In the 2019 , India ranks at a lowly 102 out of 117 qualifying countries. As of 2017, of children under 5 were stunted and of the population was undernourished. These rates are comparable to countries in sub-Saharan Africa, not in East or Southeast Asia. According to NITI Aayog, the premier policy think tank of the government, India faces the worst in its history and about 600 million face acute shortages. With nearly 70% of the water contaminated, India ranks 120 out of 122 countries in the water quality index.

To add insult to injury, India‘s health care system is in crisis. Numerous research papers have chronicled the low quality of primary care facilities for women and children. A study by found that 2.4 million Indians die of treatable diseases every year. A 2016 by the World Health Organization found that 57.3% of India’s doctors did not have a medical qualification. When it came to nurses and midwives, 67.1% had education only up to secondary school level. Rural areas are poorly served. Public health care has declined dramatically. Even the poor turn to private health care where profiteering is rife.

Like health care, education is in poor health. Annual invariably find young Indians lacking in cognitive development, early language and early numeracy. Teachers are often recruited on the basis of . Like doctors, many are not qualified for their jobs. In addition, schools often lack basic facilities like water or electricity. Anyone who can afford to do so sends their children to private schools. For many, the focus of education is clearing entrance examinations to government-run, highly-subsidized elite universities. As a result, a booming private coaching industry has emerged, which trains students for such examinations, allowing little space for innovation.

Like education, India’s environment is in a dire state. The air in cities like or is almost unbreathable. Sewage and industrial waste are discharged into , streams, ponds, lakes and other water bodies. Plastic litters the land, including the high Himalayas. The levels of pollution have made scientists offer repeated warnings about impending environmental to little effect.

The Indian economy is in a similar state to the environment. Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, growth had stalled and dried up. More than 50% of Indians are and over 65% under 35. Thanks to selective abortion and gender discrimination, India has higher female and more men than women. These single men present a major national challenge. Thanks to persistently high unemployment, there is a real risk that India’s much-trumpeted demographic dividend could turn into a demographic disaster.

India’s institutions that are supposed to deal with these challenges are in dangerous . In politics, pays. Money and muscle power are essential for winning elections. Identity politics in the form of religion, region, caste and class has risen to alarming levels. In bureaucracy, works. Colonial laws and post-independence ones have led to restrictive red tape. Citizens navigate it through bribery, personal networks or political influence.

Furthermore, elite bureaucrats are held in high esteem. After they clear a grueling exam in their 20s, these mandarins are deemed omniscient. They head everything from exam boards to airlines and move seamlessly across ministries of culture, agriculture and finance. Neither lack of domain expertise nor incompetence holds them back. 

Like the bureaucracy, India’s judiciary faces major issues. Like Bollywood, the profession of law is known for , not competence. The judicial system is infamous for its delays. Over , about 10% of the total number of cases, have been pending for over 10 years. Hence, many citizens turn to local crime bosses instead of courts for justice. Many of these criminals go on to run for office. Even the police are accused of behaving like a mafia. With the crumbling of the criminal justice system, they are increasingly taking to vigilante justice and killings.

The weakening of institutions has gravely undermined the rule of law. The republic may not yet be in peril, but it is not too far off from a major crisis.

Why Does the Indian Republic Matter?

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, there were high hopes for a new age of peace and progress. Democracy was the new natural order of the universe. In 2020, that romance with democracy has dimmed. Strongmen are in power in many countries. Polarization runs high. India is no exception to this global trend and it assumes importance for five key reasons.

First, the Indian republic matters most to its 1.3 billion citizens. Its success would mean better lives for nearly a fifth of humanity.

Second, if the republic fails to deliver essential services or meet minimal expectations of its citizens, India could experience violence, chaos and even disintegration. The entire region could go up in flames as in 1947 when the British partitioned the country into India and Pakistan.

Third, India has long been an exemplar for the decolonized world. Countries like Tanzania and South Africa avidly studied India’s imperfect but resilient democracy. India provides a good roadmap for the bumpy transition from a traditional to a democratic society.

Fourth, the Indian republic offers rich insights for any multicultural, multiethnic, multireligious democracy. The promise and peril of such an experiment are laid bare in India.

Fifth, India poses difficult questions for our time. Can democracies avoid degenerating into popularity contests between competing special interest groups? If so, how? Can a humongous republic with innumerable moving parts reform itself? If so, what does it take? If not, what lies ahead? Answers to such questions will determine the future course of history.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The State of the Indian Republic appeared first on 51�Թ�.

COVID-19, the disease caused by the novel coronavirus known as SARS-CoV-2, has unleashed a terrifying pandemic. Originating in China, the coronavirus has spread rapidly around the world and has killed nearly half a million people to date.

In humans, coronaviruses cause respiratory tract infections, such as the mild common cold as well as the dangerous severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) and the Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS). SARS-CoV-2 is the deadliest and most contagious coronavirus so far. No vaccines or antiviral drugs can, so far, prevent or effectively treat COVID-19 infections.

The Story of COVID-19

Scientists tell us that COVID-19 is a classic example of cross-species transmission. Simply put, this means viruses that jump from one species to another. The consensus is that the new coronavirus first appeared in a market in Wuhan where fresh fruits and vegetables are sold along with live fish, birds and animals. The virus is understood to have jumped from a bat to another animal and then to humans.

Wuhan is the capital of Hubei province. With 11 million people, it is the most populous city in central China. Here, the Han River flows into the mighty Yangtze. It is a major manufacturing and transportation hub. With “over 350 research institutes, 1,656 hi-tech enterprises, numerous enterprise incubators and investments from 230 Fortune Global 500 firms,” Wuhan is well-connected globally.

Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

Click here to read our full coverage on the coronavirus pandemic

It is no surprise that the virus spread easily from here to other Chinese cities and then to the rest of the world. On January 3, China reported 44 cases of COVID-19, with 11 in critical condition. Within weeks, this number exploded. First, other countries in Asia were affected. Then, the coronavirus reached Italy and then other European countries. Finally, it descended on the United States, where President Donald Trump belatedly declared a national emergency on March 13, before going on to attack South America.

Soon, country after country went into lockdown as the disease spread. Authorities have reacted in such a draconian manner because the virus appears to spread so easily. While data is still being accumulated and processed, some studies seem to suggests that as many as 80% of those infected may be carriers, meaning they unknowingly pass on the disease to others. Many experience only mild symptoms that are similar to the common cold and recover without any special treatment. They too are carriers of the disease.

For some people, though, COVID-19 is extremely dangerous. Older people and those with underlying medical problems such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, chronic respiratory disease and cancer are more likely to develop serious illness, including pneumonia. Some do not survive.

Confirmed cases are estimated to be only the tip of the iceberg. Many go unreported. Testing is still low even in many developed countries. In the developing world, it is lower still. The real number of those who have contracted COVID-19 is unknown, as is the number of total deaths, with many occurring in the community setting or without adequate testing.

Why Does COVID-19 Matter?

There have been pandemics before. During World War I, H1N1 viruses with genes of avian origin caused a deadly influenza. The 1918-19 Spanish flu pandemic affected an estimated 500 million people, a third of the then-global population of 1.5 billion. At least 50 million, a staggering 10% of those infected, might have died, while reach as high as 100 million. 

Pandemics like HIV/AIDS, SARS, MERS, Ebola, Zika, avian and swine flu have also occurred in the recent past. The 2009 , caused by a novel H1N1 virus, was particularly contagious. An 60.8 million cases, over 274,000 hospitalizations and nearly 12,500 deaths occurred in the US alone. Globally, more than half a million might have died of this H1N1 virus. A key research paper that between 11% to 21% of the global population, up to a billion people, might have been affected.

COVID-19 is the most dangerous pandemic since the Spanish flu. First, to Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, the head of the World Health Organization, the new coronavirus is “10 times deadlier than the 2009 flu pandemic.” The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates that, even in the richest economies on the planet, humans are still humans. Zoonotic infections, diseases that spread from other species to humans, are on the rise. Two-thirds of the 335 new infectious diseases scientists have identified since 1940 originate in wildlife, particularly bats. With COVID-19 highlighting acute human vulnerability, infectious diseases and public health are fairly and squarely in the public eye.

Second, COVID-19 is likely to change the nature of the state just as the Black Death did in 14^th-century Europe. Political leaders have imposed quarantines, travel bans and unprecedented lockdowns. Executive power has expanded exponentially. Many fear that after the pandemic ends, these extraordinary emergency powers will become staple features of illiberalism.

Third, COVID-19 is dismantling the post-World War II order and its institutions. Donald Trump has called COVID-19 the “,” and the US State Department has pushed for the G7 to call it the “.” This has ratcheted up US-China tensions. The US president has also halted to the WHO for what he considers to be a too-cozy relationship with China. Competition, not cooperation, seems to be the order of the day, and international institutions are weakening dramatically. Countries are competing for equipment and medicines. They are racing each other to come up with a vaccine. Companies are doing the same.

Fourth, COVID-19 has caused the biggest economic earthquake since the Great Depression of 1929. The free flow of goods, services and people has come to a halt. Supply chains stand disrupted. Demand has dried up. Deficits, debt and unemployment have exploded. Hundreds of millions of people are not working across the world. No financial model factored in COVID-19, and a financial crisis of historic proportions looms ahead.

Fifth, COVID-19 puts the environment in sharp focus. In cities around the world, the air is cleaner, the skies bluer and the birds chirpier. It is now obvious that the world could be a more pleasant place to live if pollution were just a bit lower. If things go back to normal after the pandemic ends, climate change will continue to wreak havoc on an immensely complex ecological system. This threatens to unleash bacterial and viral infections that currently lie dormant in tissue and cells or under now-melting permafrost. Both environmental scenarios are much more tangible than before.

Finally, COVID-19 is having profoundly incalculable effects on society. On the one hand, solidarity is increasing, with many people helping neighbors and displaying kindness to strangers. On the other hand, some are being victimized. Racism against Asians and other minorities is on the rise in the West and elsewhere, as is antagonism against anyone seen as spreading the disease, as is the case with African expats in China. has drastically increased not only in poor countries like India and Pakistan, but also in richer ones like the United Kingdom and France.

Interesting trends are emerging. Because more than half the world’s population has been forced to largely stay at home, working remotely is on the rise, and many classes have shifted online. Restaurants have closed. Some people are eating more healthily, but most are not. In the US, and marijuana sales are up, as is the consumption of television, gaming and pornography. In poor countries, people are struggling to put food on the table are and living in or in fear of it.

All of these factors will leave long-lasting effects on the social fabric. COVID-19 is creating a new world the full contours of which will take a while to reveal themselves.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Will COVID-19 Change Our World? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On April 21, the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the benchmark for US oil, fell below . This has never happened before. On June 25, natural gas fell to a 25-year low. Thanks to the COVID-19 pandemic, much of the world has been under lockdown. Very few car engines are humming. Most planes are grounded. Hence, demand for energy has crashed and storage hubs are filled to the brim.

COVID-19 has rewritten the rules of the economy in the blink of an eye. On March 13, US President Donald Trump declared a national emergency. By the beginning of June, more than Americans — over a quarter of the country’s workforce — had filed for unemployment benefits, and the unemployment rate had from 3.8% in February to 14.4% in April or, by some estimates, as high as 23.6%. If that figure is correct, it came precipitously close to the Great Depression, which at 24.9% unemployment in 1933.

Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

Click here to read our full coverage on the coronavirus pandemic

This number does not include many millions of gig workers and temporary employees. As per the International Labour Organization, there are 1.6 billion workers in the informal economy. Nearly of the global workforce faces the risk of losing its livelihoods. Around the world, hundreds of millions are out of work as the Great Lockdown has brought the global economy to a grinding halt. Already in April, the UN that 195 million jobs may be lost globally in the next three months alone, adding to the 190 million who were unemployed before COVID-19 hit.

The Economic Impact of COVID-19

Since 1991, the global economy has relied on the relatively free flow of goods, services and people. COVID-19 has disrupted that flow, triggering a decline in demand and a slump in supply. Consequently, unemployment has skyrocketed. Governments have stepped in to provide relief measures. Since a shrinking economy has lowered tax collections, relief measures have been funded by ballooning deficits. In turn, these have led debt levels to rise dangerously.

For the first time since the 1929 Wall Street Crash, advanced emerging market and developing economies are in recession. The International Monetary Fund per capita income to shrink for over 170 countries. COVID-19 has eviscerated industries like tourism, travel and hospitality. Sports and entertainment have stopped too. Even the Olympics have been called off. The last time this happened was during World War II. But unlike wartime days, manufacturing has cratered. Simultaneously, consumption has crashed.

As is invariably the case, poor countries have been hit hardest. They rely on daily wages to survive. Now, those have stopped. Many have run out of their meager savings. They are either living in or fear running out of food. As per , the pandemic “could push over half a billion people into poverty” in developing countries. Even middle-class families in advanced economies are feeling the pinch.

In April, markets were by 35%, credit markets had seized up, and credit spreads had shot up to 2008 levels. Since then, stock markets have rebounded to some degree thanks to historic stimulus packages, but are on the rise. Bankruptcies are becoming more frequent, ruining both debtors and creditors. In response, central banks have thrown in everything and the kitchen sink in response to the crisis. They have announced zero or negative interest rates and doubled down on quantitative easing. They have engaged in credit easing, purchasing private assets to backstop banks, non-banks, money market funds and even large corporations.

While central banks have eased monetary policy, governments have used fiscal policy to ease the economic shock. They have announced stimulus measures that include unprecedented income support. They have promised to pay a large percentage of people’s wages, made direct cash transfers and tried to bail out key industries.

In March, the US enacted the fiscal stimulus package in its history. It cost $2 trillion, about 10% of its GDP. In less than a month, it has passed an interim stimulus package worth $484 billion to fund small businesses and hospitals. China, Canada, Germany, France and the UK have all announced bailouts of their own. Spain, one of the worst-affected countries in Europe, even toyed with the idea of introducing a universal basic income to stay in place past the crisis. As a result, both deficits and debt have gone through the roof.

Why Does COVID-19’s Economic Impact Matter?

COVID-19 will change the global economy in a similar manner as the Great Depression, World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union did in the past.

First, COVID-19 is precipitating a financial crisis. No model of future economic activity could have factored in a pandemic of this sort. Many people will not be able to pay their rent. Their landlords will then struggle to pay their mortgage. When enough landlords default, banks could find themselves in trouble. Many complicated financial instruments will most certainly lose value. Hedge funds, shops and venture capitalists are already laying off staff or cutting their pay.

Second, COVID-19 is increasing debt dramatically. Even before this pandemic, leading financial analysts if there was a “government bond bubble.” In 2019, global debt topped $255 trillion, reaching 322% of the global GDP. Now, this figure will be much higher. Developing countries are already facing a debt crisis as are affluent economies like and . This crisis will envelop many more countries.

Third, COVID-19 is challenging the global economy that took off after the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. The disruption in supply chains has led to shortages of medicines, personal protective equipment and other essential items. There is a shift in sentiment to move production closer to home. Trade was slowing down before the pandemic thanks to rising protectionism and trade wars. Now, national security and public health add “momentum to the deglobalization trend.”

Fourth, COVID-19 is weakening markets and strengthening governments. For much of the last few decades, markets have been ascendant. Governments have retreated from intervening in economies. That changed somewhat in the aftermath of the Great Recession. Now, the transformation is complete. Governments are once again taking over the commanding heights of the economy and Keynesian policies are back.

Finally, COVID-19 is exponentially increasing inequality and putting it firmly into the . Many are questioning why hedge fund managers and footballers make so much money for just buying and selling assets, while researchers and nurses who work as hard, if not harder, make much less. Others are wondering why the rich pay less tax and ask for every 10 years.

It is unclear as to what sort of economy will emerge after the COVID-19 pandemic. However, it is crystal clear that things will not revert to the pre-pandemic status quo. As Bob Dylan once sang, “the times they are a-changin’.”

 The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Will COVID-19 Impact Our Economy? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Like past pandemics, COVID-19 will leave an indelible mark on society. A little over a hundred years ago, the 1918-19 influenza anywhere between 50 million and 100 million people. This put public hygiene, health, nutrition, housing and even inequality in stark focus.

The idea of socialized , free for all at the point of delivery, took off. The newly formed Soviet Union was the first to create a centralized public health-care system. Germany, France and the UK eventually followed suit. Not only countries but cities, towns and villages focused on public health and long-neglected social issues. In the remote city of in then-poor Sweden, “people of all political convictions and stations in life” overcame class and political divisions to forge a new social solidarity.

Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

Click here to read our full coverage on the coronavirus pandemic

Many other major changes ensued. Nursing rose in prominence in society. Most nurses were women who cared for their communities and earned great respect. This set the stage for a greater role and increased remuneration in the future. In 1920, women won the right to vote in the US and the UK. A hundred years on, COVID-19 promises to unleash several tectonic changes in our daily lives, society and culture.

The Psychological, Social and Cultural Impacts of COVID-19

Never before have so many people been immobilized at once the world over. About half the world’s population is cooped up to prevent the spread of the pandemic on an overcrowded planet of over 7.5 billion people. This forced isolation is leading to challenges that are much more than just economic.

Numerous papers have been published analyzing the impact of as a result of social isolation. The World Health Organization (WHO) has found that “the main psychological impact [of COVID-19] to date is elevated rates of stress or anxiety.” Quarantine affects people’s usual activities, routines or livelihoods, causing various mental health issues.

As per , the effects of long-term social isolation on stress levels of non-human animals include “increased neuroendocrine responses and stress reactivity.” This could lead to increased cravings for food, alcohol and drugs. While some are eating more healthily, many are turning to carbohydrates and as a relief from stress and boredom.

Australian researchers have made a surprising : 10.8% of men reported increased alcohol use in contrast to 18% of women. Women are during the COVID-19 pandemic because international data reveals they are “more likely to experience symptoms of stress, anxiety and depression.” Women are “almost three times more likely than men to be looking after children full-time on their own” during this pandemic. Women also make up the majority of the casual workforce. During these times, they are more likely to be disproportionately affected by the changes to our daily lives, and seems to be on the rise. As if home and work pressures were not enough, is on the increase around the world.

In the US, the industry has made a great leap forward thanks to COVID-19 as some states declared it to be an “essential good.” Similarly, the consumption of pornography has . In India, where alcohol, cannabis and even food have been hard to get, traffic on porn sites by 95% during a draconian lockdown. In the US, gun sales saw their highest-ever , with about sold in March alone. 

The pandemic has led to grandchildren staying away from grandparents out of fear that they could transmit a potentially fatal infection to their loved ones. Many have died alone, with often just a video call with the family available at the deathbed. Those with disabilities have found support has been hard to come by. Inequality is increasing around the world. The poor and the vulnerable have few assets or savings to fall back on when they lose their jobs. Consequently, an even more egalitarian is becoming less equal while the World Bank that “COVID-19 is likely to cause the first increase in global poverty since 1998.” 

Schools and colleges have closed, with teaching shifting online. Most teachers are struggling and so are students, especially the young ones. With restaurants, bars, clubs, gyms, offices and entertainment establishments closed, more people are finding love on dating apps, with Tinder its highest number of swipes ever on March 29. Those who can are working from home. Churches, temples and mosques have been empty. This year, Muslims observed Ramadan and marked Eid al-Fitr without communal celebrations.

Where governments have often failed, many communities have risen to the occasion. Doctors, nurses and other front-line workers like shopkeepers and bus drivers have been nothing short of heroic, risking their lives on what is often unacceptably low pay and even less adequate personal protective equipment. Volunteers have brought food and medicines for those in isolation. As during all times with dark clouds, rays of hope have kept people, communities and societies going.

Why Do the Impacts of COVID-19 Matter?

Every few decades, an event changes society dramatically. COVID-19 is such an event. It is setting in motion long-term changes that are hard to see in the heat of the moment.

A key fact everyone is talking about from Boston to Beijing is the sudden improvement in the environment. With fewer cars on the road, hardly any planes in the sky and many factories closed, the air is cleaner, the rivers clearer and birdsong louder. The environmental impact of curtailing human activity is now center stage. There is that, just like emissions fell after the 2008 crisis, they will bounce back again, perhaps even with renewed vigor.

But there is also hope that, having seen what massive changes can be achieved, people are going to care more about the environment and invest more in fighting climate change. With energy demand collapsing by nearly 30%, the COVID-19 lockdown is speeding India’s shift from coal to solar power. In the US, oil companies have been while wind and solar ones have proved more resilient.

Similarly, health-care systems will experience major changes. For the last two decades, massive privatization of health-care occurred in many parts of the world. In some developing countries like Nigeria and India, public hospitals virtually collapsed over the last two decades. That privatized model will come into question. Profit-maximizing has not worked in health-care even in the US. In developing countries, a move toward a more European system that focuses on public health might be in the offing.

In some countries, the social fabric is under strain. In India, tensions between Hindus and have increased because the latter have been blamed for spreading the coronavirus. The police killing of George Floyd, a 46-year-old black man, in the US city of Minneapolis has led to widespread anti-racism protests around the world. Systemic racism and police have become part of public discourse, as has the that has also been on the rise.

However, as the Financial Times , COVID-19 has “injected a sense of togetherness into polarised societies.” It has thrown hitherto eccentric ideas such as universal basic income and wealth taxes into the policy mix. has launched a national minimum income policy that will benefit an estimated 2.3 million people and cost about €3 billion ($3.4 billion) a year. About 850,000 lowest-income households will get around $500 per month. In , the welfare state emerged from the ashes of World War II. As millions around the world lose their jobs, this is the time to reimagine the current social welfare systems as well as reconsider what we place value on in our societies.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post How Will COVID-19 Shape Our Society? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

British democracy has been dysfunctional since the 2016 Brexit referendum to leave the European Union. This is the second early election in three years. This is precisely what British MPs sought to avoid through the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act 2011. That legislation set a five-year period between general elections. Prior to 2011, a sitting prime minister could call an election at any point during his or her premiership. Now, that power lies with the House of Commons, and it has voted for an early election after much drama over the last two years.

The Story of the 2019 Election

In 2017, Parliament voted for an early election. Theresa May, the then-prime minister, wanted to secure a clear majority in Parliament for Brexit negotiations with the EU. May’s Conservative Party won 42.4% of the vote, its highest share since 1983. Yet it was not just Tories that got a high percentage of the vote. The Labour Party won 40%, its largest share since 2001. Labour might not have returned to power but, led by Jeremy Corbyn, it surprised and analysts, gaining 30 seats.

With a hung Parliament and no clear majority for either party, May was forced to seek the support of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), founded by the late Protestant preacher Ian Paisley in Northern Ireland, to continue as prime minister. In late 2018, a weakened May agreed a Brexit withdrawal agreement with the EU, but the House of Commons rejected her deal thrice. Consequently, in May 2019, she announced that she was stepping down as prime minister.

May’s resignation set off a leadership election in the Conservative Party. Its 160,000 members voted for Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and the leader of the “leave” campaign during the Brexit referendum. Taking over as prime minister on July 24, Johnson promised to “deliver Brexit, unite the country and defeat Jeremy Corbyn.”

Johnson’s brief premiership has been eventful. He that he would “rather be dead in a ditch” than stay on in the EU after October 31, the deadline to depart from the union. Even his younger brother resigned from the cabinet. The prime minister repeatedly promised to take the UK out of the EU “deal or no deal,” but the House of Commons foiled his plans by prohibiting a no-deal Brexit. This was thanks to the rebellion of 21 Tory MPs who voted against the government, the first of Johnson’s .

In September, Johnson suspended Parliament. However, the unanimously ruled against his decision. In an 11-0 verdict, the justices held that the prime minister had “acted unlawfully in shutting down the sovereign body” in the British Constitution.

Despite numerous setbacks at home, Johnson agreed a new Brexit deal with the EU on October 17. A majority of British MPs backed this withdrawal agreement but rejected Johnson’s plan to get it through Parliament in three days, leaving it “.” The prime minister sought a way out of this impasse by forcing an early election on , the first UK general election in this month since 1923.

Why Does the UK Election Matter?

The election is historic because different parties are offering radically different visions for the UK’s future. This does not happen each time the country goes to the polls. In the 1950s, the Labour and Conservative parties moved to a broad consensus on economic policy. In fact, The Economist coined the term “” because Conservative Rab Butler and Labour Hugh Gaitskell were indistinguishable in policy terms when they were chancellor of the Exchequer.

In 1997, Tony Blair’s New Labour wrested power from John Major’s Conservatives. However, there was not much daylight between the policies of the two parties. Similarly, there was little to separate David Cameron’s victorious Tories from the vanquished New Labour in 2010. Britain’s adversarial politics and tradition of feisty debate often magnifies policy differences but hides the common ground and shared beliefs on which its parliamentary politics generally operates.

Yet there are elections when seismic shifts occur. In 1945, led the Labour Party to a historic victory. His government created the modern British welfare state with its fabled National Health Service (NHS). Attlee also presided over the decolonization of much of the British Empire.

In 1979, Margaret Thatcher’s election brought Butskellism to an end. Inspired by Austrian economist , the “Iron Lady” championed free markets and rolled back the role of the state. Thatcher privatized most nationalized industries, lowered taxes and encouraged homeownership. Her “” reforms deregulated financial markets and made the City of London a rival to Wall Street.

The election on December 12 is similar to the elections of 1945 and 1979. This was clearly in evidence on December 6 when Johnson and Corbyn squared off in a televised . They jousted over the future of the NHS, the UK-US relationship and, of course, Britain’s ties with the EU. Corbyn promised democratic, Scandinavian-style socialism and Johnson promised “one-nation conservatism” in which “a dynamic market economy” would “pay for fantastic public services.”

Unlike 1945 and 1979, though, the December 12 election might not just be a two-horse race. Smaller parties may punch above their weight. The Liberal Democrats were in a coalition government with the Conservatives from 2010 to 2015. Now, they are attracting attention again because they have vowed to the Brexit referendum and remain in the EU. The party plans to replace rates for small businesses with a new land-value tax on landlords. It aims to boost entrepreneurship as well and redevelop town centers and high streets. This might be music to the ears of some voters.

In 2019, regional parties are more important than ever with the Scottish National Party (SNP) to be on the ascendant. In 2016, Scotland voted against Brexit. In 2014, the Scots voted to stay in the UK but, at that time, the UK was a part of the EU. It is possible that an SNP victory might put Scottish independence back on the agenda and give the party a say in the formation of the future government in Westminster.

The DUP, which has supported the Conservative government since 2017, hopes to have “” after the election. It supports Brexit but opposes Johnson’s withdrawal deal. Its Catholic rival, Sinn Féin, bitterly opposes Brexit. In 2017, the Northern Ireland Executive collapsed because of differences between Sinn Féin and the DUP. Since then, the situation has and the Royal College of Nursing has plans to start for the first time in its 103-year existence. Both parties of Northern Ireland are important in this election.

Finally, Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party cannot be underestimated. In November, Farage decided not to contest the the Conservatives won in 2017. Over the years, he has been the single biggest proponent of Brexit. Like the DUP, Farage’s party opposes Johnson’s Brexit deal. Some of his party members disagree. These Brexiteers are supporting the Conservatives instead because they are unwilling to risk Brexit. Furthermore, Farage’s party has appeal among the working class and could potentially take away votes from Labour, queering the pitch for the Conservatives.

Rarely have so many variables been at play when the British have queued up to cast their votes. This election will define an era.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Britain Faces a Historic Election appeared first on 51�Թ�.

#BalanceTonPorc in France, in Russia, #ArewaMeToo in Nigeria and #NiUnaManos in Latin America have all worked toward raising awareness of sexual assault and harassment as experienced across different cultures and socioeconomic environments.

Scroll down to read more in this 360° series

Critics of the movement, who include women, have argued that #MeToo has in its zealous pursuits, dispersing vengeful character assassinations at will. While few rape accusations are false, and men are statistically to be raped than falsely accused, in cases of sexual harassment that often come down to subjective interpretation of events, there is a danger of unconditionally believing the accuser. The actor and comedian and US are, perhaps, a case in point.

Others still that this new rhetoric has taken the fun out of flirtation and sex, politicizing relationships to a degree of professional stiffness. The story of the #MeToo movement is, therefore, anything but straightforward.

The Story of #MeToo

“You are not alone.” This is the ethos of the “me too” movement that was , borne of her experience of working with young black women and girls from low-income communities. The goal of the movement is to “reframe and expand the global conversation around sexual violence” to include those most often left out of the public eye — communities of color, sexual minorities, those living with disabilities and young people.

But the movement, which, as Burke writes, “started in the deepest, darkest place in my soul,” only burst onto the global stage when the American actor used the phrase that has now become a viral hashtag, #MeToo, in a 2017 tweet calling on women to share their experiences of sexual assault and harassment. Catching like a wildfire across social media, #MeToo showed women around the world that they were indeed not alone. The sheer magnitude of revelations caught many by surprise. According to , within the first year of Milano’s tweet, the hashtag was used more than 19 million times on Twitter alone.

A tide of high-profile allegations followed. The Hollywood bastion fell first, with accusations against film producer Harvey Weinstein rolling in faster than one could count. Many now infamous names were added swiftly to the : Kevin Spacey, Bill Cosby, Morgan Freeman, James Franco, Dustin Hoffman, Louis C.K. Then came the media industry, with #MeToo deposing airtime stars like Charlie Rose, Bill O’Reilly and Matt Lauer, as well as the chief executive of CBS, Les Moonves.

The wave rolled on, catching the footballer Cristiano Ronaldo, the Backstreet Boy Nick Carter, Senator Franken, former UK Defense Secretary , the singer R. Kelly, judge Brett Kavanaugh and even the president of the United States, sweeping up university professors, orchestra conductors and renowned photographers the world over.

The #MeToo movement has put the accusers — the women historically silenced by countless levels of sexist oppression as well as the male victims who have been largely ignored when it comes to sexual and domestic violence — center stage. “Believe women” became the simple idea that shifted the balance of social power.

In November 2017, Los Angeles County launched a special task force to address the spike in allegations. The number of victims of rape and sexual assault reported in the US was up from 23% in 2016 to 40% in 2017, according to the . In the UK, figures show that the number of rapes reported to the police increased from close to 36,000 in 2015-16 to nearly 58,000 in 2018-19, by the #MeToo revelations.

Why Does #MeToo Matter?

But it’s an uphill struggle. #MeToo may have opened doors for victims to report abuse but, according to the same Home Office statistics, charges or summons for rape have fallen from one in seven in 2015-16 to just one in 65 in 2018-19. The LA task force is still to officially charge someone. Many of the #MeToo-inspired accusations are historic, and prosecutors face obstacles such as expired statutes of limitations and obtaining hard evidence. Yet more states across America are now moving toward either expanding or completely removing the statutes of limitation for sex crimes.

While Weinstein has pleaded not guilty , many of the accused perpetrators have made a recovery — and even a comeback. Two cases against Spacey have been dropped by the prosecution. Ronaldo’s career is still in full swing after a ruling that against him could not be “proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Louis C.K. is back on the comedy circuit. Daniele Gatti and Charles Dutoit are still . Epstein, charged with sex trafficking, committed suicide before he could face justice. Kavanaugh is presiding on the US Supreme Court, and Donald Trump is still in office. Only Cosby is serving his sentence at a maximum security prison in Pennsylvania, to other political martyrs like Martin Luther King Jr. and Nelson Mandela.

According to the UN, experience physical or sexual violence globally. India remains the worst country in the world to be a woman, with a rape occurring at least once . In China, the budding #MeToo movement has claimed some high-profile victories, but activists find themselves fighting a double-edged sword of . In Japan, a pop singer was forced to for her assault, and South Korea is only starting to of its own dark underbelly. Nigeria’s fledgling movement is facing a backlash.

In 2018, the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights that some 60% of women surveyed have experienced sexual harassment. In Russia, the government has decriminalized types of domestic violence under the guise of keeping families together, disregarding an estimated in their homes and a further 36,000 being abused daily across the country. In Britain, a poll that a third of men and a fifth of women thought that if a woman flirted on a date without explicitly consenting to sex, “it generally would not count as rape” — nor would in a long-term relationship for a quarter of respondents.

There is an obvious danger of equalizing various degrees of sexual harassment and assault. Where do we draw the line between inappropriate sexual behavior and malicious, even criminal, intent? Social media is hardly an appropriate forum to try sexual abuse allegations. But in what is often the absence of other viable avenues, women have sharpened #MeToo into an Amazon’s sword in a fight to change the rules of the game. At the moment, as the new revolution is trying to find its footing, the lines are being drawn on shifting sands.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post The Me Too Movement: Changing the Rules of the Game appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Story of Jamal Khashoggi

On October 2, 2018, Jamal Khashoggi stepped into the Saudi consulate in Istanbul never to return. Hatice Cengiz, his Turkish fiancée, kept waiting outside for more than 10 hours to no avail.

Khashoggi was a Saudi journalist. He had covered major stories in the past such as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and the rise of Osama bin Laden. Khashoggi had been close to the Saudi royal family and had even acted as an adviser to the government.

Scroll down to read more on this 360° series

In 2017, the journalist well out of favor in Saudi Arabia and went into self-imposed exile in the US. He began writing columns for . His last opinion piece was titled, “What the Arab world needs most is free expression” and argued for “a modern version of the old transnational media so citizens can be informed about global events.” In a powerful article, Khashoggi bemoaned the Arab version of Iron Curtain “imposed not by external actors but through domestic forces vying for power.”

Khashoggi’s criticism of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and other Arab governments clearly touched a raw nerve. After his disappearance, Saudi Arabia “consistently denied any knowledge of Khashoggi’s fate.” In an interview with , Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman claimed that his understanding was that Khashoggi left the Saudi consulate “after a few minutes or one hour.”

After Turkey presented mounting evidence that could not be ignored, Saudi Arabia changed its tune on October 20, 2018. It said Khashoggi had died in a fight resisting attempts to bring him back to Saudi Arabia. Yet the Saudis kept offering conflicting accounts till November 15 when they finally admitted that the journalist had been murdered in the consulate. The Saudis blamed “rogue individuals” for the murder, made a few arrests and conducted a trial behind closed doors.

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan claimed that Khashoggi “was killed in cold blood by a death squad” and “that his murder was premeditated.” Although Erdoğan exonerated King Salman, he maintained that the order to kill Khashoggi had come from “the highest levels of the Saudi government.”

In June 2019, UN Special Rapporteur Agnes Callamard came to a similar as Erdoğan. For her, Khashoggi’s death “constituted an extrajudicial killing for which the state of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [was] responsible.” Callamard found there was “” to warrant an investigation into Prince Mohammed and other high-level Saudi officials. She also argued that the prince should be subject to the targeted sanctions.

Why Does the Murder of Jamal Khashoggi Matter?

The killing of journalists is not new. The has estimated that 1,335 journalists were murdered between 1992 and 2018. In 2017, UNESCO published a on world trends in freedom of expression. It examined press freedom along four key dimensions: “(i) media freedom, (ii) media pluralism, (iii) media independence and (iv) safety of journalists.”

The report looked at the period between 2012 and 2017. It found that, though the number of sources of information had increased, the concentration of ownership of media companies and filtering effects of social media create “bubbles” where people neither access the truth nor other points of view. The report also found that media independence had weakened because of political persecution and economic pressures.

Most importantly, the report found the trends in “the physical, psychological and digital safety of journalists” extremely alarming. It concluded that crimes against journalists were on the rise. Between 2012 and 2016, two journalists died per week. It also found that impunity for such crimes was the norm with justice “in only one in 10 cases.”

The killing of a journalist in a consulate marks a new low. Not even Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin or Mao Zedong had someone killed and dismembered in an embassy or a consulate. This murder marked a complete disregard for international norms, human rights and press freedom. It shows that even living in the capital of the US and writing for The Washington Post was not enough of a safeguard against summary execution for an Arab journalist.

Until Khashoggi’s murder, many leading , newspapers and columnists were extolling Saudi Arabia’s modernizing efforts. They conspicuously ignored the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s record in Yemen, its iron fist in its Eastern Province and its treatment of dissidents. When the Saudi elite became “ at the Riyadh Ritz-Carlton” on suspicion of corruption, many analysts argued this was a step forward toward rule of law. It took the murder of a journalist in a consulate to dent that image.

Khashoggi’s murder demonstrates that co-option and corruption are as big threats to a free press as political persecution and economic pressures. The tragedy reminds us that truth matters, that power corrupts and that press freedom is sacred.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Jamal Khashoggi’s Murder Damages Press Freedom appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Across the border, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan has that just as Germany had been captured by the Nazis, “a fascist, racist Hindu Supremacist ideology & leadership” has taken over India. He claims the lives of 8 million Kashmiris are at risk. He about “ethnic cleansing and genocide.”

Scroll down to read more on this 360° series

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi takes a different view. He that Article 370 was an impediment to development. Now, the people of both Jammu and Kashmir, as well as the newly separated Buddhist area of Ladakh will be integrated into India. According to Modi, local inhabitants will benefit from investment, growth and jobs as well as greater employment rights, gender equality and minority protection.

The Story of the Kashmir Dispute

Until 1947, modern-day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh were part of British India. Yet it was not as simple a matter as the transfer of power from the British to the Indians. There was a fly in the ointment. The British had propped up a number of princely states ruled by local monarchies that acted as their loyal clients.

When the British decided to leave, the future of these states came into question. Both India and Pakistan wanted to absorb these vestigial states into their territories. The populations of most princely states were in favor of joining either India or Pakistan. The rulers themselves had three options. They could either join India, Pakistan or declare independence.

The princes were known for their , decadence and misrule. Besides, many saw them as traitors who had been rewarded for betraying their countrymen to the British. So, in the post-independence environment, there was little chance of these princely states retaining independence. Without the teat of the British Empire to suckle from, they were simply not in a position to survive.

Most people forget that these princely states were a big deal in 1947. First, there were an ungodly 565 of them. Second, they comprised 40% of the Indian subcontinent. Third, about 23% of the population of this region lived in these states. Integrating them into two newly independent countries was a matter of paramount importance to the political leadership of India and Pakistan.

Jammu and Kashmir was one of these princely states. In the dying days of the short-lived Sikh Empire, the Dogra Rajput generals of Jammu conquered many small Himalayan states such as Kashmir Valley, Gilgit, Baltistan and Ladakh. They even tried to conquer Tibet but were beaten back. When the British beat the Sikhs, they sold Jammu and Kashmir to Gulab Singh Jamwal, a Dogra general of their rivals. Jamwal abandoned his Sikh masters and cast his lot with the rising British East India Company. This enabled him and his successors to rule the second largest princely state in the Indian subcontinent.

In 1947, Hari Singh, Jamwal’s successor and the last Dogra king, wanted independence. However, he was effete, ineffectual and debauched. As a Hindu king ruling over a majority Muslim population, his power base was slipping. As in much of India, communal tension broke out in Jammu and Kashmir. This excited emotions in Pakistan.

Ideologically, many in Pakistan saw Kashmir as an integral part of a new Muslim nation. On the night of October 21-22, the Pakistanis sent tribal militia and soldiers in civilian clothing to annex the state. Sheikh Abdullah, the most important Kashmiri leader and a friend of Jawaharlal Nehru, opposed the Pakistani incursion. So did the ruler Singh. In panic, he signed the Instrument of Accession, ceding Jammu and Kashmir to India. Indian troops arrived by air and pushed Pakistani forces out until Nehru took the matter to the United Nations.

In 1948, the former princely state of Jammu and Kashmir was divided between India and Pakistan. Pakistan controls part of Kashmir, Gilgit and Baltistan. India holds much of Kashmir, Jammu and Ladakh. India lost territory to China after a disastrous war in 1962 and Pakistan ceded territory to the Middle Kingdom in 1963.

Since 1989, Kashmir has suffered from insurgency after the 1987 elections were reportedly rigged by New Delhi. Since then, many Kashmiris have called for independence. India has blamed Pakistan for stirring up trouble. Pakistan has blamed India for oppressing Kashmiris just as Israelis persecute Palestinians. Tensions have frequently run high. Casualties on the militarized Line of Control are a regular occurrence. Full-scale conflict between India and Pakistan has broken out in 1947, 1965, 1971, 1985 and 1998.

Why does Kashmir Matter?

The Jammu and Kashmir region is a melting pot and a geopolitical hotspot. Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Xinjiang and Tibet are next door. Here, many races and cultures cross paths. The region is also home to Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and numerous indigenous spiritual traditions. Rivers that feed hundreds of millions downstream flow through it. The three countries that lay claim to parts of this region are all nuclear powers: India, Pakistan and China. This raises the specter of a truly catastrophic conflict.

Kashmir also throws up tortured questions about identity and popular sovereignty. As a nation formed for Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, Pakistan has long believed Kashmir belongs to it. As a multicultural democracy, India has held the view that Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh prove its secular identity. The two contending ideas of nationhood that led to the partition of British India in 1947 are the reason for so much emotion in Pakistan and India over Kashmir.

There is also the tiny matter of Kashmiris themselves. At least since 1953, their leaders have been flirting with the idea of independence. Some of them believe that they could be the Switzerland of Asia if the Indians and Pakistanis would leave them alone. Both Pakistan and India fear that. So does China. Kashmir’s independence could cause a domino effect because it could set a precedent for other border areas that want to secede from these three Asian giants. On Kashmir, two contending principles of self-determination and national sovereignty clash. Sadly, there is no clear and obvious resolution.

Astute analysts expected the Indian government to remove the special status of Jammu and Kashmir. The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party has espoused this idea for decades. Similarly, Pakistan’s outrage was inevitable too. It sees its chances to control Kashmir weakening as a result of Modi’s move. The heated rhetoric and rising tensions over Kashmir are causing concern worldwide. Two still-poor countries that spend large sums on military preparation and periodic confrontation might end up clashing again, losing yet more blood and treasure in the process. Both states have hundreds of nuclear weapons, making Kashmir one of the most dangerous places on the planet.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.

The post Kashmir Explained: Why India and Pakistan Fight Over It appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The UK impounded an Iranian oil tanker suspected of breaching EU sanctions against Syria. In response, Iran has seized two , one sailing under the British flag and the other under Panama’s. Such is the state of affairs that Iran has been arresting spies accused of working for the CIA and sentencing some of them to death.

Analysts and commentators hold a wide range of views on the crisis. These views make sense only when we know some background.

The Story of the Iran Nuclear Deal

In 2015, Iran signed an agreement with the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council and Germany, known as the P5+1. In return for the lifting of economic sanctions, Iran agreed not only to limit its nuclear activities, but also to allow in international inspectors. US President Donald Trump never liked the deal that his predecessor, Barack Obama, worked hard to negotiate and abandoned it in 2018.

Scroll down to read more on this 360° series

The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) — commonly known as the — madeIran reduce its 200,000 centrifuges to a mere 5,060 old and inefficient ones until 2026. This decrease would have destroyed Iran’s ability to enrich uranium to “weapons-grade” status. The Iranians also agreed to reduce their uranium stockpile by 98% to a paltry 300 kilograms. The JCPOA also blocked Iran’s pathway to weapons-grade plutonium.

The Obama administration saw the Iran nuclear deal as its crowning achievement, and the White House categorically declared that the “JCPOA cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon.” The administration the deal made Israel safer and that the world supported it. Many analysts welcomed the deal, but some senators disagreed.

Led by Tom Cotton, they opposed the JCPOA, as did hardliners in Tehran. Ironically, the US and Iran were quietly collaborating against the Islamic State terrorist group in Syria and Iraq at this time. This did not matter to hardliners in both countries. Republicans took a more ideological view against Iran harking back to the “axis of evil” line of thinking of George W. Bush. As per this view, Iran is a destabilizing revolutionary power and its theocratic regime must be toppled to bring democracy and peace to the Middle East.

President Obama took a more pragmatic view. His foreign policy was characterized by the Asia Pivot, which meant refocusing American efforts on Asia instead of the Middle East. To do so, rapprochement with Iran was essential. It allowed the US to extricate itself from the Middle East. The Iran nuclear deal also put downward pressure on the price of oil and allowed Obama to put some daylight between the US and Saudi Arabia.

Once Trump got elected in 2016, the older ideological thinking returned. John Bolton, a confidante of Bush and a well-known hawk, is Trump’s national security adviser. In May 2018, President Trump pulled out of the JCPOA and has been turning the screws on Iran ever since. His reinstatement of has pushed the Iranian economy into deep recession. Iran’s currency has crashed, incomes have declined and inflation has soared.

With its back to the wall, Iran has by passing the uranium enrichment cap set in the 2015 nuclear deal. Since Trump abandoned the JCPOA, Tehran has become increasingly frustrated with the remaining signatories to deliver economic benefits as promised by the agreement.

The US has threatened Iran with further “sanctions and isolation.” In response, the Iranians have promised to scale back commitments every 60 days unless the UK, China, France, Germany and Russia protect the country from American sanctions.

The Chinese foreign ministry blamed American “unilateral bullying” that it described as a “worsening tumor.” Russia also blamed the US and pledged to salvage the Iran deal.France is European efforts to save the JCPOA.

Such is the might of the US with its deep capital markets, the global reach of its law and the power of the dollar that hardly anyone is doing business with Iran. The Europeans have to fulfill their part of the deal out of fear of retribution from the US. European companies with American shareholders and large exports to the US cannot dare to displease Washington, DC. Even a rising giant like with refineries designed for Iranian crude has ceased importing all oil from Iran.

Why Does the Iran Nuclear Deal Matter?

Over 60% of Iran’s population is. About 22% of them between 15 and 29 are unemployed. Sanctions are hitting them the hardest. Protests have persisted since 2018 as jobs vanish, corruption persists and the economy nosedives. Tehran has responded with repression and claims the regime has launched the “worst” crackdown in a decade. This has made hardliners like Bolton argue that the US must keep up the pressure until a combination of internal and external revolution brings about regime change. As many point out, Bolton is operating from the old Bush playbook for Iraq, of which he was one of the authors.

Most believe that Iran largely abided by JCPOA despite Trump pulling out of the deal. Iranians were hoping that the Europeans, Chinese, Russians and Indians would stand up to Washington and do business with them. This did not transpire. So, as per some analysts, the Iranians have decided to hit back. They believe Iran is using an aggressive gambit that includes attacks on oil tankers, shooting down American drones and ratcheting up the geopolitical temperature. The recent seizing of tankers and arresting of spies is part of that gambit, which puts upward pressure on the price of oil. Unsurprisingly, Iran denies being a provocateur and argues that it is acting merely in self-defense.

The most recent developments suggest that Iran is sending Washington a clear signal. The US-Iran conflict is expensive not only for Iran but also for the US and others. Like any deal, the JCPOA was imperfect, but it established an overdue détente in a highly volatile region. Trump decided this was not the best path forward for the US and pulled out of the nuclear deal. Now, it is back to confrontation à la the days after Iran’s 1979 .

With rising tensions, it remains to be seen if the JCPOA will stand. Iran’s nosediving economy might collapse completely. War could break out in the region. Additionally, a global power struggle might ensue. Russia and China could back Iran while Europe and India grudgingly side with the US. And in a world where the price of oil still matters, the collapse of the nuclear deal could tip a sluggish global economy into recession if not depression. The stakes could not be higher.

*[360° series is our signature feature where you get context and insights from around the world. Read more about the situation with Iran below.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

The post Post-Iran Nuclear Deal: What’s Going On? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

When you think of the nature of celebrity, almost infallibly the first thing that comes to mind is the concept of “15 minutes of fame.” Coined at the end of the transformative 1960s, “In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes” became Andy Warhol’s best-known statement. It is completely insignificant that he allegedly to never having used the phrase.

With the overwhelming upsurge in various types of mass media today, Warhol’s quip seems to ring truer than ever. Endless reality-TV shows, celebrity gossip magazines and websites with an annual revenue of more than , and a global movie industry have created a conveyor belt of people who, in the words of cultural historian , are “well-known for their well-knowness.” As these celebrities multiply and become more available to their audience, the cultural paradigm appears to shift toward the superficial and the sensationalist��— a generational lament of loss of enduring value.

We have a desire to idolize. We compulsively follow the everyday lives of celebrities, from the tragic, like their heartbreaks and deaths, to the mundane, like what kind of coffee they drank that morning. The personal aspects of people’s lives matter more than their professional achievements. Preoccupation with the image is reaching unprecedented proportions: More than 40 billion photos have been shared on since it launched in 2010, with around 95 million uploaded daily by its . Our fascination with the visual is the Mona Lisa for the digital age.

So, what effects does celebrity admiration, or worship, have on society?

in the early 2000s described the syndrome (CWS) as having various degrees of severity. These range from entertainment-social, the usual interest in celeb gossip we share with friends; to intense-personal, where some may experience feelings of bereavement similar to losing a loved one in case of a favorite celebrity’s death; to borderline-pathological, which include conditions such as , where an individual has delusions that someone of a higher social status, very often a celebrity, is in love with them.

have shown a correlation between adolescents who worship celebrities do not just mimic their style, but opt for plastic surgery more often than those who do not worship celebs. The estimates that between 33,000 to 65,000 children below 18 undergo cosmetic surgery each year, with nonsurgical cosmetic procedures ranging from 91,000 to 190,000 annually.

A study by found that, in 2007, fame was “the number one value communicated to preteens on popular TV,” confirming in later findings that fame was the for their future. A survey cited by shows that over 30% of 14 to 18-year-olds admitted to thinking they are likely to be famous one day. Becoming a celebrity seems to be viewed as a , and with a long list of “” celebrities who dropped out of school at 15 — including Virgin’s Richard Branson, singer Aretha Franklin and cult film director Quentin Tarantino — it is perhaps unsurprising that long-term achievements like pursuing a path of education pale in comparison with instantaneous, TV-grade opportunities.

But it’s not all bad news. Shira Gabriel, a psychologist at the University of Buffalo, told that “Perhaps some people who don’t feel good about themselves and are not able to get what they want out of a real relationship because of a fear of rejection can feel a connection with a celebrity and get something positive out of that.” A is, in a way, perhaps better than loneliness, and a way to cope with the pressures of everyday life. A study of Chinese students found that those who “worshipped” their teachers, family members or other “” had higher self-esteem and educational success, showing the positive side of having role models.

Why Does Celebrity Culture Matter?

Today, celebrity rules our world. Famous names and famous faces sell us products, push social change and tell us whom to vote for. Politics itself has become an exercise in showmanship. Ever since won him the 1960 run against Richard Nixon, the figure of the celebrity politician has become more ubiquitous. To win elections, not only did you have to be intelligent, competent and diligent; you had to look presidential as well.

You can see the mass appeal in the likes of ’s impressive public image campaign, or ’s sweeping popularity or indeed ’s rise to power, which was made possible in large part by the persona created for him and popularized on The Apprentice.

While fame is not a new concept, its nature changed dramatically over the course of the 20th century. In the past, people were famous, or infamous, for being successful — the early Arctic explorers like Roald Amundsen and Ernest Shackleton, Amelia Earhart, Joanne D’Arc, Galileo, Ernest Hemingway. Today, when someone like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian after releasing a sex tape, where footballers’ wives and girlfriends are known for just that — being “WAGs”— we need to ask ourselves what value we assign to the people who dominate what is starting to feel like every aspect of our lives.

When The Beatles declared they were more popular than Jesus, were they aware of a cultural shift in public perception? After all, is Elvis ever less revered by the 20 million who have visited Graceland since it first opened in 1982 than Siddhartha Gautama, the historical Buddha?

In a culture where earns more than professional actors and sportsmen, we need to hold a mirror up to our social nature and try to understand this need to identify with someone, and to attempt to move past being trapped in what often feels like a cliquey, Mean Girls-style high-school cafeteria.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:��

The post Celebrity Culture: Famous For Being Famous appeared first on 51�Թ�.

��is a challenge facing the entire planet. Yet different countries have different perspectives even when they agree on the enormity of the challenge. The United States wants China and India to control their emissions. The two Asian giants want the US to share new technology with them in return because they have millions living without electricity and their per capita energy consumption is a fraction of that in the rich world.

Even issues that seem black and white are complex. To make sense of any issue, we need context and multiple perspectives. Yet at the same time, we are all prisoners of our backgrounds and beliefs. Media invariably reflects national or local perspectives whether it is��The New York Times���ǰ���The Japan Times. Moreover, in the era of social media, we are often trapped in echo chambers that confirm our worldview.

Today, traditional journalism faces three challenges. First, in the era of data deluge, news is often noise with journalists chasing headlines like cocker spaniels chasing bits of silver in the wind. Second, in an era of climate change and political upheaval, news often lacks context—historical, economic or philosophical. Third, in an era of globalization and the internet, news is invariably ethnocentric if not partisan.

The solution to these challenges is a new kind of journalism that focuses on the deeper issues behind the news, provides context and brings together diverse perspectives from around the world. 51�Թ� has set out its stall to provide this new kind of journalism. Already, we have more than 1,700 contributors from over 70 countries, many of whom we have trained over time.

The was our effort to train over 400 young minds in six countries: India, Morocco, Kenya, Austria, Mexico and the United States. This program was conducted in partnership with the United Nations Foundation and our goals were threefold. First, we sought to inspire our students to tell their own stories in their own voices. Second, we trained them to focus on substantive issues such as water, health and poverty eradication. Third, we taught them the tools of the trade of good journalism so they could tell compelling stories about substantive issues to a global audience.

So, why did we choose to train so many people across so many countries?

We believe the lives and destinies of over 7 billion people on the planet are now inextricably intertwined. Poverty, hunger, health, education and water remain issues that require urgent attention. Yet these issues rarely make it on the news agenda, which is largely top down and often pushes the poor and marginalized out of focus.

At a time when inequality is increasing exponentially, we have no choice but to focus on the deep issues and the hard choices that confront us on a daily basis. For instance, the Ganges, long considered the holiest of all rivers by most Indians, now has toxins, chemicals and other dangerous bacteria that are almost��. Strife-torn����that is exacerbating conflicts between communities.

To shine the light on issues such as water, health and poverty eradication, we created the 2016 Voices of the World Program. These are global issues and different cultures have a lot to learn from each other. Therefore, we set out to give people control of their own narratives by teaching them the tools of the trade. Our training emphasizes critical thinking, rigorous analysis and engaging storytelling. A good journalist is an observer, an investigator, a raconteur and a keeper of conscience all rolled into one.

We inform and educate the global citizens of today and tomorrow by publishing meaningful stories infused with people’s histories, philosophies and deepest beliefs. The 2016 Voices of the World Program educated a new generation of citizen journalists who will, in turn, educate others through their stories. We look forward to continuing this program in 2017 and beyond.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post The Voices of the World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

BACKGROUND

Given the drama that has unfolded in 2016, with talk of border��, ,�������Ի���, it feels like the US presidential campaign has dragged on for far too long. Its end, however, is near. On November 8, Americans will vote for their 45^th�������������Գ�.

��from the country’s two main political parties—the Republican Party and the Democratic Party—began the race for the White House in 2015. Eighteen months on, the billionaire businessman Donald Trump is the Republican nominee, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee.

But how have both candidates fared thus far?

Trump and Clinton are two of the����in US electoral history. According to��, around 15% of the electorate support third-party candidates like the Libertarian Party’s Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, or remain undecided. Convincing the undecided voters is crucial for Trump and Clinton as both candidates battle each other in a tight race.

Why Does The US Presidential Election Matter?

The US election matters as it is a global election. What happens in America in November has the potential to send ripple effects around the world.

In the US, voter turnout is a major concern, and decreasing turnout rates over the last two election cycles seem to indicate high��levels of��political apathy. According to a��, voter turnout dived from 62.3% of eligible voters in 2008 to an estimated 57.5% in 2012. In November,��it is hoped that voter turnout will be better as the stakes have never been higher.

Domestically, all eyes will be on how President Barack Obama’s successor will deal with the United States’ fragile social fabric: heightened racial tensions, police brutality, Islamophobia and gun violence are just some of the issues that have plagued the country in recent years. Obama’s legacy has been tainted by the lack of a cohesive, firm approach to heal some of these wounds.

Internationally, the world has been paying close attention to what American leadership in global affairs might look like under a Trump or Clinton administration.��It can be argued that the Republican presidential primaries brought the US election into global focus, simply due to the candidates’ .

The views of both presidential candidates on issues like climate change and trade deals have caused much apprehension among US allies. To Trump,��. Clinton, meanwhile, has withdrawn her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), which she previously declared to be for international trade agreements. This has brought��the US pivot to Asia to a slight halt as the��TPP��was seen as an integral part of .

If Trump becomes president, America would be entering uncharted territory. At the age of 71, Trump would be the oldest president with no prior experience in political office. His first 100 days at the White House might see him erasing the Obama administration’s legacy. He may even decide to suspend America’s participation in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, develop a , and his Islamophobic and misogynist comments might further divide communities within the US.

The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has also ranked the prospect of a Trump victory as��. Trump is ranked riskier than Brexit or potential armed conflict over the South China Sea, sharing a rating with global jihadi terrorism.

On the flipside,��a��Clinton presidency��does not look significantly brighter. Her campaign has been marred by the now-��that have led critics to question her lack of transparency. Clinton’s����has also been a source of concern on whether she is fit to be commander in chief, and her foreign policy track record is not as strong as everyone thinks.

Despite being the country’s , Clinton’s foreign policy career has been deemed a “” by Columbia University economist Jeffrey D. Sachs—based on her “war approach” toward America’s involvement in the Middle East and her .

While neither candidate is regarded as an overwhelming favorite,��the choice is a definitive one. Whom America decides��to grant the power to shape its domestic policy and international affairs after January 2017 is anyone’s guess.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump: Who Will Win? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

BACKGROUND

When visiting a home in the Middle East or North Africa (MENA), it is the women who always appear to welcome the guest with a streaming cup of tea or coffee. While outsiders might view them as mystical Oriental creatures garbed in veils, the traditional hospitality and warmth of the region is clearly held in the hands of its living, vital women.

It is women who doggedly attend university classes in higher numbers than men. It is women who line up at the school entrances to register their wiggling children for classes. It is also women who are by conflict and instability, whether during protracted civil wars or in the aftermath of the . It is the same women who must rebuild their societies when men are absent or injured.

According to the World Bank, of the population in the MENA region is female. Battle lines have been drawn for many years over the oft-described subjugation of women. Arguments rage about whether it is a , or imperial legacy that emasculates men, or a consequence of desperate poverty. The causes for the inequality between women and men are many. Yet it is important to recognize and nurture the multidimensional role women play in the region.

Despite increasingly vocal women in places such as and , debates over gender-specific issues such as genital mutilation, child marriage and often assume Middle Eastern women to be helpless victims. The truth is that women in MENA often battle the odds, ask the hardest questions and are the biggest drivers of change in their societies.

WHY DO WOMEN IN MENA MATTER?

Women matter in any society and not just in MENA. People in societies where women are more educated live longer. Societies with more women leaders tend to be more peaceful. Societies where women have similar opportunities to work as men tend to be more productive and prosperous. In brief, women play one of the most important roles in development whether in social, political or economic terms.

Anecdotally, motherhood is the easiest role to see women perform successfully as advocates for their children. It is often women who obstinately stand in doorways insisting that aid be delivered to their families. Statistically, the effect of female literacy is indisputably linked to a decrease in both and childhood illness by several studies.

This becomes even more important in projections of population growth in the Middle East and North Africa, with a fertility rate holding steady at per female and increased life expectancy. Educating mothers in the MENA region will lead to fewer children suffering from preventable diseases and more children attending school. The potential social and economic ramifications are not easily ignored.

Mothers often bear the brunt of , managing households and finances while crippled by a lack of education. When a male provider dies or is unable to work, women are forced to scramble to provide for their families and manage with meager resources. This hardship is exacerbated in conflict zones, where women fear for their physical safety and the wellbeing of their children.

This is perhaps why women are notably invested in peace. Tellingly, participation by local women in the peacebuilding process has a “.” Women’s inclusion in peacebuilding boosts the probability of ending violence by a notable 24% annually. Studies in Liberia, Rwanda, Nepal and El Salvador demonstrate that women serve as effective mediators, agents of reconciliation and implementers of disarmament. In Colombia, women negotiate . The United Nations (UN) recognized this in 2000, passing to incorporate gendered perspectives into peacekeeping.

Although the rate of women’s participation in peacekeeping is still notably low and still in need of organic work, it was women who drafted Cambodia’s first piece of anti-corruption legislature, underlining the fact that female leaders promote more .

A found that in ethnically diverse countries, a more “participative, collaborative” form of leadership practiced by female heads of state led to better economic performance. As per this study, the more diverse the nation, the more likely it is that a female leader could

This also lends credence to the idea that women have a more nuanced approach to leadership. They are also more likely to in dispensing justice. Yet women occupy less than 10% of parliamentary seats in .

Women can fulfill the role of leader but, on a practical level, they are also important contributors to the workforce. Therefore, the World Bank, among others, repeatedly “stresses the importance of inclusiveness and accountability.”

Women in the MENA region, however, are underrepresented in the workforce with only . Women’s participation in the workforce has increased annually by a lackluster rate of 0.17% for the last 30 years. Ironically, World Bank data reveals that many Arab countries have made giant strides in reducing the gender gap in education. In fact, women are often than their male counterparts, as female students outperform boys particularly on the tertiary level. In Qatar, for example, in universities by 2:1, and yet men are still more likely to be ahead in the workplace. Clearly, it is the gap in employment that now needs to shrink.

In , Hafez Ghanem, vice president of the region, argues that women in the region are now demanding a more inclusive role in society, both economically and socially. Yet women along with youth and family farmers remain one of the three most excluded groups in society. Ghanem points out that various obstacles, including “unsafe” private work environments, lack of childcare, marriage, legal or informal discrimination, and guardianship systems continue to limit women’s participation in the workforce.

This status quo is untenable. For the new generation of women in the MENA region, education and work are increasingly a priority. They demand an inclusive role in society, economic growth and access to employment opportunities. Over 40% of women in Lebanon and Morocco disagree with employers preferring to hire men over women. In eight sampled countries across the MENA region, “more than 40% of women strongly disagree with the notion that university education is more important for a boy than a girl.”

Ghanem posits that the demographic shift toward the youth population has brought young women to the forefront. This new generation of women aged 15-29 are more educated, have better health outcomes and lower fertility rates than their predecessors. Still, the labor force participation rate for young Arab women remains particularly low compared to the rest of the world. In 2003, it was 27% compared to 64% in the Americas, 55% in Europe and 62% in sub-Saharan Africa

There is a need to close the gap in employment both in the formal and informal sectors, creating more opportunities for more educated young women.

Women, like men, are multifaceted and can perform multifaceted roles in society. Yet part of the reason they suffer discrimination and experience a gender gap is because of defined by tradition in society. Even in the US, is a constant source of distress and discussion. In the context of MENA, a conversation around gender roles and expectations is necessary for women to perform to their full potential.

Although women will seize every opportunity given to them, in ignoring the varied roles they can play, the international community loses the clearest agents of sustainable change. The demonstrated is the key to stabilizing and nurturing healthy societies.

This 360° comprises a series of articles that highlight the rich, intricate and varied roles women play in the MENA region. They also examine how women can increase civic participation, redefine the social contract and transform their region.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:

The post Women Hold the Key to MENA’s Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

When on the United Kingdom’s membership in the European Union (EU) in 2013, the possibility of a Brexit was distant and unrealistic. At the time, the pledge appeared to be a political swatting at the Tory back bench and UK Independence Party (UKIP) buzz around immigration and euroskepticism—hedged against the Conservative Party winning a majority mandate in Parliament in 2015.

Today, the scales have turned. The refugee crisis, financial instability and the expansion of the EU to include new states like Bulgaria and Romania have soured attitudes toward Europe in Britain, as evidenced by in the general election. The Conservatives’ electoral success came as a surprise to everyone, including the party itself, and Cameron now finds himself in an awkward position of rallying the troops against what can become a disintegration of the European project, instigated by his very own political pandering to the right.

With the stage set for June 23, the Vote Leave and Britain Stronger in Europe campaigns are pouring fuel on the fire that is the EU referendum debate. One of the country’s leading newspapers, The Economist, concedes that the “.” Indeed, after more than three decades of Britain’s membership in first the European Economic Community (EEC) and then the EU, separating the claims on both sides is not unlike being party to a couple’s quarrel.

The he-said-she-said nature of the campaign has been trying to claim all the key issues at stake: the economy, the bureaucracy, immigration and the nation’s darling—the National Health Service (NHS).

The Vote Leave campaign, backed by six of the 29 cabinet ministers, including Cameron’s personal friend and Justice Secretary Michael Gove, is claiming that Britain will be able to negotiate better trade deals with both Europe and the rest of the world if it is no longer bound by EU restrictions. The point it has been exploiting most avidly is the retaining of the £350 million that Britain pays Brussels every week—money that, the campaign is claiming, can be diverted to the NHS, education and research.

The Vote Remain camp counters this with threats of financial instability that would follow a Brexit, supported by a timely drop of the British pound to its lowest rate against the dollar since 2009 following then-London Mayor Boris Johnson’s announced backing for the Vote Leave side. , and many are skeptical that any of them would greet Britain with open arms given its “cherry-picking” attitude. Given that versus just under 10% from the EU to Britain, many on the Vote Remain side are loathe to risk breaking up the existing system in lieu of something unpredictable.

The question of immigration provides the bitter undertone to the otherwise predominantly economic slant of the campaign. Although the , there is a negative attitude toward the effects of immigration on the welfare and health care sectors, employment and education, among others. The inclination toward has been largely unchanged since 2008, but with the NHS and immigration topping the list of national concerns, it is easy to see how the presence of over is causing tension.

Two papers cited by Channel 4’s fact-checking team show that than they pay into the system when compared to “any kind of immigrant.” A recent report commissioned by the concluded that immigration helps Britain sustain its aging population, which is supported by that arrivals from EEA countries paid over £3 billion in income tax and national insurance in 2013-14, while taking out just over half a billion in benefits.

But the Vote Remain side’s claims that you are much more likely to be treated by an EU immigrant than find one in a hospital bed next to you fall on many deaf ears, with the Vote Leave camp resorting to Australia’s point system that was previously suggested—and largely ignored—by UKIP’s leader Nigel Farage in a call to protect British jobs and services.

Why Does Brexit Matter?

The European Union has a special place in history. It is the culmination of the process of peace and cooperation that evolved out of mankind’s most destructive war in an attempt to unite a continent along cultural, economic and political lines. What began as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 is today the world’s biggest single market, comprising 28 member states. To many, it is living proof of the democratic ethos of enlightened progress.

The United Kingdom applied to join in 1961, and it took over a decade to be admitted in 1973. The majority of the nine countries then comprising the EEC were wealthier than Britain, making its economic success an integral part of the EU story. As the world’s fifth largest economy, today’s Britain negotiates from a position of unprecedented power, with a decision to leave the union putting��a strain on the very idea of the European Union that has not seen a break in the ranks since Greenland’s inauspicious departure in 1985.

There are endless questions for voters to consider. Would the UK benefit from new trade agreements with, say, China, over the EU? Would food and energy prices go up? Would EU research grants be replaced by government funding? By how much would immigration fall, and what would that mean for the economy? How would foreign investment and financial services be affected? Would the question of Scottish independence be reopened? What would happen to the 2 million Brits and 2 million EU citizens living across the channel from each other? Would saving the $12 billion that Britain pays into the EU budget outweigh the economic benefits of being part of the EU market? Where would that money go? Would Britain be safer behind closed borders? The list goes on.

To some, a Brexit would be a long-overdue opportunity for the UK to retake control over its legislative and economic decisions. To others, it signifies a relinquishing of control in a system in which it will nevertheless have to take part, but now as a voiceless outsider. Regardless of the outcome, in this time of crisis, the referendum is laying bare the dark side of the crisis of European unity and identity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��/

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post To Brexit or Not to Brexit? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

enables life on Earth. Human beings can survive three weeks without food, but only three days without water.��, water forms 83% of the lungs, 79% of muscles and kidneys, 73% of the brain and the heart, 64% of the skin and 31% of even the bones. Access to clean water makes life possible. It is little surprise that the United Nations (UN) has declared that ensuring “availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all” is one of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Today, we are living in a world where clean water is increasingly scarce. In 2009, the (WHO) pointed out that more than 3.4 million people die every year because of water-related diseases, making it the leading cause of disease and death around the world. Of the 3.4 million, most are children who die because of pathogens in the water. This occurs because a lack of sanitation and sewage systems ensures that untreated human and animal fecal matter ends up in the water. The����that 2.4 billion people lack access to sanitation and 663 million to clean drinking water.

Many emerging economies have achieved extraordinary economic growth at the cost of their environment, with water pollution reaching spectacular levels. China, home to more than 1.3 billion people, is a classic example. The Chinese Environment Ministry has����that about 60% of underground water and a third of surface water in China is unfit for human contact. India, with its fast-growing population of over 1.25 billion people, is in a worse state than China. Almost����and a growing percentage of its underground reserves are “contaminated by biological, toxic, organic and inorganic pollutants.” Apart from communicable diseases, water is now causing chronic ones. Heavy metals are making their way via water into the soil and from there into the country’s food supply. What people eat on a daily basis is damaging their health and wellbeing.

Another worrying trend is that human beings are increasingly using larger quantities of water.����“water use has been growing at more than twice the rate of population increase in the last century.” In China, increasing desertification is setting off alarm bells as the Gobi desert “gobbles up 3,600 square kilometers of grassland each year.”����that, if current trends continue, 60% of India’s aquifers will be in a critical condition in 20 years. Already, India relies on its aquifers and pumps out “an estimated 230 cubic kilometers of groundwater per year — over a quarter of the global total.”

The����for the arid Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and predicts that “per capita water availability will fall by half by 2050, with serious consequences for the region’s already stressed aquifers and natural hydrological systems.” Even California, with its lush lawns and backyard swimming pools, is facing a severe drought and imposed its����in April 2015.

© Shutterstock

The����once painted by Mark Twain is now considered real by intelligence agencies and many scholars. In the Syrian conflict,��. Cutting off water supply to achieve “military and political gains” is often even more effective than barrel bombs and causes inhuman suffering to millions. Even in societies not at war, rising population, increasing per capita demand and falling supply make an explosive cocktail.

Why Does Clean Water Matter?

Water is literally the essence of life. It might not give people the mythic properties of youth and immortality, but it makes life possible on the planet. Current trends threaten the environment and human existence. People have to realize that water is a scarce and precious resource. Conserving both surface and underground water sources across the world is a necessity, not an option. Similarly, sanitation and sewage systems can wait no longer. Perhaps, even more importantly, human beings have to curb the industrial pollution that is destroying water systems worldwide. Emissions matter. Lowering them would help avert the growing threat of climate change that is causing water scarcity through increasing desertification, frequent droughts and rising sea levels.

There are many efforts underway in different parts of the world to address the water crisis. In China, Beijing, Kunming and other cities are already��. In India, Rajendra Singh, the winner of the Stockholm Water Prize who is known as “,” is bringing back to life ancient techniques of rainwater harvesting and involving local communities. In the United States,��the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) is ��in “energy-efficient, low-carbon technologies for creating potable water from saline sources.”

To provide water for the planet, concerted action by international institutions, governments, scientists, civic leaders and the media is essential. The water crisis is existential. Many people are responding to it already. Pooling together knowledge, expertise and resources would make existing efforts more effective.

Eventually, the water crisis has a simple two-pronged solution. First, per capita consumption of water has to go down. Some frugality would go a long way. Second, the supply of water using Singh’s ancient techniques and MIT’s modern ones has to increase. Technical innovation with community participation can do wonders.��Homo sapiens sapiens��is an innovative social species and has a good shot at solving the planet’s water crisis if it gets its act together.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:�� / /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your ��is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Water is the Essence of Life appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

A cursory Google search for the term “Muslim women” largely produces a single image: a black sheet. Muslim women are this single stereotype: a black robe covering a brown-skinned, exotic, sexually charged damsel-in-distress. This image brings with it a host of other adjectives that are equally restricting: oppressed, subjugated, silent, invisible.

From Princess Jasmine to the poster f�ǰ���Homeland, these women exist for the pleasure of men, hidden behind screens in a harem, patiently waiting for European colonists to rescue them from their plight. Although it seems farfetched, the idea of��“”��Muslim women has been used as a justification for Western intervention time and time again: from the blue burqas in����to the silence over����killed by the Taliban in favor of����one.

The assertions that Muslim women suffer are, however, true:��,��limited to seek divorce and recourse after rape,�� and����are all major issues in Muslim countries. The symbolic black robes originate in Saudi Arabia, which coincidentally also tops the list of countries where lack of��, especially the ability to drive, are frequently highlighted. It is indisputable that Muslim countries, most notably those within conflict zones, top the list for most dangerous places for women.

Why Do Stories of Muslim Women Matter?

A one-dimensional portrayal of Muslim women, however, and Muslim women’s issues, erases the multifaceted causes: globalization, conflict and patriarchal systems among them. It hides the fact that many countries, including�������Ի���, had advanced women’s rights before the brutal conflicts and intervention they now face.

Furthermore, this narrative ignores the stories of Saudi women who����the driving ban, the disproportionately higher number of educated women in countries such as�������Ի���, and the movement toward trendy “” fashion and high clothing��lines dedicated��. It obstructs the stories of pioneering young women like��,��,�������Ի�����from being heard.

Farah al-Zahrani © Elena Koshevaya

It also glosses over the emergence of����such as the late�������Ի�����and their attempts to engage meaningfully with religious texts to redefine what it means to be Muslim and a woman. The struggles with and against patriarchal systems, abuse and even����in mosques are not only ongoing, but increasingly evident.

If only the first narrative exists, Muslim women are forever the silent victims, unable to speak for themselves and waiting for a savior. It creates a binary between the��—validating the idea that the only way to be “empowered” is to also be globally north or “Western.” This identity is tied closely with the idea of being individualistic, a commodified consumer and, in some cases, secular. While some Muslim women might choose to embrace this “girl power” flavored identity as a valid form of self-expression and identification, allowing��it as the only options silences any other definitions of empowerment.

The two strains of this identity—what it means to be “Muslim” and what it means to be a “woman”—are an ongoing negotiation for most women that is both complex and nuanced. Reducing this process to a single image or stereotype is both counterproductive and reductive.

The response of an increasing number of Muslim women is an insistence on performing their own identities in the����sphere. Whether this means becoming a Brazilian jiu-jitsu artist, a competitive boxer, a business owner and entrepreneur or an activist, Muslim women are eschewing the idea that they must adhere to anybody’s standard and critiquing the identities forced upon them by outside forces, including globalization.

The only way to understand what it means to be a Muslim woman is to listen to the stories of Muslim women.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post The Unapologetic Muslim Woman appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Poverty, a word with Latin roots, is simply a state of privation when human beings lack necessities. In the not too distant past, a large proportion of the world’s population lived in extreme poverty. About a third of the population of modern-day Bangladesh, West Bengal and parts of Assam, Orissa, Bihar and Jharkhand��. British exploitation caused this famine and such rapacious behavior by colonial powers led to much poverty around the world.

Till the middle of the 20^th��century, poverty in Latin America, Africa and Asia was a common phenomenon. But the studies of�������Ի�����demonstrated that poverty was not uncommon even among the industrialized nations. Furthermore, they challenged the commonly held view that poverty resulted from the weaker morals of the working classes. Instead, they proved that poverty was largely caused by endemic social and economic conditions. Rowntree found that nearly 30% of the population of��York was living in poverty in 1899. They did not have enough food, fuel and clothing to keep them in good health.

Rowntree’s work has now been taken up by others. International institutions attempt to measure poverty on an ongoing basis. The World Bank aims to rid the world of poverty and defines it as a state when someone earns less than $1.90 per day.����published by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the number of those who earn less than $1.90 a day is estimated to be around 700 million. This is less than 10% of the world population. In 1990, this figure was 37% and Jim Yong Kim, the president of the World Bank, has triumphantly declared poverty eradication to be the best story in the world today. He has gone on to declare “that we are the first generation in human history that can end extreme poverty.”

The World Bank baseline of $1.90 per day����for measuring poverty, and its number of the global poor population might be a gross underestimation.��As per the (UN), over 50% of children under five in South Asia and over 40% in Sub-Saharan Africa are stunted. These children struggle to get access to clean water, proper nutrition and rudimentary health care. They suffer lifelong health problems, including cognitive damage.

According to the most recent����(HDR), more than 2.2 billion people, over 30% of the world population, “are either near or living in multidimensional poverty.” More alarmingly, about 80% of the people on the planet lack comprehensive social protection, 12% “suffer from chronic hunger,” and 20% live in countries affected by conflict.

Hence, it is unsurprising that the UN has declared ending “poverty in all its forms everywhere” as the first of its Sustainable Development Goals (SDG).

Why Does Poverty Eradication Matter?

Poverty-plagued societies tend to be more violent, sick and unstable than prosperous ones. In an interconnected world of more than 7 billion people, the problems of the poor cannot be confined to ghettos or certain geographic regions. Refugees from conflict-ridden areas are streaming into Europe. Diseases from West Africa such as Ebola spread to the United States in the blink of an eye. Poor areas in American cities such as Baltimore and Detroit have “shoot ‘em up” gas stations, murderous gangs and “drive by shootings” on a regular basis. Cities suffer when poverty and crime increase. It is clear that poverty eradication has practical benefits not only for the poor, but also for numerous others.

Sadly, eradicating poverty is easier said than done. Measuring poverty is difficult. Finding its causes, particularly the most pertinent ones, is even harder. Figuring out policies to alleviate and eradicate poverty is infernally complex. Joseph Stalin’s����killed millions of kulaks and Mao Zedong’s����was a massive somersault backward. Yet humanity now has a better understanding than before about dealing with poverty. For instance,����in all parts of the world.

Obviously, there is no one size fits all policy to eradicate poverty. African Americans tend to be poor in the US because��. The legacy of slavery and��,��along with a discriminatory criminal justice system that puts�� once during their lifetime,��means that it is harder for African Americans in crime-infested bad neighborhoods to break out of the vicious cycle of poverty.

In India, the poor still tend to come from lower castes despite decades of progress. They still do not have access to education, jobs and wealth in a country of over 1.25 billion people. Women worldwide are poorer than men, thanks to continuing discrimination and lack of comparable opportunities. Indigenous communities��.

Other perils remain. Many poorer countries are caught��. Far too often, they borrow to pay back old debt, ending up at the mercy of creditors who keep them trapped in poverty.����too. Even humanitarian aid can��.

Similarly, blind trust in markets��à la��Ronald Reagan is no solution either. It has led to soaring inequality, environmental damage and increasing poverty. Even as�� have tripled since 1980,��—14.8% of the population—are now living in poverty.��The 85 have the same wealth as the 3.5��billion poorest people.

Furthermore,��climate change is threatening to ��and “reduce average income in the poorest 40% of countries by 75% in 2100.”

In the past, poverty has been tackled through various measures. Otto von Bismarck brought about comprehensive reforms in Germany, laying the foundation of the modern European welfare system. In the United Kingdom, Rowntree’s reports led to the reforms of 1906-12, which included the provision of free school meals, sickness and unemployment insurance for working men, as well as the first state pensions. The communist countries of China, Vietnam and Cuba have been eradicating poverty by ensuring that their people have better nutrition and improved medical attention.

The knowledge and expertise to end poverty already exist. All the world needs is social conscience and political will.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Ending Poverty is Hard But Doable appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

The sight of shabby boats packed to the brim with countries like Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan was a prevalent image for the year 2015.

According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), entered Europe last year, with over from Turkey to Greece—half of them . The figures for 2014 were 280,000 detected migrants, and 570,000 asylum applications.

What is far more troubling than this exodus is the numbers of those who do not make it to Europe’s shores. Just in the first quarter of 2015, the death toll was far over 1,500, compared with 96 during the first four months of 2014. The IOM estimates that last year.

For a long time, member states of the European Union (EU) have looked to Germany to solve the issue. In September, Hungarian stated: “The problem is not a European problem, the problem is a German problem.” Indeed, Germany is the most sought-after destination among the refugees. The country was expected to take in at least in 2015 alone, while reports on December 30 said Germany had seen enter the country.

Applying for is a lengthy and complex process. Protected under international law, the system sets standards and procedures for processing and assessing asylum applications, and for the treatment of both asylum seekers and those who are granted refugee status. Once they claim refugee status, they cannot be returned to the home country against their will.

According to the Asylum Quarterly Report conducted by Eurostat, the applicants in April 2015—from around 35,000 in 2014 to 55,000 in 2015—reaching 90,000 by June. Germany has 38% of these applicants; Hungary and Austria are the next highest; and Italy, France, and Sweden account for around 7%.

The reason Germany is the most sought after country for Syrians is because it affords , whereby refugees are allowed to claim asylum in Germany even if they arrive at another EU country first. Migrants coming from “safe countries of origin,” like Serbia, Macedonia, and Bosnia and Herzegovina, are deported within a year.

“Ukraine, the Greek question and the migrant issue show how powerful Germany has become in Europe against its own will, how central the German government is to solve these big European questions,” said , of the German magazine Der Spiegel. “I think the chancellor is not particularly happy about that role and would prefer others to collaborate or take the lead.”

Indeed, over are reportedly worried about refugees arriving in the country. But it is not difficult to see why Germany holds the appeal: Anti-immigrant—particularly anti-Muslim—feeling is high in eastern Europe, with countries like and Hungary only willing to accept . Poland’s foreign minister, , went a step further to suggest Syrian refugees—who comprise around —should form an army to “liberate their country.”

Similarly, across the Atlantic, despite President Barack Obama announcing that will be allowed to resettle in the United States in 2016—compared to just over —more than half of state governors oppose the measure.

© Shutterstock

The Paris attacks on November 13, 2015, have only exacerbated fears of Islamist extremists using the refugee crisis as an easy avenue into the West, raising questions of not only immediate border security, but assimilation policies and radicalization prevention.

Why does the EU Migrant Crisis matter?

Much of the contention regarding lies in the inability of EU member states to develop a central policy on asylum. Many EU countries have yet to properly implement any standards set previously. For example, under the Dublin Regulation, the union requires that each asylum claim be reached by the asylum seeker. Given that the main ports of arrival, like Greece, have been hit hardest by the economic crisis, a new system will need to be implemented in order to deal with the unprecedented numbers that have so far resulted in the regulation to be altogether.

The United Nations on European states to guarantee relocation for refugees. In September, EU ministers agreed to relieve the burden on frontline countries by redistributing a further 160,000 refugees, with due to take in the bulk. According to data released by the in November, fewer than so far, with 116 people actually relocated.

With the overwhelming majority of the crisis still shouldered by Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt—who together house over from Syria—the world urgently needs to develop a better response to the crisis. On November 29, the EU struck a to stem the flow of refugees entering Europe.

As international airstrikes against the (IS) in Syria and Iraq take on a new ferocity following the attacks in Paris and the downing of a Russian passenger plane over Egypt, the cycle of violence affecting the civilian population only intensifies. Certainly, this cannot be just “Germany’s problem,” but one that rests on the shoulders of the international community, whose past policies in places like Iraq and Afghanistan have largely precipitated the current situation in the first place.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / ��/��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post The EU Migrant Crisis Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Human beings generally like to live. Good health enables people to live long and fulfilling lives. The Internet has multiple definitions of health and good health. Yet the most commonly used definition continues to be the ’s (WHO) version, which��defines health as��“a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.” The United Nations (UN) has declared that����is one of its (SDG).

By many indices, human beings have never been healthier. Life expectancy has shot up, infant mortality has fallen, communicable diseases are under control, people are taller if not stronger than earlier generations and modern medicine has found cures for diseases that were debilitating until not too long ago. In the last 15 years alone, the number of people newly infected by HIV each year has fallen from 3.1 million to 2 million, and more than 6.2 million people have survived malaria.

However, the world is not the picture of good health yet. The����that over 50% of South Asian children under five are stunted. In Sub-Saharan Africa the figure is 40%. The two main reasons for stunting are hunger caused by poverty and repeated illnesses caused by lack of clean water. Stunted children suffer lifelong health problems, including cognitive damage. Even today, hundreds of millions continue to fall short of what the WHO considers good health.

The specter of new communicable diseases threatens millions, especially those who are marginalized and vulnerable. The����that hit West Africa in March 2014 demonstrates how diseases can spread very quickly in a crowded hyper-connected world of over 7 billion people. In 2003, the�� (SARS)��spread widely and terrified not only East Asia, but also the rest of the world.

Old communicable diseases such as malaria, HIV, polio and tuberculosis continue to pose risks to nearly 50% of the world’s population that resides primarily in the poorest parts of the world. Malaria still accounts for over��, the majority of which are in Sub-Saharan Africa where the disease kills a child every minute. In 2013, more than 145,000 young children died of measles, making it about 400 deaths every day or 16 deaths every hour. Polio has recently reemerged in areas that had been polio-free for years. About��/AIDS, and 70% of them are in Africa.

Other diseases are arguably a bigger menace today.��The UN points out�� (NCD) now cause 63% of all deaths worldwide. Chronic and catastrophic conditions such as cardiovascular diseases, cancers, chronic respiratory problems and diabetes often push households from poverty to deprivation in poorer parts of the world, which are expected to lose $7 trillion to these four maladies by 2025. The losses NCDs cause in richer economies are exponentially higher.

Why Does Health Matter?

Health matters because it is both a human right and a universal aspiration. Health and well-being are now increasingly in focus not only in poorer countries, but also in rich ones. The United States spends 17.1% of its $17.5 trillion GDP on health care, yet rich Americans do not live longer or healthier lives than poor Cubans.�� was four times the amount consumed in the 1990s. The��latest findings of the WHO��have revealed that . Sedentary urban lifestyles amplify the terrible consequences of poor diets.

Health and well-being are challenging goals for any society. Merely throwing money at curing diseases does not lead to better lives. What people eat, how they live and what they do on a daily basis makes a difference. Just as Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia suffer from a lack of food, the US suffers from calorie-rich and nutrient-poor food. With the spread of fast food and fizzy drinks, this American problem is now a global one.

Apart from lifestyle choices such as healthier diets and regular exercise, the big challenge for improving health and well-being is meeting the divergent demands of coverage and cost. For instance, to lower stunting in poorer countries, someone will have to provide food and clean water to those who lack them. Who will foot the bill? Will it be national governments, international institutions or philanthropists like Bill Gates? How does one ensure that costs do not spiral out of control as in the US?

There are other important practical and moral questions. If health and well-being are a universal right, then do people have a duty to live healthily? Who will care for aging populations around the world? Is it families, governments or businesses? Is it right for some people to have gold-plated health care and for others to live out stunted brief lives with little or no access to medical attention? Who fights the next global pandemic? Who��takes care of ��thanks to pollution?

These tricky questions pertaining to health and well-being are now squarely on the public agenda. In the US, Obamacare is expanding coverage even though it is doing little to control spiraling costs. In Europe and Japan, falling birthrates and aging populations are putting pressure on health systems that have worked fairly well for the last few decades.

As��, no health care system is perfect, but it is high time for a global conversation on the issue. Distilling some points of praxis and practice from around the world would enable people to learn from each other and create better systems that achieve better outcomes. This is important because health is truly wealth.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: �� /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Health is Truly Wealth appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Most dictionaries define climate as the generally prevailing weather conditions of a region—as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness and winds—averaged over a series of years.

Over the course of time, many species have gone extinct, new ones have evolved and climate has changed. Today, is being caused not by a volcano or an asteroid, but by human beings.

Climate is complex. There are far too many variables involved. Some of these variables are infernally hard to measure. Some still argue that we do not know enough about the causes of climate change. Yet even most of them agree that climate change is real.

For a start, 2015 is the��. Cities like��,�������Ի�����recorded new highs this year. In India,����died in an unrelenting heatwave. Over 100 people lost their lives in Sudan and Egypt in the first half of August alone because of heat-related illnesses. Even the United States, the only place where politicians still deny climate change, saw�������Ի���.

The heating up of the planet is because of human activity. Since Scotsman James Watt and Englishman Matthew Boulton came up with their steam engine in 1778, the world has embarked on a tumultuous industrial revolution. In 1864, Siegfried Marcus invented the����in Vienna powered by gasoline and put it on four wheels by 1870. Since then, the world has largely been powered by coal and oil. These fossil fuels will continue to supply��.

Fossil fuels have changed the diurnal rhythms of human life by increasing productivity, providing mobility and generating electricity. However, there is an ugly underbelly to fossil fuels. They release carbon dioxide, particulates, methane and other��, which absorb the heat that the Earth radiates back to space.

In short, greenhouse gases cause global warming. NASA estimates that “ between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.”

Why is Climate Change Relevant?

Climate change or global warming is important because of three major reasons.

First, it is melting glaciers alarmingly quickly. In 1910, Glacier National Park in the US had an estimated 150 glaciers. That number has����and the glaciers that remain are a third of what they once were. Glaciers are melting even in the North Pole and the Himalayas. In the words of��, Himalayan glaciers “are��, which means they are losing ice volume rapidly.”

Melting glaciers have terrible consequences. As is well-known, they lead to rising sea levels.����and some of the most dynamic cities on the planet are likely to submerge, causing dislocation of hundreds of millions. As snow and ice give way to moraines and land, less sunlight gets reflected back and more gets absorbed by the Earth. The environment enters a vicious cycle of ever increasing temperatures. It is important to remember that many mighty rivers flow out of glaciers, many of which are melting away. If these trends continue, then people in places like South Asia will no longer have enough water to grow crops or even to drink. The specter of drought and famine is all too real.

Second,�� extreme weather conditions.��Deadly ,��collapsing �����Ի�����are part of a worldwide pattern. Extreme weather is killing many people and damaging property worth billions of dollars. It is also disrupting the lives of millions and threatening their livelihoods.

Third, climate change is����populations disproportionately. Those who have contributed least to climate change are likely to suffer the most. A classic example is Sudan. It has suffered terrible droughts that have led to failed harvests and death of animals. Millions have become destitute and embarked on vast migrations. A concluded that��climate change was putting “unavoidable pressure on people��through migration, displacement, food insecurity and impoverishment, possibly ending in conflict.”

Therefore, it is little surprise that the 21^st��session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 21) is taking place in Paris to belatedly address climate change. US President Barack Obama has given��a rousing speech��outlining “” of climate change. Yet for all his rhetoric, the US is still wedded to an economic model of wanton consumption that contributes to climate change. The upper crust in other countries has embraced Mammon as their God:��,��India’s �����Ի�����are classic examples of new robber barons leading their societies to environmental disaster.

… climate change is��affecting poor, marginalized and vulnerable��populations disproportionately. Those who have contributed least to climate change are likely to suffer the most.

Climate change is a clear and present danger. It requires radical and bold solutions.

First, human beings have to learn how live more frugally and use less energy. This is easier said than done, but people like Mahatma Gandhi provide an inspiration. For those who are not as ascetic, carbon and consumption taxes might lead to some restraint.

Second, clean energy through solar, wind, geothermal��et al��sources needs investment. Clean energy might be expensive today, but its cost will fall over time.

Third, we need to get better at storing and transporting energy. Smart grids, capacitors and new technologies will help.

Fourth, leaders at COP 21 have to come up with plans to deal with the adverse effect of climate change on people’s lives and set aside money to address this. The $100 billion budget right now will neither go far nor last very long. It is just a bit more than a fourth of the Greek government’s debt, and the rich countries who have plundered the planet need to cough up more cash. Better rainwater harvesting, drought-resistant crops and largescale afforestation will help.

Finally, new technologies such as desalinating seawater and geoengineering projects such as spraying particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space are also worth a shot.

Human beings can no longer live as they have in the past. It is high time we started living more frugally, cleanly and sustainably.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: /��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Climate Change: A Clear and Present Danger appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

With over ’s population living in cities, the 21^st century has been described as the urban century. It is estimated that will be living in cities by 2050.

The first urban settlements appeared as early as 3,000 BC in ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley. Historically, cities have fulfilled various functions ranging from sites of pilgrimage, centers of trade and providing protection against enemies.

During the Industrial Revolution, cities developed a more prominent commercial function, attracting people from rural areas who moved to the metropolis��in hope of benefiting monetarily from this shift. The share in England increased from 25.9% in 1776 to 65.2% in 1871. In the early 19^th century, this was due to immigration that was largely , but at the turn of the century natural increase was a major factor in shaping population growth.

The birth of the industrial city, however, came with its own set of limitations: declining infrastructure, congestion, squalor and disruption of social order. A growing concern throughout the late 18^th and 19^th centuries was the development of sustainable cities capable of accommodating a rising��population, since the flow of people to urban areas could not be slowed down.

The beginning of the 20^th century witnessed an in other parts of Europe as well. By , Paris had a population of 2.5 million people, and one-fifth of Germans and French resided in towns. London, with 1 million people in 1800, was unrivaled not only as the largest city in Europe, but also in the world. With a population of 8.6 million in 2015, London��continues to be , but has been outnumbered by with 38 million in the global ranking.

Concerns of unprecedented population expansion find their way well into the 21^st century. Measuring urban success, the City Prosperity Index developed by the United Nations Habitat defines a prosperous city not merely in material terms, but instead inclusivity and equity are important considerations. The cities that do this best often make their proud way onto the “” surveys.

Why are Sustainable Cities��Relevant?

The on climate change notes that cities are not investing adequately in tackling climate change, and unplanned urbanization has led to environmental degradation. Today, even as cities cover less than 2% of the Earth’s surface, they consume 78% of the world’s energy.

City planning often cannot cope with the pace at which population is expanding. It is estimated that today,�� people live in slums, and much of this growth is witnessed in the developing world. According to a����study on urban poverty, over 90% of the urban growth is taking place in the developing world, and the population in South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa will double in the coming two decades.

But various new models of urban planning have been developed to deal with the environmental costs of an expanding population and the consequent social risks of the city’s inability to accommodate them.

Concepts such as are developing to reduce urban traffic, the increasing popularity of biking as a mode of transport aims to reduce motorized vehicles on the roads, and smart cities have added technology as an important component while designing inclusive cities aimed specifically at engaging effectively with citizens.

The in India focuses on the use of technology to create safe cities. Women’s safety is central to the that aims to incorporate increased surveillance of public spaces through security devices such as and the development of an efficient emergency response system as key features of a smart city.

To ensure inclusive growth, it is imperative that relevant policies are devised to accommodate the informal settlements and equip them to deal with everyday challenges such as access to employment opportunities, health care and sanitation.

This is particularly relevant for the people who build the cities we live in. The creates employment for over 110 million people worldwide, and it is estimated that of them are in the developing world, most of whom work in the informal sector. In the recent past, large-scale to the Middle East for employment opportunities��has taken place. Migrant construction workers make a significant contribution to their home economies in the form of remittances, but they often face the , irrespective of whether they are legal or illegal.

According to the , a total of 432 Indian and Nepali construction workers have died between 2011 and 2013. , however, notes that in 2014 alone, one Nepali migrant died every two days, so the real figures are most likely much higher.

As urban populations grow and cityscapes expand, take their place on the United Nations agenda, as building�� frameworks becomes essential to ensuring a better future for the global population.

The ideal city would find space for human existence defined in terms of comfort, accessibility, environmental awareness and inclusive social policies, since it is ultimately the human face of the city that breathes life into it.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: ��/

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post Sustainable Cities of the Future appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Some may argue that the Indian economy has been in the limelight for the past 20��years, but this time it seems to be different. India’s economy was liberalized in 1991 in the aftermath of the Soviet Union’s collapse. Soon after, it left behind the Hindu rate of growth.

However, India stumbled again under the previous government. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the Congress Party, was mired in corruption . Lower , coupled with a inflation rate, made life hell for the poor who suffered inordinately because they could barely afford to buy enough food to keep body and soul together.

Along with corruption, red tape and populism hobbled the economy during the last ten years. Unsurprisingly, India’s overwhelmingly young voters booted out the Nehru clan, India’s de facto royal family, out of power.

Indian voters have great hopes from incumbent Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who entered office in 2014. It remains to be seen if he can inaugurate a new era of economic growth and create the millions of jobs India urgently needs.

India has huge strengths. It has a growing middle-class, a young population and an entrepreneurial society. Yet it has massive weaknesses too. It has decrepit , rampant corruption, stifling red tape and obsolete colonial-era laws. Both Indians and foreigners are hoping that Modi can harness India’s strengths and overcome its weaknesses. On May 26, Modi completed one year in office and there is guarded optimism about the Indian economy.

In 2014-15, India’s gross domestic product (GDP) grew at 7.3% under the new that has been adopted to calculate GDP. The media termed this uptick in the “Modi effect,” and it is certainly true that Modi’s victory infused confidence in the economy. This optimism was not entirely misplaced. During his time as chief minister of Gujarat from 2001-14, the state grew at an of 10% per year. Now, Modi has to start delivering on his promise of development, jobs and growth.

Currently, the Indian economy has some tailwinds behind it. Foreign direct investment (FDI)�� by 27% to $30.9 billion in the fiscal year 2014-15. Foreign institutional investors another $17.9 billion into India’s stock markets. Raghuram Rajan, the head of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), has been sagacious in his monetary policy choices. Under Rajan, the RBI has curbed inflation and has started interest rates this year.

Modi has begun certain flagship programs to also improve the life of the poorest Indians. The Pradhan Mantri Jan-Dhan Yojana��initiative��has aimed at the financial of millions. It made it as a Guinness World Record because of 18 million new bank accounts that were opened during August 23-29, 2014.

Despite the growth, Modi faces criticism. Many accuse him of failing to make tough decisions and attribute India’s economic growth to plain luck. Rahul Gandhi, the fourth-generation leader of the Congress Party, claims that Modi for the wealthy and not for the poor. Massive broke out when the government tried to push through the land acquisition bill. It aims to allow businesses in specific sectors to acquire land for critical development projects. Protesters are concerned that land owners will be unfairly displaced and provided inadequate compensation.

The environment is also a concern. in India is high and so is�� in major urban areas. A recent claimed that if air pollution were at levels permitted by legislation, then Indians on an average would live an extra 3.2 years.

Needless to say, inequity continues to be a concern in a historically stratified society. In particular, women face horrible . They still find it difficult to get and . and domestic abuse are common despite protest and .

Yet India has more women leaders than the US and has companies that are world beaters. Indian talent is making waves in space, software and the arts. Is the Indian elephant about to stride where Asian tigers have gone before?

Why is the Indian Economy��Relevant?

If India takes off, it will become the world’s biggest economy by 2030. India��is already the world’s biggest democracy. Its economic success will prove to the world that economy and economic dynamism are compatible. With its size and familiarity with the English language, India can be a bridge between dominant economies such as the US and the European Union and rising economies such as Bangladesh and Vietnam.

India’s economic story is relevant most of all to its own people. The hundreds of millions of malnourished and underemployed Indians have long yearned for a better life. Their hopes were dashed after independence but they have dared to dream again. India has not always been a poor country. As late as 1820, many that its share of the world GDP was around 20%.

Now, India is starting to dream of getting rich again. Even if the dream comes half true, a large part of humanity will escape penury to live with greater dignity.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your����is��tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become��a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post India’s Major Push into the Limelight appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

In recent years, “extremism” has become a buzzword for global��media, tied to the shadowy threat of terrorism and its rapidly changing faces. But the causes and expressions of are much more diverse and complex, reaching far beyond the actions and ideologies of groups such as and the (IS).

The word “extremism” was coined in the mid-19^th century and is rarely used outside of Western political dialogue.

Today, for instance, with all eyes on the conflicts in the Middle East, few think to make the comparison to Western culture’s own history of extreme religious violence. The use of , one of the most aspects of the Islamic State’s reign of terror, is comparable to the that saw thousands of children die and many more sold into slavery in a quest to drive����from the Holy Land.

Throughout history, narcissistic, power-hungry leaders have used religion to mask their political ambitions, resorting to dramatic means of manipulation. The Assassins, operating from their impregnable stronghold at Alamut castle, inflicted terror across the Middle East for almost two centuries, effectively pioneered suicide terrorism. The Zealots’ campaign of terror against the Romans in Judea culminated in a mass suicide of nearly 1,000 fighters besieged by the Romans at Masada fortress. Phan Xing Long’s uprising against the French in Vietnam came to a predictable conclusion when his acolytes, who believed they were made invisible by a magic potion, were rounded up by police.

The 20^th century saw the coming to power of forces based on extreme secular ideologies, like Nazism��in Germany, Stalinism in the Soviet Union��or the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. Based around a cult of personality of a tyrannical leader, these regimes were responsible for the deaths of of millions—both through state persecution and by the hands of those who blindly followed them. These persecutions were brutal and often arbitrary. So, Pol Pot carried out caricatures of Joseph Stalin’s purges, executing not only intellectuals, but anyone who wore glasses, claiming they were a sign of too much reading and not enough work.

We know it is possible, even easy, to descend into such inhumanity given the right circumstances. The Milgram Experiment—one of the best-known of human nature—is infamous for its results, which seem to support the rationalization so common to war criminals: “I was just following orders.”

Other studies have shown that the descent into monstrosity is not strictly the result of external factors. Equally well-known is the Stanford Prison Experiment, which test subjects into groups of guards and prisoners in a simulated prison environment. The experiment was halted less than halfway through its duration due to intense, unforeseen brutality on the part of the “guards.”

The reasons behind the attraction and success of extreme ideologies are��complex and manifold. It would be easy to dismiss those who join terrorist organizations or religious cults as naïve or hopelessly misled. Yet aside from succumbing to propaganda and mind manipulation, real socioeconomic and political factors play a major role. Poverty and lack of education are well-known drivers of extremism, often enhanced by a sense of social injustice.

© Shutterstock

It is the “just” factor that introduces another dimension to our understanding of “extremism.” Take, for instance, the institution of slavery in the United States or South African apartheid. Both saw millions of black Africans dehumanized and forced into labor. And both had opponents—the (ANC) and the Abolitionist movement—who were themselves considered terrorist groups until the change in the status quo.

Why is Extremism Relevant?

The dialogue concerning extremism is often so one-sided that it becomes difficult to see the situation without an imposed moral slant. This often results in responses to perceived extremism that are themselves extremist. The far-right backlash across Europe exemplified by the likes of , the��English Defence League or the massacre perpetrated by the “lone wolf” in Norway have shocked liberal societies as much as the perceived threat that fuel them.

Extreme ideologies, the “isms” that appear as bloodstained blots on the narrative of human history, take on many shapes and colors. From environmental activism and��governmental disenfranchisement, to the various forms of religious and cult radicalism, inspirations range from idealism and social protest, to struggles for power and resources.

Yet all these movements have one thing in common: Swept up by their ideological missions, they often leave death and destruction in their wake. In trying to attain the goals that initially drew in members, they make mockeries of their own lofty causes.

As the norms and value systems of societies change, what was considered to be a fringe ideology often becomes the accepted norm, and vice versa. But what distinguishes “one man’s freedom fighter” from “another man’s terrorist” is the worship of an idea beyond any respect and consideration for human life.

By examining these movements and events within their own contexts, with the benefit of balanced viewpoints not influenced by the rabid rhetoric often connected with the word “extremism,” there is a need to better understand its origins and engage in more effective prevention.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:�� / /

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a .

The post How Do You Define Extremism? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

On May 7, the electorate will take to the polls in an election that seems virtually certain to end in a second consecutive hung parliament. Though it has been widely predicted that no party will possess sufficient among the 650 in Westminster to form a majority government, what remains unpredictable is the form an eventual government will take. The results that emerge on May 8 are likely to be followed by days, or even weeks, of negotiations toward the creation of a viable coalition.

In 2010, the right-wing Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats — who had long been the United Kingdom’s third largest party, with no experience of government at that time — combined to form a coalition that few had expected ahead of the election. Their marriage was one of convenience, and arguably necessity, as it represented the only way two parties could command an overall majority in parliament.

In 2015, however, polls indicate that Labour, the main opposition party, are at risk of losing many of their Scottish seats to the Scottish National Party (SNP), while the anti-EU (UKIP) may chip away at the Conservatives’ current holdings.

The Liberal Democrats, meanwhile, have suffered from being the minor partner in the ruling coalition, failing to promote their successes in tempering the Conservatives’ austerity program, and are also likely to see their tally diminish. The presence of several smaller parties, including some like the Greens and Wales’ Plaid Cymru, who have gained in prominence during this year’s election coverage, will fog the post-election political landscape even further.

Just ahead of the election, the two main parties remain extremely close in polling, with many aggregate indicating as little as 1% between them. Notably, Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system — in which each constituency is won by the party with the largest share of the vote, regardless of whether this represents a majority of the electorate in that seat — means that the significant poll counts of some of the smaller parties will not translate into a similar share of seats. UKIP, for example, has a support base that is far too thinly spread across the country for them to claim anything like the number of seats that would reflect their poll level, currently around 14%; they are, in fact, unlikely to win more than one or two seats.

© Shutterstock

Why is the UK 2015 General Election Relevant?

The result of the 2015 UK General Election could represent the diminishing of the Conservative-Labour dominance that has characterized much of the last century. It seems highly likely that in order to command a majority in Westminster, any government will have to include at least three parties. While the resulting horse-trading and compromise over policies and pre-election promises are familiar to many countries in Europe and beyond, this is something with which British parties have had very little recent experience.

The matter is complicated by the supposed red lines held by certain parties. Labour leader Ed Miliband, for instance, has ruled out a coalition with the SNP due to its stance on Scottish independence, despite the willingness of the party to support a Labour-led government, not to mention the fact that such an alliance could prove if Miliband is to take over 10 Downing Street. An alternative arrangement may see one or more parties offering support to a minority government’s legislative program on a case-by-case basis, without being part of a formal coalition.

The unpredictable nature of the post-election environment and the virtual certainty of in-depth negotiation between the parties mean that no political party will be able to carry out its manifesto in full. As such, the positions of each party represent a mere starting point for negotiation over policies that often diverge in profound ways.

Among the landmark policy areas of the 2015 election are the future of the economy, the UK’s status in the European Union (EU) and the country’s immigration controls. The parties’ stances on each of these issues could prove potently divisive during negotiations.

Under the Conservative-led coalition, the British economy has started to emerge from the malaise of the previous decade’s financial crash. In 2014, the economy grew by 2.8%, and wages are gradually rising. Meanwhile, the national deficit has been reduced by around a third. However, the government has faced persistent criticisms for failing to keep borrowing in check, or for placing too much faith in its policy of austerity as an economic panacea.

All three of the major parties promise to continue to lower the , and though opposition to this as an overall priority has been voiced by both the Greens and Plaid Cymru, the influence of either party in any governing arrangement would likely be too small to hold much influence. The differences between the three main parties are to be found in the speed with which the deficit is to be reduced, and the balance sought between tax rises and spending cuts. Whatever form the next government takes, it will face the difficulty of continuing both deficit reduction and economic growth.

© Shutterstock

The UK’s membership of the European Union has been a prominent point of contention between the parties, and an area in which one of the smaller parties — UKIP — has had a notable influence. UKIP advocates a complete withdrawal from the EU, despite the 2014 European elections in Britain. The party views the EU as a costly, inefficient and undemocratic restraint on British sovereignty.

In an attempt to mollify its long-standing anti-Europe wing, the Conservative Party has pledged to hold a referendum on membership of the EU. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are much more pro-European and would only support a referendum in certain circumstances, like a further transfer of power to Brussels. While the Conservative Party commands a great deal of from the business community, many have warned that a withdrawal from the EU following a referendum could have profound economic ramifications. Banking giant HSBC has warned that it may relocate its headquarters in event of a British withdrawal from the EU, and a recent German has suggested that a so-called “Brexit” would cut Britain’s gross domestic product (GDP) by up to 14%.

Immigration is another issue where the nascent UKIP has held a disproportionate influence. The party has employed persistently tough and rhetoric regarding infrastructural strain, loss of jobs to foreign labor and “health tourism,” capitalizing on the government’s failure to reach its target of reducing immigration to below 100,000 a year. The resulting pressure has driven even the left-wing Labour Party to of the need to control immigration; though some parties — most notably the Greens — have pointed to the it has brought the country.

The negotiations that follow the election will test the resolve of the parties involved to stick to their manifesto pledges. The set of policies that results may not strongly resemble those espoused by any single party, but if the present trend of increasingly multipolar politics continues, this is something the UK electorate will have to get used to. The same may be true of the that will characterize British politics after the election, as the two-party dominance of Westminster continues to ebb away.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/ / /��

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your ��is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a donor or you could choose to be a��.

The post The UK General Election Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

After decades of global prohibition encompassing virtually all except alcohol, there are signs that major reform of drug laws is starting to become a possibility. There is a growing awareness among researchers and policymakers that the current system of prohibition has failed in its goals. The proliferation of new psychoactive chemicals, along with technological developments that have created novel and covert distribution channels, pose real questions over the ability of law enforcement to keep up with the vast criminal enterprises that currently profit from the status quo.

In the 1920s, the banned the sale of alcohol, a policy that resulted in the opening of thousands of illegal bars across the county and led to the rapid rise of the mafia. Once this misguided experiment was brought to an end, criminal groups and the authorities shifted their focus to drugs. The following decades saw the introduction of increasingly restrictive policies, in the 1961 UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, and the War on Drugs by US President Richard Nixon soon after.

Despite billions of dollars spent on interdiction, incarceration and eradication, drug use has continued to rise. The UN that around 243 million people use illegal drugs, and the global trade is around $435 billion. This money is absorbed by vast criminal enterprises and even terrorist organizations.

In the US, punitive drug laws have led to the development of an expansive prison industrial complex, with the prison population exponentially since the 1970s. This has been characterized by huge racial disparities in arrests, prosecutions and sentencing.

Meanwhile, evidence from several countries has shown the dangers of attempting to tackle by force the gangs who control the market. In large parts of , the ongoing drug war launched by President Felipe Calderon in 2006 has resulted in the collapse of law and order, with tens of thousands of people having been killed since.

In recent years, two further advances have served to highlight the failure of the current system of prohibition. In 2009, first in and then the US, the illegal drugs market was flooded with a set of “legal highs,” because they were developed and circulated faster than laws banning their sale could be passed. This short-circuiting of the law was solidified with the concurrent development of murky online marketplaces, concealed in the shadows of the dark web, most notably the Silk Road. These marketplaces have allowed drug users to buy virtually any quantity of any drug they like, and efforts by the authorities to shut them down have struggled to keep apace with the technological experts behind them.

© Shutterstock

Why is Drug Reform Relevant?

With the failures of drugs prohibition increasingly evident, recent years have seen the first tentative calls for change at a high level. Foremost on the reformist agenda is the moving of drug policy out of the criminal justice realm and into that of health. A harm reduction approach of this type is seen as a crucial first step in solving the problems currently caused by drugs and drug laws, but many go further and claim that only through legalization of the bulk of illegal narcotics can the criminal trade be brought under control.

Legalization in this sense does not imply an open market free-for-all, but rather the regulation of substances — in a manner similar to pharmaceuticals or alcohol, depending on the drug — so the highly lucrative trade is taken out of the hands of criminals and put into those of governments, thereby allowing not just for taxation, but also a much greater degree of quality control, reducing harm to users.

While the Netherlands’ long-time toleration of cannabis will no doubt be the most famous example of a country experimenting with a more liberal approach to drugs, it has perhaps been Portugal that has taken the boldest step to date. In 2001, all possession or use of small quantities of drugs to be a criminal infraction, instead being dealt with through treatment or community service programs. In the years following the change in policy, drug use among adolescents and so-called “problematic” users declined, as did the rate of HIV infections in what had been the worst-affected country in the . Nevertheless, all production and supply has been left in the hands of criminals.

With such a positive sign of the potential of policies that favor harm reduction over punishment, the calls for change gathered pace. In 2009, the chairman of the British government’s Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, Professor David Nutt, was fired by the Home Office following his calls for the laws over individual drugs to more accurately reflect their harms.

His argument featured the now notorious claim that statistically, taking ecstasy is no more than horse riding. Two years later, a panel of officials the Global Commission on Drug Policy released a report calling for an end to the War on Drugs. The commission includes former Secretary-General of the UN Kofi Annan, former US Secretary of State George Schultz and the former presidents of several of the countries most affected by the illegal drug trade, including , and Mexico.

Of course, calls for liberalization have not been as forthcoming from serving politicians, though notable exceptions have arisen.��In 2012, then-President José Mujica went against public opinion and began the process of legalizing cannabis in Uruguay, while newly elected President Tabaré Vázquez has said he will keep the policy unless it produces negative results.��In January 2014, US President — whose administration has abandoned the phrase “War on Drugs” — stated that cannabis was no more harmful than alcohol. Most recently, Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker ��from his post as a UK Home Office minister following a dispute with Home Secretary Theresa May, when the latter reportedly tried to block the release of a government-commissioned report that found tough laws did not lead to lower drug use.

Nevertheless, serious change is still some distance away. The British government shrugged off Baker’s challenge with little concern, instead continuing to highlight the dangers entailed by certain drugs, such as high-strength “skunk” . In the US, Obama has in fact done very little to change the legal situation, beyond placing a stronger emphasis on treatment and going some way to addressing the long-standing disparity between crack and cocaine penalties, seen by many as racially biased.

A number of US states may be experimenting with the legal regulation of cannabis, but only with the tolerance — not approval — of the federal government, with no guarantee that this will continue into a future administration. While the likes of Uruguay, the Netherlands and Portugal may be seen as setting useful examples of different approaches, we are likely still some way off from any government experimenting with the broad regulation of illicit drugs. Yet the dialogue is starting to change, and with that, the prospect of the law following suit will only increase.

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a or you could choose to be a .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit: / /

The post Should Drugs Be Legalized? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

There is a popular myth that men think about every seven seconds, or up to 8,000 times a day. While has shown that the number is actually lower – on average around 34 times a day for men and 18 for women – sex is, for the lack of a better phrase, a hot topic. We may dedicate a similar amount of thought to other simple pleasures like food and sleep, but it is the element of sex that makes bestsellers out of books like .

According to , the first exhaustive discussion on sex occurred in the Bible. He dubs it the first comprehensive sex “manual,” which indicated early on that sex and religion are not divorced from each other.

But the first literature that treated sexual intercourse as a science was Kama Sutra. Written as a manual on all things relationships, family and social grace for young men, its section on sexuality is unsurprisingly the most popular. The word kama does not indicate sexual desire alone, but designates a wish or longing that is devoid of sexual overtones. philosophy has dealt with issues of sex and sexuality at great length. The Bhagwat Gita, the religious text of Hindus, added a flavor of sacredness to sex.

The themes of lust and temperance find their way into Islamic thought as well, where sex has never been a taboo subject. In fact, the third and fourth chapters of the Quran are dedicated to family, women and relationships. Sexuality and relationships in are not understood in terms of reproduction and pleasure alone — the maintenance of social order is central to it. In Judaism, too, sex between a husband and wife is a scared act requiring thought and commitment and, importantly, its purpose is to satisfy the woman’s needs.

Somehow, the openness about sex has been lost in modern religious practice, despite a relaxation of social norms. Indeed, many aspects of our sexual behavior stem from the Stone Age and persist to this very day. As much as we would like to deem ourselves rational beings, a lot of our choices are governed by basic biology. Men, always unsure of their paternity, will seek out more partners to ensure the survival of their genes. Women will pick the reliable, father-figure as a partner when they are not ovulating, in which case they opt for the alpha male type with a better set of genetic information.

Perhaps it is this innate drive that has inspired people over the ages to seek ways to enhance and facilitate sexual pleasure. The invention of the condom by ancient Egyptians, the first sex toys dating back to the Paleolithic and the are all testimony to our need and appreciation of physical desire.

Why is Sex Relevant?

The playfulness of sex carries with it an inevitable dark side. Entrenched ideas about sexuality create a politic around the human body – most of the time the body of a woman – perpetuating traditional gender roles, expectations and practices. Early this year, set the official age of marriage for girls at 18, after the tradition of child brides was tackled by social groups. Yet this is a practice that continues across the developing world, along with female genital mutilation (FGM), robbing girls and women of education, choice and physical pleasure.

© Shutterstock

Even though there is now greater awareness of the many sexual minorities and the challenges they face, there is a simultaneous increase in the intolerance toward those who defy social norms. Homosexuality, decriminalized in most countries across the globe, is still a punishable offence in places like , , and carries the in Saudi Arabia and Sudan among others. The lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community faces hatred and persecution in and South Africa, to name but a few, and sex workers across the world face not only social discrimination, but outright danger to their lives.

The continues to grapple with issues of everyday sexism. In the 1970s, the second generation feminists launched a vociferous campaign to ward off the evil of “rape culture” in American society. They drew the public’s attention to normalization of rape – a concern that continues to plague societies worldwide.

Thus, the notion of sexuality cannot be confined to utilitarian reproduction alone. It is a foundation upon which relationships are built and nurtured, a common building block of life irreverent of religion, sexual orientation, , class or caste. When we talk about love and sexual desire, it provokes us to question not only existing social structures, body politics and gender relations, but what it means to be human in the first place.

We bring you perspectives from around the world. Help us to inform and educate. Your is tax-deductible. Join over 400 people to become a or you could choose to be a .

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/����/��

The post Let’s Talk About Sex appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

On January 7, the headquarters of , a satirical magazine infamous for its controversial depictions of the , was attacked by armed . After killing 12 people, including two police officers, the assailants — French-born brothers Chérif and ����ï�� — fled the scene.

In a separate incident on January 8, , a 32-year-old man with a history of religious , became the primary suspect in a shooting that left a policewoman dead in the Parisian suburb of Montrouge. A manhunt ensued for the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly, as well as the latter’s common law wife, , who is now to have fled to war-torn before the attacks.

On January 9, two hostage crises brought to a standstill. The Kouachi brothers seized a printing factory north of Paris, while Coulibaly held up a Jewish supermarket in the French capital, with hostages inside. French special forces and the unit of the national police carried out simultaneous raids, killing the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly. Four hostages also lost their lives at the kosher market. In total, 20 people, including the three perpetrators, were killed over the course of three days of terror in France.

Why are the France Attacks Relevant?

At the time of writing, it is unclear as to whether the attacks were part of a “” operation or a wider foreign terrorist network. However, there are three key issues to understand.

First,��the Kouachi brothers and Coulibaly were of , an group that helped send to following the 2003 -led war. The three men were well-known to French authorities. The Kouachi brothers were under American and French surveillance. The Wall Street Journal that they had been on a “US database of suspected terrorists — and on the US no-fly list — for years.” This has led to questions over a lax in domestic and foreign security services.

Second, was by French authorities in 2005 as he attempted to travel to Iraq via Syria. In prison, he befriended , who was serving a ten-year sentence for his role in a plot to bomb the US Embassy in Paris. Released in 2006, Kouachi was once again imprisoned in 2008 for his role in sending militants to Iraq. It is understood that Kouachi Coulibaly in prison — the two could have met as early as 2005. Significantly, both men saw Beghal as a mentor. Kouachi’s radicalization has been linked to , a preacher associated with supporting Islamist extremism in Paris’ 19^th arrondissement, a predominantly Arab district.

© Shutterstock

Third, Chérif Kouachi’s older brother, , is believed to have traveled to in 2009, where he received training from (AQAP), which is an offshoot of the terrorist organization.

Shortly after the Charlie Hebdo attacks on January 7, Chérif Kouachi spoke on the telephone with a French journalist, stating: “We are just telling you that we are the defenders of Prophet Mohammed. I was sent, me, Chérif Kouachi, by al-Qaeda in Yemen [AQAP]. I went there and Sheikh financed my trip … before he was killed.”

Prior to his death, Coulibaly recorded a video in which he pledged allegiance to the (IS), a jihadist group that has seized territory across Syria and Iraq, and its self-declared , . “I pledged allegiance to the Caliph as soon as the caliphate was declared,” he said, indicating that he may have been sent and/or influenced by IS.

While the Kouachi brothers traveled to Yemen for training, it is unlikely that al-Qaeda and IS collaborated to plan the attack, since both terrorist organizations have been at odds, particularly in Syria. As by the BBC’s Frank Gardner: “Far more plausible is the idea that with or without the tacit blessings of both and IS, the three attackers decided to pool their resources and form a plan on their own.”

However, with ongoing civil wars in Syria and Iraq, and with the rise of jihadist organizations such as IS, the ’s war is knocking at ’s door. A report by the United Nations that nearly 15,000 representing more than 80 countries, including France and , have traveled to war-torn Syria and Iraq to fight on behalf of IS and other extremist groups.

Paris, France © Shutterstock

This reality is putting governments and security services worldwide on high alert. Jihadists returning to Europe pose a national security threat, bringing with them active combat experience. Officials are particularly concerned that foreign fighters will seek to radicalize vulnerable�� and establish home-grown terror networks on European soil.

Domestically, France’s (FN), a far-right political party led by , is likely to use the attacks to further its own agenda. The party strongly opposes and Muslim immigration, believing that an increased Muslim presence is a threat to secular values, national security and the idea of being “French.”

Meanwhile, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, Islamophobic incidents have been widely across France. In the meantime, security has increased across the country.

As French authorities and world leaders assess their counterterrorism policies in the wake of the Paris tragedy, difficult questions will be asked about the causes, orchestration and intelligence failure in preventing the attacks.

51�Թ� is a nonprofit organization dedicated to informing and educating global citizens about the critical issues of our time. Please����to keep us going.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Photo Credit:����/ / /

The post Who Orchestrated the Terrorist Attacks in France? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

For a region that is home to more than half of the world’s population, the state of democracy in the seems to be dire. According to Freedom House’s 2014 report on the Asia Pacific, only of the region is considered to be “free” and have full-functioning liberal democracies.

Political developments this year seem to confirm Freedom House’s diagnosis of the region’s poor democratic health: In January, non-elections took place in ; in March, the Sunflower movement in bloomed for a moment; in May, experienced its 19th coup since 1932; and since late September, has been standing in solidarity to challenge ’s future political plans for the country.

In the eyes of the West and many democracy advocacy agencies, the basic elements of what constitutes a democracy are: free and fair elections, a pluralist society with��civil liberties, a functioning government, high political participation and high degrees of speech and press freedom. For the majority of countries in Asia, most of these elements do not exist to a large��degree, if at all.

In the 2013 edition of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s , South Korea was the only Asian country to be ranked amongst the top twenty “full” democracies of the world, while every other political system in the region fell into the categories of “flawed democracies,” “hybrid regimes” or “authoritarian regimes.”

The seemingly disproportionate spread of liberal democracy as a concept of governance in Asia can be explained by how liberal democracy is simply not a template that��political parties in Asia should follow. Many Asian governments are not liberal democracies, and do not claim –��or desire –��to be. Since the 1990s, academics have theorized that good economic growth, Asian values and cultural norms and the desire for stability are factors that make “Asian-style democracy” adapt Western-style democratic features into Asian frameworks.

Why is the Topic of Democracy in Asia Relevant?

But things are changing at��the hands of the people who voice opinions in�� or . “Popular democracy” is becoming a catch phrase amongst increasingly educated and tech-savvy Asians who, like participants in the , have been using to promote greater freedom of speech, liberalism and popular politics. Governments across the region are taking note of “people power” to the effect that the limited space for political expression in countries like , �ǰ���race-based politics in , will be tested in future elections.

People��want their governments to be accountable and transparent, deal with growing income inequalities, corruption, collusion and nepotism, provide greater access to education, make improvements in welfare, provide greater minority rights and greater freedom of speech.

Asia has also experienced some successful and warmly-received political developments over the last few months: India’s new Prime Minister, , has ambitious plans to change India’s social and political landscape, and Indonesia’s newly-elected President, Joko Widodo, is set to make Indonesia an of democracy. has been undergoing the process of democratization since 2008 and has out to the rest of the world, most recently hosting the 2013 ASEAN Games.

Various independent watchdogs’ diagnoses of Asia’s liberal democratic health are not likely to be more positive��when the next round of democratic indexes are published, as��these tend to��focus too much on how countries need to follow model��institutional reforms and certain Western-style metrics of liberal democracy.

Most Asian voters are aware that democracy is not merely a day-long show of balloting put up by incumbents. What Asians want from their “flawed,” “hybrid” or “authoritarian” governments is no different from what any citizen in any other political system wants: People��want their governments to be accountable and transparent, deal with growing income inequalities, corruption, collusion and nepotism, provide greater access to education, make improvements in welfare, provide greater minority rights and greater freedom of speech.

If the Communist Party in China or the military governments in Myanmar and cannot deliver these goods, the waves of liberalism that have arrived on Asia’s shores — as shown by the solidarity and strength of civil society in Thailand and Hong Kong over the past year — might ebb and flow with increasing intensity, and persuade Asian politicians to re-think how they can be accountable to��the people.

The views expressed��in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect��51�Թ�’s��editorial policy.

/ Flickr

The post Democracy in Asia: A Glass Half Full? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Homelessness is a chronic problem in the vast majority of the world’s countries. The problem is a difficult one both in its tenacity and its invisibility: The homeless are difficult to track by nature, as they lack permanent dwellings. Even coming to a single definition of what it means to be homeless is an impossible task. But no matter what angle we approach the problem from, even rudimentary estimates of the numbers and demographics of the homeless are severely disturbing.

The worldwide population of slum-dwellers broke 1��billion. compose 18% of the globe’s��urban housing units, and over half the world’s slum-dwellers live in South��Asia — mostly India, Nepal and Pakistan. In the near future, 95% of population growth in developing countries is expected to take place in urban areas, and without substatial affordable housing initiatives most of those extra bodies will end up in slums.

Numbers for the homeless in the developed world are equally troubling. Canada has only beds for its estimated 250,000 homeless. Some 25% of the United States’ 700,000 homeless are , 25% are and 25% suffer from a . The United Kingdom, under strain from its own housing crisis, has taken brutal measures such as installing and cutting for its estimated underserved individuals.

The problem of numbers is far worse in developing nations. The Hindu reports India’s homeless population at , or around 1.7 million, with only 47,000 living in Delhi. This number is clearly inaccurate — compare it to the reported homeless in New York City, which has more than a million fewer inhabitants than the Indian capital. Estimates of Delhi’s actual number of homeless reach as high as

Such a diverse and proliferating issue cannot be neatly explained away. Causes of homelessness vary, though lack of affordable housing combined with burgeoning urban populations is the main reason for homelessness around the world, especially in such as India and China. Mental illness, substance abuse, poor care for veterans and the infirm, ageing, and unemployment, among other factors, plague the homeless in the .

The number of people teetering on the brink of homelessness — those living in constant fear of eviction, or on friends’ couches, or in crowded municipal housing units — is far larger than those actually without homes. These borderline cases are simultaneously more likely to be faced with the kind of obstacles that lead to homelessness and less able to deal with those problems. Poverty itself, of course, is the mother of all the underlying causes, and is a much larger problem in the developing world, where there is simply not enough infrastructure or organization to combat it.

On top of this tangled nest of issues sits the almost-exclusively first-world issue of homelessness by choice. Many people, fed up with their lives and wanting an escape route, choose to live . Should governments and nonprofits make efforts to help those who don’t want to be helped? This is yet another question facing those fighting the rising tide.

Why is the Issue of Homelessness Relevant?

Anyone who has set foot in New York, San Francisco, Delhi, Beijing, Lisbon or almost any other city can attest to the existence of the homeless, and yet so many of them exist just beyond the reach of data-gathering or organizational assistance. Governments around the world are building programs to try to help these people. Brazil has implemented , a social housing program which aims to build 3.4 million affordable houses by the end of this year. Kenya, along with Homeless International and the Pamoja Trust, is working to , providing materials and training so citizens can build durable houses for themselves. The French government pays for hotel rooms for their large but homeless population.

These are all good answers, but they are not complete. The developed world considers housing a fundamental right, but the legal framework to enshrine these rights in law is still largely lacking. The debate on the viability of such policies is still under much contention.

Over a seventh of the world’s population lives without the basic human right to shelter. It can well be said that this is one of the gravest problems facing the world today. With close ties to overpopulation, urban development and the overall quality of life, homelessness and our responses to it will play a large factor in the future of global society and its survival.

The views expressed��in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect��51�Թ�’s��editorial policy.

��/

The post Homelessness: No Shelter From the Storm appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

On September 18, 4 million voters in will be asked a “yes” or “no” question that could have profound implications for their country, and for the United Kingdom of which it is a part: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

The fact that the referendum is scheduled to coincide with the 700-year anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, a landmark victory for the Scottish during the First War of Scottish Independence, highlights the historically fraught relationship between England and Scotland. This has included numerous cross-border disputes and campaigns for independence from English subjugation, of which this referendum is arguably just the latest.

Since King James VI of Scotland unified the English and Scottish crowns in 1603, the union has not always been harmonious. While there has been little by way of violence between the two countries since the Jacobite revolt of 1745, several attempts have been made in the interim period to secure Scottish home rule. These culminated in 1999 when the Scottish Parliament was established in Holyrood, granting Scotland a range of legal powers, while still leaving it ultimately subservient to the will of Westminster.

It seemed as though the question of Scottish devolution had been settled, by and large. That is, until May 2011, when Alex Salmond’s Scottish National Party () won a sweeping victory to take control of the Scottish Parliament, and demanded that a referendum on independence be held. In October 2012, First Minister Salmond and British Prime Minister signed the Edinburgh Agreement, outlining the terms for the referendum to be held in 2014.

The campaign in favor of independence, Yes Scotland, is being led by the SNP, along with the Scottish Green Party and the Scottish Socialist Party. It has sought to promote the benefits of an independent Scotland, finally granted political autonomy, much greater economic self-sufficiency, and the possibility of its own range of social policies divorced from the traditional elites that control Westminster.

Meanwhile, the Better Together campaign, championed by the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties that dominate politics in London, believes that both Britain and Scotland will suffer in terms of finances, culture and security by breaking apart.

have consistently shown that the majority of people in Scotland would prefer to retain the union, even if they do prefer the notion of greater autonomy. However, in recent weeks, the polls have tightened considerably, with the latest just a six-point lead for the No vote, down from 17 points in June. Following the final televised debate between Salmond and Better Together leader Alistair Darling, polls indicating a SNP victory.

Why is the Scottish Referendum Relevant?

Scotland has been in a solid political union with England, as part of , for more than 300 years. Scottish identity is widely considered to be an integral part of the wider identity of the UK. Yet there are far more tangible reasons that make the upcoming referendum very relevant to the future of the UK.

The Yes campaign points to the many benefits of political independence that are taken for granted by the stronger party of any union: the ability to determine social policy; to choose which wars to enter into; and to levy and spend taxes in a way deemed most suitable for that geographic entity. Independence would certainly incur notable costs, such as the need to negotiate entry into the and , and the loss of the collective security of the UK. Scotland on its own would have struggled to bail out Scottish banks in the wake of the financial crisis. But these are costs worth paying for the sake of genuine political independence, according to Yes Scotland.

The rest of the UK would face its own notable changes. The British parliament would require significant reform, having been shorn of 59 out of 650 seats in the House of Commons. This could result in a major boost to the Conservatives, who currently have only one Scottish member of parliament; without Scotland, the Tories would have won a majority of 21 in the 2010 general election, thus avoiding the need for a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Cameron’s opposition to Scottish independence, then, could at least partly be attributed to a fear of being the prime minister who oversaw the breakup of the union.

The UK without Scotland would have notable economic . Britain would be be deprived of a significant source of revenue in terms of the North Sea’s oil reserves, to which Scotland could be entitled to as much as 90%, representing billions of pounds in annual revenues. The UK itself would lose 32% of its land mass, albeit only 8% of its population. It would be forced to relocate its nuclear submarine fleet, currently based on the River Clyde.

In the event of a No vote, the issue of further devolution of powers — specifically a significant broadening of powers over taxation and welfare policies — may arise once more. But with the next general election to be held in 2015, such an issue would likely take something of a backseat, especially given the Tories’ of support north of the border.

A Yes vote, meanwhile, would represent only a first step in a long process toward Scottish independence. Negotiations would then begin, over issues like a potential currency union and the splitting of oil revenues, to determine the precise shape of the new political landscape in Britain and Scotland.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

��/

The post The Scottish Referendum Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Since 1990, global poverty has , going down from 43% of the world population subsisting on less than $1 a day to 21% in 2010. According to , the number of children not enrolled in school is down from 101 million in 2000 to 57 million in 2011. The absolute in life expectancy between wealthy and low-income regions has shrunk from 23 years in the 1950s to under ten years in the last decade — with the exception of sub-Saharan where it still lingers at 16 years. But the world is far from a fair, harmonious place.

According to the UN Report on the World Social Situation, in disposable income increased in 65 out of 130 countries between 1990 and 2012, which affected two-thirds of the world population. In 2010, high-income countries, which house 16% of the worldwide population, generated 55% of global income, while low-income countries are home to over 70% of global population.

Gross domestic product (GDP) in sub-Saharan Africa is still only just above $2,000, compared to $27,640 in the and $41,399 in the . This means the absolute gap between low- and middle-income countries has more than doubled between 1980 and 2010, from $3,000 to $7,600, with an individual in the bottom 10% in Sweden earning 200 times more than their counterpart in the (DRC).

In the US, the top 10% earned more than half of the country’s income in 2012 which, to The New York Times, is the highest in a century. According to the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, almost 75% of in America is owned by the top 10% — an from 67.2% in 1989 — while the rest of the 90% saw their wealth decline in the same period.

There are 3.5 million living in poverty in — almost 27% — with 9% of these, a staggering 74,000, going to bed hungry in London alone, as a by the city authority found. This is despite the fact that London now has the world’s number of billionaires in the world.

The��Arab Spring, the rage of the��Occupy Movement, the devastating conflict in the DRC, and the European elections that saw right-wing parties emerge victorious are all linked to underlying economic grievances. Both the Great Depression and the Global Economic Crisis were��preceded��by sharp increases in inequality, creating a debt-driven economic bubble that was bound to burst.

While spent some $900 million on London real estate in alone, the current median salary for is around $1,300, while earn around $800. Alisher Usmanov, officially Russia’s wealthiest businessman, is worth an $20 billion, and President could turn out to be the world’s man.

Sporting spectacles like the 2014 FIFA or the brought to the fore not only the difficult economic conditions in the host countries, but the desperate of migrant workers across the globe. Many of these workers are completely unprotected from mistreatment and abuse because of their illegal status, of which was the latest to make headlines.

Inequality is distributed heavily across gender and sectors. According to a World Economic Forum , ten out of 133 surveyed countries closed the gender gap in education and health in 2013, while no country closed the economic participation or political empowerment gaps. In first place, North America has closed 74% of its gender gap, with the and left in last place with only 59%. But even more worrying is that and the , the leader in political equality, stands at a meager 24%.

These dry numbers aside, gender inequality is not only clearly visible, but jarring. The systematic mass in the numerous conflicts across the world, the brutal violence against women in that goes largely unpunished, female infanticide and genital mutilation — all these indicate how far women are not only from equality, but also basic safety.

Why is Global Inequality Relevant?

Wealth inequality, often paired with conflict, disease and fiscal mismanagement, wrings havoc on socioeconomic structures. The , the rage of the , the devastating conflict in the DRC, and the European elections that saw right-wing parties emerge victorious are all linked to underlying economic grievances. Both the Great Depression and the Global Economic Crisis were by sharp increases in inequality, creating a debt-driven economic bubble that was bound to burst.

Some have argued that a degree of inequality is constructive: that it stimulates accumulation of capital and competition, as more equal distribution, such as in the former , brings stagnation and lack of ambition.

Yet from a humanist side, it is difficult to accept that argument. When you see someone unable to afford HIV/AIDS antiretroviral drugs, when young girls are forced to marry because their parents cannot afford a nominal school tuition fee, and when African migrants drown off the coast of in search of a better life, it is impossible not to wish that the world was a fairer place for all of us.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post Global Inequality: Why it Matters appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

, a militia, originated as a radical Islamist movement seeking to create a “Greater Somalia.” In 2006, it became a militant wing of�� Islamic Courts Union (ICU) to fight Christian-majority forces during the transitional government.��Ethiopia ousted the ICU and al-Shabab splintered off into the south, organizing suicide bombings and assaults on Ethiopian forces. This was a morphing period for the group, which created factions to become a territorial guerrilla movement. Today, al-Shabab is designated as a organization.

Though nationalist in origin, al-Shabab has widened��its scope. In June 2010, it��coordinated a suicide bombing that killed 74 people gathered to watch the in��Kampala,. Al-Shabab has also been of��helping����carry out operations in��. Its��most significant transition occurred��in 2012, when it����with����as an affiliate cell. This move strengthened the��belief in��an international����movement.

Al-Shabab’s main opposition are ���dz���������’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the African Union Mission in Somalia () forces, both backed by the United Nations. In a January 2009 attack on the TFG, al-Shabab ��three ministers. AMISOM has regularly sent forces to Somalia since the Uganda bombing, which raises belief that the former is defending the TFG. Al-Shabab has carried out attacks against AMISOM forces to combat this assistance.

Al-Shabab is by tithes, extortion and external donors. Its��economy flourished in 2008 after it��seized the port city of Kismayo, which enabled the group��to rake off��revenues from charcoal exportations. In October 2011, a Kenyan-led assault on Kismayo liberated the port of��al-Shabab fighters. This is believed to have taken away $35-50 million per year from��its��. However, al-Shabab still��makes considerable income through smuggling imported sugar into Kenya.

Why is Al-Shabab Relevant?

Recently, AMISOM forces were able to recapture many al-Shabab territories. This led to a drop in the group’s popularity and funding —��the��two pillars of a terrorist organization. These losses, along with reduced funds and recent infighting, have created an increasing�� of confidence��in Somali citizens to volunteer and donate to al-Shabab.

Al-Shabab is��funded��by tithes, extortion and external donors. Its��economy flourished in 2008 after it��seized the port city of Kismayo, which enabled the group��to rake off��revenues from charcoal exportations. In October 2011, a Kenyan-led assault on Kismayo liberated the port of��al-Shabab fighters. This is believed to have taken away $35-50 million per year from��its��revenue.��

International jihad, however, has helped recruit a different demographic. Under a��broad mission of waging a war against “,”�� al-Shabab��is able to gain support for attacking foreigners. The group��has been able to recruit not just young Somali boys, but foreigners, young girls and even clan elders. Many Westerners have been recruited from places such as London and��Minnesota, raising fear of threats to the West. With more foreign support, al-Shabab’s��existential threat is recognized on an international scale.

However, while the merger with al-Qaeda proved successful in helping adapt its��propaganda and recruitment strategies, some al-Shabab members want to����on domestic issues rather than an “international struggle.” In 2013, leader Ahmed Abdi Godane created a faction to fight ideological opposition to al-Shabab’s��new mission. The attack on Nairobi’s Westgate shopping mall in September 2013 was seen as Godane�� his authority.

The question is whether��al-Shabab can emerge from these internal rifts into one coherent and nuanced ideology. This may prove to be the group’s main obstacle to survival.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/��

The post ���dz���������’s War: The Al-Shabab Threat appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

The (CAR), a -majority country with a minority population, has been marred by violence since early 2013. What started as a against a corrupt government in March of that year soon escalated into a bloody, conflict. Since then, mass violence has caused thousands of deaths, while over a people have been displaced, both internally and externally.

The CAR’s strife can be traced back to 2003, when President François Bozizé embarked on a ten-year reign that led the country down a path plagued by economic and political corruption. In response, rebel groups united in a bid to seize control. By 2012, a group of these rebels established the Séléka, a Muslim-majority coalition led by Michel Djotodia, who the government of committing abuses in the country’s northeast. After its formation, the Séléka spread terror across the CAR, pillaging, raping and murdering civilians.

In January 2013, the Bozizé government signed a peace agreement with rebel groups, which called for an end to violence that swept across the country. Eric Massi, a rebel spokesman, warned that fighting would continue if the government did not meet rebel demands included in the agreement.

These demands were not met as chaos escalated further. The Séléka, with the help of Sudanese and Chadian mercenaries, overthrew the Bozizé government in March 2013, with Djotodia as the new, self-elected president. to Human Rights Watch (HRW), the country’s new rulers were responsible for the deliberate deaths of civilians, as well as the destruction of over 1,000 homes. Thousands protested Djotodia’s rule, and what emerged were coalitions to avenge the chaos that he and his faction had created. In response, the anti-Balaka, an alliance of mostly Christian militias, stepped into the fray.

As French troops, along with the Central African Multinational Force (FOMAC), set out to disarm the Séléka and end the violence, the anti-Balaka saw an opportunity to step on the offensive, by looting and killing Muslim civilians as revenge for the Séléka’s actions. By early 2014, 50,000 Muslims had been evacuated by air to Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Senegal, while tens of thousands more had left by road as anti-Balaka attacks continued. Since then, Amnesty International and HRW have both of “ethnic cleansing” in the CAR.

A��Fact Sheet��by the US Agency for International Development (USAID) reported that there are over 615,000 internally displaced persons (IDP) in the CAR, with more than 190,000 alone in the capital city, Bangui. The total number of refugees in neighboring countries amounts to��approximately��400,000.��

In January 2014, President Djotodia and Prime Minister Nicolas Tiangay resigned after the Economic Community of Central African States (CEEAC) met at a summit in Chad, aiming to end the violence.

Why is the CAR Conflict Relevant?��

Today, the grave situation has deepened further as thousands have been displaced, with insufficient aid. Sectarian violence has turned the conflict into what some have called “,” drawing on fears of another Rwanda.

A����by the Agency for International Development (USAID) reported that there are over 615,000 (IDP) in the CAR, with more than 190,000 alone in the capital city, Bangui. The total number of in neighboring countries amounts to 400,000. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs estimated that over 2.5 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance.

Not only are these figures concerning, given the precarious humanitarian situation in the country, but nongovernmental organizations (NGO) and foreign actors have found difficulty in meeting the demand for assistance. While measures have been taken to ameliorate the conflict in the CAR, many NGOs and humanitarian agencies are being reprimanded for not providing assistance to their full capacity.

Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) an��open letter in December 2013 to Valerie Amos,��the UN humanitarian chief, condemning the “unacceptable performance of the United Nations humanitarian system” in the CAR. Listing examples of the inadequate performance of the UN, MSF urged it to reinforce efforts on the ground.

Concurrently, Samantha Power, US ambassador to the UN, visited the CAR in a diplomatic mission, aimed at spreading awareness of the serious humanitarian crisis that has engulfed the country. In a press conference, she��:��“[The US] wants to determine what it can do in order to support the path of stability and the path of reconciliation, and … the path of a return to democracy.”

In April 2014, the UN Security Council (UNSC)����a 12,000-strong force to accompany the 2,000 French soldiers authorized to provide assistance, just as the African Union ��anti-Balaka militias as “terrorists,” instructing peacekeepers to treat them as enemy combatants.

Meanwhile, it was reported in July that Djotodia had been����as the leader of Séléka, after months in exile in Benin. For Séléka officials, his reinstatement “could be an effort to restore direction to the movement which has seen internal power struggles.” In that same month, a ceasefire agreement was by Séléka and anti-Balaka representatives. However, while Prime Minister Andre Nzapayeke and his government have down, both militias have accused the other of breaking the truce, as violence in northern CAR.

While it is imperative that the conversation surrounding the CAR’s current situation remains in the minds of the public, the discourse regarding the lack of humanitarian assistance must be pushed further so the country’s inhabitants can once again live harmoniously in a society unscathed by sectarian tension, violence and an uncertain future.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect��51�Թ�’s��editorial policy.

/

The post Crisis in the Central African Republic appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Nearly two months have passed since the exchanged captured Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl for five Taliban prisoners held at . Prominent conservative politicians and pundits have criticized the administration for the swap, accusing the president of negotiating with “mass murderers.”��Yet despite Texas Senator Ted Cruz’s admonition that US foreign policy has changed because “now we make deals with ,” the deal for Bergdahl is just the latest incident in a history of negotiating with groups considered terrorist organizations by the US government.

In 1970, Richard Nixon helped secure the release of hostages captured in multiple airplane hijackings by the Popular Front for the Liberation of through the release of prisoners. The Reagan administration established secret channels for negotiation in the -Contra affair and the 1985 Trans World Airlines hijacking. In 2007, the US exchanged Qais al-Khazali, a suspect in the killing of five US soldiers, for Peter Moore, a IT consultant.

The US is not alone in negotiating with terrorist groups. The government negotiated numerous ceasefires with the Basque group Euskadi Ta Askatasuna (ETA), a violent separatist movement founded in 1959 and responsible for over 800 deaths. The British maintained clandestine dialogues with the Republican Army (IRA) throughout their decades-long campaign for independence, even after a��failed mortar attack on the prime minister’s office in 1991.

Even the government, notoriously tough on , took part��in direct talks with the (PLO), a group it declared as engaging in terrorism, to create the (PA) in sections of the and . More recently, in a prisoner exchange with , released 1,027 Palestinian prisoners, including those convicted of killing civilians, for Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Why is Negotiating with Terrorists Relevant?

Opponents of negotiations argue that by demonstrating a willingness to make concessions, governments can establish a dangerous precedent and provide incentives for future terrorism. Negotiations may grant political legitimacy to terrorist groups, potentially destabilizing polities and undermining other legitimate political actors.

According to a��study��by RAND researchers Seth G. Jones and Martin Libicki, military force ends terrorist groups only 7% of the time. In contrast, negotiations such as peace settlements and amnesty, combined with other political avenues, were responsible for ending 43% of the 648 terrorist groups surveyed.��

There is also a risk of a splintering effect, where factions within terrorist groups are unwilling to negotiate and continue to commit violence, as occurred with the IRA. These decentralized and more fanatical splinter groups can be more dangerous than the original negotiating group. Fanaticism, particularly the religious fanaticism of “new terrorists” such as , may make groups less political than those like the IRA or ETA, and potentially incapable of negotiating rationally.

A common alternative to negotiations is force. Hostage rescue operations were successful in the Israel Defense Forces’ raid on Entebbe in 1976, and the rescue of the Maersk Alabama crew in 2009. Military force greatly diminished the operational capacity of the Taliban in Afghanistan — but not in — while targeted strikes on key al-Qaeda leaders helped decentralize the movement, likely inhibiting the planning and execution of catastrophic terrorist attacks like 9/11.

However, such military and tactical operations have also ended in tragedy: the Munich Olympics massacre of 1972, the attack on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum in 1973, the 2002 and 2004 hostage rescues in Moscow and Beslan, and other incidents resulted in unnecessary and preventable deaths.

Additionally, such operations are ineffective at permanently eliminating terrorist factions. According to a����by RAND researchers Seth G. Jones and Martin Libicki, military force ends terrorist groups only 7% of the time. In contrast, negotiations such as peace settlements and amnesty, combined with other political avenues, were responsible for ending 43% of the 648 terrorist groups surveyed. Though often politically and morally unpalatable, negotiations, particularly in hostage situations, may be the best — or only — option.

Despite the 14-year US-led “Global War on Terror,” terrorism remains a threat to governments worldwide. In fact, the problem is growing. A����by the US State Department found that global terrorism rose 43% in 2013, with��over 17,000 people killed, 32,000 wounded and nearly 3,000 kidnapped or taken hostage.

As the (ISIS), a fundamentalist group, continues to destabilize , the Maliki government must consider bargaining if a military response fails. The nearly 150 school girls captured in in April remain hostages of , and are likely to remain so until a negotiated release is reached.

Three Israeli teenagers were recently found murdered, allegedly by members of Hamas, and Israel and Gaza are mired in an intensifying conflict. The continues to escalate, with the resulting chaos providing safe havens and large pools of potential recruits for terrorist operations, but also providing space for negotiations with less radical factions. To refuse to negotiate as these and future crises develop is to unnecessarily constrain policy responses to terrorism and invite potential disaster.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post When is Negotiating With Terrorists Acceptable? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

According to Stephen Pinker, we live in the safest of times. In his book, The Better Angels of our Nature, he writes: “The decline in violence may be the most significant and least appreciated development in the history of our species.” That is, in the last 200,000-odd years of our existence on earth, we have now reached a point where governance, economic progress and education have brought us to the peak of humanity.

In the history of human development, and have remained a nearly-constant, destructive force ripping through the social fabric. According to some , in over 3,000 years of recorded history, less than 300 years have been peaceful. Conquest, rebellion, civil strife, slave trade, wars of succession and secession, disputes over territory and natural resources, ideological struggle — these concepts have throughout the centuries trumped the value of human life, and continue to do so till today.

Pinker’s argument may be , particularly if one takes into account that was the deadliest conflict of the last 1,000 years, having claimed over 60 million lives in just six years. By comparison, Genghis Khan’s Mongol invasions, which ravished Eurasia in the 13^th century, at least 40 million people in the course of a hundred years. Although estimates of this kind are predictably difficult, there have been that up to 4 billion lives were lost to war since records began. 1900-90 alone, over 40 million soldiers and 60 million civilians died in conflicts.

Yet there is a nowadays that interstate and civil wars have declined since the end of the — the post-World War II period known as the “Long Peace.” The Upsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP) the average number of conflicts worldwide stand at around 33-37 in the past decade. These, according to gathered by Pinker, claim less than 1/100,000 of the world’s population — a substantial drop from 300/100,000 during World War II or even the low teens in .

Given the devastating death tolls of wars in , and , with ongoing conflicts in , , , the (DRC), and multiple wars between and — among numerous others — it is difficult to buy into the idea that war is out of fashion. With the prevalence of 24-hour news and the freedom of the Internet, suffering is brought ever closer to us, and seems to be omnipresent in its horror.

The brutal conflict in the DRC, which has claimed over 5 million��lives��since 1998 — the largest death toll since the Second World War —��received��16 minutes of coverage on CNN and 29 minutes on the BBC in the entire year of 2000, compared with over eight and nine hours dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same period.��

There have been many that these “new wars” of the late 20^th century have signaled the death of modernity, as the failure of nation-states and the rise of identity politics are equated with the failure of Enlightenment thought. Globalization and the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) is often viewed as a new modus vivendi, one in which transnational actors mete out violence through technologically advanced weapons such as — a new, style of war that is more removed from the reality of horror and brutality, producing ever higher civilian suffering.

Former Secretary General of the United Nations Boutros Boutros-Ghali famously quipped that television has changed the way we react to crises. Indeed, the so-called CNN effect has been hotly debated, and widely credited with humanitarian interventions in places like Somalia.

Yet the majority of the world’s most devastating conflicts go largely unreported — with “silent emergencies” in places such as East Timor, , Angola or falling under the radar. The brutal conflict in the DRC, which has claimed over 5 million since 1998 — the largest death toll since the Second World War — 16 minutes of coverage on CNN and 29 minutes on the BBC in the entire year of 2000, compared with over eight and nine hours dedicated to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the same period. Given that constituted some 90% of combat deaths in the world a decade ago, with the balance shifting to the and more recently, how much do we really know, or care, about the true extent of human suffering?

Why is the Issue of War Relevant?

War, as Carl von Clausewitz famously wrote, is “an act of violence pushed to its utmost bounds” and to “introduce into the philosophy of War itself a principle of moderation would be an absurdity.” Yet the liberal postulate that democracies do not wage wars against each other has, to a large degree, spared those of us lucky enough to have been born in the West from unthinkable misery of all-out war.

But if we consider the number of of just the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — 2.8 million in the alone — the human cost of conflict is brought home to all of us with the tragedy of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), dreadful injuries and social injustice. If we consider the 50 million refugees fleeing conflict zones worldwide, running from systematic abuse (some 48 women are raped every hour in the ), children orphaned and traumatized, the exorbitant budgets begin to look not only questionable, but immoral. Since 2008, according to the , 111 countries have seen levels of peace deteriorate, with only 51 nations seeing an increase.

Sigfried Sassoon, writing about his experience in the First , at the crowd watching soldiers march by: “Sneak home and pray you’ll never know / The hell where youth and laughter go.” To this day, for a large part of the world’s population, this prayer goes unanswered.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post War: The Hell Where Peace and Laughter Go appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

The��, a densely-populated����enclave with 1.8 million people, has once again been a scene of violence, death and destruction since July 8. At the time of writing,��, an����military offensive on the��-controlled territory, has����over 840 Palestinians and caused thousands of injuries, mostly civilians.����has lost 35 soldiers and three civilians, including one foreign national.

Since the war between Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian factions began, Gaza has been hit by thousands of Israeli airstrikes, while rocket fire into Israel has not come to a halt. After earlier Israeli military operations in Gaza, including Cast Lead and Pillar of Defense in 2008-09 and 2012 respectively, the latest conflict has seen����launch airstrikes on the Palestinian territory and then a ground offensive.

The conflict erupted after three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and killed in the West Bank in June. Israeli officials accused Hamas of abducting them, without presenting evidence, while the latter denied having any involvement. In response, Israel conducted mass raids in the West Bank, with hundreds of Palestinians arrested, including Hamas members who were previously released under an earlier prisoner swap.

Amid these raids, and the murder of a Palestinian teenager, non-Hamas-��factions fired rockets into Israel, which were followed by Israeli airstrikes. As tensions mounted, Hamas claimed responsibility for rocket fire for the first time in 20 months. A bloody war was the result.

The international community has attempted on several occasions to broker a durable truce. While there have been humanitarian ceasefires over the course of the conflict, both sides have failed to reach a consensus over a long-term agreement.

Demands for Palestinian officials include lifting the siege on Gaza, which has been in place since 2007; the freeing of prisoners; and the re-establishment of the territory’s air and sea ports. Israeli officials have called for Gaza to be demilitarized.

Why is the Gaza Conflict Relevant?

The conflict’s causes must be seen in a wider context involving two key issues. First, the Gaza Strip has endured a land, sea and air����by Israel and����since 2007, a year after Hamas won elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council. Hamas is an offshoot of the����and consists of political and armed wings. Israel, the��, the��, Egypt,�������Ի�����consider Hamas to be a terrorist organization, while��,��,�������Ի�����do not.

While Israel disputes that Gaza can be considered as occupied territory after its withdrawal in 2005, the blockade severely limits the movement of people and goods into and out of the territory. The United Nations still considers Gaza to be����land. Israel has occupied the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have accused each other of war crimes in the current conflict, while UN Human Rights Commissioner��Navi Pillay��stated: “There seems to be a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes.”

Second, in April, US-mediated negotiations between the����(PA) and the Israeli government broke down over several issues, including Israel’s refusal to release Palestinian prisoners; the PA’s signing of applications to 15 international treaties and conventions; the establishment of a Palestinian unity government; and Israeli settlements in occupied territories.

During the nine-month negotiations brokered by US Secretary of State��, the Israeli government����the construction of more than 13,850 new housing units in the West Bank. Settlement expansion has been a major obstacle to a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians. are considered under international law.

Both Israelis and Palestinians have accused each other of war crimes in the current conflict, while UN Human Rights Commissioner����stated: “There seems to be a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes.”

With no end in sight to��the violence, Palestinian ambitions to join the��, and an expected UN inquiry into war crimes and human rights violations, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will remain in the headlines.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

��/��

The post The Gaza Conflict: Occupation, Rockets and War Crimes appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

is facing its��biggest security crisis in recent history. Militants from the (ISIS), in alliance with Iraqi insurgents, have seized swathes of territory in northern and western Iraq. ISIS is an offshoot of that originally emerged from Iraq, but soon extended its operations to . Earlier this year, Ayman al-Zawahiri, the al-Qaeda chief, ISIS after a dispute over the group’s brutal tactics and territorial expansion.

The speed of the Iraq offensive that led to the capture of Mosul on June 10 caught most observers and government officials by surprise, despite prior by the Regional Government (KRG). Having seized land in Anbar and Babel provinces several months ago, ISIS has recently changed its name to the “Islamic State” and declared a caliphate over parts of Iraq and Syria.

ISIS has not acted alone, but instead in alliance with other antigovernment forces in Iraq. These include the General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries (), whose leadership is mostly made up of ex-Iraqi army officers of Sunni and tribal origin, as well as former Sahwa (awakening) forces. Jaysh Rijal al-Tariqah al-Naqshabandia (JRTN) — also known as the Naqshabandi Order — which is said to be loyal to Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, Saddam Hussein’s former right-hand man, is the main Baathist front. Its ideology is a mix of pan-Arabism, secular nationalism and Naqshabandi Sufi Islam, while also using to add legitimacy to its cause. The group’s members are be represented in the GMCIR.

Amid , both groups’ ties with ISIS have been the subject of controversy, as they hold some form of operational relationship with the jihadist militants. With even more groups involved in the Iraqi insurgency, there is a great variety of tribes and militias at play. Tribal leaders and their militias are crucial players in the conflict.

Rebels capitalized on a crackdown of Sunni protest camps in early 2014. Militants exploited longstanding grievances toward the Maliki government — mainly from the Sunni Arab community. is a prime minister and Iraq’s Sunni community feels politically and economically marginalized. Similar to protesters at the height of the , they no longer want to be on the receiving end of heavy-handed security tactics. Maliki’s government has been criticized as being dictatorial and Sunni for the rebellion must be seen in this context.

Iraq is situated in the heart of the Middle East, bordering Jordan, Turkey, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Iran. Notwithstanding the long-term implications of an ISIS caliphate under Abu-Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-declared caliph, violence in Iraq and Syria shows the potential end of the Sykes-Picot borders.��

In response to the insurgency, Maliki ordered a large military offense. While out air strikes, the has sent several hundred troops and advisors to Iraq in order to protect the American Embassy and Baghdad International Airport. Washington has also established a joint military operations center in Iraq.

The standoff threatens to draw in regional actors. Amid statements, Iran has sent soldiers to Iraq in a bid to support Maliki. The commander of Iran’s elite Quds force, , is involved in directing the Iraqi government’s response to the insurgency. Asa’ib Ahl al-Haq, an Iraqi Shia militia, is likely to play a key role in any response.

Why is the Iraq Crisis Relevant?

Iraq is situated in the heart of the Middle East, bordering , , Syria, Kuwait, and . Notwithstanding the long-term implications of an ISIS caliphate under , the self-declared caliph, violence in Iraq and Syria shows the potential end of the borders. The publicized of a crossing between Iraq and Syria underline ISIS efforts to redraw the Middle East map. Additionally, KRG President Masoud Barzani has on the Kurdish parliament to prepare for an independence referendum, further threatening the end of a unified Iraq.

Aside from a risk of to Jordan and Saudi Arabia, the Iraq crisis has already over 2,400 people — half of them��were��civilians. The violence has seen the displacement of 1 million Iraqis, with many of them seeking refuge in Kurdish regions. With the United Nations overstretching its resources to contain the humanitarian crisis, Saudi Arabia has $500 million. Nevertheless, a medium-term uprooting of such a large number of people will inevitably complicate efforts.

Moreover, violence in Iraq will have a direct impact on the . As the threat to Maliki increases, Shia militias that have fought alongside the Syrian are likely to refocus on repelling the Sunni insurgency in Iraq. With regard to inner-Iraqi dynamics, Iraq is at risk of an all-out civil war. Calls to arms and the mobilization of Shia militias, including the Sadrist Peace Brigades, have added to increased , with the possibility that neighboring Iran will step up its involvement in the conflict.

While armed intervention will not solve the underlying grievances that have triggered wider Sunni participation in the rebellion, military dynamics are likely to dominate in the foreseeable future. It is unclear as to how quickly a potential formation of an inclusive government would lead to a cessation of hostilities. Further clashes between insurgents are to be expected, not the least due to their opposing ideologies.

The cradle of civilization is on the brink of mayhem. A Balkanization of the Middle East is not a farfetched scenario. What happens next is anyone’s guess.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post The Iraq Crisis Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Approximately people live in the world’s second-largest continent. Only Asia has more people but Africa now has the fastest growing population. If current trends continue, the number of Africans will rise to 1.4 billion in 2025 and to 1.9 billion in 2050. A third of the babies born in the world will be African. Already, 61% of Africa’s population is 24 and under, making it the youngest in the world.

Africa needs to provide employment to 200 million people aged between 15-24. As per the , youth account for 60% of Africa’s unemployed. The African Economic Outlook extensively how the young fare in labor markets. Lack of demand for labor, absence of meritocracy, and lack of proper training are the top three barriers to getting a job.

Young women find it harder than their male counterparts to find a job. Underemployment is rife, especially in the agricultural sector. Many businesses report that they have to import managerial and technical talent from abroad to run their operations. The simple explanation for this phenomenon is that Africans lack skills because they are victims of terrible education systems. The continent’s military expenditure still exceeds that on education or agriculture.

Why is Youth Employment in Africa Relevant?

Youth unemployment often fuels political violence, social tensions and civil unrest. A World Bank in 2011 found that 40% of those who join rebel movements in Africa are motivated by the desire of finding a job. Clearly, youth employment is the biggest challenge facing the continent.

Now that we have identified the challenge, two questions follow. First, how can we create jobs? Second, who is responsible for creating jobs?

There are five key ways to create jobs in Africa. First, a vigorous private sector is essential for the creation of jobs in the continent. Second, infrastructure is critical for jobs. Electricity is a magical thing and allows people the chance to do new things. Roads allow people to get around and take their crops or manufactures to markets. Railways move larger numbers of people and bigger quantities of goods more efficiently, while ports allow products to reach overseas markets. Infrastructure creates a massive multiplier effect for the economy and for employment. Third, both private sector and infrastructure require capital to develop. Therefore, finding new ways to finance ideas and projects is essential. Fourth, better governance leads to more jobs. If corruption is curbed and skills improved, there will inevitably be more jobs for everyone, particularly the youth. Fifth, social mores and cultural norms have to change. If innovation, hope and self-reliance replace inertia, despair and dependency, jobs would increase dramatically. So far, most people have looked to government jobs for security and perks. As the younger generation grows up in an era of mobile phones, exposure to the wider world and M-PESA, new ways of thinking are emerging.�� These have promise and need support.

The greatest responsibility rests with African governments. These governments have to take a leaf out of China’s book and build power plants, electricity grids, roads, railways and ports.

Already, Africa is increasingly entrepreneurial. The private sector is highly dynamic and it is the responsibility of governments to set it free. They need to get rid of colonial-era red tape that is destroying the continent, and instead make it easy for businesses to operate. Sensible budgets and stable monetary policies are essential. Investment in education, along with overdue reforms in curriculum and training, will boost the private sector by improving the capabilities of the population.

The greatest responsibility rests with African governments. These governments have to take a leaf out of China’s book and build power plants, electricity grids, roads, railways and ports. They have to connect key markets and trading routes, disregarding artificial borders. Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Tanzania have recently formed the East African Community (EAC) and upon a monetary union. More importantly, they have a regional plan to build new ports and railways that includes a $13.8 billion Chinese-built railway.

This is a blueprint for more countries to follow. However, foreign partners, including colonial nations such as France and new players such as China, can help. International organizations such as the World Bank have a role to play too.

Africa has a tremendous shortage of capital. Yet it has enormous opportunities. Tony Elumelu makes a good case for long-term as a means of creating economic prosperity, jobs and social wealth. Here, investors in Asia, Europe and the US can help. Already, is investing a great deal in various projects in the continent. Western pension funds and corporations could do well to show the imagination to invest in Africa, as could angel investors. Microfinance is a big part of the package.

Africa needs better governance. Europeans divided Africa into arbitrary states, rapaciously robbed the continent and imposed a centralized administration, creating a form of government that was divorced from the people. After independence, African strongmen used this colonial structure of government for coercion and patronage. Now, African political leaders, its intellectuals, civic organizations and the people themselves have to end the divorce between the government and the people.

Finally, civil society and organizations involved in Africa, both national and international, have to work on developing a new spirit in the continent. Too often, Western organizations impose their systems on Africa with disastrous effect. There is more than an element of truth in the adage that aid is band-aid. Instead, what Africa needs is self-reliance and entrepreneurship. Already, small businesses, social enterprises and nonprofit organizations in places like Kenya represent a new energy sweeping through the continent. Africa needs a new generation that takes inspiration from Chinua Achebe and Nelson Mandela to provide a new vision for the continent.

*[In partnership with��Ashoka’s initiative, which is finding Innovations for Youth Employment in Africa, 51�Թ� explores the theme: Who is responsible for addressing youth employment in Africa? From June to September 2014, we will be developing online events and a series of articles that will gather multiple perspectives and provide a����analysis on the topic. Join the conversation by following and contributing to through social media channels.]

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

/

The post Youth Employment in Africa: Whose Job Is It? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

The FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event on the planet. Over 3 billion people watched it in 2010 — the fact that 111 million watched the Super Bowl puts this in context. Football, or soccer as the Americans like to call it, is the only truly global game. Its most compelling quality is its combination of simplicity with beauty. Children around the world from South Africa and Chile to Sweden and Japan grow up kicking a ball around. Playing for one’s country is still a great honor and even those nations that do not qualify for the World Cup go crazy over the tournament.

The World Cup is the event where players truly attain greatness. Unless a player dominates this tournament, he fails to enter the realm of legend. The world still gushes over Pele’s performances in 1958 and 1970. Jairzinho scored in every game that Brazil played in 1970, even outdoing Pele, while Garrincha and Diego Maradona defined the World Cups of 1962 and��1986. The Dutch may have lost in 1974 and Brazil might have been knocked out in 1982, but Johan Cruyff and Zico dazzled the world with their skills. Today, Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo are battling it out to be world’s best player and the finals will define who wins their rivalry. Billions are waiting with bated breath for the tournament to begin in Brazil, the spiritual home of “jogo bonito,” a term Pele used to describe football that means “the beautiful game.”

Brazil is banking that the samba beats and silky skills on the football pitch will energize the country and its ailing economy. Around 500,000 tourists are expected to throng the country. The World Cup is Brazil’s biggest sporting fiesta since 1950, the last time it hosted the tournament. Yet all is not rosy and simmering tensions threaten to break out, even as the world’s greatest sporting spectacle unfolds.

Why is World Cup 2014 Relevant?

The World Cup is relevant for more than sporting reasons. That it is expected to be the most watched sporting event in human history warrants attention in itself. However, other factors are even more relevant. The tournament is taking place in the backdrop of major controversies. FIFA is reeling under of corruption over Qatar’s hosting of World Cup 2022, where preparations are proceeding apace in the midst of regular reports over human rights abuses of workers. As the World Cup kicks off on June 12, FIFA and the Brazilian government are sweating over three key issues.

First, the scale of corruption and mismanagement of public funds has been staggering, even by Brazil’s lax standards. In 2013, following an increase in bus fares, protesters in Brazil’s major cities took to the streets in anger, even as the country was hosting the Confederations Cup. Overspending on the World Cup by the Brazilian government was a major cause for public anger.

The world still gushes over Pele’s performances in 1958 and 1970. Jairzinho scored in every game that Brazil played in 1970, even outdoing Pele, while Garrincha and Diego Maradona defined the World Cups of 1962 and��1986. The Dutch may have lost in 1974 and Brazil might have been knocked out in 1982, but Johan Cruyff and Zico dazzled the world with their skills.��

One stadium in Brasilia cost an astronomical $900 million, triple its estimated amount. The Brazilian government has splurged $11.5 billion on the finals, while South Africa to host the 2010 tournament for a mere $3 billion. The government has mishandled public funds and failed to invest in improved transport, education and health care. Corruption has cast a pall over the World Cup in a country with still frightening levels of poverty — of people live below the poverty line. Should a poor country host modern day expensive sporting events?

Second, Brazil suffers from inhuman levels of inequality. Wealth is concentrated in the hands of a tiny few who live in picture perfect neighborhoods, whilst the bulk of the country survives in ramshackle favelas, the Brazilian counterparts to Soweto. In the run-up to the World Cup, authorities have been forcefully residents from their homes. The government claims these evictions are unrelated to the tournament. Activists disagree and point out that 250,000 people are in danger of being evicted. Is the World Cup exacerbating inequality in an already unequal country because it demands a global spectacle?

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

Third, security concerns are weighing the World Cup down. President Dilma ��Rousseff hopes for re-election in October. Others want to dethrone her. Corruption has angered the public and the specter of mass protests is real. Drugs and crime continue to fester, especially in the favelas. Safety preparations for the World Cup have resulted in street shootings between the police and the drug cartels. In 2012 alone, 1,890 people were in police operations that occurred mostly in favelas. As tourists pour into the country, the government has stepped up . Around 170,000 forces will be deployed across 12 cities.

Despite the massive security preparations, FIFA and the Brazilian government fear that social unrest might spread like wildfire, even as the World Cup kicks off on June 12. Protests and strikes in Brazil’s urban centers have ��up as the tournament draws near. On June 9, subway workers went on in Sao Paulo, where the opening match will be held.

Brazilians love football more than anyone else in the world. Yet they are sick of the corruption, inequality, crime and a lack of public services that pervades the country. Will Brazil be able to host a safe, peaceful and bonito��tournament?

��/����/��

The post World Cup 2014: Passion and Protests appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

There is a humorous element to Alexander Woollcott’s famous quip that all good things are either illegal, immoral or fattening. If you look at the tradition of literary censorship, this postulation becomes less amusing, as it appears that every book worth reading has either been subjected to burning, banning or been challenged at some point in history.��The Origin of Species, 1984, The Philosophical Dictionary, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, The Catcher in the Rye, Ulysses, Lolita, The Social Contact, Howl, All Quiet on the Western Front, The New Testament in Englyshe, and Gone with the Wind��are only a few examples of a seemingly endless����of historical attempts at mind control.

…he who destroys a good Book, kills reason itself.��

– John Milton,��Areopagitica

Neuroscientists and linguists have long tried to deconstruct our relationship with words. Some, like the�� hypothesis, suggest that language shapes our thoughts and determines behavior — that, as the father of modern linguistics, Ferdinand de Saussure tells us, speech is a social construct.

This symbiotic relationship between thought and expression is what makes a book such a dangerous object. On the one hand, it is the sum total of the author’s ideas, nurtured — or perhaps provoked — by his or her environment. On the other, these ideas will feed back into the social fabric and weave the infinite web of unpredictable potential. Once conceived, an idea can never be��unthought, even if the word that signifies it can be silenced. Yet it is not for the lack of trying.

In ancient China, the Ch’in Emperor Shih Huang-ti had some 460 scholars buried alive for disobeying the order to burn the��Shih Ching��(Book of History) and��Shu Ching��(Book of Odes), at a time where books were thought to undermine dynastic authority and scholars were seen as “vermin” that could cast doubt upon the law of the time. Roman emperors started burning both Christians and their writings as heretical as early as during the rule of Diocletian. Pope Pius IV introduced the Index of Prohibited Books,��Index prohibitorum librorum��— a 500-page list that included names like Hobbes, Descartes, Hume, Voltaire, and was abolished by the Vatican Council only in the 1960s.

Voltaire had more books burned than any other writer in the 18^th��century, with at least ten different titles torched across Europe. Leftist writings, among them Bertrand Russell’s, were burned by Chiang Kai-Chek’s troops, while Mao’s Red Army exterminated what it defined as “parasitic” writing during the Cultural Revolution. The Third Reich had set up Brenn-Kommandos — arson squads targeting synagogues and libraries, with UNESCO����a loss of 15-22 million volumes in Polish libraries during World War II, some 100 million in the Soviet Union, and Germany losing at least a third of its own in turn.

Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

The burning of Salman Rushdie’s��in Bradford in January 1989, and the ensuing��fatwa��that sent the author into years of hiding, was perhaps the most famous recent example of book burning in the Western world. Aside from a few isolated incidents, like the burning of�� novels by religious activists, or the destruction of Timbuktu libraries by Islamist rebels in 2013, the main avenue for book censorship today are challenges and bans.

According to the��, the most common causes of challenges are sexually explicit content, offensive language and unsuitability for a certain age group. The first obscenity law was introduced in the United States in 1842 to prevent import of “indecent pictures,” and has since been used to take authors like James Joyce, D.H. Lawrence, Henry Miller, J.D. Salinger, Allen Ginsberg, Toni Morrison and numerous others — ��Merriam Webster’s English Dictionary — off the library shelves across the country.

In 2013, the anti-censorship charity ��documented��a 53% in bans from 2012, citing 49 cases in 26 states, with Dev Pilkey’s��Captain Underpants��coming in��at place, ahead of a far more likely candidate: E.L. James’��Fifty Shades of Grey, ranked fourth. Iran’s new regime has recently promised to����its stringent censorship laws, while in Britain, a recent ban����inmates from receiving books and magazines from family and friends outside.

Why is Burning and Banning Books Relevant?

The importance of the issues surrounding banning books today is that of fundamental freedoms and civil liberties. While in America the First Amendment protects freedom of expression as a basic right, it is nevertheless not enough to prevent ideas being challenged, books banned and Internet sites blocked on the grounds of difference in interpretation. In countries where freedom of expression is not only not a given, but is completely absent from social culture, the ability to access forbidden information becomes a dangerous necessity, made possible today by advances in technology.

Aside from countries like China and North Korea, where Internet freedoms are curtailed, the��samizdat��phenomenon of the 20^th��century is replicated online, giving banned writers a global outlet, and an invaluable resource to readers. What began with the destruction of the Library of Alexandria has now taken on a completely different shape and form. Yet in equating Internet censorship today with book burnings of the past, it becomes a testament to the straight arrow of human curiosity, independent-mindedness and creativity that continues to shape our society through the ages.

/ /��

The post Flames of Folly: On Burning and Banning Books appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Immigration, population transfer and the control of land have been core issues of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict since the arrival of the first Zionist settlers in the late 1800s. Zionism, spearheaded by figures such as Theodor Herzl, sought to answer the “Jewish Question” through the creation of a Jewish state, and chose Mandatory Palestine as the site for this nationalist project.

Throughout the first half of the 20^th��century, immigration contributed to an exponential increase of the Jewish minority in Palestine, from less than 10% in 1880 to approximately 30% in 1946. These new communities began to acquire land from Arabs, and records indicate that both purchase and coercion were used to attain this end; however, this history remains contested. This period led up to the “War of Independence” — referred to as the��nakba��(catastrophe) by Palestinians — which established the State of Israel in 1948.

At this point, the new Israeli state gained control of 78% of Mandatory Palestine, while Trans-Jordan and Egypt took on the administration of the remaining land. During the Six-Day War in June 1967, Israel gained control of the remainder of the territories. The sustained Israeli military presence in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and, up until 2005, in the Gaza Strip, is considered by the majority of the international community to be an illegal occupation.

Several United Nations Security Council resolutions, including��,��,��,�������Ի���, have found Israeli��settlements in the occupied territories to be illegal, stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention applies to this situation.����of the convention states: “[The] Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Other organs of the United Nations such as the General Assembly, Human Rights Council and the International Court of Justice have also declared the settlements as illegal.

��has disputed the assertion that the West Bank and East Jerusalem can actually be considered occupied territories because they were not part of a legitimate sovereign state before 1967. Thus, it argues that the Fourth Geneva Convention does not apply to these disputed territories, which renders the settlements legal.

Contemporary discussions on the issue of “settlements” refer to the construction of Jewish-Israeli homes on Palestinian land that has taken place since 1967. ��Since the end of the Six-Day War, the population of Jewish settlers on the Palestinian side of the “Green Line” — the demarcation between Israel proper and the Palestinian Territories — has grown steadily.

Currently, over��500,000 Israeli��reside in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and these numbers continue to rise. There are over 120 “official” settlements in the West Bank, along with approximately 100 unofficial but governmentally serviced “outposts.” Additionally,��14 official����are located��in East Jerusalem, while 17 settlements in Gaza were dismantled in 2005.

Settlements range in size from a small cluster of homes to towns of up to 40,000 inhabitants. In addition to the land required for construction, a swath of surrounding land is often established as a “security buffer,” accompanied by defensive features such as walls and military checkpoints.

In 2013, the United Nations Geneva Convention declared Israeli settlements to be “a creeping annexation that prevents the establishment of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state and undermines the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination.” The Israeli government denounced this criticism as “biased.”

Some Israeli settlers are motivated to move to settlements for religious reasons, believing “Greater Israel” to be the divine destiny of the Jewish people. Others are drawn for more practical reasons, including government-subsidized housing and education as well as economic opportunities.

Why are Israeli Settlements Relevant?

Contention over Israeli settlements has often brought peace talks to a standstill. Palestinians argue that the expansion of settlements make a realistic discussion of a two-state solution impossible by unilaterally changing facts on the ground.

In recent years, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has experienced repeated conflict with the Obama administration over the issue of settlement expansion. Despite this, construction has continued to rise, as the��Israeli statistics bureau����that the number of new settlement units more than doubled between 2012 and 2013 to reach a 13-year high.

© Shutterstock

In response to the most recent announcements of expansion, US President Barack Obama����his concern over Israel’s “most aggressive settlement policy in years,” which he previously����did not “advance the cause of peace.” In contrast, Netanyahu and his allies argue that settlements are not an impediment to peace.

The issue of a potential two-state solution also raises concerns for Israeli settlements already in place. Many argue that the multitude of existing settlements is an obstacle to any viable Palestinian state, a sentiment with alarming implications for settlers and their supporters. They worry that a final solution would require the dismantling of settler homes and neighborhoods, and for many this possibility is a non-starter.

Proposed compromises have included a “land swap,” which would allow Israel to annex some of the larger settlements while compensating Palestinians’ corresponding land elsewhere. Netanyahu has insisted there will be “no act of evacuation” of West Bank settlements and that “no Israeli will be abandoned,” even while admitting that there would perhaps be a limited number of settlements left out of Israeli territory.

Obama has continued to urge for a compromise, while Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has accused the Israeli government of using the peace talks as coverage for sustained expansion of settlements.

In this atmosphere of tension, settlements continue to weigh heavily on any consideration over the future of Israel and Palestine.

/ ��/��

The post Israeli Settlements: Violation of International Law or Rightful Return? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

The Indian constitution provides a term of five years for the Lok Sabha, India’s lower house of parliament that is elected directly by the people. It is the equivalent of Britain’s House of Commons, after which it is modeled.

The term of the current Lok Sabha is coming to a close and the world’s biggest electoral exercise will take place from April 7 to May 12. There are 543 constituencies and 814 million voters. An autonomous Election Commission of India (ECI) conducts the election across 930,000 polling stations using 1.4 million voting machines.

The main contenders in the election are the National Democratic Alliance (NDA), led by the Bhartiya Janata Party (BJP); the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), led by the Congress party; and the Third Front consisting mainly of communist and socialist parties.

The BJP’s prime ministerial candidate is Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi. Modi has emerged to the forefront on his administrative record in Gujarat. In four consecutive terms, he has furthered industrial and agricultural development in the state. He is also accused of causing the 2002 Gujarat riots that saw at least 1,000 people killed, which is why minorities dread him.

The Congress has declared Rahul Gandhi, the son of the Italian-born party leader and the great grandson of Jawaharlal Nehru, to be their leader. The party has been in power for most of the time since India’s independence and is despised by the country’s middle-class for corruption.

Apart from the NDA, UPA and Third Front, the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), whose name literally translates as the common man’s party, has emerged as an anti-corruption movement. Its leader, Arvind Kejriwal, is charismatic and his party is fielding several high profile candidates. Many speculate that it might play a decisive role in the formation of the next government in case no alliance manages to win a majority.

Why are the 2014 Indian Elections Relevant?

First, the Indian elections are the largest democratic exercise in the world. Many young democracies have long looked up to India since the days of its freedom struggle as an exemplar.

Second, India is the most diverse country in the world in terms of languages, religions, castes and more. It is a miracle that India’s rambunctious democracy continues to persist. The country is held up as a model for multi-ethnic and multi-religious states.

Third, elections in India are lengthy and expensive exercises. This election is the longest and costliest yet. The ECI estimates that parties will , making this the second most expensive election ever. Only the 2012 US presidential election, with its $7 billion spending, cost more.

Fourth, this election is one where three contending visions of the country are at stake. Modi is offering to replicate the business-friendly high-growth model that he has unleashed in Gujarat. Gandhi is promising more of the same. His party has promised reservations for lower castes in the private sector and more government-led schemes for generating employment. Kejriwal has set his sights on more grassroots democracy, an anti-corruption drive and Chavez-style economic populism.

Fifth, this is an election not about hope but instead about fear. Many fear that if a Gandhi-led Congress was to win the elections, Indian institutions would crumble entirely. Modi has a reputation for being haughty, authoritarian and vindictive. Both Muslim and Christian minorities are convinced they will be reduced to second-class status if he takes over.

Finally, all current trends indicate that a single party will not win an outright majority. Inevitably, there will be a coalition in which smaller regional parties will play a key role. In India, this invariably leads to dubious practices such as horse trading, granting of favors and even money changing hands.

India’s centralized state is sputtering and its audacious experiment in nation-making is at a crossroads. The Indian elections will determine whether this increasingly fractious nation continues to pull together or starts drifting apart.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post History in the Making: A Guide to the 2014 Indian Elections appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Elections in Afghanistan are set to be held on April 5, 2014. Incumbent President Hamid Karzai is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term in office.

Several candidates are on the ballot — among the frontrunners being Abdullah Abdullah and Ashraf Ghani Ahmadzai. Abdullah, a presidential candidate in 2009 and former minister of Foreign Affairs, is head of the reform-minded National Coalition of Afghanistan. Ghani, the former Afghan finance minister, is running as an independent.

Other candidates include Zalmai Rassoul, Mohammad Daud Sultanzoy, Qutbuddin Hilal, Gul Agha Sherzai, Abdul Rabb Rasul Sayyaf, and Hedayat Amin Arsala.

If all goes (relatively) smoothly, Afghanistan will see the first democratic transfer of power in its history.

However, a runoff seems likely, meaning the winner of the election may not be resolved until late June. In addition, terrorism and fraud could ruin plans for a peaceful, free and fair election.

Why is the Afghanistan Presidential Election Relevant?

When American diplomat Richard Holbrooke died in 2010, he left behind much unfinished business in Afghanistan. Indeed, even a man of his genius could not seem to unravel the Gordian knot that is the region.

Karzai's mercurial personality, along with terrorism, warlords, drug trafficking, weapons proliferation and interference from neighboring countries, stymied Holbrooke's attempts to help Afghanistan on the path to stability.

The presidential election is a chance for Afghanistan to shore up confidence in its government. It will also give NATO and the US a chance to deal with a potentially more stable Afghan president.

Both Abdullah and Ghani are highly respected both in Afghanistan and among the international community. However, they are not perfect candidates.

Disturbingly, former Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum is on the ticket as Ghani's vice-presidential candidate. While Dostum helped remove the Taliban from power, he is also known to have committed awful atrocities. His presence in the race is indicative of the long reach of warlordism in Afghan politics.

But a major question remains: Will Karzai keep to himself after the elections? The fraud that marred the 2011 campaign, as well as rampant nepotism under his watch, are signs that he probably intends to remain a loud voice in an already very crowded and tumultuous room.

The West, especially the US, in their exasperation at President Karzai's refusal to sign a security deal regarding troops in Afghanistan, will be glad to see someone else in power.

The international community has stressed the importance of free and fair elections in Afghanistan. Indeed, those closely following events in Afghanistan agree that a peaceful and smooth transfer of power will give the next government much-needed legitimacy.

However, several recent attacks may derail those hopes. On , two suicide bombers attacked the Afghan election commission headquarters in Kabul. Earlier in March, the the Serena Hotel in the capital city and killed nine civilians.

These attacks have led to fears that polling places located in Afghan schools and medical clinics will be targeted on election day. As the US and NATO withdraw forces, fears remain that the Afghan National Army will not be strong enough to withstand attacks from extremist groups.

Holding a free, fair and secure election, it seems, may take a miracle.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post The Afghanistan Presidential Election: A Guide appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

In 2013, Thailand welcomed over��, while its capital city, Bangkok, was declared as the world’s number one travel destination by the��Global Destination Cities Index.

Fast-forward to March 2014 and the current status of Bangkok as a tourist destination could not be more different.��

While international media has recently focused on violent unrest in Ukraine and Venezuela, the fragile political situation in Thailand since November 2013 has also become increasingly violent. At least 24 people have died with hundreds injured in clashes between “yellow shirt” opposition forces, led by Suthep Thaugsuban — a�� deputy prime minister in the previous Abhisit Vejjajiva-led government — and pro-Thaksin “red shirts” who support Thailand’s first female prime minister, Yingluck Shinawatra.��

Thailand has arguably had the most volatile history of democracy in Southeast Asia. Throughout the 20th century, the country witnessed over a dozen military��interventions��with the most recent being a bloodless coup in 2006, which saw the overthrow of Yingluck’s brother, former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra.

Yingluck’s election victory in July 2011 led to Thailand enjoying relative stability and prosperity for a period of time. However, a failed attempt to pass a political amnesty bill in November 2013 — which would have overturned allegations against her brother on charges of corruption — triggered underlying tensions within Thai society in Bangkok over long-standing claims that she was merely a puppet of Thaksin, who lives in self-imposed exile.��

Populist politics and growing unrest among the middle-classes in Bangkok in late 2013, which were triggered by her move on the political amnesty bill, led to Yingluck calling for elections on February 2, 2014. The election saw approximately����— a far cry from the 75% who voted and elected��Yingluck��in 2011.��

The recent vote has since been����by Thailand’s Constitutional Court, because��voting did not take place in 28 constituencies where antigovernment protesters had prevented candidates from registering.��

Why is Thailand’s Political Crisis Relevant?

As Southeast Asia’s second largest economy, the protests over the last five months have cost the Thai economy nearly 100 billion baht and have been detrimental to its formerly-booming tourism sector, which had��expected to welcome����in 2014.��

At a deeper level, the current stalemate has only further polarized Thai society and deepened the divide between north and south Thailand. The antigovernment movement is greatly supported by urbanized middle-class citizens and established elites in southern Thailand. Yingluck’s base, however, comes from the rural northern and eastern parts of the country, who continue to support Thaksin’s populist politics.

In the context of Southeast Asia, political unrest in Thailand has done little to boost confidence among its neighbors in establishing the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) by 2015.

The AEC has been projected to transform the region into one with free movement of goods, services, investment, skilled labor and a freer flow of capital. The uncertain political future of Thailand — a founding member of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) — will inadvertently have an impact on the effectiveness of this integrative policy.��

Given the historical forces that have allowed soft authoritarianism to establish a stronghold in Thailand, what happens at the country’s second general elections of 2014 is anyone’s guess.��

Image: Copyright ©��. All Rights Reserved

The post Political Unrest in Thailand: The Crisis Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The nonparticipation of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh was widely criticized by analysts, stating that India’s foreign policy had become hostage to domestic politics. Singh did not participate in the CHOGM, following demands from Tamil Nadu, India’s southern state which shares a common ethno-cultural and linguistic bonding with the Tamil-speaking population of northern Sri Lanka.

The Tamils wanted India to boycott the CHOGM, so as to pressure Sri Lanka to address alleged human rights issues during the final phase of the country’s civil war that ended in 2009.

Tamil Nadu and Sri Lanka

Of the 70 million Tamils in the world, around 85% live in Tamil Nadu. The rest are spread over Sri Lanka, Singapore, Malaysia and many other countries, including the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada.

Given their geographical proximity, Tamils of India hold their Sri Lankan counterparts very dear to their heart, and have been providing moral and political support to them during and after the Sri Lankan Civil War. Ever since the conflict ended, reports of alleged cruelty meted out to Sri Lankan Tamil civilians and rebels have surfaced.

Expressing solidarity with their unfortunate brethren in Sri Lanka, people of Tamil Nadu, jointly with the Sri Lankan Tamil Diaspora, have been calling for an independent international investigation into the alleged war crimes.

Leaders from Tamil Nadu appealed to New Delhi to boycott the CHOGM, as India’s absence in the meeting would send signals to the international community to force Sri Lanka to bring justice to the suffering of its Tamil population. PM Singh obliged by declining to participate in the CHOGM, although not officially stated so by him. He sent his external affairs minister on his behalf, while the demand was for a total boycott.

Criticisms

Most observers of Indian politics criticized India’s nonparticipation, arguing that New Delhi’s foreign policy had been swayed by domestic politics, as major political parties from Tamil Nadu called for boycotting the event. Critics saw the decision on the CHOGM as an opportunity for China to strengthen its ties with Sri Lanka.

Apart from attacking the decision on the grounds of yielding to domestic pressure ahead of national elections, critics have not spelt out any other solid reasons as to why nonparticipation in the CHOGM would severely impact India’s foreign relations. The criticisms appear to be based on incorrect assumptions, while they also lack consideration of other related issues. There is an implicit assumption that foreign policy is superior and, therefore, domestic affairs should be made to toe the line of foreign policy. The critics have failed to consider long pending issues that culminated in shaping up the prevailing public opinion in Tamil Nadu.

Also, there is an assumption that the demand for a boycott was only made by politicians (and thus without mass support). This calls for a need to respond to the critics, by providing alternative perspectives.

Foreign Policy vs. Domestic Concerns

One of the foremost criticisms was “foreign policy has bowed down to domestic concerns.” Here, the implied assumption is the idea that foreign policy is superior and reserved for the elites. The debate on the relationship between domestic concerns and foreign policy is as old as the study of International Relations itself, with a plethora of literature on it.

The school of thought that prevailed until the 1970s favored an elite-centric model of foreign policy. During the 1950s and 1960s, the influential work of scholarship in the field was the Almond-Lipmann Consensus, which asserted that: “Public opinion is volatile, emotional and irrational and hence not a meaningful factor in foreign policy formulation.”

There was a shift in thought beginning in the early 1980s, when scholars began to advocate a strong linkage between public opinion and foreign policy. In 1988, Robert Putnam, professor of Public Policy at Harvard University, proposed a game theoretic model.

He conceived a two-level game: First, the domestic level in which domestic groups pressure the government for a foreign policy that satisfies their interests; and second, the game reaches the international level, in which the respective “national governments seek to maximize their own ability to satisfy domestic pressures, while minimizing the adverse consequences of foreign developments.”

Putnam makes an interesting observation: “Neither of the two games can be ignored by the central decision makers, so long as their countries remain inter-dependent, yet sovereign.”

More recently, Aaron David Miller drew an analogy by comparing domestic politics to gravitational force. Thus, it has become an accepted wisdom in the study of International Relations that domestic concerns ought to be given their due place while making foreign policy.

Despite such a paradigm shift in the scholarly thought challenging the elitist approach, it is surprising to see denouncement of New Delhi’s decision to heed its people’s concerns. If Singh had been stubborn in attending the CHOGM, it would have created tensions and unrest in the state of Tamil Nadu by triggering protests. Only a few months earlier was Tamil Nadu forced to close educational institutions, as students across the state staged protests demanding for India to vote against Sri Lanka at the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).

When memories of the Sri Lankan Civil War are still fresh in the minds of the people of Tamil Nadu, any move by the government that may appear to hurt their sentiments would disturb domestic harmony, law and order.

Given this background, PM Singh took a balanced decision by not personally attending the CHOGM; but at the same time, sending his external affairs minister on his behalf, so as not to compromise India’s obligation toward the CHOGM. The Indian government deserves to be lauded for giving due consideration to the concerns of its people.

It is true the conduct of foreign affairs requires understanding of international laws and political, economic and strategic dynamics. It requires tact and diplomacy. These requirements call for expertise, which only trained professionals are bestowed with.

However, it does not provide absolute liberty to foreign policy decision-makers to discount the sentiments of the masses. After all, it is the masses who elect the government. If a democratic government is said to be a government of the people, by the people and for the people, then it is the duty of the government to listen to the concerns of its people. This is what the Indian government did in the present case.

Is the CHOGM a Key Platform for Foreign Affairs?

While projecting Singh’s decision to skip the CHOGM as “unprecedented” and likely to “paralyze foreign policy,” critics have ignored the fact that this is not the first time an Indian prime minister has missed a CHOGM.

In the past, prime ministers have missed the meeting for no specific reason, but mostly due to their other engagements. In the ten CHOGMs over the past two decades, an Indian prime minister has participated only in five. On four occasions, a minister led the Indian delegation. Singh himself led the Indian delegation in 1993, when he was the finance minister. At the 2011 CHOGM in Perth, Vice-President Hamid Ansari represented the country.

Moreover, a random look at participation records of previous CHOGMs shows there has hardly been 100% attendance by heads of governments. This indicates that government officials do not necessarily view CHOGMs as an essential tool for foreign affairs.

Therefore, the argument posed by critics that PM Singh’s nonparticipation in the CHOGM would seriously impact India’s foreign affairs is untenable. India and Sri Lanka have multiple levels of, and opportunities for, engagement. This single instance of the CHOGM will not create any significant dent in the relationship.

Intertwined and Pending Issues

Furthermore, critics have neglected to consider other long pending issues that have shaped public opinion in Tamil Nadu over a period of time. Since independence, foreign policy has been under the domain of the central government, as mandated by the Constitution of India. Although there is no requirement for the central government to consult the state governments on foreign policy issues that would impact the people of that state, it is a reasonable expectation on the part of the states that they are consulted.

The people of Tamil Nadu do not see a visible consultative practice in matters affecting them. This feeling is not something new, but seeds were sown four decades ago, when New Delhi decided against Tamil Nadu’s views while drawing boundaries with Sri Lanka.

In 1974, New Delhi and Colombo signed an agreement to finalize boundaries in historic waters. As a result, Katchatheevu, an island between the two countries, went to Sri Lanka. Fishermen in Tamil Nadu consider the island important to them, as it houses St. Antony’s Shrine, a holy place. Also, Tamil Nadu claims Katchatheevu to have been under the administration of historical rulers within the state.

The decision to “cede” the territory was a unilateral move by New Delhi, despite opposition from Tamil Nadu. Since then, Tamil Nadu has questioned the legality of the decision, as the constitution does not permit ceding of any territory.

A prominent leader from Tamil Nadu has taken up this matter with the Supreme Court. (New Delhi holds the view that there was no “ceding” of any territory, but it so happened Katchatheevu went to Sri Lanka during the course of demarcating boundaries.)

Adding fuel to the fire is the seeming indifference of New Delhi over the repeated killings of fishermen from Tamil Nadu by the Sri Lankan Navy. The people of Tamil Nadu compare this with the killing of two fishermen from the adjacent state Kerala, by two Italian Navy marines. In Kerala’s case, India took quick legal and diplomatic action.

On the other hand, despite acknowledging in parliament (in response to various members’ questions) the issue of killings or arrest of hundreds of Tamil Nadu fishermen by Sri Lanka, New Delhi has demonstrated little visible action. The fishermen issue can be partly attributed to the earlier decision of ceding Katchatheevu to Sri Lanka. Article 6 of the 1974 Agreement between India and Sri Lanka allows the people of India to continue to “enjoy their traditional rights.”

This clause is ambiguous, however. Tamil Nadu interprets it as an implied right to fish (a “traditional” activity) in the disputed territory. When a question on fishing rights was raised in parliament in August 2011, the external affairs minister responded by saying: “[The Indian fishermen] do not have the legal right to fish in the waters in Katchatheevu Island.”

Leaving the Katchatheevu issue aside, counterallegations are often made by Colombo that Indian fishermen from Tamil Nadu stray into Sri Lanka’s territorial waters and also use prohibited fishing methods.

Assuming Colombo’s claim is correct, the key factor that aggravates tensions is the frequently reported harsh treatment of fishermen if they cross the territory. It is not clear as to whether the Indian side has devised any mechanism to prevent its fishermen from crossing the territory. Taking a cue from the swift action in Kerala’s case, the people of Tamil Nadu feel unhappy over New Delhi’s continued indifference when it comes to them.

The third issue is India’s way of dealing with the Sri Lankan Civil War and its resultant humanitarian crisis. It is beyond the scope of this article to make a dissection of this issue. Some critics ought to be commended for their argument that PM Singh should have attended the CHOGM and urged Colombo to address the Tamils’ issues.

With due respects to their views, the people of Tamil Nadu widely believe that India tacitly supported Colombo in the final phase of the war and, therefore, it would be unrealistic to expect New Delhi to play a proactive role in addressing the crisis.

At the cost of repetition, the main issue is not about the merits of the decision to not participate in the CHOGM. Of course, there are other well-meaning, well-intended counterarguments considering larger interests. The objective here is to convey that foreign policy of a democratic government has to necessarily factor in domestic concerns; and there is an undercurrent in the minds of people of Tamil Nadu which led to calls for a boycott of the CHOGM.

Perhaps the case of Tamil Nadu is an example which underlines the need for taking people’s concerns into account while making foreign policy. Joint meetings, such as a recently scheduled appointment between representatives of fishermen and Indian and Sri Lankan officials, may help clear misunderstandings and strengthen friendship leading to common good. New Delhi and Colombo may also consider facilitating visits of elected leaders from Tamil Nadu to Sri Lanka, so as to develop mutual goodwill and encourage participative decision-making.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect 51�Թ�’s editorial policy.

Image: Copyright © Shutterstock. All Rights Reserved

The post Indian Foreign Policy vs Domestic Concerns appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

Although various studies quantifying South Asian languages differ quite drastically in their findings, it is undeniable that a plethora of languages exist within the region. For example, the chairperson of People’s Linguistic Survey of India (PLSI), G.N. Devy, : “[Today,] as many as 780 different languages are spoken and 86 different scripts are used in the country [India].”

The problem facing this diversification is that, according to the PLSI study, only “122 [languages] have been declared by the census as spoken by a population exceeding 10,000.”

Devy stated that nearly 250 languages have been lost within the last 50 years in India. This is alarming because language is rooted directly to identity. With the extinction of native dialects, certain cultural aspects are also slowly dying.

In , discourse on the extinction of certain Indian languages arose internationally when Boa Senior, the last speaker of the “Bo” language, passed away.

This phenomenon is not isolated to India. Languages throughout are becoming endangered. Many are being replaced by Western languages such as English in daily communication, because these languages are commonly used abroad. Some examples include from northern Pakistan and Gonduk from Bhutan. These are just a few of the many languages that continue to have a dwindling speaker population.

Why are South Asian Languages Relevant?

South Asia is one of the most linguistically diverse regions in the world. However, some of the more remote languages are fading at what appears to be an exponentially increasing rate. Many rural languages are very old, with linguistic characteristics remaining quite close to that of spoken language when it was first developed.

The use of the English language worldwide is increasing as the processes of globalization and transnationalism continue to expand.

Though at the surface it may appear that English is being welcomed, its increasing presence in India is a somewhat controversial issue. Some claim that English is a necessary tool for one to be competitive on the world stage.

However, there are those who pose the argument that the replacement of native languages with English is causing a change in Indian values and, therefore, Indian culture.

In fact, similar sentiments resonate throughout South Asian discourse on the issue. Language is at the heart of South Asian cultures and it even connects individuals to ethnic identities within the national framework. Each South Asian country differs in its cultural practices, but they all share the commonality of linguistic association to cultural values. It can be argued that linguistic changes are altering the social institutions within the region.

Speaking the languages of South Asia in pure form is somewhat unusual, especially in larger cities, as many native speakers have subconsciously allowed for the hybridization of languages. Pure language is being replaced by linguistic creoles, with intermixing vocabulary and grammatical syntaxes. Regional tongues are often merged with national languages, including English.

In today’s globalized world, the role of English in South Asia is very important with its wide usage within the region. It is often said that an English-speaking individual can visit the big cities in South Asia and not experience a language barrier.

Though English has made it easier for transnational development, the language has affected the evolution of South Asian heritage tongues. The hybridization of languages has often resulted in a completely different sounding language from the original. Consequently, linguistic traditionalists may cease to understand their own language after the integration of English in today’s everyday lexicon.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post South Asian Languages: Evolving Roles in a Globalized World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

The recent wave of protests in Ukraine began when the government suspended preparations to sign the European Union’s (EU) proposed in November 2013. The bill would have brought Ukraine closer to the EU, while the government's move was an attempt to cement stronger relations with Russia instead.  

As more than 100,000 people rallied in the capital of Kiev, it seemed as if was repeating itself. This time, however, protests were much more violent as dozens died and hundreds were injured during clashes with police. Protestors called for the resignation of President Viktor Yanukovych, early elections, and a repeal of anti-protest laws.

In 2004, the demonstrations against Yanukovych, the pro-Moscow presidential candidate, led to reelections. The opposition leader, Viktor Yushchenko, became the country’s new president and Yulia Tymoshenko its prime minister.

The victory of the Orange Revolution did not last for long. Yanukovych stepped back into power after being reelected in 2010, while his rival, Tymoshenko, was jailed for two-and-a-half years. She was only .

Ukraine has been torn between East and West since the collapse of the Soviet Union. According to , 46% of Ukrainians support Ukraine’s integration with the EU, and 36% oppose it. Those who rally in Kiev are pro-EU, but the mainly Russian–speaking east and south prefer closer cooperation with Russia.

As the EU tries to strengthen its ties with Ukraine, Russia is doing the same. Russian President Vladimir Putin would like to see Ukraine to join the Moscow-driven economic group, the Eurasian Customs Union. It consists of Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan and is part of a larger plan to create an association of former Soviet countries,due to be launched next year.

Yanukovych has sent mixed signals for years. At times, he has said that Ukraine will join the Customs Union, and at others, he has raised hopes of joining the EU.

As the violence escalated during protests, the Ukrainian parliament voted to overthrow Yanukovych and send him to . The president has since fled his home and is now wanted on charges of . At the same time, pro-Russian demonstrators have been  with anti-Yanukovich protestors.

Why are Anti-Government Protests in Ukraine Relevant?

Although for Ukraine it is not only about choosing between Russia and the EU, but changing the whole post-Soviet political system, the situation demonstrates the need for better dialogue between the EU and Russia, both of which have interests in Ukraine.

If Ukraine were to move closer to the EU, it would mean access to the European market, encouraging further investment. The EU is among Ukraine's most important and accounts for approximately one-third of its external trade.

The Moscow-led Customs Union, however, depends largely on whether Ukraine signs up. the trade agreement with the EU would be "a big threat" to Russia’s economy.

Moving closer to Russia would mean that Ukraine would bring its rich mineral resources and large market to the table. Kiev’s industry depends on Russian natural gas, which gives Russia enormous leverage, whereas the EU is believed to be unprepared to help Ukraine escape a financial crisis.

Russia has  of seeking to create a "sphere of influence" on its borders at the expense of relations with Moscow. However, EU officials increasingly for including Russia in the discussion over Ukraine. Putin that he would welcome closer economic ties between the EU and Ukraine.

At the end of the day, Ukraine might end up being the reason for the EU and Russia to finally settle their differences and cooperate.

Image: Copyright © . All Rights Reserved

The post Ukraine’s Crisis Explained appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Background

How do you measure the cost of a war? Deduce it in numbers and the scales begin to tip by a glaring margin. The  century, also the most murderous, saw nearly 203 million dead in over 355 wars and conflicts. The , just 14 years along, has already witnessed 35 conflicts with over 750,000 dead and counting. In 2011, the price tag of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan alone stood at a staggering . 

While it is relatively easy to count body bags and evaluate concrete destruction, it is almost impossible to extrapolate the cost of disruption to societies and national building capacity through loss of future growth and development. Most critically the real cost of war to a community, often visible a decade later, manifests itself through the loss of opportunities and gainful progression for its  ­— its children. Measured in human tragedy, a war exacts its most terrible price from children.

Incessant violence, displacement, disruption to education, loss of family, limb or life — the children caught in conflicts not only lose their childhood but are also robbed of a future. An  puts the number of children living in conflict-affected areas today at 1 billion, out of which 300 million are under the age of 5.  

Alarmingly, children are now increasingly seen as a strategic target in armed conflicts. As is evident from violence in Sierra Leone, Chad, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Sudan, Iraq, Syria, Colombia, DR Congo, Afghanistan and Pakistan, they have also been consistently abused as child soldiers, sex slaves, suicide bombers and human shields. As of 2013, there are still 250,000  fighting in conflicts across the world.

Why are Children of Conflict Relevant?

The indirect impact of violence and wars on children is equally catastrophic. In October 2013,  returned to Syria, 14 years after it was eradicated in the country. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), over  Syrian children today urgently need the polio vaccine or risk contracting the virus. The first half of 2013 saw a 72% rise in child injuries and deaths from  in Afghanistan.

The children living across the border between Sudan and South Sudan continue to face daily brutal violence, displacement and separation from family. Those whose families have found refuge in the internally displaced persons (IDP) camps further inland are at an equally  of malnourishment, diseases, abject poverty and abuse.

Iraqi children today face an even bleaker future than they did under Saddam Hussein. Thousands of children, especially war orphans, according to the United Nations International Emergency Children's Fund (UNICEF), have been diagnosed with severe irreversible  and will never be able to lead normal lives.

The same is now true of an alarmingly high number of former Tamil child soldiers in northern Sri Lanka, who are struggling to reintegrate into society after already having lost family, limbs and childhood to the country’s 30-year-long civil war.

With the emergence of  and change in the nature of conflicts in recent years, children across the world are now at greater risk of being harmed than before. A report, released in October 2013, warns that the number of children killed and injured in conflict will  significantly by 2033 due to advancement in weapons, rapid urbanization, and increased conflicts over natural resources. 

Image: Copyright ©  All Rights Reserved

The post The Children of Conflict appeared first on 51�Թ�.