There’s also somewhat of a theme to Rish!’s serial gaffes, a sense that he’s not as clever as he and his advisors think he is — and they are, too. Further, the press and public are far from as stupid as presumed.

It’s hard to have much sympathy for those MPs — the survivors or beneficiaries of the Conservatives’ of those who failed to be enthusiastic Brexshitters. They are broadly incompetent, mendacious or delusional. Most Brits (closer to the story than US enthusiasts) today regard Brexit as an utter fiasco, with as many as thinking it a mistake and only 28% a good idea. As many as are in favor of the UK rejoining the EU and a similar 28% are opposed.

Well before the Brexit referendum, Rish! was a proponent of leaving the EU — or rather, like a fantasy girlfriend, the EU of tabloid (and Boris Johnson) myth, not reality. But the “Get Brexit Done!” election of 2019 was such a massive victory for the Tories that, at the time, there were widespread predictions of unassailable Conservative majorities for a decade or more, two or even three election cycles into the future. They reckoned without the spectacular incompetence and provocative clumsiness of the three successive Tory Prime Ministers. Sunak was supposed to be a safe pair of hands after Liz Truss famously to outlast a lettuce — but will still manage the third-shortest premiership in modern history.

To be fair to Rish!, the prognosticators of 2019 ignored many things. Like that decades of underinvestment in the UK economy had left it in a parlous state. Or that the austerity policies of previous Tory governments had failed to shrink UK deficits, because they shrank growth faster than any reduction in spending. Or that the Brexit referendum result was heavily a protest vote against the social and economic consequences of that austerity, which Sunak as Chancellor mostly continued.

Tory privatization has turned into a long-term fiasco, too. One example is privatized water and water treatment, which has resulted in 83% of British rivers with, well, shit! The National Health Service, as close to a secular religion in Britain was and is similarly afflicted by underfunding and a dearth and of EU citizen healthcare professionals as a result of Brexit. They also ignored what a talentless claque those Conservatives willing to enthuse about Brexit were. Post-2016 cabinets have been largely stuffed with buffoons, ignoramuses and Moreover, Brexit and its predicted adverse consequences (aka “”) have increasingly come true. It is, as many UK commentators note, the central campaign neither Tories nor Labour will mention.

But is Rish! trying to lose?

However, dealt a bad hand, Sunak has played it with a level of incompetence that leaves many wondering if he’s actively trying to lose. Start with the announcement: Despite having a new, large, plush and scandalously expensive press briefing available to him, Sunak strode out to a lectern in the street outside Number 10 to announce the 4th of July election date. Oblivious to the umbrellas the gathered press hacks were huddling under, he was by a near-biblical downpour as his words were drowned out by a protestor with a loudspeaker playing Labour’s 1997 election anthem: “THINGS CAN ONLY GET BETTER!” Most of his cabinet had only been informed moments before. Though his parliamentary private secretary, Craig Williams MP, appears to have known that date for three days, allegedly using that insider knowledge just in time to place a winning with bookmaker Ladbrokes on it. If he did, it’s a crime under British law.

But the fiasco wasn’t over. He followed it with a fear-mongering speech — he mentioned “security” eight times — at London’s Excel conference center, which was forcibly attended by around 100 drafted Tory political aides and advisors. But not before a reporter from the usually Conservative-leaning Sky News had been unceremoniously from the event!

The next day, at a warehouse rally, he took softball questions from two Tory white-collar councilors posing as manual workers — to be promptly found out by the local press — then traveled on to Belfast’s Titanic Quarter. This inevitable comparisons and questions as to whether he was captaining a sinking ship. But in pursuit of what? The Conservatives have no candidates in Northern Ireland!

Rish! then briefly appeared to recover in a TV debate with Labour leader Kier Starmer, where he repeatedly accused Labour of planning a tax rise of £2,000 per family. He smugly insisted on its veracity as independently costed and verified by the UK Civil Service. The glow lasted until the next morning, when a from the head of the Civil Service was released, stating that the number was by no means independent. There’s no kind way to put this: Sunak was caught loudly lying. Compounding the misery, the ����’s independent statistics agency is now investigating the Tory claims.

A perk of competent premiers seeking re-election is the opportunity to pose as a statesman bestriding the world stage. Rish! was afforded a golden opportunity: the 80th anniversary of the D-Day Normandy invasion. This wasn’t foregone by Joe Biden, Emmanuel Macron, the newly crowned Charles III — even Volodymyr Zelenskyy and many others. Moreover, it offered perhaps the last opportunity to pose with centenarian survivors of one of the most pivotal moments of World War II, to borrow their honor for a moment. Sunak, though, found better things to do: Rish!ng away in a helicopter, he gave a pre-recorded interview to Sky News that he wouldn’t postpone. He his opponent, Starmer, the photo-ops with Presidents Biden and Macron, German Federal Chancellor Olaf Scholz, the President of the EU Council and 15 other national leaders, not to mention his new King. The next day, Rish! and the cabinet were forced on an for the disrespectful gaffe.

Rish!’s wealth doesn’t help

Could it get worse? Yes! Although his elders were Asian immigrants, essentially economic refugees from East Africa — rendering Sunak’s enthusiasm for deporting more modern migrants to Rwanda ironic — his parents were well-off. They were a doctor and pharmacy-owner, and his grandfathers were an accountant and a UK tax official awarded the MBE. They sent him to the expensive Public (i.e. private) School Winchester, a more discrete version of Eton, where he was “head-boy.” In the pre-recorded Sky interview that showed a week later, Sunak made efforts to suggest he had a deprived childhood. When an example was sought, the best he could come up with is that his parents denied him a Sky satellite television ! The suffering!

Additionally, the adult Rish!, a former Goldman banker and hedge funder, has a personal north of $100 million. Combine that with the value of his Infosys heiress wife, and his family worth is nearly $1 billion. He regularly uses it to finance expensive commuting by helicopter to the family’s country mansion, supplemented by a large penthouse in Santa Monica with views of the famous pier. (It is widely rumored that the Sunaks plan to decamp here after losing the elections.)

Rish!’s by far the richest member of the UK Parliament. His denials are not helped by widespread rumors that the Sunak daughters are already enrolled for the fall semester in an expensive private school in California, coming from an eye-wateringly expensive school in England. People are suspicious that Sunak chose not to wait until the last possible election date so the family could be safely installed before school started.

In a strange way, though, Rish! may be rescuing the Tories by inviting an even huger defeat. The biggest long-term electoral threat is a less than total Labour victory; the Liberal Democrats’ price for a coalition would be electoral reform and proportional representation, which most political analysts anticipate would doom the Conservatives as currently composed in future elections. Of course, those prognosticators may be ignoring the desperate state of the ����’s finances and economy Labour will likely inherit, or how long they can blame the Tories for that mess.

There is also little room for Labour complacency about its long term electoral prospects. Recent polling shows that though likely to win, both the “Tories and Labour [are] on course for [the] lowest of the vote since 1945.” Labour may win a large majority, but like the Conservatives in recent elections, with a minority of the vote. Proportional representation would be hard on traditional Labour, too, for this reason is opposed by its left wing.

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post One Long Pratfall — Is Rish! Trying to Lose? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Am I a Londoner?

Since my “yoof” (youth) in the 1960s, I lived, studied and worked in London for nearly 40 years. Yet, even though I feel more attuned to London than any other place in Britain, I cannot honestly call myself a true Londoner. To acquire that distinction would require that I had been born and bred there — not necessarily in the East End “within the sound of Bow Bells” (an old phrase referring to the bells rung at the church of St Mary-le-Bow). That would make me a traditional Cockney. But no, at least somewhere within the 32 boroughs of Inner and Greater London or within the City of London, the smallest and oldest local authority right in the center of the metropolis.

Still, I can join in with fellow patrons in one of the traditional pubs (short for “public houses” or licensed drinking establishments) in singing “Maybe it’s because I’m a Londoner” and other ditties (short, simple songs), especially if it’s backed by an old Joanna (piano). Or, I can join in traditional pub sports such as darts, dominoes, skittles or cribbage. Nowadays, one has to seek out such traditional nightspots, since most metropolitan pubs cater for fast-moving modernity and youth, and they eschew parochial signaling.

Nevertheless, the pub tradition doggedly remains. An old college professor once advised me that the role of the pub was not to get the patrons inebriated but rather to provide social affirmation. The sociologist Victor Turner to this phenomenon as “social liminality and communitas.” A pub is a congenial place for social cohesion — what the Germans would call Zusammenhalt — where patrons rub shoulders and engage with friends, acquaintances and complete strangers from all walks of life and hopefully leave feeling moderately uplifted. Long before psychiatrists and antidepressant medications, the publican and fellow patrons provided a ready sounding board for lay diagnosis, problem solving and support.

Then, there is the distinctive London lingo or patois, a diluted form of Pure with terms and rhyming slang such as “apples-and-pears” (stairs), “butcher’s” (short for “butcher’s hook,” meaning “look”), “cor-blimey” (may God blind me), “guv” (boss, governor), “geezer” (a man), “bloke” (a man), “wedge” (sizable bundle of banknotes), “sov” (£1, short for “sovereign,” a gold coin), “pony” (£25) and “monkey” (£500).

Given my name, Alan, how could I ever forget the expression “Don’t get your Alans in a twist”? Alan Whicker was a well-known BBC television journalist from the 1950s to 80s. Rhyming with Whicker are “knickers” (underpants). Since “getting one’s knickers in a twist” means getting unduly frustrated and annoyed as a result of one’s own actions failing to solve a minor problem, the Cockney expression’s meaning becomes all too clear.

No one today, except perhaps a few diehard Cockney “,” stuffs their colloquial speech with such language like Dick Van Dyke did in the 1964 film Mary Poppins. Nonetheless, many Londoners of all social and educational strata do drop the odd Cockney expression into conversations for effect, usually to convey an emphasis, exasperation or absurdity.

In the past 50 years or so, London itself has continued to evolve and change, as it has done since at least the time of Roman Londinium. Encircled by the M25 motorway, the Greater London population is now somewhere between 10 million and , depending on boundary definitions, with a multi-ethnic polyglot character. Ever since Roman times, London has been a magnet for foreign immigrants of all kinds — invaders, traders, entrepreneurs, students, refugees and so on.

Moreover, starting in the 1960s, the population who work in London has continued to spread out across the surrounding Home Counties and beyond, often seeking more affordable housing. The government this migration as part of post-World War II reconstruction and development and to control urban sprawl. Eight “New Towns” were designated within a 50-mile radius of London alone to accommodate London’s population overspill, but many more existing towns have also continued to attract Londoners.

Nowadays, commuting 200 miles into London every day is not uncommon. A gradual modification of spoken English has also this population spread, so that within a 100-mile radius from Central London it has become “averaged out”; a mild Cockney-ish accent. Even in the posh spoken English of lawyers and university dons, one can often now detect the odd glottal stop or disappearing “T.”

This new spoken English is called , alluding to its prevalence in the populations spread out across London and counties on both sides of the River Thames and the Thames Estuary. I am an exponent of the genre, although I do check myself when conversing with non-Estuary speakers. Pronouncing a final letter “L” as a “W” (e.g. we-w instead of well), or not enunciating a final “ow” (e.g. tomorrah instead of tomorrow), or omitting the letter “T” (e.g. be-uh instead of better) may convey laziness or poor education.

Feeling personally connected

In many ways, my own ancestry reflects the post-Roman history of London and Britain generally: a melange of Celtic, British, Norman, Scandinavian and Anglo-Saxon DNA. The surname Waring does not appear in British documents until after 1067; it first crops up as Warin, Warenger, Warrene and Guerri in the , William the Conqueror’s infamous taxation register of all real estate and other property ownership, completed in 1086. Of ten Warins listed in the Domesday Book, none had owned properties in Britain before 1066, but by 1086, some owned dozens of properties.

Other Norman of Waring include Guerin, meaning guard or protector. The Normans themselves were of mixed descent from both Romano-Celts, Franks and seaborne invaders from North Germany, Denmark and Norway. The Waring name via the Normans may also be related to the German Wahrung, also meaning guard or protector.

In the late 1970s and early 80s, I worked as a Principal Officer at the Corporation of the City of London. This local authority was formed in the 12th century. It covered the original Londinium of the Roman era. The City further developed in Saxon times, and it successfully defended itself against Viking invaders, but not the Norman takeover of London in 1067. In 2006, the word Corporation was dropped from its branding and public-facing name, becoming just the City of London — but for me, it will always be the City Corporation.

My office was in the oldest part of the Guildhall over the ceremonial main entrance doors into the Guildhall proper, where the many state banquets are held. There are many guildhalls across Britain, the name likely stemming from the Saxon “gild” or “geld” (money) and the place (“hall”) where local taxes and dues were paid. But this , originating in 1411, is the most famous and prestigious. My office window was the perfect reconnaissance point to observe all the comings and goings of staff, visitors and dignitaries as they crossed the Guildhall Yard below.

Down in the Guildhall vaults, the Museum of London (run by the Corporation at its own site at the junction of London Wall and Aldersgate Street) keeps City records from all the way back in Saxon times, including the original freedom charter that William the Conqueror the city elders in 1067. This was a way of buying their loyalty and deterring them from opposing his takeover after King Harold II lost Battle of Hastings in 1066.

Quirkiness and hidden talents

The City has its ancient legislature and administration (The City Aldermen, the Common Councillors, the Court of Common Council, the Town Clerk) and the over 100 ancient livery companies and trades guilds whose titles all start with “Worshipful Company of…” (examples include “Fishmongers”, “Haberdashers”, “Salters”, “Vintners”, “Wax Chandlers”, and “Tobacco Pipemakers and Tobacco Blenders”). Freemen of the City are entitled to join a livery company. By the way, since 1872, the term “freeman” has applied equally to men and women!

The livery companies elect the Aldermen, whereas the eligible resident and business population of the City elects the Common Councillors. The quaint livery companies, many of whose actual trades died out centuries ago, facilitate the interests of big business corporations and their bosses who operate in the so-called “Square Mile,” which is the nation’s financial hub. It’s all about power, privilege, contacts and doing business.

The term “alderman” in British administrative law evolved from Anglo-Saxon times and probably stems from the North Germanic term of “Æ���ٱ�������Բ�” (elder), a term for a person recognized for their age and wisdom. It was still part of local authority structures throughout Britain when I was a boy, but largely disappeared as a result of local government streamlining in the 1960s — yet not in the City of London. Similarly, the chief executive of a local council, big or small, was the Town Clerk before they all became Chief Executives — but not in the City of London. These quaint historical relics remain unchanged.

The Corporation also a surprisingly wide range of responsibilities. For example, it manages and maintains the Tower Bridge, operates several major iconic markets (such as Smithfield meat market and Billingsgate fish market), runs several elite schools including the Guildhall School of Music and Drama and the two City of London Schools (one for boys, one for girls), manages “for the people of London” the whole of Epping Forest (an ancient hunting forest just inside the region of Essex) and curiously runs the Animal Quarantine Service at Heathrow Airport. It also provides and administers the Central Criminal Court at the Old Bailey and owns the freehold (the property and the land that it is built on) on vast tracts of prime commercial property across London.

A sense of history, continuity and loyalty

My own sense of history, continuity and loyalty to the Crown grew during my time in the City and was cemented by two particular privileges that I was granted. One was being allowed to see the original City freedom charter, a very rare honor. The other was being granted of the City, the honor that allows a person to call themselves a freeman. One archaic privilege of being a freeman was that, in past centuries, I could have run my sheep and livestock through the City streets and traded them at fairs and markets, all without paying any tithes or taxes. Most of these anachronistic privileges are long gone, and most contemporary privileges are more symbolic than practical.

The City Chamberlain (complete with fur stole and regalia!) officiates the Freedom investiture of an individual in his own court. The first recorded instance of this ceremony took place in 1237. During my own, I read out a special oath of allegiance to the monarch (then Queen Elizabeth II) from “the little red ” entitled Rules for the Conduct of Life (there are 36 of these rules). Although written in slightly archaic English, it is packed with both common sense and guidance on steering one’s life with honesty, integrity, honor and being ever mindful of one’s own limitations and the rights of others.

Perhaps it should be required reading for all politicians, corporate executives and public officials!

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post London: Inhaling 2,000 Years of History and Culture appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The espoused system of justice is an ideal, seeking to deliver fair and equitable treatment of individuals, encompassing equal rights, protections and opportunities. However, a lot will depend on the prevailing political ideology and system. Authoritarian states, like Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and others, often fail to uphold justice, despite their claims to the contrary. Individuals with dissenting views or minority identities in these nations may face repression, arrest, imprisonment and even judicial or extra-judicial execution.

Justice in war

In addition to issues of social justice and the array of law-and-order injustices, there is also the issue of justice in the area of . A party engaging in war must a just cause, justify that war is the last resort after exploring peaceful options, declare war through proper authority, act with good intentions, have a reasonable chance of success, and ensure that the means used align proportionately with the perceived threat and declared objective.

In addition, parties in armed conflict must take the utmost care to prioritize the safety of civilians and to apply humanitarian principles. For example: no deliberate murder or other atrocities against unarmed civilians; no taking of hostages or harming them; no collective punishments of civilians as proxy targets for enemy combatants; no indiscriminate use of bombs, rockets or weapons of mass destruction; no targeting of hospitals, schools, water, fuel and power supplies, food and medical supplies; no denial of safe passage out of combat zones for civilians and priority medical patients; no forced detention, displacement or expulsion of civilians; and no expropriation or theft of land or other assets of the civilian population, whether by state agencies, interest groups or individuals.

The law of war has four guiding or requirements:

1. Distinction: distinguish as far as possible between combatant targets and civilians.

2. Proportionality: prevent excessive loss of life or damage incidental to an attack, disproportionate to military advantage.

3. Military Necessity: target only existential and potential military threats.

4. Avoidance of Unnecessary Suffering: prioritize humanitarian criteria.

Regrettably, history shows that observation of the law of war regarding civilians is often more in breach. As Bård Drange suggests, may have a long struggle to obtain any justice. Combatants often disregard rules, sought to justify their actions and ignored potential war crime charges. Some even cynically argue that they scrupulously observe the four guiding principles despite compelling evidence to the contrary which they deny. Putin’s war on Ukraine and the Israel–Hamas war are contemporary examples.

Of the two identifiable parties to a dispute or conflict, is the position of one wholly just and the other’s position wholly unjust. In other words, is justice in war zero-sum? Sometimes such an unequivocal judgment may be warranted, but quite often both parties may reasonably claim to have suffered injustice at the hands of the other. Responsibilities, liabilities and evaluations under agreements, contracts, laws and norms guide judicial decisions, which might differ from public opinions, partisan stances or populist views.

Nevertheless, in some of the worst cases of injustice, a “zero-sum” is precisely what protagonists relentlessly assert. The party with more power typically vehemently asserts its exclusive rightfulness, portraying itself as a paragon of virtue and godliness. Simultaneously, they depict the other party as despicable, pathological liars, entirely untrustworthy and devoid of any redeeming qualities, creating a narrative that attempts to justify their own grievances while vilifying the opposition. Each party may develop an immutable view that justice can only be served by the total annihilation of the other, figuratively if not literally.

In high-stakes disputes, hyperbolic propaganda reigns. In today’s world of instant communication and social media, winning the propaganda battle often means claiming an exclusive right to justice, even if, impartially speaking, it is unfounded. 

Historical injustices

When we look retrospectively at historical injustices, we encounter at least two main problems:

1. Cognitive, emotional and motivational biasing. The”’truth” becomes distorted by knowledge limits, partiality, prejudice and purpose of the observer.

2. Causation, forensic accountability and attribution of blame for events, whether in the recent or more distant past. Whereas it is often relatively easy evidentially to attribute causation, partisan arguments are likely to creep into judgments on responsibility and blame.

Things become far murkier the further back in time one examines. Historical revisionism and retrospective rationalization are likely to play a part. Parties may well introduce degrees of fiction and exaggeration into their accounts of past or present situations or events in order to bolster their present claims for justice or to deny the claims of others.

The curse of slavery and ethnic subjugation was normalized for thousands of years by many nations. Many argue that assigning blame and seeking from specific nations in contemporary times proves futile and unjustified, appearing more as an act of retribution than genuine justice. Historical regression has no bounds, and for those demanding reparation, who is to say how far back any alleged obligation should go?

For example: Should the UK make reparation claims against the Italian government for the subjugation, including slavery, of its native population for over 400 years by the Roman Empire? Similarly, should it claim against the French government for the Norman invasion and conquest, including quasi-enslavement of the English peasantry, from 1066 onwards?

Should multiple European countries lay claims against Morocco for the kidnapping and enslavement of their citizens in the 17th century by the Barbary pirates? What about all those peoples and countries conquered and subjugated by Spain for centuries in the Americas — aren’t they entitled to compensation? The absurdity speaks for itself.

Nevertheless, there are many unresolved injustices in more recent history that warrant serious attention. Health care inequalities, wrongful convictions, wrongful deportations, the Rohingya massacres in Myanmar, the opioid addiction crisis, the political curbing of judiciaries, war crimes in Ukraine — the list is endless.

From a wide spectrum of injustices, I will examine two topical ones. The two divergent cases illustrate some of the characteristics of injustice and the difficulties faced by victims in obtaining justice.

Case 1: The UK Post Office’s ongoing Horizon scandal

The Horizon scandal, lasting more than 20 years, has been described as “the most widespread miscarriage of justice in UK legal history.” In addition to its own larger stations, the UK Post Office contracted with a substantial number, approximately 9,000, of small shopkeepers, particularly in small towns and villages, to provide postal services within their premises. These sub-postmasters are contractually liable for any accounting shortfall involving “carelessness or error”. 

In the late 1990s, the Post Office decided to convert its Horizon IT system for the payment of state pensions and benefits into a comprehensive service. Horizon went live in 2000, and within two months large, unexplained accounting variances were being reported at sub-Post Offices. The Post Office then invoked the contract clause for liability for deficits, asserting that “carelessness or error” on the part of the sub-postmaster was the only possible cause. 

The number of such cases , with alleged deficits ranging from £1,000 ($1,227) to tens of thousands of pounds and, in one case, over £1 million ($1.227 million). Over the next few years, the Post Office racked up over 700 such alleged cases in which sub-postmasters were coerced into covering alleged deficits and typically were sacked from their Post Office roles. In some cases, the Post Office launched criminal prosecutions for such alleged offenses as theft, fraud and false accounting, and many sub-postmasters were convicted on the basis of “fool-proof Horizon” evidence and jailed and/or fined.

As the number of cases mounted, both the Post Office and its Horizon software provider Fujitsu steadfastly maintained that the software was “absolutely accurate and reliable” and that all the actions against sub-postmasters with shortfalls were fully justified. Nevertheless, by 2012, a growing number of MPs concluded that both the technical reliability of Horizon and the integrity of the Post Office’s and Fujitsu’s senior management were in question.

By 2015, the House of Commons business committee summoned the Post Office’s chief executive, Paula Vennells, to account for why her previous pledge to resolve the Horizon debacle had not been met. Richard Brooks and Nick Wallis that her claim to be running a “caring” business and having “no evidence” of any miscarriages of justice was met by “barely disguised derision” by committee members, one of whom described the Horizon affair as a “shambles”. The Post Office and Fujitsu continued to maintain their “paragons of virtue” position and to deny that Horizon was in any way faulty or responsible for the errors and the false charges, false convictions and all the damage to the lives of the sub-postmasters.

However, in March 2017, the High Court of Justice granted a group litigation order to 555 sub-postmasters to sue the Post Office. Over the next two years, in a series of trials and appeals to overturn judgments against them, the Post Office lost in every instance and came in for excoriating criticism by judges. In one judgment in March 2019, a judge described the Post Office as “aggressive,” attempting “to put the court in terrorem,” seeking to “obfuscate matters, and mislead me,” “obdurate” and guilty of “oppressive behavior.”

The judge found the contractual relationship to be unfair in its coercive disadvantage to sub-postmasters. The Post Office then attempted to have him removed for alleged bias and, when this failed, they lodged an appeal. The appellate judge this appeal outright, describing the appellants’ arguments as “misconceived,” “fatally flawed,” “demonstrably wrong” and “without substance”. He stated that the appeal had been based “on the idea that the Post Office was entitled to treat [sub-postmasters] in capricious or arbitrary ways which would not be unfamiliar to a mid-Victorian factory owner.”

Evidence submitted by senior Fujitsu witnesses for the defense was systematically discredited and shown as false, revealing a “party line” conspiracy over many years to hide evidence of the fundamental flaws of the Horizon product that had led to the false charges and convictions. The courts that the two organizations had cheated the litigants and lied to them, and that the Post Office’s approach consisted in “bare assertions and denials that ignore what actually occurred … [and] amount[ed] to the 21st-century equivalent of maintaining the earth is flat.”

Following the judgments, the Post Office initially agreed to pay £57.75 million ($72 million) in the settlement, plus its own costs, with the then expected total to exceed £90 million ($110 million). Taxpayers footed the bill since the Post Office operates as a public entity.

Subsequently, hundreds of other victims sought compensation under related schemes, and in 2023 the government that each person wrongfully convicted would receive £600,000 ($785,000) from the government. However, overturned convictions (93 so far) are a minority, leaving hundreds of other victims denied full justice. Some have already died, some face destitution, and some have committed suicide attributed to the shame and hardship inflicted on them by wrongful conviction, imprisonment and fines. Justice delayed is justice denied.

In addition, sub-postmasters were authorized to pursue the Post Office for malicious prosecution. More recently, the chair of the into the scandal cautioned senior officials from the Post Office and Fujitsu that their persistent delay in providing crucial documents might result in criminal sanctions against them. These perverting the course of justice. Recently, another 50 sub-postmaster victims came forward and have been added to the police into the Post Office for potential fraud and conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Many people argue that key figures involved in creating and perpetuating the scandal over so many years should be prosecuted on indictment. The most prominent would be the former chief executive (and former priest), , who sanctioned the long-term policy of prosecuting the sub-postmasters and contributed to the cover-up by deliberately misleading and not cooperating with a parliamentary committee over several years of their inquiry into Horizon.

Case 2: The Israeli–Palestinian conflict and territorial rights

If ever there were a case of national and individual injustice, the long-standing conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and their respective rights must surely rank among the most thorny and intractable. I can only attempt to identify the essence of such an immensely complex problem and address the main injustices claimed by each party. Further, I will discuss the most fruitful prospect for a way out for both parties to obtain some justice and peaceful coexistence.

On October 7, 2023, armed Hamas terrorists from the Palestinian enclave of Gaza carried out a coordinated attack on Israel. Over civilians were killed and some 240 were taken hostage. The sheer savagery of the Hamas attack shocked and enraged the world. People of all ages, from to the elderly and incapacitated, were killed, tortured and wounded in a frenzy of depravity.

In response, Israel launched a defensive campaign to root out and destroy the entire Hamas organization and military capacity in Gaza. At time of writing, the tragic toll on the Gazan civilians has reached at least 23,300 dead and a further 59,400 injured, along with an estimated 7,000 missing, according a January 10 Al Jazeera television broadcast citing Gaza’s health ministry. As the Israeli campaign continues, these numbers will certainly increase.

Israel insists that it has fully followed and respected the law of war and humanitarian requirements, especially the protection of civilians, despite the exceptionally high number of casualties. However, many independent , including UN bodies, the UN Secretary General and the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, warn that both Hamas on October 7 and Israel in its subsequent Gaza campaign appear to have committed . Indeed, some Israeli officials and others have asserted that there is between Hamas terrorists and Palestinian civilians, even babies and young children and have likened them all to who must be eliminated. Extremists such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah talk in similar terms about Israeli Jews.

Related Reading

A Genocide Expert Makes Sense of War Crimes in Gaza

The campaign so far has effectively destroyed most of the homes, buildings and infrastructure of the entire North and Central Gaza, including any means to sustain life such as fuel, water, power and food supplies. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), claiming that Hamas was hiding in tunnels underneath public buildings, have hospitals. By December, only hospitals in Gaza were functioning, with the remainder teetering on closure for lack of fuel and power.

Gazans have been internally displaced. The IDF initially coerced the inhabitants of North Gaza under threat of bombardment to abandon their homes and flee to the relative safety of Central Gaza, and subsequently South Gaza.  In both cases, however, Israeli bombardments and ground attacks are the daily norm.

Millions of refugees are now packed into South Gaza. They lack adequate access to shelter, basic facilities, food, water or medical assistance. Prior to October 7, over trucks per day carried essential supplies into Gaza over the Rafah Crossing from Egypt. Now, after no trucks for many weeks, that number is just 120 a day, adding to the unavoidable image of the IDF laying a siege and punitive bombardment to kill, wound, terrify and starve the surviving population into quiet submission. Israel vehemently denies this, insisting that it was all down to military necessity, that any civilian casualties and “inconvenience” are simply unavoidable collateral damage and that Hamas is fully to blame for all this.

Only with great reluctance and following sustained pressure from the US and other allies did Netanyahu finally agree to a short temporary ceasefire and a limited flow of essential supplies into Gaza. What comes next in the IDF campaign in Gaza can only be speculated. Once Hamas remnants in North Gaza had been greatly reduced, the IDF turned to relentlessly attacking Central and South Gaza, although it had previously designated the latter as a safe zone for refugees from Central and North Gaza. And to what end? What comes after? Political scientist John Mearsheimer Hamas termination as being their sole objective and suggests far uglier additional Israeli objectives. South Africa went further and laid charges at the International Court of Justice against Israel for crimes against humanity and .

Far-right Israeli cabinet ministers, such as Avigdor Lieberman, Amihai Eliyahu, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, are pushing an extreme Zionist line. On January 3, 2023, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich publicly their desire to expel Palestinians from Gaza. In their minds, only the elimination of the Palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza will ensure freedom from Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah attacks. The Times of Israel has described the policies and stance of the Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) party, to which Ben-Gvir and Eliyahu belong, as “” and likely to make Israel an international pariah. For the far right, a convenient by-product of Palestinian expulsion would be an Eretz Yisrael (Land of Israel) finally almost free of non-Jewish contamination — not only Palestinians but other Muslims as well as Christians and Druze.

Anyone doubting they have extreme views need only consider what Eliyahu said in an interview on Radio Kol Barama on November 5, 2023, which included taking back control of Gaza and moving in Israeli settlers, a position he has since repeated. On the Palestinian population, he said they “can go to Ireland or deserts….the monsters in Gaza should find a solution themselves.” When asked if Israel should drop a on Gaza to flatten it and kill all the inhabitants, he replied “That is one of the options”. While possibly merely emotional venting, its pathological origin is unmistakable.

Potential expulsion of the Palestinian population into in Egypt’s Sinai Desert had already been considered in an Israeli cabinet prior to the October 7 Hamas attack. Although subsequently played down by Netanyahu as only a “what if?” document, it indicates a predisposition to regard the Palestinian population as an unwanted and disposable nuisance without rights. It also indicates that Egypt would either be expected to comply readily or be coerced by threat or blackmail, all unlikely to succeed.

How did Israel and Palestine get to this point?

The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has its roots in 1947, when the British administrative from the League of Nations in 1922 ended. For 400 years under the Ottomans, the land of Palestine had been a patchwork of intermingled Palestinian and Jewish-owned land and communities, with Palestinians being the larger population. In 1922, showed Palestinian Muslims as 78%, Christians as 9.5% and Jews as 11.4% of the population. By 1944, the census data show Muslims as 61%, Christians as 7.8% and Jews as 30.4%. This is a reflection of immigration by Jews from other parts of the world as well as the birth of sabras, or indigenous Jews.

Jewish immigration into Palestine came in waves starting in 1881, encouraged by the Zionist movement. Zionism is a cultural-nationalist ideology that uses racial, religious and political ideas to further its aims, the primary one being to create a permanent Jewish homeland in Palestine. This home aims to promote aliyah (“going up”), urging the Jewish diaspora, scattered across centuries due to conflicts, expulsions and anti-Semitism, to return to their historical biblical and pre-biblical homeland of Eretz Yisrael. 

Chaim Weizmann, an esteemed scientist and influential early Zionist leader in Europe, effectively championed the Zionist movement. He successfully persuaded Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary during the onset of the British Mandate, to support the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine. Crucially, the short also stated: “It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

As mentioned earlier, Jewish immigration to Palestine surged until the conclusion of the British Mandate in 1947. This influx provoked increasing concern and discontent among Palestinians, who feared that the sheer volume of immigrant Jews and their land acquisitions could lead to the eventual domination of Palestine.

Following the British departure in 1947, a swift civil war ensued, resulting in the triumph of the Jewish population. This victory led to a mass departure of the majority of Palestinians — estimated at a minimum of — across borders into Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, whether coerced or fleeing for safety. Much of their land was expropriated.

On May 14, 1948, the Jewish Agency in Palestine formally declared the creation of the State of Israel, which the Arabs call al Naqba (“the Catastrophe”). Both mass and voluntary departures of equally fearful Jews from Arab states that strongly objected to the creation of the Jewish state continued for years.

Israel emerged victorious in subsequent wars forced upon it by Arab states in 1967 and 1973, acquiring significant territories from the enemy nations. To date, Israel has steadfastly refused to allow the return of , now numbering 5.9 million, of whom the plurality are internally displaced in Gaza (26%) and the West Bank (15%), with the remainder in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon.

Both Jewish and Palestinian roots in Palestine several thousand years, encompassing the area delineated as the modern state of Israel, which includes Palestine. Thus, both ethnicities can claim a roughly equal to live in the same ancestral homeland under the principles of jus naturale (natural law), jus sanguinis (law of bloodlines), jus soli (law of birthplace) and jus gentium (law of nations). This equal coexistence was clearly intended by Balfour in his express wording about the rights “of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”, i.e., no community could claim exclusive rights. An inclusionary multi-ethno-religious model with no exclusively Jewish land rights was also by the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl.

In the 1990s and up to 2005, there was a hopeful phase marked by potential reconciliation, setting the stage for a that acknowledged peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine, acknowledging their respective land rights. However, after 2005 this momentum took a sharp turn in the opposite direction. Modern Zionist ideology has increasingly adopted an uncompromising denial that Palestinians have any right to be in Eretz Yisrael and supporters have adopted a narrative of exclusionary nationalism. To bolster their claim of an exclusive Jewish right to exist in Israel, hard-line Zionists also include a of jus divinum (law of God), which asserts that God promised Abraham the land to the Jews alone. This steadfast nationalist assertion has underpinned Israeli government for years, particularly escalating under the authoritarian leadership of Prime Minister Netanyahu and through the enactment of the 2018 Jewish Nation-State law.

One obvious problem facing the jus divinum argument is that, unlike other jus arguments, it is not testable against objective facts or data as it relies on beliefs and faith. It is self-serving. It requires everyone to accept that “the truth” regarding exclusive land rights is what today’s ultra-Zionists say it is.

Israelis and Palestinians both have entrenched positions on land rights whereby each regards the other as an unwelcome “cuckoo in the nest.” Does either side have a convincing case?

Professor Chaim Gans of Tel Aviv University has provided a detailed and evaluation of Zionist justice and the right of return of Palestinians in which he concluded that both Israelis and Palestinians had substantive rightful claims to exist in the same territory. Of possible options to resolve this conflict, he concluded that territorial separation was the most likely to succeed and that he made this “as a factual prediction, not just a moral argument.”

Yet various attempts since the 1960s at a two-state solution failed, and it has been stagnant since 2007. Ironically, the Hamas attack on October 7 has spurred international from the US, the G7 and other allies for a two-state solution being the only viable long-term option. Thus far, Netanyahu has totally it, but it may be his only way of ensuring continued US support for Israel.

Justice for all?

That Hamas carried out a monstrous war crime on October 7 is beyond dispute, as is Israel’s absolute right to take defensive measures against further such attacks. However, the impassioned cries of Israeli victims’ families and loved ones, especially about the plight of hundreds of hostages taken by Hamas, have to compete with the shock-and-awe video portrayal day after day of all the carnage of thousands of Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Israel’s friends and allies strongly support going after Hamas and its fellow travelers Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, all of whom they see as a hideous bunch of criminal psychopaths who must be eliminated. However, those same friends and allies are increasingly alarmed that Israel’s methodology is extremely reckless in relation to civilian casualties and infrastructure. Many observers question whether the emerging evidence simply supports the official Israeli line that its campaign methods are all necessary, proportionate and humanitarian. Does the Hamas war crime warrant war crimes in ?

A large majority of American under-50s apparently does not think so, thus putting both President Joe Biden’s current staunch and longer-term US policy on Israel in question, as well as the US’s international standing. Israel’s vast propaganda machinery seeking to control “the truth” and portray its might-is-right onslaught on the entire Palestinian civilian population of Gaza as being just, righteous, virtuous and civilized only plays well outside Israel to a limited and diminishing audience.

Nevertheless, an often-overlooked section of Israeli society what is being done in their name. With the current raw emotions and clamor for vengeance against Hamas and proxy vengeance against Palestinian civilians, their voice is suppressed and unheard. Yet, when the current rage and vengeful blood-lust among both sides subsides (as it surely will), calm and constructive thinkers, trust-creators and peacemakers will be needed.

Both Israelis and Palestinians must redirect their focus from the past and look ahead to create a mutually beneficial new framework. If the British and Irish governments and the Irish Republican Army could reach an in 1998, ending an almost century-long armed conflict and paving the way for a shared, democratic future for Northern Ireland’s communities, then there’s hope for a similar creative approach between Israelis and Palestinians — if they are both prepared to compromise in the spirit of 80% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

Terrorist groups such as Hamas and their destructive and murderous ideology can no longer have any license or sanctuary anywhere, least of all as self-imposed and unaccountable “protectors” of the Palestinian people. The tyranny of Hamas and similar groups must be dismantled. So too must the despotic of Netanyahu and his far-right cabinet, accused of establishing an elective dictatorship in Israel. This includes allegations of suppressing judicial independence, endorsing unlawful and violent of Palestinians, Christians and other minorities by Israeli and perpetuating oppression against Palestinians over many decades.

Will Israelis and Palestinians clear out their respective dystopian blackguards? Will they reject zero-sum? Will they have the strength of character, the moral backbone, the determination and a sufficient capacity to compromise and persevere?

Academics such as Prof. Gans and Prof. Mearsheimer, diplomats such as former Bosnian ambassador Emir Hadžikadunić, the US State Department and a consensus of world leaders and governments agree that a two-state solution is now the only viable way out for both parties. Without a just settlement, what is assured is perpetual conflict, bloodshed and misery for both.

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post Justice for All? Victims Are Ignored From Britain to Gaza appeared first on 51�Թ�.

This widely accepted standard is the of the 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (UNCSR) and the international legal system human migration. The government so blatantly broke this agreement that the Court felt compelled to state so. The UK government has indicated that it will merely ��ɲ��Ի岹’s as a safe third country. Additionally, it will withdraw from several international agreements that require it to uphold the principle. This will let it ignore the law and its bothersome requirements.

The ����’s externalization of asylum

British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak may have made these as a political ploy ahead of the country’s next election. After all, immigration control has been one of the most contentious political issues of our day, if not the most. As an electoral , it has successfully fanned xenophobic while offering no substantive answers to the migration problems in the ����’s asylum .

Some could argue that this kind of deliberate illegality is nothing new. Liberal-democratic constitutional governments have long been known for their flaws. These include extreme , breaking , weaponizing ideals and migrants’ standards — the same ones they are obligated to uphold. This may occur visibly or more covertly. It has mainly been the case when they deal with people who, in their view, belong beyond the purview of their legal frameworks.

When we take a broader view of the UK situation, we see that the asylum and immigration results from more extensive issues. These may also be seen in the EU’s with , and . Further, the issues appear in the EU’s attempts to distance itself from the of human rights, drownings and other that occur within its borders.

After the Supreme Court rejected the , Suella Braverman, the sacked home secretary, increased the pressure on Sunak to disregard human rights legislation. Recognizing that there is little hope of the boats within the current legal framework, Braverman has asked for revisions to her own Illegal Migration Act to resuscitate the Rwanda deportation system. Braverman’s are not limited to the UK; they are prevalent throughout Europe, Oceania and the Americas.

, a former United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Assistant High Commissioner for Protection, highlighted the broader threat such politics pose to refugee protection. Refugee protection is a global concern and a common trust. It means that it is a shared , not an individual one. Unless it is shouldered widely, it may be borne by none as a normative .

Until recently, the of these liberal-democratic states was accompanied by a persistent (though flimsy) conviction that the law’s constraining force was still necessary. The law has always been put to the test, twisted and molded, and its principles have been stretched, distorted and abused. But there was still an underlying belief in the liberal legal that the law’s prohibitions and authorizations would matter. They would play a crucial role in how we treat others and ourselves. 

To guarantee states’ commitment to some hard-won European refugee protection , this role was used for executing governmental authority and as an instrument for setting its lawful boundaries. In my view, some of the democratically elected political leaders, as well as the ����’s public and their electors, have lost this dual of the law’s purpose. Rather than being seen as an essential component of effective governance, the law’s regulating and restraining role seems increasingly to be a barrier and to it. This is especially true in immigration control, where legislative on the government’s authority are being violated or legislated over.

Sunak is, in fact, in excellent company. The Italian government’s has likewise demonstrated a great deal of passion for the boundaries of the law, and it reacts angrily to courts’ to enforce them. To some extent, the EU has also started to play the same game. The regulatory power of the law is diminished each time enduring legal precepts are codified into new procedures and reception .

Good governance vs. immigration control

This rejection of the law as a tool of authority, limiting force and regulatory ideal seems to stem partly from the of good government being established within the of immigration control. A liberal constitutional prohibits good government from being defined by convenience or efficiency, nor can it include any governmental goal that most people find acceptable. In the age of globalization, liberal constitutional democracy has been under attack from the inside. The of illiberalism, populism and authoritarianism have attacked it further. We demand that normative standards of freedom, and human constrain the goals and actions of the government. That is the yardstick by which we judge, or ought to consider, the goodness of each government action and its underlying goal.

It is worth emphasizing that we did not choose these principles randomly. Despite potential hypocrisy in liberal legal and their problematic application, we deliberately incorporated these principles into our constitutions. We have seen firsthand the devastation that results from simultaneously deregulating political power and concentrating it in the hands of a minority.

For immigration control, however, good governance is defined in a way that denies the cultural, ethnic and religious and that characterize our political communities. Governments like the ����’s even view that as a threat. The pursuit of universal and human is no longer what good governance means in this regard. Instead, the purpose of government is to serve “us” at all costs. It makes no difference whether this cost comes in the form of invaluable human lives lost or a more intangible cost to the values by which we live — this is ultimately the price we must pay to protect what is right, and “right” is now what benefits us rather than the ethereal concepts of equal human .

This form of ethnonationalist has probably never wholly vanished from the political and judicial following World War II. Instead, it has consistently existed in the background, patiently awaiting an opportunity to resurface in the European shared political since the first European migration was heralded. 

The fallacy of Anglo-American human rights principles

Since then, ethnonationalism has undoubtedly grown in visibility, audacity and boldness in the demands it makes of the government. Along with it, we have witnessed the rise of a new kind of deliberate , a rejection of the law, which is viewed as both a regulatory ideal and a of political power. This logic leads to inhumanity and human , as seen in the recently revealed immigration by former US President Donald Trump. His commitment to resurrecting and extending programs like , , , and enormous mass is consistent with his criticism of the law as a restraint on governmental power.

Sadly, Germany has also shown itself to be to the perils of similar reasoning. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz that the nation should finally stand firm in deportation — that Germany being tough does not make it heartless. Scholz would do well to embrace the law as a restricting factor and a tool for , even if it happens to forbid the exact toughness he aims to impose. This would prevent inhumanity from becoming the pattern for Germany’s immigration .

Will the Rwandan deal be stopped?

The UK Supreme Court has its own government’s “cash for humans” agreement with Rwanda to be highly unethical and illegal. The continuous attempts to externalize asylum and indefinitely detain asylum seekers are violations of non-refoulement and the UNCSR. Thousands of torture survivors are stuck in the massive asylum backlog, unable to reconstruct their lives or recuperate. The UK government should concentrate on eliminating this backlog before enacting cruel policies that violate their moral and legal obligations. 

The agreement was fierce and misguided, especially because Rwanda has a history of grave human rights abuses. These include torture, arbitrary incarceration and the suppression of free speech. The arrangement with Rwanda and the Illegal Migration Act ought to be scrapped by the new home secretary, James Cleverly. Only then will decency prevail.

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post The UK’s Ruthless Immigration Compromise Means Refoulement in Rwanda appeared first on 51�Թ�.

UK Home Secretary recently gave a speech on migration. She concluded a “misguided dogma of multiculturalism” had brought people into the UK with the purpose of  “undermining the stability and threatening the security of society.” It was an adventurous claim undergirded by her premise: “Multiculturalism makes no demands of the incomer to integrate. It has failed because it allowed people to come to our society and live parallel lives in it. They could be in society but not in society.”

Has multiculturalism failed? Ideals rarely fail or succeed totally, since they envision something desirable or perfect but not likely to become a reality. They offer a guide as to how society should operate. In recent years, the word itself has been replaced by “cultural diversity,” but the aspiration is very similar. Both expressions describe a serviceable model of society; neither describes reality. Let me provide a historical summary.

Brits were not ready to accept the “dark strangers”

Postwar Britain was taken aback by the appearance of what one sociologist of the period, Sheila Patterson, characterized as. Patterson’s research in the early 1960s centered on “West Indians in Brixton.” Brixton is an area in south London where accommodation was cheap. It became a magnet for migrants from the Caribbean who traveled to the UK in search of work with the intention of saving for a few years before returning to Jamaica or one of the other islands. This became known as “” because so few actually did go back. Most permanently settled in Britain. Britain’s other main migrant groups were from South Asia, in particular, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. Unlike West Indians, they spoke different languages, had different faiths and often dressed in traditional clothes.

Patterson’s conclusions were essentially those of most liberals in the early 1960s. Racial prejudice and discrimination, as they were called, were temporary deviations. Indigenous whites were simply unused to different-looking neighbors with unusual accents. The presumption was that whites would, over time, become accustomed to their new confederates. Concurrently, the newcomers would assimilate, becoming absorbed in the mainstream culture to the point where they resembled whites in language, thought, ambition and, in general, outlook.

A series of disturbances labeled “” — typically involving angry whites attacking predominantly ethnic minority neighborhoods — dashed these expectations. Liberals imagined that the solution would lie in controlling the numbers: if they allowed fewer migrants into the UK, hopefully assimilation had a better chance of succeeding. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act of 1962 and other legislation designed to restrict entry to Britain followed.

Assimilation abandoned in favor of multiculturalism

By the 1970s, the sons and daughters of migrants were maturing. Most had been schooled in the UK and understood Britain as their home. Their parents had settled and, while many had assimilated, many others had not.

A slew of research projects chronicled how racism, or what was then called racialism or racial discrimination, had become a feature of British society. It flared most aggressively in the predominantly white police force, which epitomized Babylon — the contemptuous term used by the then-emerging movement, which regarded the police as oppressive agents of control. Major upheavals, variously called riots or uprisings (depending on perspective), were characteristic of the first half of the 1980s, a period when progressives dropped assimilation as a policy directive, decrying it as discriminatory. Instead, they adopted “multiculturalism.”

Part of the thinking of the time was to avoid duplicating the USA, where ethnic ghettos had appeared and blacks and Latinos seemed to have formed a permanent “underclass.” Multiculturalism was conceived as an alternative — learn to embrace rather than erase difference, but ensure there is equality of opportunity in education, the workplace and every other aspect of society. Equal opportunity is not the same as equality: as long as access is fair and evenly distributed, multiculturalism will prosper, or so the thinking went. The expectation was that all groups from whatever background would seize their chances.

Multiculturalism has been working

I’ll remind readers that multiculturalism was an ideal. It was also a sort of prescription. It was not a guarantee: Through the 1980s, racism resurfaced with a vengeance as unemployment grew and, in particular, young people found themselves hard-pressed to make progress. Various political groups conjured up a simplistic but, in the event, persuasive formula: If blacks and Asians were not in Britain, there would be more jobs available to whites. Like every historical instance of racism or its analogs, competition over scarce resources like jobs (or houses and social services) was the root cause.

Whatever anyone says, equal opportunities, as a policy, did work. It pushed employers as well as educators to revisualize how they saw the future. They widened their scopes, created more opportunities and put together the kind of circumstances in which groups that traditionally had underachieved could prosper.

If this sounds sanguine, it’s only because I am comparing the situation at the turn of this century with how it was in the 1970s and 1980s. Those who complain there has been no improvement either have short memories or haven’t familiarized themselves with the research from earlier periods. I’m not disposed to optimism, nor am I naïve enough to imagine racism has been vanquished, but simple observation tells me the UK now has more politicians — including Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman herself — who come from ethnic minority backgrounds.

There are also more ethnic minorities in British universities than at any time in history. Film, television and theater represent ethnic minorities amply, often reimagining historical drama to integrate black and Asian actors into the casts. Practically every city or town in the country has mosques, temples and other places of worship for those who are not aligned with Christianity. Restaurants cater to global cuisines. Athletes from ethnic minorities have made great strides in the world of sports. So, multiculturalism, to use Braverman’s word, hasn’t failed. It hasn’t succeeded, but it was never a pass-fail thing, anyway. It was a blueprint, a plan, an exemplar — something to aspire to.

While it’s been largely supplanted by cultural diversity — which aims to go beyond accepting variety by celebrating it — I actually like multiculturalism. It implies the kind of integration I favor: not the homogenization assumed by the crude assimilationist model, but an acceptance of and respect for cultural difference. An elevation of cultural difference to the point where people become curious and want to explore cultures other than their own. That’s what has been happening in the UK. Imperceptibly perhaps, but surely.

[Ellis Cashmore’s most recent book is ]

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post Are You Sure Multiculturalism Has Failed, Ms. Braverman? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In 2015, a rise in mobile internet-based payments led to falling profit margins. The firm was then to close half its production lines and slash its workforce. In , it announced that it would no longer manufacture British passports from its Team Valley factory.

Dire profit warnings rattle shareholders

At the end of January 2022, The Financial Times that Richard Bernstein, founder of Crystal Amber, an activist investment fund, had openly called for a sale. He said that it was “highly likely” that De La Rue “will be the subject of a takeover bid from one or more of its overseas competitors” in the coming months. Coronavirus-related staff absences and supply chain issues resulted in another 25% slump in share price. Further, the company warned that its annual profit was expected to miss market expectations.

The firm estimated that operating profit would be around £36–40 million ($40–50 million) for the year to March 26. While the figure was around the same mark as the previous financial year, it was still below the market consensus of £45–47 million ($56–59 million). De La Rue’s chief executive, Clive Vacher, dismissed Bernstein’s claims, telling The Financial Times that he rejected the continued criticism of its sales policy. “We do not have a strategy to drive down prices. We have driven competence at De La Rue so that we are a force to be reckoned with in the market,” he said. 

By November, De La Rue delivered its third of the year. The company’s shares took a harrowing nosedive, plummeting a staggering 23%. Notably, Crystal Amber, which holds the second-largest stake at 9.9%, the profit warning as a “Liz Truss moment,” and Bernstein called for the resignation of the chairman, Kevin Loosemore. There were (and still are) serious concerns that the firm was on the brink of collapse. With growing apprehension looming, speculations of a potential sale began to emerge.

In April 2023, De La Rue issued another profit warning, lamenting the low demand for banknotes generally. “The demand for banknotes has been at the lowest levels for over 20 years, resulting in a low order book going into” the 2024 fiscal year, it said in a to the London Sbanknotestock Exchange. The firm followed this up by adjusting its operating profit outlook for the 2024 fiscal year to nearly £20 million ($25 million), half of its previous unadjusted estimates of £40.1 million ($50 million), to Refinitv data published in Insider. 

“The challenge at the moment is that there simply isn’t quite the demand there to be where we want to be, which is disappointing,” Vacher told . The company has however noted a more positive outlook for its authentication business, which is expected to exceed £100 million ($125 million) for the first time in the coming fiscal year. 

Allegations and a desperate offer

In addition to these tumultuous events, the firm found itself ensnared in a criminal involving India’s former finance secretary, Arvind Mayaram. The Central Bank of India accused Mayaram of illegally granting a three-year contract to De La Rue in 2013 for supplying exclusive security thread for Indian bank notes.

The situation compelled De La Rue to release a statement to the London Stock Exchange denying any involvement with the Indian government or its central bank since 2016. “The company believes that there is no merit to the allegations that relate to De La Rue, and is seeking legal advice in this regard,” the statement said. 

The same month, the firm announced that it was also suspending printing in Kenya due to reduced global demand for banknotes and the ongoing investigation involving Mayaram. 

The firm : “Importantly, the joint venture between De La Rue and the government of Kenya remains active, and the company continues to explore further business opportunities, both in Kenya and for export from Kenya, with a view to restarting production if the economic climate permit.” 

Furthermore, De La Rue’s answer to the Bank of Tanzania’s 822 billion-shilling ($328 million) tender in late April proves that the company has definitely lost its mind in a desperate search to recover its profitability. The financial from De La Rue for each denomination banknote appears to be 2 to 3 times the price offered by serious contenders like Germany’s Giesecke+Devrient or the USA’s Crane Currency.

This chaotic behavior is akin to a headless chicken running around. A surprising position, given that De La Rue fought hard on the to ensure that its offer was not excluded from the pre-selection process. It won the legal battle, but the result is a commercial proposal that seems completely out of step with the competition and with reality. 

It remains to be seen if the firm can recover and alleviate the concerns of its shareholders. Retaining client confidence in this niche sector is crucial if banknote printing firms are to maintain long-term success. De La Rue, as it tackles crisis after crisis and continues to lose contracts and value, is facing a crisis of confidence. A real restart may be required if the firm is to survive.

[Naveed Ahsan edited this piece.]

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

The post Is De La Rue Currency Now on the Brink of Collapse? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

It is certainly not a valid, safe or foregone conclusion that all large companies will misbehave. So, what sets the bad ones apart? What characterizes those that cross over to the “dark side”? Why on Earth would they want to court disaster and jeopardize the company’s reputation and antagonize customers and propel them into the arms of competitors? 

Answering these questions requires an understanding of particular branches of psychology (e.g., social, organizational, clinical, consumer and abnormal) and contemporary corporate ownership.

The impact of toxic leadership

Corporations that engage in predatory behavior against customers do not do so spontaneously. is at the root of the behavior. It occurs by deliberate design and systematic application over time as part of what are known as “” models. 

Ironically, these models were supposed to protect the company against revenue loss from fraud and theft. Some companies use these models to “protect” revenue by dishonestly increasing it. They do this by grossly overcharging customers on their monthly direct debit billing, either with no advance notice or by mid-contract increases. To this, they may add punishing early exit penalties or fictitious charges which they refuse to reimburse. 

Despite all their rhetoric about “the customer is our number one priority,” such companies do not want to retain customers unless they are of the kind prepared to continue being bilked. These perverse “revenue protection models” rely on faster revenue growth by forcing out or “” once-loyal but disillusioned customers and replacing them with more naïve new ones. This is the “cheat-and-churn” reality.

Nevertheless, such wayward boards will typically exude great public-facing piety, with beaming, friendly, confident trust-me faces and reassuring mission statements. Is the considerable gap between espousal and enactment merely the product of boardroom delusions or deliberate lying? What circumstances drive this behavior?

Tremendous changes have occurred in recent years in the chains of many large corporations. Gone are the days when a sector comprising several independent and direct competitors fought to retain and expand their respective customer bases. Typically, large companies are by even larger ones and perhaps ultimately by funds that will place tough return-on-investment criteria on these companies. 

Ruthless profit extraction has become the de facto goal for executives. In addition, supposed competitors now typically take shareholding stakes in each other, changing competition into market symbiosis—meaning it matters much less which company or brand is leading at any given time. Companies expect customers to frequently “churn” or change from one provider to another, so companies feel they no longer have much stake in genuine customer care and retention. The move towards cheat-and-churn requires a controlling mind, typically the chief executive, probably colluding with boardroom colleagues. Corporate leaders, not middle or junior executives, determine strategy and revenue policy operations.

Organizational psychologist Professor Michael Walton has spent several decades studying the dynamics of leadership and what happens when the bad conduct of senior individuals can no longer be explained away or trivialized as assertiveness or drive. He defined toxic leadership as “behavior which is exploitative, abusive, destructive and psychologically—and perhaps legalistically—corrupt and poisonous.”

This does not mean that such individuals outwardly present as demented, ranting bullies, although some do, e.g., the owner of Mirror Group Newspapers who defrauded his company’s pension fund of some £460 million ($485 million) in the 1980s. They are more likely to present as engaging and charming personalities adept at convincing others that egregious conduct is fully justified to achieve revenue targets, shareholder and market expectations and, of course, director bonuses. Such motivations, patterns of thinking and behavior may normalize rapidly into a culture of amoral calculation.

Boardroom and executive psychopathy

Anti-Social (ASPDs) come in many guises and degrees, ranging from mild and annoying to pathological and harmful. For example, narcissism appears frequently among leaders in corporate organizations.

Feeling essential and unique and claiming superior skills and attributes may benefit a corporate leader and the organization’s success. As psychiatrist Professor Jerrold Post noted, some narcissists learn to positively channel their creativity, self-belief and ego, such as Richard , founder of the Virgin Group. Others, however, demonstrate a super-inflated ego, bombast and a tendency toward vengeful rage and malice against anyone suspected of outshining or challenging them. Former US President Donald is a notorious example of such eggshell-ego narcissism, as by Jerrold Post.

In business or politics, ill-informed and even reckless risk-taking is a frequent characteristic of toxic leaders whether in business or politics. The spectacular collapse of energy giant in 2001 under the fraudulent direction of top executives Lay, Skilling and Fastow and the high-speed demise of Conservative leader in 2022 are examples of each. The compulsion to engage in high-stakes gambling with no concern about damaging the lives of thousands or even millions of people is characteristic of toxic leaders and indicative of possible pathological personality traits. Moreover, some toxic leaders may engage in criminal activity (as in the Enron case), so-called .

However, it would be false to either suggest or conclude that every CEO, board member or senior executive of every organization accused of atrocious conduct must be a psychopath or sociopath. So, although egregious personalities are indicated, what proportion of them are clinically diagnosable?

Among ASPDs, both categories, psychopathy and sociopathy, are under the general heading of psychopathy. Both display similar characteristics but differ primarily in origin. Psychopaths are regarded as products of a combination of genetic and social environmental factors, notably childhood and early adulthood experiences. Sociopaths, however, are deemed to be created solely by social environment and experiences, again mainly during childhood and early adulthood. Both disorders are difficult to treat, and prospects of a personality change for the better are not high.

Large-scale studies of CEOs and board directors by forensic psychologists , and colleagues found that some 20% of subjects showed clinically raised levels of psychopathy. This contrasts with an expected level in the general population of some 3%. Why should there be such a higher concentration at the board level? 

One suggestion is that such personalities typically share a compulsive desire to dominate and wield predatory power over others, like staff, customers and suppliers. The attractiveness of the power of board positions may explain why clinically diagnosable psychopathic personalities are seven times more likely to be represented in boardrooms than in the population overall. An increased prevalence would also likely exist among ambitious lower executives compared to the general population.

Snakes-in-suits: what sets pathological individuals apart?

According to the , and , pathological personalities are characterized by a combination of:

1. Causing harm to others with either no self-recognition of their harmfulness or not caring about it.

2. Lack of empathy for those harmed, although empathy may be feigned.

3. Lack of conscience, remorse or guilt about their harmful conduct.

4. A ruthless end-justifies-the-means and “what can I/we get away with?” attitude and behavior.

5. For psychopaths, an inability to form regular emotional or social bonds, although these may be faked. For sociopaths, a limited ability to form regular emotional or social bonds (for example, bonding with family and close friends but not more widely), although these may be faked.

While “spivs-in-suits” is a pejorative label commonly applied to corporate fraudsters and customer abusers, organizational psychologist Paul Babiak and forensic psychologist Robert Hare coined the “snakes-in-suits” for corporate psychopaths and sociopaths. All too often, spivs-in-suits are also snakes-in-suits. To help identify individuals that have pathological personalities, various evaluation frameworks and checklists have been created. For example, Hare made a 20-item of specific psychopathy indicators. The more indicators an individual signals, the more a psychopathy diagnosis becomes likely. Prominent signs in Hare’s checklist include:

— Showing a glib and superficial charm.

— Shallow and insincere emotions.

— Confidence trickery and manipulation.

— A propensity for pathological lying.

— Grandiose self-worth and narcissism.

— Scapegoating and blaming others for their own failings.

— Reacting to rejection badly and excessively.

However, applicable as such tools have become for psychiatrists and psychologists, they are not intended for use outside these professions or for amateur application. This caution reinforces the of not engaging in amateur “armchair diagnosis” of particular individuals. 

Nevertheless, it is defensible to examine specific organizations and their conduct and to consider to what extent they match the known characteristics of psychopathy. A different question is which, if any, of their senior personnel might suffer from one or more personality disorders. That question can only be definitively answered by clinically qualified individuals who have personally examined and interviewed the persons concerned.

Corporate abuse of customers in the UK

In March 2020, The Times published an and a “name and shame” list of large UK companies allegedly guilty of deliberately blocking customers’ attempts to complain. They did so by removing company e-mail addresses from their websites, ceasing complaint handling by e-mail, forcing customers to engage with dysfunctional automated call centers, keeping customers on hold for two or three hours or more and failing to deliver or offer any redress. These are typically the same companies that boast about customers being their “number one priority.”

Regrettably, the number of such companies is so great as to make it impracticable to cite them all in this article. They cover all sectors: banks and financial services, supermarkets and large retailers, airlines and travel, healthcare, energy providers, phone/IT/Internet/social media and real estate.

For example, Britons’ domestic energy bills have more than doubled and in some cases trebled since early 2022 and are than in other European countries. As far back as , the then-CEO of British Gas, Cedric Brown, came under excoriating public attack in the media, in parliament and among institutional shareholders for his brazen attempt to inflate his remuneration to an obscene level. He was “Cedric The Pig” and, long before cryptocurrencies, a spoof currency of greed was named after him, “the Cedric.” The greed controversy still dogs BGas, in relation to its huge profits during the UK cost-of-living crisis.

What is at play today is, perhaps, a 21st-century from the “unacceptable face of capitalism” complained of by British Prime Minister Edward Health in 1973 and the fat-cat conduct of corporate executives in the 1990s. The following dire case conveys the nature and scale of the contemporary problem.

EE Mobile—the cheat-and-churn supremos?

EE Mobile is one of the UK’s largest mobile phone and internet service providers, with upwards of 23 million mobile customers as at June 2023 out of a total EE customer base (including fixed line) of some 32 million cited in August 2023.

EE, formerly Everything Everywhere, was purchased by Altice using British Telecom (BT) in 2016 and is now the central part of BT Group’s Consumer Division. In 2023, Altice came under serious against board members and senior executives relating to money, fraud and corruption, with a number of formal investigations by authorities continuing in the US and Europe. Few people remember the original “Everything Everywhere” tag, while wags continue to assert that surely EE means “Exceptionally Egregious.”

Like many large companies, EE’s website portrays glowing of its CEO Marc Allera and his top executive team of ten directors with a line-up of flattering “butter wouldn’t melt in their mouths” portrait photos. The CEO’s proclaimed mission includes language such as, “so our customers trust us,” “top priority to provide great customer experience” and “making sure we do the right thing.” 

Contrast these self-righteous virtues with all the overwhelmingly negative posts by aggrieved customers on Trustpilot. Of over 13,000 of EE, 71% give the lowest 1-star rating, and only 20% provide the highest 5-star rating. The highest number of posts about EE complain about over-charging monthly bills, unilateral mid-contract increased charge rates, unfair contracts with high early exit penalties and slow responses from EE customer service or being fobbed off or ignored entirely. EE has had an alarming history of overcharging going back to and .

Complaining customers being fobbed off is commonplace across retail service corporations and highlights the policy of many of them to deliberately deter and block customers’ attempts to obtain redress. Complaints by telephone get shunted into automated call center queues that often take hours to clear, even if the caller is not summarily cut off first. Online complaint forms typically receive evasive blandishments that fail to address the actual complaint. Complaint letters or e-mails to chief executives are usually passed to a customer service function to answer. As with online complaints, any response will likely comprise only evasion and blandishments. 

These “customer complaint resolution” functions are clearly under instruction to evade and deflect every complainant—whatever it takes to ensure that the company denies any mistake or wrongdoing and so “justifies” giving no redress. 

The curious position of EE’s mascot, Kevin Bacon

For years, Kevin Bacon, the Hollywood actor, has been the public face of EE. He is the star of TV advertisements that extol the wonders of EE’s mobile telephone and broadband services. Reportedly, Bacon has already received substantial fees for his EE work, well over £1 million ($1.3 million). Bacon cuts an engaging figure and is popular in the UK as a movie star, so it is understandable why EE should employ him as a celebrity endorser of their brand and services.

Customer complaints about EE on Trustpilot have included some unflattering reviews about Bacon’s association with the company. Whether he is aware of all the criticisms of EE and of the growing backlash is unclear. It appears EE has been rather crafty in making Bacon their public face or, perhaps more cynically, their fall guy. Since EE’s apparent anti-customer excesses have become such a national disgrace, aggrieved customers and the public now generally identify him as the only EE figurehead. Therefore, he is the ready target and lightning rod for their anger. He will likely pay the price in reputational damage, whereas EE refuses to recognize such damage.

Yet, according to a Deloitte 2014 , reputation accounted for more than 25% of a company’s market value. Unchecked reputation risk was the single most significant cause of revenue and brand value loss. Some 87% of global respondents saw reputation risk as their number one risk concern. The 2021 survey from WTW reflected similar concerns. What Altice and other institutional investors in BT Group, EE’s immediate owner, think about EE’s conduct is unclear.

Should Kevin Bacon tolerate EE’s evident anti-customer conduct damaging his reputation and brand? A lot may depend on which he values most—his reputation or EE’s fees.

As customers have noted, EE’s alleged gross overcharging, unfair and punitive contracts and highly defensive responses to complaints appear not to be accidents but deliberate policy, without any evident conscience or remorse. EE executives’ glib, superficial charm and what-can-we-get-away-with ruthlessness appear to underpin a cheat-and-churn culture. Whether they are mere spivs-in-suits, or more dangerously also snakes-in-suits, is open to conjecture.

Countering corporate anti-customer excesses

Many corporations currently appear not to understand their purpose. A radical new , the “framework for the future of the corporation,” was proposed by the British Academy in 2018 to replace the present dysfunctional one:

Corporations were originally established with clear public purposes. It is only over the last half-century that corporate purpose has become equated solely with profit. This has been damaging to corporations’ role in society, trust in business and the impact that business has had on the environment, inequality and social cohesion. In addition, globalization and technological advances are exacerbating problems of regulatory lag.

Similarly, 181 CEOs of major US corporations at the US also issued a joint statement in 2019 redefining the purpose of a corporation to focus on benefitting all stakeholders and not just shareholders. Business press have also favored the theme.

As and have examined in depth, corporations, frequently authoritarian ones, have now taken over everyday life in many respects. The worldviews of many corporations still focus on profit, personal greed, personal gratification, predatory unilateral competition and a belief that the only stakeholders to be protected are themselves and corporate shareholders.

Other observers, such as and , argue that the totality of online platforms, social media and mobile telephone services are already enabling pathological corporations to make millions of users addicted to their products and services. Artificial Intelligence (AI) software will simply accelerate the abuse. Zuboff asserts that through “surveillance capitalism” users, who already hand over vast amounts of personal data to such companies, will soon find that their behavior patterns will be monitored by remote AI software to not only predict a user’s general behavior but also to subliminally predict and manipulate specific responses of individual users for commercial gain. 

The new corporation paradigm inherently and explicitly rejects all characteristics of this kind of corporate authoritarianism, amoral calculation and malfeasance. Increasingly, shareholders will be expecting boards to adopt this model. This implicitly requires boards to curb, if not terminate, any director or CEO whose attitude and conduct smacks of the “old” paradigm. 

Organizational, professional and peer group strategies 

At an organizational level, several policies and strategies as part of corporate governance and risk management are available to counter authoritarian excesses. These would include such routine protections as:

— Separation of CEO and Chairman/President functions as two separate individuals to prevent a joint Chairman-CEO becoming too powerful, self-serving and beyond effective control if indulging in decisions and conduct damaging to the corporation.

— Appointment of fully independent non-executive directors to help steer executive directors away from potentially egregious or damaging decisions and conduct.

— Establishing an effective Board Risk Committee (separate from a Board Audit Committee) tasked with ensuring that the board address “all significant risks” to the business, including the organization’s own conduct.

— Requiring effective due diligence background checks (negative or positive vetting, as appropriate) on all staff appointments, staff promotions, contractor appointments, agent appointments, partnering and joint venture contracts, licensing agreements and proposed mergers or acquisitions.

— Requiring a psychological evaluation for all individuals subject to positive vetting as an integral part of due diligence. 

The for an organization’s corporate governance and risk management are well established. Although the formal framework for corporate governance and risk management generally does work to prevent harmful conduct in corporations, there are numerous instances of failure. 

Such failures arise from defective formal frameworks and weak or toxic leadership. As Clive Smallman has laid out, the of positive versus toxic leadership are precise and well-known. Ensuring that only positive leaders are appointed is another crucial aspect of due diligence. This emphasizes the need for psychometric and psychological evaluation and searching for tell-tale signs of offensive attitudes and conduct.

How fast the new model corporation is adopted is likely to depend on several factors, including the enlightened self-interest of corporate leaders. This is especially so in the context of the fragile global economy of the post-Covid era, the policy positions and codes of ethics of professional and sector/trade bodies, and how rapidly the overall management of higher education are reoriented to reflect the new model. However, potential push-back by determined old-model diehards is highly likely.

Persuading corporate delinquents to change

The prospects for beneficial change in a delinquent corporation boil down to three main kinds of persuasion:

— Moral argument or enlightened self-interest.

— Judicial and non-judicial punishments.

— Market forces and risk management failures.

While all three kinds of persuasion may operate in any particular case, the moral argument or enlightened self-interest is least likely to be successful in hard-bitten old-model organizations.

Cheat-and-churn rogues are, by nature, “chancers” who think they are untouchable and invincible. Therefore, they are unlikely to acknowledge the argument and believe they can evade market forces as well as criminal prosecution, civil lawsuits and adverse publicity. Their feelings of superiority and entitlement to steal customers’ money may convince them they can get away with it.

The modern corporate spivs-in-suits are analogous to medieval robber barons. Customers, investors and markets may increasingly treat a company run by such spivs as a lost cause, and, ultimately, the business may fail. To lift the against US President Richard “Tricky Dick” Nixon at the time of his downfall in the 1970s, “Would you ever buy a used car from any of these people?”
[ edited this piece.]

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

The post Spivs-in-Suits: Corporate Greed and Customer Abuse in “Rip-Off” Britain appeared first on 51�Թ�.

On July 17, 2023, Conservatives approved the so-called Illegal Migration Act, the cornerstone of right-wing UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s campaign promise to “” sailing across the English Channel. The bill has received royal assent and become domestic law. According to the act, anyone who enters the UK illegally after passing through a nation without persecution loses their right to seek asylum in the UK. No matter how compelling their situation is, they are prohibited from requesting refugee protection or making other human rights claims.

The act further mandates their deportation to another nation, where, despite Conservative claims, there is no assurance that they will have access to protection. It effectively establishes extensive new detention powers with little judicial control.

Racism-induced legislation

The government’s persecutory, racism-induced legislation won’t stop the boats. What it will accomplish is locking up tens of thousands of people at great expense, sending them to live in uncertainty forever, punished like criminals just for trying to find refuge. The House of Lords ultimately rejected proposed amendments providing for fewer time restrictions on the detention of unaccompanied minors, improved rights for victims of modern slavery and six-month delays in migrant deportation.

The Conservative government’s centerpiece legislation will stop most individuals from seeking asylum in the UK without authorization. It will send them back to their home country or a third country deemed “safe,” like Rwanda.

The act’s passing came at the same time as a meant to carry migrants and refugees docked near the southern coast of England on Tuesday. The government has justified the usage of barges, which maintains that they are a less expensive option than hotels. A record 45,755 persons crossed the English Channel in tiny boats last year, mostly from France. Around 12,000 people have come this year, which is about the same as in 2022.

Opposition politicians, as well as observers and organizations at home and abroad, have attacked the act to deport asylum-seekers as brutal, cruel and ineffective. The passing of the measure, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk, poses “very serious legal concerns” and creates “a worrying precedent for dismantling asylum-related obligations” that other nations may follow.

At the earliest, deportation flights to Rwanda won’t begin for a few months; even then, their legality will depend on the Supreme Court’s decision later this year. A ($180 million) first agreement between Britain and the East African nation was reached last year, but the legal process has stalled the program. One year ago, the European Court of Human Rights issued a that prevented the first scheduled flight for the deportation of Rwandan migrants.

Dumping IRL & IHRL Obligations

Following its obligations under international law, the UK has long offered asylum to needy individuals—a tradition of which it has every right to be proud. This new legislation severely weakens the legal edifice that has shielded so many people, placing refugees at severe risk and violating the ����’s IRL and IHRL obligations.

Regardless of whether asylum applicants are individually at risk of persecution, they may very well have experienced human rights violations, including human trafficking or modern-day slavery. Persons excluded by the new act may have other well-founded claims under international human rights and humanitarian law; these are now prohibited from accessing protection in the UK. This includes unaccompanied and separated children. Removal under these conditions violates international law, due process rights, family and privacy rights and the best interests of the children involved.

Most people who leave conflict and persecution lack formal documentation like passports and visas or cannot get them. Rarely do they have access to safe and legal routes. The 1951 UN relating to the Status of Refugees (UNCSR) acknowledges that refugees may be forced to enter a nation of sanctuary illegally. Many thousands of asylum seekers can now be expected to stay in the UK forever in hazardous legal positions if there are no workable removal agreements with third countries or there is insufficient practical capability to remove large numbers of asylum seekers. They risk being used and abused, jeopardizing their rights to health, employment and a reasonable quality of life.

In addition to posing severe legal issues from a global perspective, the act creates a troubling precedent for eliminating asylum obligations that other nations, including those in Europe, may be tempted to follow. This would bring inestimable harm to the overall international system for protecting human rights and refugees.

The UN shares the UK government’s concern over the increasing number of asylum-seekers who take perilous boat crossings of the English Channel and applauds ongoing efforts to improve the functioning of the current through quick, equitable and efficient case processing that enables the integration of individuals determined to require international protection and the prompt return home of those without a valid reason to remain. Unfortunately, the new legislation will seriously erode this achievement.

Regardless of their legal status, method of arrival or any other distinction, all people who leave their place of origin in search of safety and shelter abroad are entitled to the full respect of their human rights and dignity. The UK has a history of upholding its obligations under international refugee and human rights law. Such unwavering dedication as it had shown is more important than ever right now.

The international community must urge the UK government to reaffirm its commitment to human rights by repealing this law and guaranteeing that refugees, asylum-seekers, migrants and stateless persons have their rights upheld, protected and fulfilled without prejudice and in a manner consistent with the UNCSR. Asylum and human rights claims should be processed swiftly and fairly, reception conditions should be improved and there should be more accessible and available safe travel routes.

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post How the ����’s Illegal Migration Bill Squares With International Refugee Law appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Should such activists, in that period and now, be termed “fringe Conservatives,” “ultra-Conservatives,” “radical right,” or “hard right”? The authors prefer “radical right,” since it encompasses the gamut of all such rebels.

Origins of the Neo-Right in the Brexit Debate

In those years, shrill advocacy for the Brexit concept quickly emerged. Tory Members of Parliament (MPs) had founded the European Research Group (ERG) in 1993 to counter, if not eliminate, EU influence on Britain. During the coalition years, the ERG, along with its supporters in business, the media and radical-right advocacy bodies, placed intense pressure on Prime Minister David Cameron to hold a referendum on Brexit. In 2013, Cameron agreed to offer the electorate a non-binding referendum on whether Britain should remain in the EU. Since, out of some 355 Conservative MPs, the ERG’s membership and subscribers in total are never thought to have exceeded 60, the outsize influence demonstrated by their success is evident. The ERG tail has continued to wag the party dog, or try to, ever since.

Campaigning both for and against Brexit was robust. However, the overall pro-Brexit campaign was on the whole better organized, better funded, and used far more advanced digital, online and social media methods to persuade voters. Crucially, it was also far more ruthless, employing blatantly alarmist “.” The official Vote Leave campaign also applied large-scale data mining techniques similar to those later used by Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign in the US. This was done under the direction of Dominic Cummings, whom Cameron once reportedly referred to as “” (see later). The 2016 vote delivered a small but clear majority preference to leave the EU.

While Brexit arguably had lofty objectives, its implementation and subsequent realities have witnessed and major long-term .

Radical-Right takeover of the Conservative Party

Since 2016, the Brexiteer/ERG agenda has morphed into a generalized . The insurgents not only espouse uncontrolled free market economic priorities and harbor a revulsion for the EU, but also gleefully and noisily assert a right-wing authoritarian stance on law-and-order issues. They display an unmistakable animus against the welfare state, benefit claimants, those suffering from social and economic deprivation, immigrants, asylum seekers, ethnic and religious minorities, and victims of human rights abuses and other injustices.

Such proclivities, which pander to populist reactionary sympathies, have more in common with those of far-right parties and groups outside the Conservative Party—such as Reform UK, Reclaim, Far Right For Britain, the British National Party, the English Defence League, Britain First and other fringe groups—than with traditional party values.

Although it is somewhat less extreme, this conversion of the traditional Conservative Party is analogous to the radical-right of the US Republican Party over a similar time frame. The “new” Conservative Party of the 2020s is thus Conservative in name only. Disturbingly, much of the electorate is unlikely to be aware of this radical change from its One Nation heritage.

The authors were both One Nation Conservative supporters for over 30 years until the scale of the Brexit debacle and the increasingly authoritarian nature of the Johnson administration became clear in 2019. There is substantive evidence of a concerted and sustained effort by Britain’s ruling Conservative Party since 2019 to impose permanent, illiberal, radical-right governance on the nation. Some of the top-down subversion and coercion (such as proroguing Parliament in 2019) is done openly, as if were perfectly normal and morally acceptable, while other examples involve long-term stealth against the public interest. Although One Nation Conservative MPs still exist, their numbers and influence have been all but obliterated by the dominance of the ERG, its derivatives and its fellow travelers. 

Case 1: Imposing Costly Private Healthcare

As we reported in detail last year in 51�Թ�, deliberate underfunding of the state National Health Service (NHS) and social care system over 13 years has brought these services into not just a state of chronic dysfunctionality but also virtual collapse. While publicly appearing to champion the NHS, in reality the long-term Conservative policy is to have free market private provision become the only viable alternative in the vast majority of cases. Their ideological imperative appears to be to place the delivery of such services under the primary control of private companies and to ensure that, in effect, state provision withers on the vine.

����’s NHS is Broken: Is Private Medicine the Answer?

The NHS and private provision have had a long and largely successful symbiosis since the 1980s, with the primacy of NHS provision assured by state funding paid for by patients via general taxation and National Insurance. Private provision contracted to the NHS has been a vital contributor. However, with the Health and Care Act , the government appears to be pressing ahead with their new “healthcare salvation” model to replace the current NHS model with a direct pathway for private care companies, many of them foreign-based, to access NHS funds. Far from salvation, the impact is likely to be catastrophic for the level and amount of healthcare the NHS can provide, since NHS post-Covid recovery money and other funds will be diverted to boost the preferential use of private care. 

Until now, the limit has always been that private care providers had to be awarded an NHS subcontract in order to access funds for clinical procedures. However, recent indicate that NHS patients are now being given a direct choice of where to obtain their clinical procedures: either private hospitals (with weeks to wait) or NHS hospitals with months or even years to wait. This choice decision is now taken at the (ICB) level, much lower down the managerial hierarchy than previously and apparently without regard to budgetary limits and fair distribution of funds.

Whilst this sounds like good news for patients, the cost differential between private and NHS is huge, and some ICBs have already spent their annual budget as a result of this new relaxation. The NHS patients budget—worth about £200 billion (around $250 billion) per year and funded by tax monies and National Insurance contributions—is now unprotected and vulnerable to profiteering by private corporations. Ultimately, the public will pay the price out of their own pockets via additional taxation and private medical insurance premiums. Speed of provision is likely to improve for those who can access it. However, the new system does that private clinical provision itself will be superior to NHS provision, nor does it guarantee that affluent patients or those with private medical insurance will not be given preferential treatment. 

The Tories have more or less that the high likelihood of electoral defeat in 2024, their long-term rundown of the NHS, their drawn-out reluctance to reach a negotiated pay and conditions settlement with exasperated NHS staff, and an accelerated policy push for private healthcare have all merged into what some argue is a deliberate “scorched earth” mess to hand over to an incoming opposition government.

Case 2: Flagrant Attacks on the Judiciary, Civil Service, and Human Rights

The law is under attack by the radical right, which is trampling over the public interest and human rights. For example, in 2019 the Conservative government tried to prorogue (temporarily close) Parliament for five weeks to facilitate executive processes without scrutiny. The unanimously held that this action was unlawful, as it would have prevented Parliament from supervising the executive. Since then, the Conservative government has vowed to put a stop to what it regards as “judicial interference” in its governing activities.

Determined to push through its political agenda unhindered by judicial scrutiny, the Tories are proceeding in 2023 with legislation to (1) automatically and rapidly deport asylum seekers while denying their access to legal representation or appeal, contrary to international law and UN Convention (more specifically, to deport them —a destination with a highly dubious human rights record—if they cannot be returned rapidly to their country of origin or last known country), and (2) of the Supreme Court and the judiciary to intervene in this or other controversies. The Public Order Act 2023, for example, changes the fundamental right to to one of limited freedom, with police making preemptive arrests on suspicion of a protester’s intent.

In June 2023, the Parliamentary Privileges Committee (with a majority of Conservative MP members) found that former Prime Minister Boris Johnson on several occasions to Parliament—a cardinal sin—and to the Committee. He was disingenuous in his evidence to the Committee by denying that he had many times broken COVID social distancing rules: the so-called Partygate Scandal. The report was scathing in its conclusions. Johnson, adopting a blusteringly Trump-like response, made wild and derogatory allegations about the Committee and individual members, making himself look more like a spoiled, self-absorbed brat than a former prime minister.

The parliamentary on the report resulted in a huge majority in favor of its acceptance (354 to 7), with House Leader the only Cabinet minister attending. With dignity and clarity, she clearly why the report should be accepted. Many now hope that Johnson’s humiliation may signal an end to his style-over-substance brand of politics in Britain. After years of his buffoonery, charm and dishonesty, the public wants grown-ups as political leaders.

The Cabinet also sought to block certain judicial by Baroness Heather Carol Hallett, a retired Court of Appeal judge. Hallett serves as the chair of the Cabinet’s own official Partygate inquiry into Johnson’s possibly unlawful social distancing conduct and subsequent . In addition, the government has sought to impose a Cabinet override on the House of Lords (the upper chamber of Parliament) to prevent objections and protective modifications to its illegal Migration Bill. Subjugation of and contempt for the judiciary, as well as Parliament, has become a cause célèbre for this radical-right regime.

Since 2019, Tory government ministers and MPs have frequently attacked their own civil servants, variously accusing them of disloyalty, laziness and obstruction both of government policies and of the ministers’ determination to reform the Civil Service. For example, Jacob Rees-Mogg, the former Cabinet Office Minister and unashamed champion of the radical right, referred to Foreign Office officials as “” who “prefer to idle away their hours.” Justice Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab also blamed his enforced resignation for bullying on an alleged by civil servants.

Conservative anger has been directed at what ministers have called “,” whereby they assert that senior civil servants have closed ranks to obstruct the government’s agenda, even accusing them of supporting political opposition parties. What this government wants is to make civil servants its executive subordinates, to be its absolute obedient drones, rather than fulfill their traditional role as “honest brokers” and “devil’s advocates” trying to ensure that draft policies and legislation are lawful, feasible and as low-risk as possible, while steering ministers safely towards implementing their policies.

Unlike in some other countries, British civil servants are not political appointees. They are state employees whose work and posts normally transcend each change of political administration and thereby help to ensure governmental continuity and stability. Their overriding allegiance is to the Crown (i.e., the constitutional head of state) and not to any particular political administration; they are to remain politically neutral in their work for ministers of the day. Authoritarian Tories refuse to acknowledge this inconvenient subtlety and seem determined to remove it permanently.

Case 3: Cancelling of Inconvenient Expert Opinion

The Conservative government’s Cabinet Office has been accused of operating a political blacklist introduced in 2022 against acknowledged subject experts whom the Cabinet Office believes do not share the government’s views.

The government is now vetting such specialists by, among other things, screening their posts over the past 3-5 years on Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn for “criticism of government officials or policy.” Such selective politicization and removal of inconvenient expert information and advice may result in the failure of decision-makers failing to improve their work. As a Times leader comment noted, these rules “are scandalously vague and flimsy” and “were never debated in Parliament nor publicly announced.”

The former Cabinet Office Minister Jacob Rees-Mogg is credited with introducing the new rules, with the Times headlined “Rees-Mogg’s Blacklist is Positively Soviet.” Others liken it to the US McCarthyist political blacklists of the late 1940s and 1950s: “Are you, or have you ever been, disrespectful to British Conservative Party policy or personnel?”

Case 4: National Impoverishment Caused by Tory Recklessness

Demands for pay raises in the UK public sector have risen on an unprecedented scale since 2022, with workers inflamed by domestic rising by 200% or more and double-digit annual percentage increases. Some basic foodstuff prices too have more than doubled since early 2022.

NHS doctors are fighting for a 30-35% increase just to neutralize the claimed fall in their salary value over the past decade. Nurses, ambulance drivers and ancillary staff, schoolteachers, and many other sectors have similarly high wage demands with similar justifications. The Royal College of Nursing, the ����’s largest nursing union, is on strike for the first time in its 100-year history. Large-scale strikes have escalated in the face of the government’s various offers typically capped at some 5-7%.

Government ministers are accused of demanding that public sector workers should, in effect, personally subsidize government coffers, and learn to budget and manage their meager personal finances better. One radical-right Tory MP (formerly of the Labour Party!) and Deputy Party Chairman, Lee Anderson, has even at the reality of significant numbers of public sector workers now reliant on food banks and charities and suggested that they could easily feed themselves on 30p (or 38¢) per day! Even some armed forces personnel are using food banks.

Another ERG luminary, , the shortest-lived British Prime Minister in history (44 days in 2022), disgraced and forced to resign by her catastrophic “growth by corporate tax cuts” policy that nearly collapsed the British pound, believes that poor people would somehow benefit quickly from the “trickle-down effect” of corporate tax cuts. Neither she nor her successor Rishi Sunak has ever publicly acknowledged that her ignorance of basic national economics and her ideologically driven certitudes recklessly damaged the immediate and long-term wealth and prosperity of the entire population. Emergency alone are estimated to have cost taxpayers over £30 billion ($38 billion).

Reckless endangerment, resulting from ignorance, incompetence, self-interest above national interest, and breathtakingly naïve ideological certitudes, has been the overriding hallmark of the past 13 years of Conservative rule.

A Collapse of Moral Standards in Public Life

There has been widespread evasion by Tory MPs and ministers of ethical standards in public life, established as a formal code by the Committee in 2001. The current government has been beset by a culture of sleaze similar to that which engulfed the Tory government in the 1990s, when the term “Tories-and-sleaze” became a national catchphrase. The following examples illustrate the breadth of the scandals since 2019 alone: 

— , former Secretary of State for Northern
Ireland: improper paid lobbying of government on behalf of a
food company; forced to resign).

— Nadhim Zahawi, former Conservative Party Chairman: evasion of
millions of pounds in tax liabilities; forced to resign
chairmanship and from government.

— Baroness Mone, Conservative Peer: alleged receipt into
offshore accounts of £29 million ($37 million) in bribes for
facilitating a contract for major COVID-related supplies with
commercial supplier PPE Medpro; forced to suspend herself
from House of Lords; under investigation by National Crime
Agency.

— Boris Johnson, former Prime Minister: multiple scandals e.g., (1) an
£800,000 ($1 million) loan guarantee for himself while Prime
Minister, facilitated by Richard Sharp, shortly before Johnson
recommended him for the BBC Chairman post (Sharp failed to
declare to the BBC a conflict of interest and resigned his BBC
chairmanship); (2) controversy over the scale of costs for internal
redecoration of the 10 Downing Street prime ministerial
residence and the source of funds to pay for it; (3) the Partygate
scandal involving multiple staff parties hosted or attended by
Johnson at Downing Street contrary to strict Covid protection
rules, and then whether he lied to or misled Parliament about
this.

— Scott Benton: accused of paid lobbying of ministers on behalf of
the gambling industry and leaking confidential information.

Other Tory MPs have been accused of sexual harassment, sexual assault or rape, including some convictions and jail sentences: , , Andrew Griffiths, and David Warburton, and .

A catalog of bullying cases has included Tory ministers (e.g., , ) mistreating civil servants, as confirmed by independent inquiries and forced resignations. Such “right of abuse” prerogatives are positively feudal. This bullying trait even extended to particular ministerial advisers, most notably Dominic Cummings, who was appointed by Prime Minister Boris Johnson as his Chief of Staff. The rise of Cummings is profiled by . describes Cummings as someone who has undoubted intellectual skills but also presents as “a hyper-authoritarian, driven, fixated, intellectual narcissist … a great believer in himself, his ideas, and his self-certified superior intelligence and … very disparaging of those he considers intellectual weaklings or who might attenuate or interfere with his mission.” It should be noted that Cummings was neither an elected MP nor a civil service employee, but rather a contracted consultant. Nevertheless, Cummings adopted a forceful, and by all accounts overbearing and contemptuous, stance towards Cabinet Office staffers, civil servants in ministries and, indeed, MPs and even Cabinet ministers. 

Cummings clearly held many in terrorem and apparently was not averse to physical violence, such as the in 1999 on a former of the Confederation of British Industry. As the leading adviser to Prime Minister Johnson, he created a major scandal by appearing to flagrantly ignore Covid protection rules that applied to every citizen and to which he himself contributed as Cabinet adviser. The scandal went from bad to worse as Cummings not only refused to apologize but in effect that he had been a paragon of virtue and had done nothing wrong. The court of British public opinion rejected such obvious sophistry. The damage to public trust and confidence was evident via a huge slump for the Conservatives in the polls. Eventually, after further misconduct, Johnson decided that Cummings .

Boris “BoJo” Johnson, who took over as Prime Minister in 2019, was very much a political opportunist rather than a radical-right zealot. Reliant on , photo-op flim-flam and the chutzpah that charmed many people, policy and strategy were never Johnson’s strong points. So, he left to Cummings such matters as “Get Brexit Done,” radical subjugation of the civil service and removal of independent judicial scrutiny of government. To many, it appeared as if Cummings was PM and Johnson was his lapdog.

Cummings did not go quietly in November 2020. True to form, he quickly launched into an ongoing against Johnson via online blogs and social media. Cummings’ powerful position is gone, but he remains an isolated and embittered radical-right fanatic.

Radical-Right Fellow Travellers

Some on the radical right exist within the Conservative Party (e.g., the ERG), while others operate externally in a variety of more hard-line nationalist parties and far-right entities, e.g., Reform UK, Reclaim, Britain First, Patriotic Alternative, and Far Right For Britain. Some radical-right supporters and agitators transcend the distinction between the Conservative Party and far-right nationalist organizations. The (NC) organization, for example, enjoys vocal support from Conservative Party Cabinet Members and MPs, particularly ERG members, as well as supporters of Reform UK and other parties. NC is in revolt against what it regards as a weak Conservative government, its neo-liberal economic and global markets policies, its “soft” immigration policies, and other “liberal” social policies. Three current or former Cabinet Ministers (Braverman, Gove and Rees-Mogg) spoke at the NC’s two-day conference in May 2023.

The NC identifies closely with the US-based , which strongly backs the Republican Party and big business. This foundation exudes authoritarian nationalism, right-wing moralizing certitudes and white Christian supremacy. Its high-profile radical- and far-right nationalist supporters include Giorgia Meloni, the Italian premier, Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian premier, and Tucker Carlson, the former Fox News presenter—all of whom have attained notoriety for their harsh and uncompromising “illiberal democracy” comments. 

A number of senior Tories (e.g., MPs Lee Anderson, Priti Patel, Jacob Rees-Mogg, and Marco Longhi) have been variously linked to such far-right organizations as the anti-Islam group UK. Other Tory MPs also alleged to have far-right sympathies Bob Blackman, Nadine Dorries, and . 

The fanatical Lee Anderson, MP, has an abrasive and insulting style, e.g., his conduct towards the Metropolitan Police Commissioner in a parliamentary select committee , and his dismissive let-them-eat-cake rhetoric towards impoverished public sector workers. Home Secretary with her florid rhetoric has led the anti-immigrant, anti-asylum, anti-woke “culture war.” There is some irony in the fact that her jibes about “woke political correctness” are themselves a truth-is-what-we-say-it-is expression of political correctness. By constantly blaming all Britain’s problems on a so-called woke culture (i.e., seemingly anyone who dares disagree with her radical ideas and policies), she is in effect blaming the 56.4% of the electorate who did not vote Tory at the last General Election. Sneering and jeering at voters is a bold tactic indeed!

Populist anxieties about thousands of asylum seekers entering the UK by boat have led to such spine-chilling rhetoric as “let them drown” or “send them to Rwanda”—shades of the infamous plan, perhaps? Few would disagree that there is indeed a control problem and that organized human trafficking criminals continue to challenge and thwart UK authorities’ efforts to stop them. However, the “solution” proposed by and her predecessor Home Secretary, Priti Patel, to the problem of cross-Channel small-boat asylum seekers is : treating them as if they were a priori criminals, locking them up without trial or access to lawyers or the courts, and then swiftly deporting them to Rwanda in Central Africa with no right of appeal and a permanent UK expulsion order against them. These two Home Secretaries have proclaimed loudly that such treatment is inherently humane and compassionate, and that it is compliant with international law and the UN Convention on asylum, despite the bluntly challenging that assertion.

Their grinning faces and glinting eyes when advocating the “Rwanda solution” have betrayed a lack of empathy or remorse and an unmistakable glee, almost as if they actually enjoy inflicting as much harm and distress as possible on unfortunate souls. Understandably, puzzled observers wonder if these particular ministers may be suffering from some form of pathological personality disorder.

Mass Political Brainwashing via Internet and Social Media

Some social media outlets have been criticized as being detrimental to democracy.  According to , “The world of social media is more conducive to extreme, emotionally charged, and divisive types of content than it is to calm, principled considerations of competing or complex narratives.”  points to failures of the  that have allowed outrage to be disguised as news, contributed to citizen apathy in confronting falsehoods and engendered further distrust in democratic institutions.

However, as  notes, social media presents the opportunity to inform more people, amplify voices and allow for an array of diverse voices to speak. Social media has allowed vast new sectors of society, especially young people, to be engaged politically.

Politicians of all persuasions are using social media, whether via written statements or, more commonly, direct-to-camera, talking-heads or controlled interviews. These are infrequently shared by other outlets; while they address a choir of faithful supporters and an echo chamber of fellow travelers, such content and messages avoid refutation by others. Among UK parties, the Conservative Party has become relatively expert in this kind of use of social media to garner electoral support.

All such attempts at mass indoctrination and manipulation, in essence, are merely following the acknowledged father of such principles, the Nazi propaganda minister . His strategy was to propagate false reality and false assertions by engaging the mass German public unwittingly in the process via radio, cinema, newspapers, public meetings, rallies and cultural organizations. He was enthusiastic about the deliberate use of lies for political objectives. The end-justifies-the-means character of the past few years of Tory government is eerily similar. Goebbels would probably have been ecstatic about the way these latter-day disciples put the latest technology to use. Regrettably, opposition parties, notably Labour, are also rapidly moving towards using similar methods.

The Damage is Ongoing

The latest Corruption Perceptions International Index shows that the UK fell to its lowest-ever position in 2022. The report observes that this sharp fall reflects a recent decline in standards in government and insufficient controls on the abuse of public office.

With its sleaze and corruption and its reckless endangerment of the economy and healthcare, the extant radical Conservative government has imposed an increasingly harsh, intolerant and authoritarian regime on the population and on democratic institutions such as the independent judiciary. Unchecked, such conduct is bound to accelerate. Liberal democracy, already becoming illiberal, will drift into authoritarian diktat. Government propaganda and public brainwashing, seeking to normalize its dreadful abuses, grow apace.

The strident dogma and stealthy maneuverings of Conservative leaders, and the overall radical-right caucus demanding permanent radical-right governance, have already laid the groundwork for what would effectively be a coup establishing an elective dictatorship. The plot appears to be underway, whether the Conservative government and party remain intact and under radical-right domination or the party is rent asunder by infighting and joins the motley bunch of radical- and far-right fringe parties that are already vying for supremacy.

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post Elective Dictatorship: The Plot by Britain’s Radical Conservatives appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Birth or Merit?

Royalty is generally regarded as anathema to the meritocratic, democratic age. How can we possibly accept people being born to rule? It flies in the face of all we are taught to believe.

If that’s true, then the only way the queen can have been so great in her role as a born ruler is by dint of her being a truly wonderful person, on an individual, human level, in spite of the unsavory task of hereditary rule.

There are two other choices: our rulers either rule us due to corruption or merit. Depending on whether we live in an autocracy, a weak democracy or a strong one, the sliding scale between corruption and merit will be different.

Queen Elizabeth’s United Kingdom is generally regarded as more meritocratic than corrupt. By that rationale, our politicians rule us because they are better than us through merit.

The trouble is, meritocracy is hard to swallow. When you ask an individual: do you think a political leader is ruling you because they are better than anyone else, you soon hear arguments about the innate corruption of the system.

The Queen’s (or King’s) Magic

Hereditary rule removes the notion of someone having more merit than someone else, so problematic to our tastes. In doing so, it ironically allows monarchy a backdoor into the meritocratic, democratic age.

Queen Elizaebth II was not the queen through merit. She was just born to it. That makes her no better than anyone else at being a queen – if you were born to it. This notion puts people at their ease.

Sure, the whole edifice of royalty is deeply unedifying to the modern mind. But if in our hearts we don’t truly believe the utopia of meritocracy can exist, then monarchy becomes a fallback against worse corruption.

And so most people become happy with the queen, or indeed, the king.

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

The post Why Royalty Still Works in the UK and Elsewhere appeared first on 51�Թ�.

It will not necessarily resolve the crisis in the Good Friday Agreement quickly though. It is not certain that the Northern Ireland Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly will be restored. The split in the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) on the protocol is not healed. There is still a border in the Irish Sea.

For the DUP, taking part in the Executive still means serving in a body in which a Sinn Fein politician will be “First” Minister. In reality, of course, the Deputy First Minister, presumably a DUP member, would have exactly equal power to the First Minister. Yet appearances matter and the DUP does not want to be seen to have lower status.

Perfection should not be the enemy of the possible

The situation in Northern Ireland might not be ideal but we need to keep a sense of proportion. Although the Good Friday Agreement is 20 years old, it was only fully operational half the time. When it was operational, the Executive did not really operate on a basis of full collective responsibility, as illustrated in the “” inquiry.

Neither the North/South nor East/West institutions of the Agreement operated at anything near their full potential. Yet the Agreement did provide a pretext in 1998 for paramilitaries to end their violence, which they already knew was getting them nowhere. In that contextual sense, it has brought us peace. But it is hard to say that there has been significant political or cultural reconciliation between the communities because of the Agreement. Arguably the communities are further apart.

The two novelties in the Windsor Framework are the “Stormont Brake”, and the provision of a Green Lane for goods destined to stay in Northern Ireland. The brake has got the most attention. It is not a veto. It is a mechanism whereby 30 members of legislative assembly (MLAs) can raise a red flag about a new or amended EU law that is to apply in Northern Ireland, and force an examination of it.

Given the negative perceptions of the EU in Ulster Unionist circles, there are worries that this mechanism could be triggered capriciously, as a partisan lever, rather than for practical reasons. The Windsor Framework says the brake is only to be used as a “last resort,” and where there is a risk of “significant or lasting damage.”

These terms are open to varying interpretations, especially if there is a trust deficit between some MLAs and the EU. It may be that, after a long delay, specific cases, in which the brake has been pulled, will go to international arbitrators, who will then tell us exactly what these terms mean in practice. Meanwhile a lot of time will have been lost and business disrupted.

EU laws in the UK

The UK is currently going through a process of deciding which EU laws it will continue to apply and which it will “restate, revoke or replace.” Nearly 3,800 pieces of EU sourced regulation will have to be examined and a decision made on whether to restate, revoke or amend them. Most of this work will take place behind closed doors, and at breakneck speed, because the whole process is supposed to be complete by the end of this year.

The risk of catastrophic regulatory mistakes is enormous. The area of biggest concern is food safety.  We all know how food scares can do lasting reputational damage to a country. I hope that the civil service in the UK is sufficiently well staffed to do the job well. 

The worry on this side of the border is that substandard ingredients might enter Northern Ireland, via the newly liberalized Green Lane, and then find their way into final products, exported from here to continental Europe or further afield. This would be especially alarming if food products are involved. The combination of a lightly regulated Green Lane, with no controls at all on our land border with the UK, means that the risk is not negligible.

It is true that only goods that meet EU standards will be allowed to enter the EU tariff-free under the EU-UK Trade Agreement, and the tariffs can be collected at any time. But once something that fails to meet EU standards gets into the supply chain, the damage is done. Hence, detection will be key. One hopes that technologies and artificial intelligence can be used to help in this work. Thus, Ireland will need to invest heavily in detection..

All in all, the Windsor Framework is a good day’s work. It happened because there was mutual respect between British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and his EU counterparts. Such respect did not exist between the EU and recent previous prime ministers. There are valuable lessons to be learned from this: mutual respect matters in international relations.

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

The post The EU-UK Windsor Framework Is the Right Step Forward appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Twenty years later, Prime Minister has declared that stopping migrants from arriving on UK shores in small boats is a “” for his administration. The new “” vows to immediately detain and deport these immigrants, who primarily journey from Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, and Albania. If the British Parliament determines the nations from which the asylum seekers are fleeing to be “unsafe,” the deportees will be sent to Rwanda instead. 

Since my arrival on English soil, I have gone through the British educational system and have earned a BA in history, an MA in International Relations, and an MA in Creative Writing. I am currently a PhD student. Alongside my education, my career as a poet and writer has also thrived over the years. 

That said, I am no rare exception to the plight of immigrants. I know many who arrived around the same time as I did who have since become doctors, engineers, businessmen and lecturers. They did not all come to America to earn money and then flee back to their countries. Immigrants contribute to society. 

Are there bad apples among the immigrant populations? Of course. Humans are not perfect, and neither is life. When contemplating a law to arrest newcomers by boat, Sunak forgot that these people are humans, despite the baggage they might bring along with them. While these immigrants might not fit Sunak’s definition of “good people”, they will undoubtedly contribute to the beautiful concept of in one way or another. Unfortunately, these cultural contributions seem to be overlooked by the current conservative government in the UK. 

Immigrant Contributions to Great Britain 

Britain has a long history of receiving refugees and immigrants who are seeking asylum. Historically, immigrants have contributed not only to British society, but to humanity at large. Luminaries like the German philosopher and prolific writer were immigrants. The love poet of the Arab world, , immigrated from Syria to London in 1966. 

In addition to their contributions to the literary world, immigrants have made waves in the art community as well. , a world-renowned Jewish painter who fled Nazi Germany during World War II, is considered to be one of the world’s greatest living artists. , the British artist who pioneered modern-day sculpting techniques, was the son of Polish-Jewish refugees.  , an acclaimed expressionist painter, was a German-Jewish refugee.  is an illustrious London-based installation artist who was also once a Palestinian-Lebanese refugee. 

Immigrants have also helped to define British politics. , former member of the British Parliament, was born to German refugees. , also a Parliament member, is the son of Belgian and Jewish refugees. His brother,  , was the former leader of the Labour Party.  fled Nazi Germany in 1938 and became Chief rabbi of Great Britain in 1967.  , the first Governor of the Bank of England, was the grandson of French Huguenot refugees. All of these distinguished figures once arrived in the UK as asylum seekers, bringing their plethora of histories and experiences with them. 

I could fill ten pages with descriptions of influential refugees and still have more to highlight. In light of Sunak’s proposed immigration policies, the fact that Britain was once a trailblazer in crafting human rights laws might now seem ironic. Even more ironic is the fact that Sunak himself is an immigrant, born to African Hindus of Indian Punjabi descent. 

Poisoning the Immigrant Narrative 

Despite immigrants’ undeniable contributions to society, right-wing politicians continue to illustrate their migration to Britain as an urgent crisis which must be met with harsh legislation. Proponents of the bill often reference the fact that the total number of refugees arriving by sea has by 60% from 2021 to 2022. 

While this is certainly true, the reality is that these refugees represent only a fraction of the total number of asylum seekers – most of whom are Ukrainians fleeing the war against Russia. In 2022, approximately 45,800 refugees arrived illegally via the English Channel, and in the same time frame, nearly 245,700 Ukrainians were granted asylum using the two provided specifically for Ukrainian war refugees.

A large portion of the refugees arriving by boat in 2022 were Albanians (28%) attempting to escape poverty and modern slavery, and Afghans (20%) fleeing harsh Taliban rule. According to the Human Rights Watch, approximately 90% of Afghanistan’s population currently faces , in addition to the violence and fear perpetuated by the Taliban. 

In 2022, 0% of the Albanian refugees claiming asylum were granted refugee status, while 97% of the Afghans who applied were granted asylum after review of their applications. However, if the Illegal Migration Bill goes into effect, all future refugees arriving by boat will be denied asylum. Many critics of the bill point out that the new legislation unfairly against refugees of color at the same time that Parliament is making unprecedented accommodations for white Ukrainian refugees. Sunak that the new provisions are “tough, but necessary and fair.”

Just last week, broke out after BBC sportscaster Garry Lineker posted a tweet which openly condemned the Illegal Migration Bill. Lineker called the new policy “immeasurably cruel,” as it targets the most vulnerable and desperate of asylum seekers. Following his remarks, Lineker was suspended from the BBC on March 10, before being reinstated only days later. 

Critics, many of them right-wing politicians, were outraged by Lineker’s lack of impartiality as a broadcaster working under a taxpayer-funded salary. , British Home Secretary and primary sponsor behind the controversial bill, responded to Lineker’s tweet with her own , calling his remarks “unacceptable” and dismissive of the “legitimate concerns” surrounding illegal migration. 

Braverman has received widespread accusations of hypocrisy since the introduction of the Illegal Migration Bill, as her own parents immigrated to England from Kenya and Mauritius in the 1960s. Despite these criticisms, Braverman maintains her on immigration, stating that, “It is perfectly respectable for a child of immigrants like me to say that I’m deeply grateful to live here, [and that] immigration has been overwhelmingly good for the United Kingdom, but we’ve had too much of it in recent years.” 

Even more concerning is the fact that Braverman openly admits that the Illegal Migration Bill may not be in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights. In recent years, Braverman has for the UK to leave the Convention altogether, claiming that the organization is “politicized,” “interventionist,” and often fails to follow due process. However, on Tuesday, Braverman that the deportation of these refugees will not apply to “unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.” 

America is another example of hypocrisy when it comes to immigration policy-making. A country built from the ground up by immigrants, the US now has the largest economy in the world, and is often nicknamed “the land of the free.” However, an anti-immigrant narrative has spread across the nation in recent years, as right-wing conservatives (namely, former president Donald Trump) demand for the construction of a border wall to stop Mexican immigrants from crossing over. The UK and its Western counterpart share similar anti-immigration sentiments: that illegal immigrants are burdens to our economies and healthcare systems, that they steal jobs from hard-working citizens, and that they contribute very little to society as a whole.

While it is certainly easier said than done, I believe there should be no borders, and that human movements should be free. Creating a “passport” is an artificial imagination—the same as borders. The first humans did not know they lived in England, Syria, China, or Afghanistan. They did not call these territories by the names we attribute to them now. They were free to move anywhere. 

No matter how many laws and locks Parliament enforces, it will not stop people from seeking safety. There is no law, system, or power that will stop people from coming here, because they are escaping something more daunting than a law written on paper. They are escaping what threatens the most precious thing they have: life itself. 

Britain’s beauty is derived from its multiculturalism. Prior to my arrival here, I dreamed of the cultural freedom that I now enjoy every day. I hope that one day we can redeem the negative narratives which plague immigrants, and mitigate the anxieties surrounding their arrival in the UK. I hope that one day, empathy will preside over fear. 

[ edited this piece.]

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

The post Illegal Invasion: Britain’s Ruthless New Policy for Refugees appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Irish Republican Brotherhood (IRB), which later became the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and the UK had agreed to a truce in July 1921, which was in effect in June 1922. A constitution for the Irish Free State, based on the Anglo-Irish Treaty of December 1921, agreed between Irish and British delegations, including Michael Collins and David Lloyd George, had been ratified on June 16, 1922, a week before the assassination of Henry Wilson. 

Revered in England, Disliked in Ireland

People in Ireland disliked Wilson, but people in England revered him. He was considered a key figure in the allied military strategy, credited with saving France in World War I.

Wilson was born and raised on a large farm in Currygrane near Ballinalee in County Longford. His family had come to Longford from Ulster in an earlier generation, and Wilson felt like an Ulster man more than a Longford man. 

The men who killed Henry Wilson were Reginald Dunne and Joseph O’Sullivan. They were native-born Londoners of Irish ancestry and active members of the IRB. In London, they grew up in Irish culture.

Theories Surrounding the Assassination 

At the time of the assassination, the IRB’s supreme commander was Michael Collins, president of the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State. Members of the IRA had opposed the Anglo-Irish Treaty and the provisional government and occupied the Four Courts in Dublin and other strong points around the country. 

The occupation was an unsustainable situation for the new state from a law-and-order point of view. When news of the assassination broke, British government circles assumed the anti-treaty forces ordered it. McGreevy dismisses this theory. 

Another theory suggests the IRB had a standing order to assassinate Wilson, which was not withdrawn despite the truce and the treaty. McGreevy does not believe this theory either. He says O’Sullivan and Dunne were scrupulous followers of military discipline who would not have acted on a freelance basis without clear, current orders.

The author concludes Collins authorized the assassination as commander of the IRB. Why might Collins have issued such an order? There is no written evidence, as the IRB was a secretive society and left no paper trails.

Involvement in Northern Ireland Politics

Wilson, who had retired from the Army, had become a military adviser to the Northern Ireland (NI) Government. He had become a Unionist MP. 

NI security forces had colluded in attacks on Catholics. Wilson was not involved in Northern Ireland for much of the period. His political opinions were well-known and bigoted. In 1914, as a serving soldier, he had conspired with the Tory opposition to block Home rule.

Collins’ top role in the IRB is hard to reconcile with his presidency of the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State. But this account is one aspect of this multilayered story. The events do not seem to justify authorizing an assassination during a truce in 1922 with a peace treaty being ratified.

McGreevy gives a sympathetic account of the Wilson, Dunne, and O’Sullivan families and their changing fortunes. He explains the shifting politics of the time and the links between the Wilson family and their Longford neighbor, General Seán Mac Eoin, “The Blacksmith of Ballinalee.” Reading this book, I am reinforced in my view that once the gun is introduced into Irish politics, it is difficult to get it out again.

[ edited this article.]

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

The post What You Need to Know About the Assassination of Sir Henry Wilson appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Sunak’s rise and the number of minority candidates who ran for the top job in the previous party leadership race demonstrate a key fact: the Tories are brimming with ethnic diversity. Six of the original eleven candidates, Kemi Badenoch, Suella Braverman, Rehman Chishti, Sajid Javid, Rishi Sunak, and Nadhim Zawahi, come from ethnic minorities. Such a diverse group of contestants was no fluke. It was the result of targeted approaches, particularly toward South Asians in the UK, and a willingness to propel ethnic minority MPs into ministerial offices.

The Christian Democratic Union (CDU), the center-right party of Germany, does not represent ethnic minorities in the same way as the Tories. The Conservative Party could potentially serve as a model for the CDU.

Merkel’s Cabinets – Ethnic Diversity Missing

A comparison of Boris Johnson’s and Angela Merkel’s cabinets highlights the ethnic diversity gap between the Tories and the CDU. Boris Johnson’s first cabinet, from July to November 2019, was already ethnically more diverse than that of his predecessors. In Johnson’s second and last cabinet, about of cabinet ministers had an ethnic minority background. The percentage of ethnic minorities in the UK is only , making this overrepresentation remarkable.

Merkel’s four cabinets during her 16-year tenure from 2005 to 2021 reveal a contrasting picture. Under Merkel, not a single CDU cabinet minister came from an ethnic minority background. This is striking because ethnic minorities comprise of Germany’s population. While of Tory MPs come from ethnic minorities, the figure is only for the CDU.

Neglecting German Turks for Too Long

The rise of ethnic minorities in the Conservative Party has roots in the . The Tories identified the South Asian community as a target group. Margaret Thatcher’s government was particularly successful in winning over prosperous East African Indians. Her party slowly detached itself from its xenophobic legacy, epitomized most starkly by Enoch Powell’s speech.

On the other hand, the CDU failed to make such an appeal to the German Turks, the largest ethnic minority comprising more than 1.2 million voters.  In fact, in 1982, Helmut Kohl’s government tried to lure the immigrant Turks from the 1960s to return to their homeland with an incentive of a return payment. In  confidential conversations with none other than Margaret Thatcher, Kohl communicated his ultimately unexecuted intention to reduce “Turks in Germany […] by 50% […] It would be impossible for Germany to assimilate the Turks in their present numbers […] Turks come from a very distinctive culture and would not be easily integrated.”

Furthermore, in the 1990s, Kohl’s so-called “ compromise” restricted the possibility of invoking the fundamental right of asylum. Consequently, the CDU lost trust among the German Turks. Added to that, the CDU conducted election campaigns ignoring the German Turks by opposing their demand for dual citizenship.The “C” that stands for Christian in the party name also had a deterrent effect on  many Turks. Meanwhile, some conservative values of German Turks are close to those of the CDU. As migration researcher, Haci-Halil Uslucan told the newspaper, : “If the CDU does not emphasize the “C” too strongly, it is very close in terms of its attitude to a large part of the population of Turkish origin.“

The CDU eventually recognized German Turks as potential voters and managed to loosen the traditional electoral grip of the Social Democrats (SPD) on German Turks in its favor for the last two federal elections. The SPD’s failure to enforce dual citizenship while in power and the belated expulsion of Thilo Sarrazin, a party member and author who published books with Islamophobic undertones, alienated German Turks from the SPD.

Besides the inadequacies of the SPD, Merkel’s well appreciated refugee policy, which allowed 890,000 asylum seekers to enter Germany in 2015, drew German Turks to the CDU. “I  also the Chancellor of German Turks.”, canvassed Merkel in 2016, reinforcing her commitment to fortify Germany as an immigration society.

No Political Will at the Highest Levels of Power

Merkel’s already belated commitment further fueled the lack of representation of federal cabinet ministers from ethnic minority backgrounds since no further action was taken. 

The CDU has hardly shown any interest in awarding the highest party and executive offices to MPs from ethnic minority backgrounds. Before, during and after Merkel’s tenure, hardly any MP’s from ethnic minority backgrounds were awarded the highest party and executive offices from high-powered intra-party figures of the CDU. 

In contrast, the Tories underpinned their courtship of South Asians through political action at the highest levels of power. In 2015, former prime minister David Cameron resolutely , “The first black or Asian prime minister will be a conservative”. Under the slogan ““, he pledged to increase the proportion of parliamentary party members with an ethnic minority background by 2020. 

Boris Johnson built upon this vision with his ethnically diverse cabinets, though his underlying motives for these appointments to offices are open to debate. Johnson calls himself a “ melting pot” in light of his Turkish and Russian-Jewish family history and his second wife being of Indian origin. However, Priti Patel, Alok Sharma, and Rishi Sunak’s appointments to their ministerial posts could be viewed as rewards for their pro-Brexit stances. The same rationale can be applied to the appointments of Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch, and Kwasi Kwarteng into Truss’s “ right-wing cabinet for a generation”, all of whom also voted for Brexit.

In comparison, the CDU has a lack of similar influential political figures willing to promote ethnic minority representation in government offices. During her four terms, Merkel missed a vital opportunity to hire more personnel from ethnic minority backgrounds into the CDU/CSU’s Bundestag parliamentary groups. Instead of seizing this opportunity, she simply failed to concretise her lip service. 

Armin Laschet, Merkel’s direct successor as party leader, could have been a rare facilitator of change and spearheaded a more diverse government. He proved his credentials as the integration minister of Germany’s most populous state North Rhine-Westphalia, calling for more ethnic minority MPs in 2010. He also published a entitled “The Upstart Republic: Immigration as an Opportunity“ the year before, highlighting his pro-immigration stance. 

After he was elected North Rhine-Westphalia’s Minister-President, Laschet set an example by appointing a Turk, Serap Güler, as State Secretary for Integration in 2017. To this date, Güler is considered one of the few prominent German Turks in the CDU who could ascend to the federal party’s highest ranks in the years to come. In an interview with the Turkish newspaper Hürryiet during the Bundestag election campaign in 2021, Laschet displayed his determination to canvas German Turks.

When asked whether there would be a CDU minister with an ethnic minority background under his chancellorship, he replied, “We’ll  about the cabinet formation after the Bundestag elections. But in fact, [our Bundestag is] not really diverse […]. If a quarter of the population has an immigration biography, but in a parliamentary group, there are only one or two people, that is not representative. […] I would like to see more people with immigration history, including more people of Turkish origin […] in the Bundestag – and the federal government.” Yet, he was defeated by Olaf Scholz after a disastrous election campaign, handing over the party chair to Friedrich Merz after just a year. 

More Ethnic Minority Representation Under Merz?

The successful careers of Rishi Sunak, Kwasi Kwarteng, and Sajid Javid, among others within the party, should serve as a target position for the CDU. The Tories have been accused of mere symbolism as there has been a lack of substantive representation in terms of policies benefiting ethnic minorities. Despite this, the party has continued to recognize that ethnic minority representation within the cabinet has to reflect the ����’s realities of an immigration society and is paramount to winning new electoral majorities. 

The CDU still lags behind the Tories in representing minorities. They have been late in approaching ethnic minority target groups such as the German Turks. The belated avowals of CDU politicians of Germany as a society with a high number of immigrants and the lack of political  will to represent them have led to inadequate representation of minorities as MPs and ministers. It is doubtful if this representative deficit will be rectified under Merz, the present party leader and staunch conservative.
Despite promising to modernize and open up the party to new target groups, Merz has done the opposite. He countered his promise by advocating for more restrictive immigration policies and pronouncing the target of winning back voters from the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD). This does not bode well for ethnic diversity in the CDU and will ensure that the representative deficit continues.

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

The post Could a Rishi Sunak Rise to the Top in Germany? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Charles Flanagan was the Irish foreign minister at the time of the 2016 Brexit referendum. He reacted to the referendum result with commendable speed and thoroughness. Flanagan briefed his counterparts in all the 26 remaining EU states about Ireland’s concerns. In particular, he argued for keeping the border open between the two parts of the island — Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland — and preserving the former’s position as a full member of the EU Single Market. This laid the foundation for the consistent support Ireland has had for its position from all the EU institutions.

Ditching the Northern Ireland Protocol is unConservative and May Break the UK

READ MORE

If Flanagan emerges with credit, Keir Starmer does not. In her final days as prime minister, Theresa May tried to assemble a majority in the House of Commons for a deal that would have kept the entire UK in the EU Customs Union. This would have mitigated or removed the need for customs posts either at ports or land borders. To push this deal through, May needed the support of the opposition Labour Party. Collins observes that “Corbyn was relatively open to the deal, but Starmer, who was in theory strongly pro-EU, raised obstacles at every turn.”

This deal represented the last chance of a soft Brexit. For Starmer, defeating the Tories took a higher priority than preserving good international relations with the EU and Ireland. This episode does not bolster confidence in the potential Labour government in Westminster.

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

The post A Book on Brexit Shakes Confidence in the Labour Party appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In the first weeks of the war, the United States and NATO countries sent weapons to Ukraine to try to prevent Russia from quickly defeating Ukraine’s armed forces and conducting a US-style “regime change” in Kyiv. But since that goal was achieved, the only goals that President Zelenskyy and his Western allies have publicly proclaimed are to recover all of pre-2014 Ukraine and decisively defeat and weaken Russia. 

These are aspirational goals at best, which require sacrificing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Ukrainian lives, regardless of the outcome. Even worse, if they should come close to succeeding, they are likely to trigger a , making this the all-time epitome of a “no-win predicament.”

At the end of May, President Biden responded to probing about the contradictions in his Ukraine policy from The New York Times Editorial Board, that the United States was sending weapons so that Ukraine “can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

In Times of War History Goes Missing

READ MORE

But when Biden wrote that, Ukraine had no position at any negotiating table, thanks mainly to the conditions that Biden and NATO leaders attached to their support. In April, after Ukraine negotiated a 15-point peace plan for a , a Russian withdrawal and a peaceful future as a neutral country, the and refused to provide Ukraine with the security guarantees that were a critical part of the agreement. 

As now disgraced British prime minister Boris Johnson told President Zelenskyy in Kyiv on April 9th, the “collective West” was “in it for the long run,” meaning a long war against Russia, but wanted no part in any agreement between Ukraine and Russia. 

Undeclared goals for perennial war?

In May, Russian forces advanced through Donbas, forcing Zelenskyy to admit, by June 2nd, that Russia now 20% of Ukraine’s pre-2014 territory, leaving Ukraine in a weaker, not a stronger position.

Six months after Secretary Austin declared in April that the new goal of the war was to decisively defeat and, President Biden is rejecting calls for a new peace initiative. So the US and the UK had no reservations about intervening to kill peace talks in April. Now that they’ve sold President Zelenskyy on fighting an endless war, Biden insists that he has no say in the matter if Zelenskyy rejects peace negotiations. 

But it is axiomatic that wars end at the negotiating table, as Biden to The New York Times. The perennial thorny question for war leaders is “When to negotiate?” The problem is that, when your side seems to be winning, you have little incentive to stop fighting. But when you appear to be losing, there is no incentive to negotiate from a weak position either, as long as you believe that the tide of war will sooner or later shift in your favor and improve your position. That was the hope on which Johnson and Biden convinced Zelenskyy to stake his country’s future in April.

Now Ukraine has launched localized counter-offensives and recovered parts of its territory. Russia has responded by throwing hundreds of thousands of fresh troops into the war and starting to systematically demolish Ukraine’s electricity grid.

The escalating crisis exposes the weakness of Biden’s position. He is gambling with hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian lives – which he has no moral claim over – that Ukraine will somehow be in a stronger military position after a winter of war and power outages, with hundreds of thousands more Russian troops in the areas Russia controls. This is a bet on a much longer war, in which US taxpayers will shell out for thousands of tons of weapons and millions of Ukrainians will die, with no clear endgame short of nuclear war. 

Business Insider Makes the Case for Nuclear War

READ MORE

Thanks to the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the US mass media, most Americans have no inkling of the deceptive way that Biden and his bubble-headed British allies cornered Zelenskyy into a suicidal decision to abandon promising peace negotiations in favor of a long war that will destroy his country.

The horrors of the war, the contradictions in Western policy, the blowback on European energy supplies, the specter of famine stalking the Global South and the rising danger of nuclear war are provoking a worldwide chorus of voices urgently calling for peace in Ukraine.

The media’s complicit silence

If you’re on a media diet of the thin gruel that passes for news in America these days, you may not have heard the calls for peace from, or the leaders of speaking at the UN General Assembly in September, representing the majority of the world’s population.     

But there are also Americans calling for peace. From across the political spectrum, from retired military officers and diplomats to journalists and academics, there are “adults in the room” who recognize the dangerous contradictions of US policy on Ukraine. They are joining leaders from around the world in calling for diplomacy and peace.

served as the last US Ambassador to the Soviet Union, from 1987 to 1991, after a 35-year career as a Soviet specialist in the US Foreign Service. Matlock was at the embassy in Moscow during the Cuban missile crisis, where he translated critical messages between US President John Kennedy and Russian Premier Nikita Khrushchev.

On October 17, 2022, in an in Responsible Statecraft titled “Why the US must press for a ceasefire in Ukraine,” Ambassador Matlock wrote that as principal arms supplier to Ukraine and the sponsor of the most punitive sanctions on Russia, the United States “is obligated to help find a way out” of this crisis. The article concluded, “Until… the fighting stops, and serious negotiations get underway, the world is headed for an outcome where we all are losers.”

Another veteran US diplomat who has spoken out for diplomacy over Ukraine is Rose Gottemoeller, the Deputy Secretary General of NATO from 2016 to 2019 after she served as President Obama’s senior adviser on arms control, disarmament and nonproliferation. Gottemoeller recently in the Financial Times that she sees no military solution to the crisis in Ukraine, but that “discreet talks” could lead to the kind of “quiet bargain” that resolved the Cuban missile crisis 60 years ago.

Big Danger After Biden’s Broken Promise on Russia

READ MORE

On the military side, Admiral Mike Mullen was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 2007 to 2011. After President Biden chatted at a fundraising party about the war in Ukraine leading to nuclear “Armageddon,” ABC Mullen about the danger of nuclear war. “I think we need to back off that a little bit and do everything we possibly can to get to the table to resolve this thing,” Mullen replied. “It’s got to end, and usually there are negotiations associated with that. The sooner the better as far as I’m concerned.”

Economist Jeffrey Sachs was the director of the Earth Institute and now the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University. He has been a consistent voice for peace in Ukraine ever since the invasion. In a recent on September 26, titled “The Great Game in Ukraine is Spinning out of Control,” Sachs quoted President Kennedy in June 1963, uttering what Sachs called “the essential truth that can keep us alive today:”

“Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war,” said JFK. “To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy–or of a collective death-wish for the world.”

Sachs concluded, “It is urgent to return to the draft peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine of late March, based on the non-enlargement of NATO… The world’s very survival depends on prudence, diplomacy, and compromise by all sides.”

Even Henry Kissinger, whose own are well documented, has spoken out on the senselessness of current US policy. told the Wall Street Journal in August, “We are at the edge of war with Russia and China on issues which we partly created, without any concept of how this is going to end or what it’s supposed to lead to.”

The fiasco of the progressives’ withdrawn letter

In the US Congress, after every single Democrat voted for a virtual blank check for arming Ukraine in May, with no provision for peacemaking, Progressive Caucus leader Pramila Jayapal and 29 other progressive Democratic Representatives recently signed a to President Biden, urging him to “make vigorous diplomatic efforts in support of a negotiated settlement and ceasefire, engage in direct talks with Russia, explore prospects for a new European security arrangement acceptable to all parties that will allow for a sovereign and independent Ukraine, and, in coordination with our Ukrainian partners, seek a rapid end to the conflict and reiterate this goal as America’s chief priority.” 

Unfortunately, the backlash within their own party was so blistering that within 24 hours they the letter. Siding with calls for peace and diplomacy from all over the world is still not an idea whose time has come in the halls of power in Washington DC.

This is an extremely dangerous moment in history. Americans are waking up to the reality that this war threatens us with the existential danger of nuclear war, a danger most Americans thought we had survived once and for all at the end of the First Cold War. Even if we manage to avoid , the impact of a long, bloody war will destroy Ukraine and kill millions of Ukrainians, cause humanitarian catastrophes across the Global South, and trigger a long-lasting global economic crisis. 

That will relegate all humanity’s urgent priorities – from tackling the climate crisis to hunger, poverty and disease – to the for the foreseeable future.

There is an alternative. We can and must resolve this conflict through peaceful diplomacy and negotiation, to end the killing and destruction and let the people of Ukraine live in peace.

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

The post Chorus for Peace in Ukraine Sings Louder appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Hand-in-glove with UHC is the establishment of a National Health Service (NHS) charged with delivering it. There is no set template for an NHS and have developed different schemes, all with greater or lesser involvement of state or state-backed insurance schemes and patient contributions. In general, NHS systems have proven effective in their provision and very popular with patients. There is little evidence of patients being unable to obtain care owing to inability to pay or denial of insurance, since coverage is a statutory requirement. However, most countries continue to face NHS challenges arising from aging populations, increased demand, pandemic crises, staff shortages, and new and often expensive treatments. In some countries, especially the UK, such challenges have translated into chronic delays in treatment and long waiting lists, often running into years.

Universal Health Care versus Private Provision

Some countries have eschewed UHC, the most prominent being the US, which by far spends the most per capita on health care, some US$3.6 trillion in total in 2018 or US$11,172 per person. This represents at least 1.5 times that spent per capita by European countries. Despite such expenditure, timely treatments, full staffing, and the latest technology, the US only 22^nd in the global list of effective health care. There are many reasons for this discrepancy (e.g.; Dorn’s classic 2008 ), including a highly fragmented non-national system and differential standards, insurer disavowal of cover for certain conditions, and patient inability to pay premiums owing to poverty or unemployment. showed that some 28.1 million citizens had no health care insurance. Over the next three years, the figure remained relatively static and it was still 27.96m or 8.6% of the population.

Thus, it may appear that, ideologically speaking, there exist two directly opposed approaches to health care – UHC and private provision. While in UHC countries there has always been a degree of private health care, the standard expectation and culture is that “UHC rules.”  However, the pressures to accept greater private provision have grown inexorably, and especially in countries such as the UK that have elected radical-right governments continuously since 2010. Privatization of the NHS has always been an ultimate objective of the Conservative (Tory) Party since 2010. At the same time, Tory governments have deliberately masked and downplayed their intentions, owing to the population’s jealous ownership of “their” NHS and the risk of political suicide for any party openly advocating dismantling the NHS. Ironically, while the UK radical-right government has been keen to introduce a US-style private health care provision, in the US there have been for UHC as a means to counter the worst characteristics of a US system that perceive as broken.

Rather than seek to answer the question ‘which approach is best?’, this article presents a case study of one example of the tensions between the two competing ideologies. 

70+ Years of the ����’s National Health Service

The National Health Service Act 1946, which came into effect in July 1948, had as its the provision of health care universally available to all and free at the point of use. While 74 years later that principle remains the public mantra of all mainstream political parties in the UK, nevertheless Conservative governments since 2010 have initiated an accelerating drive to change  its fundamental structure, funding and delivery of health care. These changes are encapsulated in the new. Services ‘free at the point of use’, while still guaranteed, are now open to much greater private competition. 

Will this result in private fee-based provision, currently a lesser part of the existing two-tier health service provision, potentially overtaking free NHS delivery? This has already emerged in dentistry, for example, where so many dentists have quit NHS provision to go private that some localities no longer have a single NHS dentist. Will general practitioner (GP) practices follow the same pattern, or will they cater for both NHS and private patients but with an access and delivery bias towards private patients? Other high demand, low provision services, such as podiatry, physiotherapy and mental health, are under similar threat of a private practice bias.

Continuously increasing pressure on NHS finances and resources have provoked these changes that correlate with a variety of convergent causes. First is demographic changes, such as population increase and an increasing proportion of the elderly. The emergence of  many more effective but often expensive treatments has seen the rise of more demanding patient expectations in a society of ‘consumerist entitlement,’ fed on internet and social media information. Then there is a long-term trend that has produced a shortfall in medical staff and state funding And, of course, the Covid crisis has added to the woes of an NHS creaking at the seams. Long-term underfunding of the NHS has led to long waiting times, and created pressures for private care as a solution. NHS commissioners are now compelled to increase contracted provision and, under political direction, to choose private contractors.

Governments face the dilemma of maintaining and improving health care provision in line with medical advances and public demands, while finding ways to pay for it all. UK political parties and the health care professions concur that the ‘old model’ NHS is no longer fit for purpose. However, will the model of the new 2022 Act produce the promised ‘salvation’ the present government asserts? Or, will it degenerate into a “dog’s dinner:” a dysfunctional, systemic mess from which the only beneficiaries will be private doctors and surgeons, insurers, private corporations, their investors, and financially secure patients, while the mass of patients without adequate finances will be taken back to a primitive pre-NHS reality on a par with third-world health care?

A Climate of Amoral Calculation

Right-wing politicians in the UK reflexively insist on pushing for greater private funding and provision of services, arguing that a wholly publicly funded and run health service is bound to be cost-inefficient, top-heavy with administrators, unwieldy, and unresponsive to changing contexts and needs. Private health care providers, they argue, are much faster and more cost-efficient. Such providers, they assert, are entitled to be profitably paid for their services and, as respectable and ethical enterprises, they would never extract excessive profits or engage in any underhand or lazy practices to the detriment of patients. Unfortunately, in practice the evidence shows that all are not such paragons of virtue.

Examples are legion. The private sector – including many of the contractors to the NHS – has come in for considerable criticism. Especially egregious practices include the failure to address adequately and resolutely growing evidence over several years of mass clinical fraud, negligence and cover-up. The of Ian Paterson –  a surgeon jailed for 20 years, who for over 14 years falsely diagnosed healthy patients as having cancers requiring mastectomies –  resulted in “well over 1,000” unnecessary breast removals at two Spire private clinics and three NHS Hospitals. The in 2020 found that the managements of these hospitals had a “culture of avoidance and denial” and exercised willful blindness to mounting evidence and ‘whistleblower’ reports. It concluded that the private clinics had not demonstrated that they were yet capable of meeting the high standards required. It recommended a new more stringent regime for all such facilities.

Of course, this does not mean that all private health care provision is incompetent, poor value for money, fraudulent, or worse, damaging or dangerous for patients. Nor does it mean that the long-standing public/private partnership arrangement that characterizes the NHS cannot and should not continue both in principle and in practice, so long as there are stringent monitoring, control and independent auditing systems in place, reinforced by both NHS and government determination to stamp out unethical, harmful and, especially, criminal conduct.

Therein lies the rub. It has become abundantly clear that throughout the life-cycle of private contracting to the NHS, from bidder approval, tendering, terms and conditions, pricing, award decision and onwards to delivery and termination, “light touch” laissez-faire oversight predominates. Moreover, one is left with a feeling that a cozy “turning a blind eye” collusion exists whereby a culture driven by the strategy of “what can we get away with?” has been allowed to develop. A pursuit of profit above all other considerations encourages, if not ensures, a heavy reliance on amoral calculation by some of those engaged in private health care.

Who Are the Private Companies?

In the public’s perception, the most visible and longstanding private healthcare companies are those established by, such as BUPA, AXA, and PHP. The major ‘medex’ insurers have also acquired hospitals and GP group practices. Many citizens receive free private health care from such companies as a result of employee benefit schemes, although, increasingly, others are prepared to pay from their own pockets. A disincentive for self-funders is that annual premiums increase markedly with the insured’s age and tend to become prohibitive by late middle-age, especially if claims experience is poor. Premium renewals are heavily affected by “claims made” e.g. operations, treatment for serious illness, or frequent consultations. Thus, typically cover for self-funding individuals is for ‘major medical only’ while excluding routine GP-type provision. Nevertheless, via the 2022 Act the government clearly intends to encourage, if not persuade, the mass of patients to acquire private medical insurance, and this would include cover for GP services.

Other major corporations operating in the UK health care sector include Spire (now owned by the Australian company Ramsay Health Care), Circle, and HCA, which run extensive networks of private hospitals and clinics. They are high-profile bidders for NHS clinical provision contracts, although following Circle’s business failure in 2015 of its management franchise running of the NHS, such major ‘whole facility’ contracts are less likely.

However, many other companies, often foreign-based, operate in the UK private health care sector that contract services to the NHS unobtrusively. Ownership of GP services, typically group practices, by private corporations (often US-based) rather than the GPs themselves, has become increasingly commonplace. These include Centene, Babylon, Operose, Livi, SRCL, and First Practice Management. Continuing corporatization for profit, if not strictly controlled, would totally undermine the ‘not-for-profit’ foundation of the NHS and enable excessive extraction of profits by foreign beneficiaries.

GP Services in Privatization’s Crosshairs

According to the research body, the amount spent by the NHS on private sector delivery overall in 2019-20 totaled £14.4bn, much higher than the £9.7bn shown in the Department of Health and Social Care’s accounts, since the latter excluded a number of categories including GPs and other primary care services.

For several reasons, GP services have become the new target for private corporations. One is the fact that, whereas the public may imagine that GPs are employees of the NHS, in fact GPs have always been private outsourced contractors to the NHS, working on “contracts for services” and not “contracts of service.” Another is that GP patient lists –  the basis of NHS payments to GP practices –  are growing. In addition, new GP numbers continue to fall while many experienced GPs are quitting early, long before normal retirement, or going part-time, owing to feeling overworked, under-paid and under-valued. One in six GP posts remains typically vacant for long periods. Both the and the report that in some cities there are now fewer than 50 GPs per 100,000 patients, or 25% more patient load per GP than the accepted NHS ‘safe’ ratio. According to NHS data, GPs typically now have 2,500 patients each instead of 1,600, and in some cases over 6,000.

Increased demand and decreased provision establishes an attractive context for private corporate acquisition of group GP practices running perhaps half-a-dozen or more surgeries, typically in urban locales. Their business model is to move away from traditional face-to-face consultations with an attentive, caring “usual” GP, and replace them with remote online and phone consultations randomly from a bank of GPs. The Covid crisis and avoidance of face-to-face appointments presented an unexpected opportunity to introduce and test the new model in practice as an operational and regulatory necessity. As a result, some patients (including the authors) have not seen their usual, or any, GP since 2019. This loss of face-to-face access risks damaging accurate and timely diagnosis. The cross-party Health and Social Care Committee of the House of Commons has examined the future of GP services. Its latest parliamentary report is of the degenerating GP experience for many patients, which has resulted from this new business model.

Profits Before Patients

With corporate-owned GP practices, emphasis on extraction of profits increases at the expense of reinvestment into, for example, additional GPs, nurses, ancillary staff, and improved phone call handling systems. These are  needed to cope with increased patient demand by enforced remote access in an ‘online and phone only’ health care environment. For example, Operose Health UK, the ����’s largest group of GP practices and owned by the US Centene corporation, has some 600,000 NHS patients. In June 2022, BBC Panorama ran a damning, alleging that patient referral documents remained unread for months and that Operose routinely used poorly supervised ‘physician associates’ as less qualified but cheaper substitutes for fully qualified GPs.

In a group of six GP practices owned by another hierarchy of corporate owners in a South Coast city, patients (including the authors) typically experience up to a 1 hour or more wait in phone queues for routine access, only to be cut off by a time limit. Their online e-consult facility also has a daily quota and time cut-off, thereby similarly forcing patients into an unwelcome and stressful ‘first come, first served’ competition with each other. Often, the e-consult facility is unavailable for days at a time. In response to a formal complaint about its dysfunctional call handling system, the practice”s management stated in writing that a decision had been taken to “reduce the number of phone lines into the center” so as to save patients’ money caused by long waits. It added, “we are not currently looking to change this decision.” Investing in an improved phone and call handling system appears trumped by the focus on profit extraction.

Moreover, the ultimate ownership of such practices is usually impossible to establish, owing to intricate layers and networks of corporate shareholdings that block transparency. Similarly, determining just how much profits are being taken is almost impossible, as many avoid filing full UK accounts by using subsidiary account rules. Intentional opacity is a salient characteristic of such companies.

The next logical step by corporately-owned GP practices is likely to be to an expansion of a “private patients only” regime, whereby consultations, treatments, blood tests, vaccinations etc will all be fee-based and no longer fall within the free NHS provision. This move will follow in the footsteps of UK dentists, many of whom have withdrawn from NHS provision. Thus far, the withdrawal of GPs as NHS contracted providers is a minority, but the trend is likely to accelerate as more GP practices are acquired by profit-driven companies. The prospect of having to pay for GP services will hit the poorest, and, for many, it may deny them the “provision of health care universally available to all and free at the point of use” warranted by law for over 70 years.

Private health care take-up has been increasing, especially via employment benefit schemes and particularly by those in the 20-40 age group who are more willing to self-fund insurance premiums or fees. They tend to perceive private health care as an essential commodity, comparable to other lifestyle purchases, such as online multimedia packages, Netflix, and expensive gym subscriptions. However, the big risk is that in times of economic downturn or cost-of-living crises, such necessities will be dispensed with as unaffordable luxuries. 

Is the NHS Safe in Tory Hands?

Despite the Conservative government’s Health and Care Act 2022, which is reassuringly intended to ‘reform’ the NHS and its provision, including a much greater emphasis on private sector outsourcing, concerns abound. One is that its main impact will be to sanctify in law private profit at the expense of patient health care, while exempting delivery from standards of public responsibility and proper accountability. A detailed study by Goodair and Reeves published in in July 2022 showed that over the period 2013-2020 “private sector outsourcing corresponded with significantly increased rates of treatable mortality, potentially as a result of a decline in the quality of health-care services.”

Thus far, the public seems unaware of this new stealth assault – literally “hidden in plain sight” – on what they still imagine will continue to be a guaranteed free-at-the-point-of-use NHS. Not that they don’t care. Few have heard about the changes. Fewer still know about the scope, scale, content and impact the 2022 Act will have on them as patients. As the truth dawns  – that perhaps the NHS is not safe in this particular government’s hands and that patients may increasingly find that they will have to pay for GP services among others – it is likely to become a major general election issue. The government and NHS will have a tough job ‘selling’ this new regime to the public, and any hint of ‘economy with the truth’, deception, outright lies, or brazen confidence trickery will prove unwise.

Increasing corporate ownership of GP services could be made to work satisfactorily for patient care, but that would require new stringent criteria and robust monitoring, control and transparency arrangements that are currently missing. These would include: (a) complete transparency of GP ownership and accounts; (b) independently audited publicly available accounts of GP practices; (c) regular independent audits of management and clinical provision by GPs. 

Rigorous assurance of contract compliance will be crucial. The Care and Quality Commission will not be robust enough for these audit tasks. If it is to provide any benefit let alone maintain its credibility, the level of independent auditing (and corrective action) cannot be ‘tick the box’ or appear as superficial ‘window dressing.’.

Failure Is Not an Option

The 2022 Act is one heck of a gamble. The larger and more complex any system is, the higher the likelihood of dysfunctionality or even total failure. In particular, if the new ICBs (Integrated Care Boards) fail, that alone could result in an end of the NHS. The headline preventive elements that may be required –  but thus far are not evident –  include:

• Compulsory liability/surety bonds amounting to, say, 10% of pre-tax turnover imposed on all corporate entities and their individual board members that seek to provide services to the NHS. This is to focus their attention on their duty-of-care obligations and the penalties for failure.
• Compulsory fit-for-purpose registration and competence certification of all insurance entities and their professional and sales staff engaged in offering Private Medical Expenses Insurance. This is to deter fly-by-night opportunists and scammers.
• Regular compulsory independent validation and verification audits (to national criteria, standards and certified auditors) of all corporate policies, strategies, operations, and management systems, in relation to contracted provision of services to the NHS, including GP services. This is to provide systems assurance that requirements are appropriate and are in fact being implemented, and to counter the “what can we get away with?”tactic.
• Regular review of speed of implementation and effectiveness of remedial recommendations in compulsory audit reports. This is to ensure that remedies for system defects are in fact implemented promptly and effectively, and to counter the ‘what can we get away with?”attitude.
• Legal penalties for corporate wrong-doers (both organizations and individuals), including, say, 10% of pre-tax profits and where appropriate (according to the nature and scale of the offense as well as repetition), jail sentences, and/or fines, asset confiscation, compensation orders, directorship bans, and compulsory “name-and-shame” orders. This is to ensure that duty-holders are made accountable for serious offenses.

While some legal difficulties in imposing such controls exist, these must be overcome so as to prevent abuses that favor private contractors while harming patient health care, personal finances, taxpayers, and public trust and confidence in government. Analogues for such tough controls exist. For example, following years of uncontrolled public harm by cavalier online and social media platform owners, the Online Safety Bill will likely impose a number of broadly similar controls on such companies and senior executives. In health care, the government must place the emphasis on prevention and fairness now, rather than on future corrective reaction to malpractice or malfeasance. Failure to do risks  fomenting widespread social discontent and even public disorder. The UK experience should also provide a salutary warning to other countries.

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

The post UK’s NHS is Broken: Is Private Medicine the Answer? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Like many foreign scholars before me, I debated at the Oxford Union. I met fiendishly clever debaters such as Ewan Smith, Sarah Munby (then Monroe) and Tom Hay. I also ran into knaves who are best left unnamed. In conversations with both the clever and the cads, a name came up repeatedly in discussion: Boris Johnson.

As a foreigner, I failed to see the charm of Johnson. To me, he seemed a pathological liar. Johnson was so transparently dishonest that it was surprising, if not shocking, to find clever people dance to his tune. Even then, he was truly a Pied Piper, especially for young Tories. They swore by The Spectator, used his phrases in debates and waxed lyrical about Boris’s brilliance.

Over time, I began to understand Johnson’s appeal. As I wrote on July 24, 2019, “this Old Etonian is a lovable Falstaffian rogue.” He is Lord Flashheart of the comedy classic Blackadder, a modern Henry VIII and even a portly James Bond known for derring-do and top-level shagging. Johnson breezes through life as the ultimate smooth-talking amateur, cool as a cucumber under pressure. In brief, Johnson or BoJo, as he is often called, is a British cultural archetype. It is for this reason that, in the words of fellow Old Etonian Cameron, Johnson “ all forms of gravity.”

A Supremely English Cad

Ken Clarke was once known as the big beast in British politics. Today, the big beast is Boris. Persistent lies, numerous scandals and even illegitimate children have failed to sink BoJo. Like a phoenix, he has repeatedly risen from the ashes.

Yet it would be churlish to deny that BoJo has managed historic achievements. He made Brexit possible. Nigel Farage alone could not have led the Brexiteers to victory. As inflation, rising interest rates and mounting debt increase strains within the EU, Boris might emerge as the modern day Henry VIII who paved the way for the great escape from Europe.

Henry’s reasons for creating the Church of England were not quite honorable but, arguably, the breach with Rome led to the British Empire. Brexit might not lead to Empire II but it could save the UK from a disaster-headed EU. Many equanimous Brits see the current turbulence as a passing phase. After all, German cars, French cheeses and Italian wines are still sold in the UK. In Ukraine, Brits are playing a role second only to Americans in taking on Vladimir Putin. And they can thank BoJo for it. There is life in the canny old dog yet.

Arise King Boris, Father of Brexit and Foe of Brussels

READ MORE

BoJo has proved to be a winner. In 2019, the Conservatives won 365 seats out of 650 in the House of Commons.  Under Boris, the Tories smashed the “red wall” of solid Labour seats in northern England. Not since Margaret Thatcher has anyone led the Tories to such a victory. Scandal and the loss of two key by-elections led to a palace coup. Conservative MPs ousted Johnson in much the same way as their predecessors defenestrated Thatcher. 

After a protracted leadership election, Truss won. Her government to have “the shelf-life of a lettuce.” Unfunded tax cuts and energy-price guarantees spooked markets, put the pound in freefall and caused bond yields to rise. The Bank of England was forced to intervene . Truss resigned after 45 days, becoming the shortest-serving prime minister ever. Some would argue that, like Thatcher and Theresa May, Truss was a Roundhead. Cameron and Johnson are Cavaliers. The English Civil War of the 17^th century continues within the Conservative Party with full-on blue-on-blue conflict. Now that a doctrinaire low-tax, high-growth Roundhead is out, Big Boris might be dreaming of returning à la the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Dishy Rishi Stands in the Way

Even as Johnson is cutting short his holiday and flying back from the Dominican Republic, Sunak has already managed to get 93 MPs lined up behind him. Unlike Truss, Sunak is a Cavalier. He might be the son of immigrants but he went to Winchester College, a boarding school even older than Eton. Founded by William of Wykeham in 1382, the school’s former pupils are called Wykehamists or, as a wag remarked, the special ones. So special is Sunak that he confessed to not having any working class friends, causing some during his campaign.

Sunak is not only a Wykehamist but he is also a PPEist. He worked at Goldman Sachs, did an MBA at Stanford and became a partner at The Children’s Investment () Fund Management, a top-level hedge fund. At Stanford, Sunak met Akshata Murty, the daughter of an Indian software billionaire, and went on to marry her. Unlike Johnson, Sunak is a family man. There is not even any rumor of an affair. As a mutual friend remarked, Sunak is smart and can count. An affair would be far too expensive a proposition. He has a taste for fine things in life and his natty suits have won him the nickname Dishy Rishi.

In the leadership election debate, Sunak was on the money when he that the most pressing priority for the new government was inflation. He opposed any “unfunded spree of borrowing and more debt,” which he predicted would make things worse. When Truss said that inflation was because of loose monetary policy, Sunak declared, “borrowing your way out of inflation is a fairytale.” Sunak has been proved right. Many are convinced that this Goldman Sachs golden boy is the best man for the top job.

Big and beefy Boris faces slim and sexy Sunak on his return to 10 Downing Street. Some hold that BoJo will back out, let Dishy Rishi deal with the mess he has created, let Labour win the next election, screw it up and then ride back to power on a triumphal chariot as the savior of the Tories. Others argue that he will never let Sunak, the snake he picked out of obscurity, slither into 10 Downing Street. Dishy Rishi’s resignation led to Big Boris’s downfall. Now, BoJo is plotting revenge.

Like last time, most MPs will back Sunak. They want a safe pair of hands on the tiller. However, the 172,000 of the Conservative Party have the final say. They tend to be older and whiter in comparison to today’s multicultural and multiracial Britain. As a friend remarked, it is hard to get grannies in Dorset or Somerset to vote for a brownie fuzzy wuzzy even if he is rich and posh. The fact that Sunak’s wife had claimed non-domicile status, saving millions of pounds in tax, also makes many old school Tories suspicious. They have doubts about Dishy Rishi being entirely British.

Despite all his sins, the Tory rank and file adore Boris. They are likely to vote for him, not Sunak. If he can squeak through the parliamentary vote. Big Boris could well be back.

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

The post Will Boris the Big Beast be Back? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Could the straightlaced Conservative party produce any personality outside the world of pure entertainment to take his place of the hyperreal, arrogant toff with the permanently managed tousled mop of blond hair, adept at selling his boyish narcissism to the media while bulldozing through politics? Like a gutless Hollywood studio addicted to remakes of past blockbusters, the Tory establishment worked out its plan. Its producers wondered, “Who, on this island can repeat and carry out for another two years the equivalent of Meryl Streep’s performance as the one true British Wonder woman, Maggie Thatcher?” Liz Truss auditioned and, with limited competition, obtained the starring role of her career thanks, not to her ability to emulate her model’s iron will and aptitude for wielding the reins of power, but to her mindless loyalty to a sclerotic version of the now thoroughly discredited antisocial economic ideology that Thatcher formerly embodied.

For seventy years, Queen Elizabeth played her public role to perfection. It wasn’t an easy role to play. It required exceptional patience. She had nothing to do, no impact on events. But she quickly learned the art of turning her actions, or inaction, into a form of public theater exploitable by the media. At the very moment of the British empire’s global dismantling, she symbolized what the empire had once been, keeping it implicitly present in her subjects’ minds and in the world’s awareness. Succeeding to the throne in 1952, as colony after colony was declaring its independence, her presence, her demeanor and her image allowed the empire to continue a fantasized existence, liberated from the annoying task of having to manage anything in the real world. The American cousins had taken over that task and had become experts working in the shadows.

An example of quantum logic on a human scale

In a curious configuration resembling the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, at the precise moment when the British government toggled from male to female leadership, the British state is toggling from female to male. A curious and possibly necessary balance is thus restored. No one knows how Charles III will conduct his reign, but he may have an easier time establishing his regal style with an inept and unreflecting female at 10 Downing Street than with the unpredictable BoJo, who sometimes showed a greater aptitude for emulating Idi Amin Dada than the Winston Churchill he so vociferously claimed as his model. In a certain sense, Boris himself was a cheap remake, whose box office earnings fell far short of his promise.

For the past three years, the irrepressible Boris has dominated headlines in the UK thanks to his exaggerated antics that as often as not resembled a music hall act built around a comically obsessive one-liner: “Get Brexit Done.” He hypnotized his party, if not the population, into believing that once it was done, all would fall back into place and Britain would be great again. His recent militaristic activism as a highly visible supporting actor in Joe Biden’s proxy war on Russia, which included using his bulk, if not his moral authority, to give orders to the suffering victim never to negotiate with the evil master of the Kremlin, will be a hard act for Truss to follow.

Peace Talks Essential as War Rages on in Ukraine

READ MORE

Can Charles wield the scepter at 73?

Unlike politicians who rely on other people’s votes to achieve their ambitions, the designated but yet uncrowned King Charles III, has had decades to prepare for this. But he has also had 73 years to craft his image as a crown prince, scion of an impeccably performing mother, with low expectations of ever becoming king before reaching an exceptionally advanced age. There must have been moments when, as some in the public wondered out loud, whether it was worth the wait. The public had “elected” his fairytale wife, Lady Diana Spencer, to a level of royalty that he couldn’t hope to attain, even though it was his heritage. She was “the Princess of the people” in a monarchy that had, over the previous century, politically transformed into a modern democracy.

Not only did Diana rise to become a mythic celebrity, thanks to her beauty and sense of style, neither of which he could claim to share, she utterly eclipsed the crown prince’s image as the future king. The idea of a future Queen Diana had far more appeal than that of King Charles. When teir visibly uncomfortable marriage quickly began exposing its fragility, leading eventually to divorce, the public appeared to take her side, considering Charles to be unworthy of Diana. To some extent, this correlated with a longer-term trend as males on the throne in the 20^th century had never made a strong impression, especially Edward VIII’s abdication after a very unroyal marriage to an ambitious American divorcee and Elizabeth’s father, George VI’s embarrassing stutter. And that is without mentioning the embarrassing question for Elizabeth herself of the behavior of her “favorite son,” Andrew, who was also one of Jeffrey Epstein’s favorite friends. As a stay-at-home queen, raising her children and especially her dogs in her various palaces and castles, Elizabeth successfully turned the role of monarch at the head of the state into one that, in post-war Britain, clearly better befitted a matriarchy.

The British people and especially its media have never had strong confidence in the character and personality of Charles as a potential king. Many have suggested that to preserve the dignity of the office – really meaning the “media appeal” of the office – he should simply allow his more glamor-minded and family orientated son, William, succeed in his place. He has not chosen to do so. That means that he, and presumably his PR team, will be hard at work crafting his royal image in the weeks and months to come. It’s up to the media to respond appropriately. The future of the British monarchy depends on their effort.

How will the media manage the drama to come?

The media will now be very busy tracking and shaping the evolving images of two personalities that have never inspired the kind of interest – positive or negative – that Boris and Eliza, the two actors exiting the stage have managed to build throughout their careers. Will they go off on two separate tracks or will there be interaction between them. Charles has had a reputation for occasionally drifting towards expressions of opinion deemed dangerously close to political issues. Will he rein them in without his mother there to hold him back? Or will he be tempted to use the vestigial moral status associated with a fatherly monarch to subtly or blatantly rein in what he might feel are the possible excesses of the Elizabeth now reigning at Downing Street?

The real question for Charles is what will he need to do to appear kingly rather than princely? He may even have the intelligence to understand that in the midst of growing crises in every direction – the crises of democracy itself, of proxy wars, the climate, energy supply, nuclear threat, pandemics, looming economic collapse, social conflict, and the obvious transition towards a multipolar world (though though consciously ignored by the media) – some new form of leadership is needed, if only to restore some sense of balance in the face of the hyperreal excesses that now dominate politics in the West. Can a newly crowned British king define a role that could push humanity in the direction of sanity? That seems unlikely if, as is customary in the UK, respect of tradition routinely trumps the quest for creative innovation. But these are strange times.One final bit of irony may serve to sum up the high level of uncertainty that exists as this new double transition begins the inevitable process of remodeling the global image of the British national identity. Last week footage emerged of Liz Truss at the age of 19, as a Liberal Democrat activist, expressing her contempt for the royal family as she called for the of the monarchy. Now, as the leader of the party, “elected” not by the British electorate but by only an estimated 80,000 votes of members of her party, she represents the established government, at least until the next election or someone or group of people from her own party call for her abolition, just as they did to her predecessor.

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

The post With Queen Elizabeth gone, a New Elizabeth Takes Center Stage appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The subject was the stated policy of Liz Truss not only to enact but also to implement the legislation that would unilaterally disregard the Northern Ireland Protocol. This is an international treaty that the  UK freely agreed to, signed off on and then ratified through parliament.

From Brexit to Broken Protocol

Now, the UK government is looking to break this protocol on the grounds that this would be a good thing for the Union, i.e. the union of Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed it is being pressed forward by a  self-described “Conservative” and supposedly “Unionist” party.

My argument to Times Radio listeners was that this radical , and deeply unconservative, attempt to break a solemn treaty , is actually damaging to the Union, for the following reasons:

1. It is opposed by a majority in Northern Ireland. A majority there would like changes to the protocol alright , but do not favor such a radical course as Truss is insisting upon. Adopting a course , in defiance of a majority view in Northern Ireland,  politically weakens “unionist” sentiment there. That should be fairly obvious.

How Britain Has Seen Its Place in the World from 1815 to 1955

READ MORE

2. Northern Ireland has prospered disproportionately under the protocol. Before this treaty, Northern Ireland was one of the worst performing regions of the UK. Now, it has become the second best in the country after London.

Prosperity in Northern Ireland, as part of the UK and under the protocol , is objectively good for the Union. While business in Northern Ireland knows this, the “Conservative and Unionist” party in Britain does not seem to care. Incidentally, the more Northern Ireland prospers under the protocol, the less subsidization it will require from London, which would also strengthen the Union.  

3 . Unilaterally ditching the protocol will initiate a a major trade war between the UK, including Northern Ireland, and the EU. Northern Ireland would suffer most and this would be bad for the Union. Liz Truss, a former trade secretary, is bound to know this well. 

This UK-initiated trade war will also weaken the western alliance’s economic and political capacity to support Ukraine. Those who believe in and support democracy will be concerned.

4 . Ditching the Protocol will not restore the pre-protocol economic status quo ante for Northern Ireland. In this period, this region lagged behind the rest of the UK.

Worse Than Pre-Protocol

In fact, the new situation will be much worse than the pre-protocol era for Northern Ireland. This is because its economy will be engulfed by a new duplicative bureaucracy of a kind never seen before.

Long existing links will be broken.

Supply chains will be destroyed.

Expensive investments will be rendered valueless.

The above three things will happen because the ditching of the protocol will allow the UK to impose increasingly different product regulations in Northern Ireland to the ones the region uses at the moment. The current regulations allow Northern Ireland free access to the EU market, the only market in the world to which the region has  unimpeded road access.

The World This Week: A Troubled Marriage in Europe

READ MORE

The damage will be felt especially severely by Northern Ireland’s dairy sector. One-third of Northern Ireland milk is processed in Ireland, a member of the EU.  There are 5,400 dairy businesses in Northern Ireland and the business generates over $1.75 billion (£1.5 billion pound sterling) every year. This cross-border processing  of Northern Ireland milk will have to stop if  the milk is longer produced to EU standards. This will be massively disruptive .

To get around this problem,  a special supply chain would have to be developed. Farmers could either supply milk to Northern Ireland and the UK or to Ireland and the EU. Currently, they do not have to choose. They supply both markets at the moment.

Thus, massive duplication and additional expense would be imposed on dairy producers in Northern Ireland. Ironically, most of them probably vote for “unionist” parties,  are enterprising people and vital contributors to their neighborhoods. They do not deserve this disruption.

It turns out that ditching  the protocol will not only be bad for the Union, it will be bad for unionists. For all these reasons, Liz Truss’s policy is not only unConservative, it is also anti Unionist.

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

The post Ditching the Northern Ireland Protocol is unConservative and May Break the UK appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In the end, the United States didn’t “save” any of these countries. Vietnam unified under Communist rule as US soldiers withdrew in 1975, the Lao People’s Liberation Army took over Laos the same year, and the Khmer Rouge set about creating its own “killing fields” in Cambodia. Unlike the Korean War, where a stalemate prevailed, the United States decisively lost the Vietnam War.

Kissinger, however, won. All the blood on his hands did not prevent him from accepting a Nobel Peace Prize in 1973 for helping to negotiate a ceasefire in the very war that he’d prolonged and expanded. His reputation as a great statesman didn’t appear to suffer.

Kissinger’s Grand Proposition

Nearly 50 years later, the “great statesman” is again talking about the necessity of a ceasefire in a brutal war, this one in Ukraine. Here, too, an imperialist aggressor is destroying another country in order to “save” it. It’s hard to imagine that Kissinger doesn’t see some parallels with the past, including his own role as “peacemaker.” At Davos last month, the near-centenarian recommended that peace negotiations begin within the next two months with the goal of restoring the status quo prior to Russia’s invasion. Otherwise, Kissinger warned, the battle “not about the freedom of Ukraine, which has been undertaken with great cohesion by NATO, but…against Russia itself.”

Should Henry Kissinger Mentor a Presidential Candidate?

READ MORE

Kissinger’s plea not to back Russia into a corner — or, worse, “into a permanent alliance with China” — has received some supporting echoes from other world leaders. Both Italy and Hungary an immediate ceasefire in Ukraine. The Pope Turkey’s efforts to find a diplomatic settlement to the war.

Who doesn’t want a ceasefire in the current war? Ukrainians are dying. Russian soldiers are dying. Millions of people around the world who are dependent on Ukrainian grain . Cut off from Russian gas, countries are to produce electricity. From food to fuel, the war in Ukraine is a huge step backward for humanity and the planet.

But not quite everyone wants a ceasefire. Russia has not yet achieved its goal: the conquest of the entire Donbas plus the land that connects it to the Crimean Peninsula. The Russian military is bombing towns into submission in a last-ditch effort to declare victory over smoking ruins.

If this were the extent of Vladimir Putin’s ambitions, perhaps a ceasefire might work. A deal that locked in Russian gains to date would be an ugly capitulation to realpolitik, a trade of land for peace. As I , Ukraine could make the same gamble as Aaron Ralston did when a boulder pinned his arm in the Utah wilderness and he had no choice but to cut it off with a utility knife. Sometimes you have to resort to extreme measures to survive. Goodbye, Donbas. Farewell, Crimea.

Today, however, this analogy no longer applies. Russia doesn’t just want one piece of Ukraine. The Russian military continues to direct artillery barrages at the city of Kharkiv. Fighting around the southern city of Kherson, the only major Russian conquest so far in the war, , as the occupying forces try to consolidate administrative control of the region in advance of incorporating it into the Russian Federation. Nor can further Russian advances westward — for instance, toward the port of Odessa — be ruled out.

So, Russia does not accept any compromise based on a return to the status quo ante. And Ukraine doesn’t want to draw new borders to legitimate Russia’s ongoing land grab. It’s not even eager to formally cede to Russia what it controlled prior to the invasion, namely the Crimean Peninsula and approximately 30 percent of the Donbas.

So, peace and diplomacy and negotiations all sound like fine things right now. But there’s a big difference between just a ceasefire and a just ceasefire. Peace at any cost is not true peace.

What Italy Proposes

Last month, Italy to end the current conflict in Ukraine.

It called for a ceasefire accompanied by a UN-supervised demilitarization of the front line. Negotiations would then follow on the status of Ukraine with a path toward EU membership but with accession to NATO off the table. Italy then offered a compromise on the disputed territories (Donbas and Crimea) with those areas enjoying full autonomy even as their sovereignty belonged to Ukraine. Finally, negotiations would lead to “a multilateral agreement on peace and security in Europe covering disarmament and arms control, conflict prevention, and confidence-building measures.”

The Russia-Ukraine War Shows History Did Not End, Ethics Did

READ MORE

The first challenge would be the demilitarization of the “front line.” Where would this front line be drawn? The very first step of the Italian plan would prove perhaps the most difficult because both sides are fighting to fix this front line at very different places. Ukrainian forces managed to push the Russian army away from Kyiv and Kharkiv, and the Ukrainian government is importing as many weapons as it can to inflict a decisive defeat upon the invaders. While its forces are bombing their way toward possessing all of the Donbas, Russia doesn’t seem interested at all in negotiating the kind of withdrawal the United States effected in Afghanistan last summer. Indeed, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov the Italian initiative “not serious.”

The second stage would seem a reasonable compromise. Ukraine gets to advance toward the European Union; Russia gets a guarantee that its neighbor won’t join NATO. But this presupposes that Moscow is still fixated on NATO membership. Since the earlier negotiations around neutrality in the first month of the war, Sweden and Finland have formally asked to join the security alliance. And Russia has increasingly stressed that it is fighting not a security alliance per se but the West as a whole. The EU’s additional oil embargo, passed this week, only deepens the divide between the Kremlin and Europe more generally. So, Russia might look at EU membership for Ukraine as equally non-negotiable (closer relations with Europe were, after all, the proximate reason for the Euromaidan protests in 2013-14).

The third stage is perhaps the most controversial. The Donbas would have full autonomy, including over its security policy, and yet somehow remain part of Ukraine. How would that work, exactly? The word “sovereignty” would have to be stretched so thin as to be meaningless.

And who could disagree with the fourth stage? Europe desperately needs a new, comprehensive agreement on security. But that just doesn’t seem feasible with the current leadership in Moscow.

Defeating Putinism

The Saudi war in Yemen is an expression not of overall Saudi foreign policy in the region but the narrower ambitions of Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman. The young leader, pushing through a modernization of Saudi society, saw a war against the Houthis as a perfect opportunity to consolidate his own power within the Saudi elite and advance his country’s regional hegemony vis a vis Iran.

Making Sense of Vladimir Putin’s Long Game

READ MORE

The Turkish cross-border interventions in Syria, which began in 2019, have likewise been the brainchild of a single leader, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, who has been obsessed with suppressing all versions of Kurdish resistance, both within his country and along the borders. At home, Kurds have challenged his authoritarian grip over Turkey. Going after Kurdish movements in Syria, meanwhile, is part of Erdoğan’s bid for regional dominance, a version of neo-Ottomanism that he has resurrected over the last few years.

The US invasion of Iraq had little to do with traditional US foreign policy. It was a power play by neoconservatives who thought that they could spread democracy throughout the Middle East as one autocrat after another fell, first to US military forces and then to popular uprisings. The war was the ultimate expression of a Bushist foreign policy: a weak president manipulated by his more hawkish advisors.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine fits into this pattern as well. It is not some working out of primordial Russian urges to dominate its neighbors. The 2022 invasion, as well as the 2014 war, is all about Vladimir Putin. It is an expression of his worldview that Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine are part of a larger homogenous Russian world that encompasses communities of Russian speakers in other parts of the Russian “near abroad.”

In all these cases, regime change has not been an option. Rather, ending the wars requires the defeat of the prevailing ideology. Neoconservatism, as a robust US foreign policy, effectively died in Iraq. A similar defeat for Putinism will be necessary before any real progress can be made in Ukraine. That doesn’t mean the removal of Putin from office (though ultimately Russia will not advance until that happens). It means that Ukrainian resistance must stop Putinism from creating this imaginary Russian imperium.

Only then will we see something more than a cessation of fighting in Ukraine. Only then will we see a just ceasefire.

*[This article was originally published by .]

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

The post A Just Ceasefire or Just a Ceasefire? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

What England’s Premier League Did for Football

READ MORE

I thought of this shortly after Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea Football Club in 2003 and launched the most extravagant spending splurge in the history of sport. In his first year in charge, his total spending in the player transfer market equated to of the entire Premier League’s expenditure on players. Was this man trying to prove he could buy anything he wanted?

The club was easy: Already deeply in debt (£60 million — around $79 million), Abramovich just paid off the creditors and took control of Chelsea. Then he assembled the strongest playing squad available. The cost of the transfer fees plus salaries far outweighed the club’s income, and in his first five years, Chelsea posted losses of £447 million — a sum that sounds less fantastic today than it did in the 2000s.

Money, Money, Money

Chelsea, at the time of Abramovich’s arrival, was a club of comparable size to, say, West Bromwich Albion. The clubs had similar histories of achievements, comparable fan bases and stadiums. Chelsea was not included in the original elite when plans for the Premier League were formulated in the early 1990s. Abramovich commissioned the transfer of players such as Didier Drogba (in 2004), Andriy Shevchenko and Michael Ballack (both in 2006), signaling that no player was too big — or too expensive — for Chelsea.  

The rewards were abundant. Chelsea won the Premier League in the 2004-05 season, losing only one game under the management of Jose Mourinho, and this was but one of a total of 21 trophies, including five Premier League titles, two UEFA Champions League triumphs and a FIFA Club World Cup championship. Chelsea became one of the most garlanded clubs in the history of the Premier League and could lay a legitimate claim to being the best team in the world for long periods in recent history.

If Abramovich’s project was something like that of Magic Christian’s protagonist, it worked like a charm. Actually, Abramovich didn’t need Prospero-like charms — all he needed was money. He spent lavishly and luxuriated in the rewards. But the costs were prodigious. Last year, for example, Chelsea £145.6 million. Abramovich made good on the money, as he has done since he took over, by making deposits in the holding company , which technically owns Chelsea FC, and which Abramovich owns outright.

Abramovich never explained his profligacy. He didn’t give interviews and seemed to prefer anonymity. I was once asked to divine Abramovich’s motivation and answered by comparing his ownership of Chelsea with his love of art. He has a formidable collection that includes Bacon’s Tryptych, for which he paid $86.3 million. “He has the means to possess things he loves,” I said. “He might have bought Chelsea as a trophy at the outset, but he seems to have formed a loving attachment.”

Even if he did start with a testable hypothesis, the club became more a passion than a project.  He ran Chelsea Football Club not as a business in the conventional sense, but more like a charitable foundation or an endowed college with only one benefactor.

Prised From His Grasp

And now it is over: Abramovich has had the club he created prised from his grasp. He won’t appear at Stamford Bridge again and will probably never again set foot on English soil. The British government, as we know, has invoked powers to freeze his assets (of which Chelsea FC is one; the may be another), forced him to put the club on the market and denied him access to the proceeds of the sale. He has set the asking price of £3 billion, presumably reflecting the money he has sunk into the club over his tenure, but he won’t see a penny of it. (The pertinent is the Economic Crime Bill, which was rushed through Parliament in early March.)

We shouldn’t underestimate how much pain he must be feeling as he reads about the bids for his club. Negotiations are being handled by US merchant bank Raine. Abramovich himself is not allowed any input. As an aside, Abramovich has not committed a criminal offense and is guilty only of having “links” (whatever they may be) with Russian President Vladimir Putin or his regime. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson , “There can be no safe havens for those who have supported Putin’s vicious assault on Ukraine.” Abramovich has consistently historical associations with Putin and has done so for at 11 years.

As I write, a shortlist of bidders for the club is being considered by Raine. Eventually, the preferred bidder will be selected and — extraordinarily — will then be screened by the government. Paradoxically, the only bidder that would be likely to continue Abramovich’s munificence was a group from Saudi Arabia, which has withdrawn, presumably sensing tenders from that part of the Middle East would not be received favorably at the moment. The others are consortia — associations of several companies.

Whoever buys Chelsea will not need due diligence to realize they will have to hemorrhage money, at least for the immediate future. The club has been promising to break even since at least 2009, when then-chief executive Peter Kenyon the club would be “self-sustaining” by 2010. It hasn’t come close. Will new owners persist with the lose-money-to-win-trophies approach?

Football’s Land of Milk and Honey

It’s not inconceivable that a consortium could introduce dramatic downsizing over the next three or so years, allow existing contracts to expire, trade prudently in the transfer market and perhaps model itself on , a football club owned since 2010 by Fenway Sports Group Holdings, which also owns the Boston Red Sox of Major League Baseball.

If so, transfers on the scale of the £97.5-million Romelu Lukaku deal in 2021 are likely to be a thing of the past for Chelsea. There may also be some surprise departures to lighten the wage load.

Lionel Messi’s move from Barcelona to Paris St Germain came as a bolt out of the blue last year; at least, till the full extent of Barcelona’s debt came to light. The club owed about ($1.1 billion) and Messi’s salary was reputed to be over €50 million. (The ill-fated European Super League was not motivated by greed, as was widely reported, but by the will to survive. Most of the clubs in the original project are ravaged by and presumably thought the league offered a route to liquidity.)

The next owners of Chelsea FC will not bring the inexhaustible supply of money Abramovich did. They will be legally bound to honor existing agreements, so players like Lukaku, who earns £16.5 million per year, and N’Golo Kante, who gets £15 million, will be paid for the remainder of their contracts. But the club is unlikely to offer salaries of this size in future.

More likely, the new owners will introduce some kind of internal salary cap. Arsenal has long operated with a wage structure. Other clubs without benefactors typically try to keep a lid on their salaries. Manchester City is owned largely by the Abu Dhabi United Group and spends with the kind of improvidence associated with Abramovich. Whether Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund will turn Newcastle United into another Chelsea remains to be seen. But Chelsea’s new owners will almost certainly take a more businesslike approach.

UEFA, football’s governing organization in Europe, may complicate life for Chelsea’s new owners if it restricts clubs’ spending to of their income. Back-of-an-envelope calculations suggest Chelsea has typically spent more than the whole of its yearly income on transfers and salaries. Even if it expects income of, say, £400 million, the club will have to exercise self-restraint unheard of during the Abramovich era. Presently, wages alone are thought to be .

The Chelsea case presents an insight into English football’s rise over the past 30 years. In 1985, England’s clubs were banned from European competition for five years (six for Liverpool) due to violence amongst supporters. Since their return, they have grown to dominance. This is due in no small part to Abramovich. After his takeover, international entrepreneurs enthusiastically bought into Premier League clubs and introduced the kind of money that brings bargaining power in the transfer market. Today, owners include investors from the United States, the UAE, China, Thailand, Egypt and Iran.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

England has become football’s land of milk and honey. Love him or loathe him, Roman Abramovich is sport’s latter-day Abraham. He has instigated a revolution. At a time in history when sport’s integration into the entertainment industry was almost complete, Abramovich took Chelsea from a respectable but ordinary English football club to one of the world’s foremost names in sport and a brand thrumming with elan and glamor.

A rapacious capitalist to some, a tyrant’s accomplice to others and a moral nightmare to a few more, Abramovich remains, without doubt, the most influential presence in football over the past 20 years. People may not approve of what he’s done, but the effects — good or bad — of his breathtaking foray into sport will be felt for decades to come.

*[Ellis Cashmore is co-editor of .]

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

The post The End of the Extraordinary Abramovich Era appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Is the European Super League Such a Terrible Idea?

READ MORE

Violence, racism, decaying stadiums, an indifferent population and two full-scale tragedies had contributed to football’s degeneration. In 1989, when yet another calamity visited the sport in the form of the Hillsborough disaster, football’s crisis deepened. The sport seemed in terminal decline. (Hillsborough was the name of the stadium in Sheffield where 94 football fans died — three more passed away later — after too many spectators were admitted.)

Revolution

Thirty years ago this week — February 20, 1992, to be precise — English football changed dramatically. When the clubs in the First Division announced they were leaving the Football League, they could have had no conception they were starting a revolution that would turn the debilitated game into the most popular, marketable, glamorous, culturally diverse and arguably most valuable sports competition the world has ever seen.

The inaugural season started on August 15, 1992, with 22 clubs making up the newly branded Premier League. The original plan was for ITV to screen the games of England’s leading clubs — Manchester United, Arsenal, Liverpool, Tottenham Hotspur and Everton (Manchester City and Chelsea were not among them) — but this was revised to a more equitable arrangement.

Earlier, in 1990, Greg Dyke, then a senior executive at London Weekend Television (an affiliate of the ITV network), pledged financial support for a breakaway from England’s Football League — this being an assembly of clubs split into four divisions — with revenue distributed among all member clubs.

The proposal was for a different structure in which the leading teams formed a self-contained alliance — independent of the Football League — and which would generate its own revenues, especially from the media, without any responsibility for sharing with the 87 clubs outside of the new entity. The Premier League was designed to operate under the auspices of the Football Association and would preserve the system in which the teams that finished the season at the bottom of the top tier would be relegated to the division below, while those at the top of the second tier would be promoted into the new league. But the key difference was that the elite would not share income with lesser clubs.

Sky’s Bid

ITV had presumably not expected a rival bid from Sky television, which, having launched its telecommunications satellite in 1989 and started transmission, had endured punishing losses.  So, when Rupert Murdoch’s TV station bid an unheard of £304 million ($407 million today) for the rights to screen the new competition, it seemed not so much audacious as suicidal. It sounds absurd now, but there was a suspicion that non-terrestrial television might have been a flash in the pan.

Murdoch’s calculation was simple: Football fans would pay a monthly subscription in exchange for live games. Back then, live games were a rarity. Football clubs were historically opposed to screening games live for fear that their attendances would slump. That didn’t happen. In fact, football became an exemplar for market-oriented sport: it fashioned a commodity, created a new demand for it and offered it for sale.

Sky’s fortunes turned. Subscriptions rose so sharply that it soon became the ����’s leading digital platform with revenues of over £1 billion. In 2018, it was acquired by the American company Comcast in a deal valued at £30 billion. At the time, Sky had 27 million subscribers.

Today, Sky no longer has exclusive rights to Premier League games. The European Union obliged it to share with other broadcasters. The present also includes BT Sport and Amazon Prime, expires in 2024-25 and is worth £5.1 billion. Retro-indexed to inflation, this would have been about £2.3 billion in 1992. The boards of directors of the clubs (they didn’t have outright owners) were probably astonished at Murdoch’s seemingly over-generous bid. None of them would have imagined how the value of English football would spiral upward as a result of Sky’s initiative.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Buoyed by their new largess, the clubs refurbished their grounds (or stadiums, as most prefer to call them today), rendering them safe and family-friendly. To this end, the traditional standing areas, known as terraces, were removed and replaced with seats. Now, ironically, standing sections — or “safe standing sections,” as they are known — have been reintroduced.  

The lavish endowment also bankrolled the arrival of new players, often from overseas leagues that couldn’t match the salaries available in England. Eric Cantona was an early beneficiary, joining Manchester United in early 1992. Others included Tony Yeboah, Patrick Vieira and Ruud Gullit, black players who silenced any residual racist chants and comments leftover from the 1980s. In the mid-1990s, David Beckham personified the league moving seamlessly between sports and entertainment, acquiring a then-unique status as an all-purpose celebrity who could endorse practically any consumer product and guarantee increased sales.

Roman Abramovich

But the most influential figure in the Premier League was not a player, but a Russian oligarch, who, in 2003, decided he wanted to buy a football club in what was then emerging as the most fashionable sports competition in the world. Roman Abramovich bought Chelsea Football Club, then about £80 million in debt. He made good on the debt and, over the next 18 years, splurged £2 billion on transfers, that is, the amount paid to clubs to release players from contracts.

Following Abramovich’s example, moneyed business leaders from outside the UK began buying Premier League clubs, usually without any hope of breaking even. Despite the media and sponsorship income, clubs managed to hemorrhage money, mainly because of extravagant player salaries.

After the 2021 takeover of Newcastle United by Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, there were 14 (of 20) top-flight clubs in overseas owners’ hands. Chelsea lost last year, Manchester City , mainly because both teams spent so much on transfers and paid high salaries; COVID-19 contributed, of course — the clubs lost income from spectators. Having benevolent owners means the clubs now operate less as businesses, more as foundations (like endowed colleges or charities).

Proponents of grassroots sports despair at the manner in which what was once a working-class game played by factory teams and supported by industrial workers has been hijacked by international plutocrats. Their intention has never been to cultivate local talent, but to attract the world’s most glittering names. Last year, Chelsea paid £97.5 million to Inter Milan for Romelu Lukaku. In 2016, Manchester United forked over £89 million for the services of Paul Pogba. Both players’ salaries are £12-15 million per year. Some argue this squeezes out aspiring young local players. Others suggest it inspires them.

Losers

What of the clubs that remained in the Football League, now rebranded as EFL? They were cast adrift and left to face the full brunt of market forces. Practically every club in the three divisions that make up the EFL struggles financially and many have declared themselves insolvent. There is little chance they can prosper outside the Premier League. Hence, their aim is to secure promotion. Ironically, these clubs might have benefited if the ill-fated European Super League, which attracted interest from several leading Premier League clubs, had taken off.

At the start of the 20^th century, money was, for many, a pestilence that would destroy the core value of fair play. Today, it could be argued that it was English football’s savior. Like every other professional sport — and all major sports are now professional — football has been embroiled in corruption, doping, violence and other activities that have despoiled sport’s central precept. All had their sources in money. Yet money is arguably the prime mover behind every single development in contemporary sport, and that is especially true in English football.

The Premier League is emblematic of recent developments in sports. It thrums with avarice, ruthlessness, triumphalism and an indifference to the collectivist principles that originally brought football into being.

*[Ellis Cashmore is co-editor of .]

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

The post What England’s Premier League Did for Football appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Since a US judge has now agreed to bring Virginia Giuffre’s civil lawsuit to trial, it means that for the first time, a prince of England, a member of the royal family, will be officially put on the hot seat in an American courtroom. The rebelling colonists couldn’t get King George III to answer for his crimes, but they now appear to have a son of Elizabeth II in their grasp.

Boris Johnson’s Convenient Bravado

READ MORE

For weeks, the media have been running updates specifically on speculation about the legal strategy Andrew’s attorneys are likely to adopt. Though for the moment it remains mere speculation, it does have the power for attentive observers to provoke a few comic effects. The latest has the lawyers seeking to turn the tables on Giuffre by accusing her of sex trafficking. They aren’t claiming Andrew is innocent, but they want her to appear guilty. Business Insider considers that ploy “risky” because the tactic consists of getting a witness — another of Epstein’s victims — to make that claim about Giuffre. It risks backfiring because the witness could actually contradict Andrew’s adamant claim that he never had sex with Giuffre.

Actually, the legal team appears already to have prepared a strategy for that eventuality. On January 26, NPR that Andrew’s lawyers addressed a message to the court saying, “that if any sexual activity did occur between the prince and Virginia Giuffre, it was consensual.” This may sound odd because the accused’s lawyers should know if he did or didn’t, but the law is never about knowledge, only the impression a good attorney can make on a judge or a jury.

NPR continues its description of the lawyers’ position: “The court filing made clear that Andrew wasn’t admitting sexual contact with Giuffre. But it said if the case wasn’t dismissed, the defense wants a trial in which it would argue that her abuse claims ‘are barred by the doctrine of consent.’”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Consent:

Agreement on something perceived as illicit between two or more people, including, in some extreme cases, a member of the British royal family and a 17-year-old American girl turned into a sex slave by the royal’s best American friend

Contextual Note

Since lawyers live in a world of hypotheticals, evoking the idea that “if” a judge and jury were to decide sexual contact between the two was real, it should enable the legal team to make a claim they expect the court to understand as: She was asking for it. In civil cases, all lawyers know that attack is the best defense.

Thus, Andrew’s legal team is now being paid, not to prove the prince’s innocence, but to establish the guilt of the victim. They are seeking to create the impression that the Virginia Roberts of two decades ago was already a wolf in sheep’s clothing when she consented to consorting with a prince. And, of course, continues to be one as she seeks to profit from the civil trial today.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Most commentators doubt that Andrew has a case. This has permitted the media to revel in the humiliation of a man who has always been perceived as and deserving of no one’s attention apart from being the queen’s “favourite son.” That is why this has been nothing but bad news for Buckingham Palace. 

And it looks to get worse. So stay tuned.

Historical Note

Legal tell us that what the prince’s lawyers refer to as the “doctrine of consent” is officially described as the “doctrine of informed consent.” More pertinently, the consent referred to focuses entirely on cases in the realm of medical treatment. It is all about a patient’s agreement to a medical procedure that may be risky. It defines the physician’s duty to inform the patient of all the risks associated with a recommended procedure. If consent is obtained, the physician will be clear of responsibility should any of the risks be realized.

It may seem odd that Prince Andrew’s lawyers are appealing to a doctrine established specifically for medical practice. But while many will not think of lawyers themselves as appealing, whenever they lose a case, you can be sure that they will be appealing it. But that isn’t the only kind of appealing they do. When preparing a case, they will appeal to any random principle or odd fact that appears to serve their purpose. This should surprise no one because, just like politicians who focus on winning elections rather than governing, lawyers focus on winning cases for their clients rather than on justice.

The sad truth, however, for those who believe that justice is a fine thing to have as a feature of an advanced civilization is that the lawyers are not only right to follow that logic; the best of their lot are also very skillful in making it work. Which is why what we call the justice system will always be more “just” for those who can afford to pay for the most skillful lawyers.

The final irony of this story lies in the fact that, in their diligence, the lawyers have borrowed the idea behind the doctrine of consent, not from the world of sexual predation, but from the realm of therapy and medical practice. They need to be careful at this point. Even Andrew and his lawyers should know that if you insert a space in the word “therapist,” it points to the image Prince Andrew has in some people’s minds: “the rapist.” The mountains of testimony from Jeffrey Epstein’s countless victims reveal that, though they were undoubtedly consenting in some sense to the masterful manipulation of the deceased billionaire and friend to the famous and wealthy (as well as possibly a spy), all of them have been to some degree traumatized for life by the experience.

As Bill Gates when questioned about the problem of his own (he claims ill-informed) consent to whatever he was up to with Epstein, for him there could be no serious regrets. The problem no longer exists because, well, “he’s dead” (referring to his pal, Jeffrey). Prince Andrew is still alive, though this whole business has deprived him of all his royal privileges, making him something of a dead branch on the royal family tree. Virginia Giuffre is also still alive, though undoubtedly disturbed by her experience as a tool in the hands of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell and Prince Andrew.

So, unless a nuclear war intervenes in the coming weeks between the US and Russia making everything else redundant (including the collapse of Meta’s stock), the interesting news will turn around the legal fate in the US of two prominent Brits. The first is a socialite (and possibly also a spy) as well as a high-profile heiress, Ghislaine Maxwell. She is expected to have a retrial sometime in the future. The second is none other than the queen’s favorite son.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

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

The post The Art of Prince Andrew’s Lawyers appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Even the borders of nations, the ultimate criterion for defining a nation-state, had become hard to understand. The idea of each nation was built on a mix of geographical, cultural, linguistic, ethnic, religious and ideological considerations. These became infinitely complicated by shifting relationships of dependency spawned by the dominant colonial model they all accepted as normal. And not just normal. Colonialism appeared to both Europeans and Americans as an ideal to aspire to.

Coming to Terms With the Game Being Played on the Russia-Ukraine Border

READ MORE

Two world wars in the first half of the 20^th century had the effect of seriously calming the obsession of Western nations with their individual images. For most of the nation-states emerging from the Second World War, an air of humility became the dominant mood. Two hegemons emerged: the United States and the Soviet Union. But even those powerhouses accepted to work within the framework of an idealized system, the United Nations. That forced them to respect, at least superficially, a veneer of outward humility. The Cold War’s focus on ideologies — capitalism vs. communism — served to hide the fact that the new hegemons were the last two political entities authorized to assert the geopolitical power associated with the previous century’s colonial nation-states.

The current showdown between the US and Russia over events at the Ukrainian border shows signs of a return to the ambience that preceded the First World War. The Soviet Union disappeared 30 years ago, leaving a weak Russian state in its stead. The US has been on a steep decline for two decades since the confusion created on 9/11.

That should signify the existence of an opportunity for non-hegemonic nation-states to reemerge and potentially vie for influence on the world stage, as they did before World War I. After a century of adaptation to the consumer society on a global scale, however, the similarities may only be an illusion. 

Still, some people appear to believe in an idea definitively discarded by history. The New York Times’ on the latest posturing of Great Britain proves that the illusion is still alive in some people’s heads. In recent days, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been diligently seeking to drag his isolated, Brexited nation into the fray of Eastern European border disputes, conjuring up reminiscences of pre-1914 Europe.  

Over the weekend, British intelligence spread the “intelligence” that President Vladimir Putin is seeking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv. Times reporter Mark Lander cites unnamed “British officials” who “cast it as part of a concerted strategy to be a muscular player in Europe’s showdown with Russia — a role it has played since Winston Churchill warned of an ‘Iron Curtain’ after World War II.”

Today’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Muscular player:

An actor or performer whose wardrobe and makeup teams have the ability to turn the player into an image of Atlas or Hercules during a performance on a stage

Contextual Note

In the games that precede a major military conflagration, nations feel compelled to adopt attitudes that go well beyond their ability to perform. Lander quotes Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director-general of a think tank in London, who explains that Johnson’s Britain “is differentiating itself from Germany and France, and to some extent, even the U.S.” He adds this pertinent observation: “That comes out of Brexit, and the sense that we have to define ourselves as an independent middle power.”

There’s much that is pathetic in this observation. In a totally globalized economy, it is reasonable to doubt the idea of a “middle power” has any meaning, at least not the meaning it once had. Outside of the US and China, Russia may be the only remaining middle power, because of two things. First, its geography, its sheer landmass and its future capacity to dominate the Arctic. Second, its military capacity carried over from the Soviet era. The rest of the world’s nations, whether middle or small, should not even be called powers, but “powerlessnesses,” nations with no hope of exercising power beyond their borders. Alongside the middle and small, there may also be two or three “major” powerless nations: India, Brazil and Australia.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

But, of course, the most pathetic aspect of the description of Britain’s ambition is the fact that Johnson’s days as prime minister appear to be numbered. He is already being hauled over the coals by his own party for his impertinent habit of partying during a pandemic. 

In a press conference in Kyiv on February 1, Johnson deployed his most muscular rhetoric. For once finding himself not just on the world stage but in the eye of the hurricane, he felt empowered to to the occasion. “This is a clear and present danger,” he solemnly affirmed. “We see large numbers of troops massing, we see preparations for all kinds of operations that are consistent with an imminent military campaign,”

The hollowness of Johnson’s discourse becomes apparent with his use of the expression, “clear and present danger,” a locution that derives from a US Supreme Court case concerning the limits on free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes used the phrase in his draft of the majority decision in 1919. It became a cliché in American culture, even reaching the distinction of providing the title of a Hollywood action movie based on a Tom Clancy novel.

As for his analysis of the clear and present danger, Johnson, who studied the classics at Oxford but maybe missed Aristotle, seems to ignore the logical inconsistency of assuming that if A (military buildup) is consistent with B (a military campaign), it does not make B predictable and even less “imminent.” That, however, is the line the Biden administration has been pushing for weeks. Johnson’s abject adherence to it may be a sign of the fact that Johnson is incapable of doing what Chalmers claimed he was trying to do: differentiate Britain — even “to some extent” — from the US.

Historical Note

The Times’ Mark Lander is well aware of the hyperreal bravado that explains Johnson’s move. “The theatrical timing and cloak-and-dagger nature of the intelligence disclosure,” Lander writes, “which came in the midst of a roiling political scandal at home, raised a more cynical question: whether some in the British government were simply eager to deflect attention from the problems that threaten to topple Prime Minister Boris Johnson.”

Lander goes on to cite Karen Pierce, the British ambassador to the United States, eager to remind people of the historical logic of Johnson’s move. She refers to a British tradition rife with cloaks and daggers. “Where the Russians are concerned, you’ll always find the U.K. at the forward end of the spectrum.” She wants us to think back to Britain’s active participation in the Cold War, punctuated by an occasionally embarrassing episode such as the 1961 Profumo affair, starring model and escort Christine Keeler. But she knows that what best illustrates that glorious period for Britain in its holy struggle against the Soviet Union is James Bond, who has long been “at the forward end” of the Hollywood spectrum. In our hyperreal world, Pierce knows that fiction will always dominate and replace our understanding of reality. 

We need to ask another question in a world conditioned by the image of Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson. Does the world really need muscular players today? The ancient Greeks imagined Heracles as a naturally muscular hero, who built up his bulk through his deeds, not through his workouts in the gym or to prepare for body-building competitions. Heracles was about killing lions with his bare hands, slaying Hydras, capturing bulls, and even cleaning stables — that is, getting things done. For the Greeks, Heracles was a muscular being, not a muscular player. 

When Greek playwrights actually put Heracles on the stage, he could be tragic (Euripides, “The Tragedy of Herakles”) or comic (Aristophanes, “The Frogs”). In that sense, Arnold Schwarzenegger, from “Conan the Barbarian” to “Twins,” fits the role. The difference is that Heracles was a deity (the son of Zeus with the mortal Alcmene) and, thanks to the completion of his seven labors, became a god on Mount Olympus. When Schwarzenegger completed his labors as a muscular player in more than seven films, he became a Republican politician in California.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

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

The post Boris Johnson’s Convenient Bravado appeared first on 51�Թ�.

COVID-19 has not been kind to the economy. Rising energy prices are putting further pressure on stretched household budgets. To stave off inflation, the Bank of England is finally raising interest rates, bringing an end to the era of cheap money. Payroll taxes are supposed to go up in April to repair public finances.

Has Britain Achieved a Post-Racial Politics?

READ MORE

The is predicting that “spiralling energy prices will turn the UK’s cost-of-living crisis into a catastrophe” by spring. The UK’s 2022 budget will be larger than all its G-7 peers except the US. The beleaguered Boris Johnson government finds itself in a bind. At a time of global inflation, it has to limit both public borrowing and taxes. Unsurprisingly, there is much doom and gloom in the air.

We Have Seen This Movie Before

Since the end of World War II, the UK has experienced many crises of confidence. One of the authors move to the country in 1977. Back then, the Labour Party was in power. James Callaghan was prime minister, having succeeded Harold Wilson a year earlier. The British economy was the fifth-largest in the world but was buffeted by crises. In 1976, the government had approached the International Monetary Fund (IMF) when, in the of Richard Roberts, “Britain went bust.”

From 1964 to 1967, the United Kingdom experienced “a continuous sterling crisis.” In fact, the UK was “the heaviest user of IMF resources” from the mid-1940s to the mid-1970s. The 1973 oil crisis spiked energy costs worldwide and pushed the UK into a balance of payments crisis. Ironically, it was not the Conservatives led by Margaret Thatcher but Labour led by Callaghan that declared an end to the postwar interpretation of Keynesian economics.

In his first as prime minister and party leader at the Labour Party conference at Blackpool, Callaghan declared: “We used to think you could spend your way out of a recession and increase employment by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour, that option no longer exists.” After this speech, the Callaghan government started imposing measures.

Workers and unions protested, demanding pay rises. From November 1978 to February 1979, strikes broke out across the UK even as the country experienced its coldest winter in 16 years. This period has come to be known as the Winter of Discontent, a time “when the dead lay unburied” as per popular myth because even gravediggers went on strike.

In 1979, Thatcher won a historic election and soon instituted economic policies inspired by , the Austrian rival of the legendary John Maynard Keynes. Thatcher’s victory did not immediately bring a dramatic economic turnaround. One major industry after another continued to collapse. Coal mines closed despite a historic in 1984-85. Coal, which gave work to nearly 1.2 million miners in 1920 just 1,000 a century later.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Throughout the 1970s, the UK was “the sick man of Europe.” People forget now that a key reason the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1973 was to make the economy more competitive. Between 1939 and the early 1990s, London a quarter of its population. Yet London and indeed the UK recovered from a period of crisis to emerge as a dynamic economy. Some credit Thatcher but there were larger forces at play.

There Is Life in the Old Dog Yet

Last week, one of the authors met an upcoming politician of India’s ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). A strong nationalist, he spoke about the importance of Hindi, improving India’s defense and boosting industrial production. When the conversation turned to his daughter, he said that he was sending her to London to do her A-levels at a top British school.

This BJP leader is not atypical. Thousands of students from around the world flock to the UK’s schools and universities. British universities are world-class and train their students for a wide variety of roles. Note that the University of Oxford and AstraZeneca were able to develop a COVID-19 with impressive speed. This vaccine has since been released to more than 170 countries. This is hardly surprising: Britain has four of the universities in the world — only the US has a better record.

Not only students but also flocks to the UK. As a stable democracy with strong rule of law, the United Kingdom is a safe haven for those seeking stability. It is not just the likes of Indian billionaires, Middle Eastern sheikhs and Russian oligarchs who put their wealth into the country. Numerous middle-class professionals choose the UK as a place to live, work and do business in. Entrepreneurs with a good idea don’t have to look far to get funding. Despite residual racism and discrimination, Britain’s cities have become accustomed to and comfortable with their ethnic minorities.

Alumni from top universities and skilled immigrants have skills that allow the UK to lead in many sectors. Despite Brexit, the City of London still rivals Wall Street as a financial center. Companies in aerospace, chemical and high-end cars still make the UK their home. British theater, comedy, television, news media and, above all, football continue to attract global attention.

Napoleon Bonaparte once purportedly called the UK “a nation of shopkeepers.” There is an element of truth to this stereotype. The British are a commercially savvy, entrepreneurial and business-friendly bunch. One author knows a dealer who trades exclusively in antique fans and a friend who specializes in drinks that you can have after a heavy night. The other has a friend who sells rare Scotch whisky around the world and an acquaintance who is running a multibillion insurance company in India. Many such businesses in numerous niches give the British economy a dynamism and resilience that is often underrated. Everything from video gaming (a £7-billion-a-year industry) to something as esoteric as antique fan dealing continues to thrive.

The UK also has the lingering advantage of both the Industrial Revolution and the British Empire. Infrastructure and assets from over 200 years ago limit the need for massive capital investment that countries like Vietnam or Poland need. Furthermore, the UK has built up managerial experience over multiple generations. Thanks to the empire, English is the global lingua franca and enables the University of Cambridge to make money through its International English Language Testing System. Barristers and solicitors continue to do well thanks to the empire’s export of common law. Even more significantly, British judges have a reputation for impartiality and independence: they cannot be bribed or coerced. As a result, the UK is the for settling international commercial disputes.

In 1977, the UK was the world’s fifth-largest economy. In 2022, 45 years later, it is still , although India is projected to overtake it soon. The doom and gloom of the 1970s proved premature. The same may prove true in the 2020s. The economy faces a crisis, but it has the strength and track record to bounce back. The UK still remains a jolly good place to study, work, invest and live in.

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

The post Britain’s Still Got It appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The second was the legitimization of voyeurism. What was at one time regarded as an unwholesome and indecent fascination with other people’s affairs is now considered conventional. In fact, the more transgressive outlook is to be nonchalant.

MTV at 40: Did Video Kill the Radio Star?

READ MORE

The new Disney+ mini series “” dramatizes an infamous leaked sex tape ���Ա��DZ������Բ��� and her then-husband, Tommy Lee, who still plays drums for the band Mötley Crüe. Anderson was starring in Baywatch, a TV series that ran from 1989 until 2001. The show was about a team of lifeguards on a Los Angeles beach and became a showcase for Anderson, who featured in the series from 1992 to 1997 before moving into film.

Anderson married Lee in March 1995. It seemed a marriage made in heaven. Well, in Cancún, Mexico, to be exact. The newlyweds were sensibly undressed in beachwear, Lee’s splendidly inked torso in full view of the media. By the end of the year, Anderson announced she was pregnant. But heaven had an unwanted visitor.

Private Lives Made Public

There were rumors about a videotape of Anderson and Lee in sexual congress. That such a thing existed surprised no one. The couple seemed blissfully loved-up. But what surprised many was that people were discussing it as if it were a public event. It later became known that the videotape had been stolen from the couple’s California home while they were honeymooning and that the thief, a dissatisfied contractor who had done some work at their house, was seeking to release the tape in an instance of what we’d now call revenge porn.

This was the mid-1990s, remember. Today, he would have immediately uploaded the recording and gotten millions of views within minutes.

Anderson and Lee were, it seems, genuinely upset by the prospect of having their private lives turned inside out. Neither had anything to gain. Lee’s band had six successful albums, and Anderson was borderline iconic, her signature red swimsuit emblematic of the time. Had the tape gained a wider audience, NBC, the TV network, would probably have dropped her from the show amid protest from their advertisers and several indignant church organizations.

For comparison, in predigital 1988, Rob Lowe’s career temporarily cratered after the media got hold of a recording of the actor in a threesome with a woman who was later revealed to be 16 and another woman in her 20s. After a 10-year absence, Lowe made a Lazarus-like recovery when he got a part in “The West Wing,” a show that restored him. Of course, Lowe was a man.

Lowe’s recovery is one way of imagining how Anderson’s career might have gone had the tape been quickly and widely distributed. Another way is to remember Janet Jackson’s “wardrobe malfunction” of 2004. She had several contracts canceled after a tumult of complaints about her appearance in the halftime Super Bowl show in which she exposed her breast. Her partner in the stunt was Justin Timberlake, whose career suffered no comparably ill effects.

Also in 2004, a similar sex tape featuring Paris Hilton and her partner Rick Salomon had the opposite effect. It propelled Hilton to global notoriety and consequent stardom. Hilton was a woman, but, unlike Anderson or Jackson, she did not have a successful career in show business. Salomon was relatively unknown and, perhaps paradoxically, later married — and I am not making this up — Anderson (though only for a year).

A sex tape also functioned as a career propellant for Hilton’s one-time friend, Kim Kardashian. Again, unlike Anderson, but a lot like Hilton, Kardashian had no known acting or singing talents and belonged to what was then the emerging class of celebrities who were well-known for being followed avariciously by the media. Kardashian existed as an internet life force and a presence in a reality TV series. Halfway through the first decade of the century, this was sufficient to guarantee her a spot high on the A-list.

There were several differences between Anderson’s experience and those of Hilton and Kardashian. For a start, audiences already knew Anderson and realized she needed a sex tape circulating about as much as a funeral wreath. Hilton and Kardashian, on the other hand, were best known as socialites, people who dress well, inhabit fashionable environments and are fond of premieres. All three women acted as if they were affronted, outraged and embarrassed by the leaks, but only one of them sounded credible.

Has Porn Lost Its Appeal?

There was another big difference. When Anderson’s tape appeared, the internet was still in its infancy and without YouTube, which launched in 2005, there was no obvious conduit for publishing. Consent and exploitation may sound old-fashioned today, but, in the 1990s, they were still relevant. Even by the early 21st century, the lack of online regulation had not been realized as the major problem it later became.

Kardashian herself stress-tested the internet’s limits in 2016 when she posted , her modesty protected only by censor bars. In the same year, launched an online platform specializing in what was then seen as risqué material. Its majority owner Leo Radvinsky’s background was in porn. It’s now one of the fastest-growing , according to Ofcom, second only to Pornhub for streaming this type of erotica.

Tumblr appeared to buck the trend when it banned adult content in late 2018. Its traffic dropped and it was sold a year later for a modest $3 million, having been at $1.1 billion in 2013.

What about us? Did we change too? Our capacity to respond, appreciate or be repelled by aesthetic influences is not fixed. Perhaps we were more likely to be offended or shocked when the Anderson tape became available, less so by the later exposures and hardly at all by OnlyFans’ output. Porn has largely lost some of its power to thrill or disgust. Our sensitivity to images of others having sex couldn’t have remained unchanged with so much of it readily available online, could it?

There hasn’t really been anything shocking since the original Kardashian transmission. Can you imagine if anyone tried it today? Audiences would hardly be able to contain their indifference. With the possible exception of Britain’s seemingly indestructible, multi-purpose , surely no one would attempt it, for fear of being ridiculed.

Our fascination with what other people do in their not-yet-made-public moments is what drove reality TV to its preeminent position as the century’s most popular genre, and I think its form, style and subject matter justify calling it a genre. Maybe this prurient streak has always been in us, though I’m inclined to believe the captivation was animated and encouraged by TV’s ingenuity; by coaxing drama from documentary, TV cameras made privacy entertaining. Every one of us became eavesdroppers without any of the guilt typically associated with being a peeping tom. Maybe that’s why watching sex tapes, or their digital equivalents, isn’t so exciting anymore. Those pangs of conscience were probably part of the frisson.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Like anything else that’s banned, the prohibition is part of porn’s appeal. The instant you make it legit, you reduce its attraction. While #MeToo and other movements that fight the objectification and degradation of women would find this irony hard to accept, there is logic in rinsing off porn’s dirt and making it a bit more respectable — and a bit less stimulating.

Anderson, now 54, would probably not accept any responsibility for the growth or sanitization of porn and almost certainly not want her legendary tape viewed again after nearly three decades. And if it were, it would register only historical interest rather than titillation. But in the 1990s, Anderson was riding the zeitgeist, however unwittingly and, perhaps, with help from her private misfortune, changing its direction.

*[Ellis Cashmore’s “” will be published by Bloomsbury in May.]

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

The post Did Digital Media Retire the Sex Tape? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Will the Pandemic Revitalize Ideas of the Global Common Good?

READ MORE

In the same period, Great Britain moved to the right under Prime Minister Boris Johnson while autocratic regimes in Poland, Hungary, Turkey, the Philippines and Brazil tightened their grip on governance structures.

What does the future hold for liberal democracies around the world in the next decade? Are current trends an aberration, or is Marc Plattner prophetic in in “Democracy in Decline?” that authoritarianism seems to have the “wind at its back even if it has not yet spread to many more countries”?

Inevitable Decline Scenario

Current trends produce compelling evidence that seems to suggest that the decline of democracies is an inevitability. In the United States, daily columns appear pronouncing that democracy is in peril and under siege, and asking whether another civil war is possible. The January 6 assault on the Capitol continues to be a flashpoint in what was already a very volatile political environment. Voting restrictions targeted at likely Democratic voters have been instituted in many pro-Republican states. Given the prominence of America as a symbol of liberal democracy, countries around the world are now thinking the unthinkable about the future of democratic governance.

Last year’s Freedom House , “Freedom in the World for 2021,” carries the subheading “Democracy under Siege.” It suggests that the aggregate decline in freedom has exceeded gains for the past 15 years. While much of the deterioration in 2020 was associated with regimes in Africa and the Middle East, European nations — Poland, Hungary and Turkey — recorded reductions in freedom. Moreover, the United States has seen a 10-year decline in freedom equivalent to that experienced in 25 other nations.

Meanwhile, as the left-wing populist party headed by Nicolas Maduro has captured the headlines because of his dismantling of democratic institutions in Venezuela, right-wing populist movements are increasing across Latin America — Brazil, Bolivia and Peru are examples. More recently, following Jair Bolsonaro’s playbook in Brazil, the leader of the right-wing populist Christian Social Front in Chile, José Antonio Kast, forced a run-off in a recent election after voicing a desire to return to the autocratic regime of Augusto Pinochet.  

Kast eventually lost in a landslide, which bodes well for the stability of democracy in Chile for the near future, but still raises the disconcerting issue of the popularity of authoritarianism among a sizeable minority of Chile’s polity. 

Predisposition to Authoritarianism

All of these recent events would seem to posit an argument that many citizens are susceptible to an authoritarian appeal. However, forecasting trends from recent events is always hazardous. Yet there is a more ominous source for predicting inevitability than the recent accounts and actions of political leaders and pundits. The writings of a number of social psychologists, historians and political scientists are extremely relevant to the question at hand.

Karen Skinner argues in her book “The Authoritarian Dynamic” that autocratic tendencies are baked into the psychic of citizens of liberal democracies. Fear of change and diversity is easily transformed into a call by a politician for a return to the status quo of the past, like “Make American Great Again.” Long before the ascent of Trump, Skinner estimated that as many as one-third of the population in liberal democracies have a predisposition to authoritarianism.

Given that democracies encourage diversity, alternative interpretations of history and open dialogue on difficult issues, these strengths may exceed people’s capacity to tolerate difficult issues. A growing lack of tolerance toward immigrants, people of color or bureaucrats provides a platform for opportunistic leaders to activate that “authoritarian ���Բ�������.”

Roger Griffin a similar argument when he attributes modernity as a force for fascism. With the unfolding of modernity, populist interpretations of an idealized national past arise in response to the anxiety that citizens feel about a future where the only certainty is that it will be different than the past. Leaders with autocratic ambitions use “restorative nostalgia” — Svetlana Boym’s concept in her book “The Future of Nostalgia” to describe a hereafter that replicates the past — to rally citizens to a populist political movement, a revolt against democratic institutions and their advocates, “the bureaucratic elites.”

The arguments offered by Skinner, Griffin and others provide an important understanding of how the internal vulnerabilities of liberal democracies can nurture their own demise. However, despite the presence of an authoritarian dynamic within liberal democracies, a political leadership factor is part of the calculus for predicting the future of democracies. The past decade has witnessed the emergence of Plutarchian leaders who have learned to navigate the pathway that enables populist sentiments to be integrated with autocratic predispositions.

While their hold on the masses is important, what is required to secure power is their ability to bewitch a small key group of capable and principled people in leadership roles and convince them to submit to the autocratic impulses of a prophetic leader as a means of achieving limited policy goals.  

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

A cadre of — those who have no autocratic predisposition but are willing to align with anti-democratic politics as a means of achieving specific policy goals or to ensure their own power base in the governance structure — is required. The important and notorious role that Franz von Papen had in enabling the rise of fascism in Germany in the 1930s must not be duplicated if democracy is to be resilient in countries experiencing populist movements. The dangerous combination of a charismatic populist leader and a sizable component of politicians willing to compromise their political ideals for transitory political goals would make the downward spiral of democracy inevitable.

Yet in the United States, a contingent of politicians did defy the urges of the Trump administration to decertify the election results and preserve democratic rule. In Chile, citizens and political leaders rejected the call to return to the autocratic governance model of Pinochet’s dictatorship. In Europe, despite the political uncertainties created by the pandemic, right-wing populist movements have not established themselves as viable alternatives to current regimes. 

Democracy will be resilient and survive the current wave of right-wing authoritarianism if leaders and institutions demonstrate their ability to solve critical social and economic problems, reverse the erosion of trust between themselves and the public, and put the safeguarding of democracy at the forefront of their political agenda.

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

The post Is the Decline of Democracy Inevitable? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Financial Sector Needs to Address Whistleblower Retaliation

READ MORE

How sustainable this period of prosperity will prove, however, is another question. Indeed, while the four major auditors — Deloitte, KPMG, PwC and Ernst & Young — are registering their strongest collective financial performance since the  20 years ago, the industry has yet to undergo the systemic overhaul necessary to ward off another Enron-scale incident. As high-profile scandals and legal battles have multiplied, it’s ever clearer that the UK must implement more robust and meaningful regulation of the auditing industry.

Still Mired in Scandals 

As recently , the auditing giants have all posted their strongest financial results since the 2002 Enron scandal led to the collapse of one-time competitor Arthur Andersen, shrinking the Big Five to today’s Big Four. Indeed, the auditing industry has been a standout performer amidst the pandemic, steadily outpacing the broader economy with the Big Four’s advisory arms reaping a particular windfall as businesses seek expertise on how to recover from the pandemic and protect themselves from future economic downturns.

The wave of mergers and acquisitions deals and increased spending on services such as environmental social and governance (ESG) consulting have given an impressive bump to auditors’ bottom lines. The Big Four a total of $167.3 billion in revenue this financial year, up 7% on 2019-20. Of the four,  experienced the greatest increase, with its global revenue jumping 10% to reach $32.1 billion. , meanwhile, reported a 7.3% rise in overall turnover, including 19.6% growth in its strategy consulting arm.  rose 5.5% to $50.2 billion, while  increased sales by 2% to the overall revenue of $45 billion, with its advisory sector growing by 3.1%.

Unfortunately, this impressive financial performance hasn’t been matched by a corresponding uptick in standards. While auditors have tried to deflect blame — the UK boss of PwC recently  that criticism of the audit industry from politicians and regulators is damaging the sector’s reputation — there’s little doubt that the industry continues to be embroiled in scandals, with all four firms associated with high-profile cases.

In one of the latest instances, KPMG is being for $600 million over its allegedly sloppy auditing of collapsed private equity firm Abraaj. In its heyday, the Dubai-based fund managed some $14 billion in assets, with Abraaj founder  selling himself as an ESG trailblazer to the global political and financial elite. Abraaj turned out to be a massive , and the firm  amid allegations of mass fraud and misuse of funds. 

KPMG played a particular role in the debacle, with the firm’s Lower Gulf affiliate  of failing to identify the irregularities at Abraaj and not maintaining sufficient independence from the troubled fund. In particular, red flags were raised by executives bouncing between posts at Abraaj and KPMG, as well as the fact that KPMG also audited companies in which Abraaj invested.

KPMG is also facing other investigations, including  from UK financial regulators over apparently providing misleading information and failing to spot discrepancies in its auditing of collapsed construction firm Carillion. Meanwhile, EY  of “actively concealing” a six-year fraud from investors during its auditing of Gulf-based NMC Health, which comes as the auditor deals with high-profile auditing failures with  and .

Deloitte was a record £15 million ($20.3 million) in 2020 for failing to “act with integrity and objectivity” in its audit of software firm Autonomy. PwC, meanwhile, has faced fines and lawsuits for audits of firms including  and racing car dealer , and its Frankfurt offices were recently  over a suspected tax evasion scheme.

In total, the Big Four have been  £42 million in the UK in the past three years for flawed audits — a startling sum that underscores the need to more effectively regulate the sector.

Regulation Needed

The trouble is that, two decades on from Enron, regulation hasn’t been beefed up sufficiently to curb abuses in the auditing sector. An independent review found that the current UK regulator, the Financial Reporting Council (FRC), is “rather ramshackle” and should be urgently  with a strengthened body with more accountability to Parliament. 

Plans for such a replacement have yet to materialize concretely, and the government’s appetite for audit reform is worryingly meager. Recent  that ministers are planning to water down suggested reforms — including replacing planned legislation to make company directors more accountable over financial reporting with a weaker, more narrowly applicable UK corporate code — are alarming given the deeply rooted problems in the auditing sector.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Indeed, it is long past time to carry out a thorough overhaul of financial services regulation in the UK and install robust corporate governance to prevent another crisis on par with Enron. As American investigative journalist David Hilzenrath has , there are critical lessons to be learned from Enron, such as the imperative to end the multiple conflicts of interest that exist within the auditing sector, including close relationships and even “revolving doors” that develop between companies, auditors and regulators.

These can be tackled with measures such as ensuring that auditors are independently assigned rather than company-appointed, frequently rotating auditors, and instituting a politically accountable regulator with the power to implement penalties at an earlier stage before the damage has been done.

The UK government should heed the warnings that countless scandals have provided and implement suggested regulatory changes before it’s too late. There’s little point in championing the successes of the professional services sector if this is just paving the way for a headline-grabbing crisis that brings it all crashing down.  

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

The post Auditing Firms’ Strong Performance Masks Unsolved Issues appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In the wake of this climate disaster, a new movement arises in India: an eco-terrorist network called the Children of Kali. The Hindu deity Kali, “She Who Is Death,” is the goddess of doomsday, and her “children” seek, through extremist measures, to avenge the deaths of their countrymen and to halt the march of climate change.  

The Global Climate Crisis Is the New Frontier of Justice

READ MORE

Such is the premise of Kim Stanley Robinson’s “The Ministry for the Future,” a climate fiction that plays out how humanity will handle the climate crisis over the next decades. The scenario is far from science fiction, however. With the right ingredients — environmental disaster, government inaction and public support, combined with non-lethal and well-publicized tactics — eco-terrorism could prove a fiery cocktail.

Special Interest Extremism

Both premises, the killer heatwave and the eco-terrorist network, are based in reality. Last year’s Intergovernmental Governmental Panel on Climate Change predicted more intense heat waves of longer durations, occurring at a higher frequency globally. Within the next decades, mean temperatures could be at least 1.5˚C above pre-industrial levels, leading to intense heat waves and driving higher mortality and poverty rates.

The second premise, the growth of eco-terrorism, sprung up in the late 1970s. At the turn of the century, the FBI the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) — radical environmentalists and animal rights activists, or what the bureau calls “special interest extremism” — as “the most active criminal extremist elements in the United States.”

ELF attacks included arson, sabotage and vandalism; other environmental extremists have been linked to what is known as to prevent deforestation and the sabotage of whaling and sealing vessels. The era of nuclear expansion was accompanied by : Between 1966 and 1977, 10 terrorist attacks took place across Europe, while between 1969 and 1975, US nuclear facilities faced 14 actual and attempted bombings and 240 bomb threats.

These acts of eco-sabotage certainly feel a far cry from today’s conception of terrorism as violence, often lethal, targeted at civilians. Yet it does qualify: In 2002, following 9/11, the FBI as “the unlawful use, or threatened use, of … committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population … in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Despair Rising

It is difficult to be precise about the number of eco-terrorism incidents because so little research within the field of terrorism is conducted on this particular type. The 2020 Global Terrorism Index merely notes that it falls outside its main categorizations. However, it appears to be on the rise. Last year, The Hill that the FBI was investigating 41 incidences of eco-terrorism in Washington state alone, including the derailing of a train that resulted in 29,000 gallons of crude oil being spilled. In September 2021, 53 activists from Insulate Britain were while attempting to block the London Orbital Motorway.

As deadly natural shocks become increasingly common worldwide, the specter of future eco-terrorism looms much more prominently now than it did two decades ago. In the wake of the UN Conference of the Parties climate summit (COP26) that took place in Glasgow, Scotland, in November, it is more evident than ever.

The conclusion of COP26 has widely been received as more of a whimper than a bang. A sense of disappointment, if not failure, greeted the final agreement despite what many have called historic achievements. Thousands of youth activists on the streets of Glasgow channeled the sense of fury felt by the leaders of countries most vulnerable to climate change. Such frustration may have its own consequences.

According to a 2021 global on the impact of climate fears, despair is rising. The youth is scared and angered by governmental paralysis when it comes to the climate emergency. The division between the global south and the global north in the wake of COP26 is ever more acute, with rising resentment that the developed world is failing to fund the now urgently needed adaptation and mitigation measures. With escalating numbers of desperate people, extremist ideologies can find fertile ground.

Sabotage, Ecotage

As climate disasters worsen and public sentiments shift, radicalization may well follow. So, if eco-terrorism were to arise, what might it look like? A 2020 published in the Journal of Strategic Security explored exactly this thought experiment. Much like the now-inactive ELF, 21^st century’s eco-terrorists would likely start with industrial sabotage, or “ecotage.” They might expand to fossil fuel plants, airports and container ships.

Targeting humans, not infrastructure, as happens in Robinson’s novel, seems comparatively unlikely. In general, climate activism is associated with high regard for the sanctity of life. Even ELF guidelines emphasized the need to protect life during group actions, and that the goal of attacks on property is to cause targeted economic harm to industries that degrade the environment.

Lethal action would be left to fringe elements, which is a possibility we can’t rule out. But the saboteurs of Robinson’s fiction, who carry out targeted assassinations of major investors in fossil fuels and take down planes to reduce air travel, are likely to remain the bogeymen of ecological activism.

How effective might such a non-lethal strategy of eco-terrorism be? A well-targeted campaign of attrition, wearing down governments and greenhouse gas-emitting corporations, would be costly and challenging to guard against. With maximum costs imposed on fossil fuel economies, they might simply choose to concede to the terrorists’ demands.

Already technologies abound that are environmentally friendlier and less costly. The International Renewable Energy Agency’s 2021 found that 62% of renewable energies are cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives. With viable alternatives in reach, governments and private companies might concede to a policy change as the least costly strategy. Although governments might not admit to it, has suggested that they often do yield to terrorist demands. Between 1980 and 2003, half of all suicide terrorism were closely followed by substantial concessions from the target government.

Oxygen of Publicity

Terrorism survives on “the oxygen of publicity,” to quote former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Research on has emphasized how well-designed and well-publicized acts of ecotage might galvanize public support if the public endorses the group’s goals and isn’t repulsed by its tactics.

Public endorsement is certainly on the table. A majority of US voters now strongly in the need for climate action. An 6 million people joined the climate protests around the world in September 2019, including peaceful occupations and roadblocks. According to a 2021 global conducted by the United Nations Development Program, one in three people said that climate change is an emergency and that the world should urgently do everything necessary in response.

Every action necessary to respond to the climate crisis has instead included government crackdowns on non-violent ecological activism. Research from 2013 that there has been no documented evidence of harm to humans resulting from actions by radical environmentalists nor of violence being deployed to cause injuries or death. Yet in 2004, a senior FBI official animal-rights extremism and eco-terrorism as “our highest domestic terrorism investigative priority.” As recently as 2020, the UK included organizations like in its police counterterrorism guide alongside violent right-wing extremists.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

These tactics are misguided. Although eco-terrorism does meet the definition of terrorist strategies, the consequences are, as yet, largely non-lethal and governments should respond appropriately. For one, it is more challenging to negotiate with, and concede to, terrorist organizations. Labeling climate-action groups as eco-terrorists runs the risk of undermining their stated objectives, stifling legitimate political dissent and preventing progress toward much-needed climate goals.

Moreover, some groups have argued, the eco-terrorism designation has been used as an intentional tactic by corporations and governments to quash lawful campaigning. Research published by the Journal of Strategic Security suggests that this disproportionate response might fuel the radicalization of the groups and individuals most likely to turn to extremism.

Siberia is burning, Shanxi is sinking, Alabama is rocked by tornadoes. Climate disasters will continue. Governments might stand by and watch or, worse, employ counterterrorism tactics against climate activists. In turn, the outraged might answer the call to arms.

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

The post Can a Non-Lethal Eco-Terrorism Strategy Pay Off? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Far Right and the Politics of Feeling

READ MORE

Rishi Sunak holds the economic future of the country in his hands through his control of the Treasury as chancellor of the exchequer. Kwasi Kwarteng is Sunak’s deputy, as secretary of state for business, energy and industrial strategy. Sajid Javid is in charge of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic.

Facing them across the House of Commons sits David Lammy, Labour’s shadow foreign secretary. Rosena Allin-Khan is Labour’s minister of mental health, and the woman charged with getting her party from the opposition into government is Shabana Mahmood, Labour’s national campaign coordinator.

Minority Representation

These men and women have little in common politically. Some are passionate capitalists, others fervent socialists. But all are members of Britain’s ethnic minorities. Some have family backgrounds in the Indian subcontinent. Others — an admittedly smaller number — can trace their roots to Africa. It is a little commented-upon fact that in Britain today, ethnic minorities are almost numerically represented in Parliament. Some 14% of the British population has an ethnic minority background, and 10% of MPs at the last general election in 2019 are black or Asian.

The key point is not simply the numbers, but rather that they are as likely to be found on in the governing Conservative Party as they are in the opposition Labour Party. Back in 1987, the situation was very different. Four ethnic minority MPs were elected that year: Diane Abbott, Paul Boateng, Bernie Grant and Keith Vaz. All were Labour members.

As the House of Commons Library , “Their number has increased at each general election since then — most notably from 2010 onwards … But if the ethnic make-up of the House of Commons reflected that of the UK population, there would be about 93 Members from ethnic minority backgrounds … Of the 65 ethnic minority Members, 41 (63%) are Labour and 22 are Conservatives (34%). There are two Liberal Democrat MPs from an ethnic minority background.” These MPs have not languished in obscurity. They have been promoted to the highest political offices of the land, by both major political parties.

The policies they would pursue could hardly be more different. Priti Patel has been roundly criticized by Labour for her virulent hostility to unrestricted migration and her determination to crack down on smuggling refugees over the English Channel from France. Her plans for “pushbacks” using the navy to deter migrants have been as “inhumane, unconscionable and extremely reckless.”

Patel’s background — her family came to Britain in the 1960s before dictator Idi Amin’s mass expulsion of Asians from Uganda in 1972 — appears to have had little influence on her opinions or policies. Little wonder that she is a of the Conservative right and a potential successor to Boris Johnson as prime minister.

Zero Tolerance

The significance of the rise of Britain’s ethnic minorities through the ranks is that neither of the two main parties that dominate the country’s politics can any longer tolerate the kind of overt racism that was once a regular part of British culture. Patel and Allin-Khan may be poles apart politically, but neither would accept policies of the kind that once were espoused by the likes of the Enoch Powell.

His notorious “Rivers of Blood” speech from 1968, in which he warned against the impact not just of immigration but also of a bill before Parliament designed to fight racism, was widely welcomed. The Conservative right hailed him as a champion, and Labour-supporting London dockers marched to Parliament to show their support.

Does this imply that racism in Britain is a thing of the past? Emphatically not. But given Britain’s first-past-the-post electoral system, it means that only fringe parties, with little chance of winning seats in Parliament, are likely to take up the issue.

Overt racism is still nurtured by a section of British society. The Brexit referendum in 2016 brought out the worst in some communities. The attacks on Poles were particularly disgraceful, given the bravery of their , over 8,000 of whom fought in the critical Battle of Britain over the skies of England during World War II. No fewer than five neo-Nazi groups are banned in the UK, with Patel “evil white supremacist groups, who target vulnerable people across the world.” A third of all uncovered in Britain emanate from the far right.

None of this should be ignored. It is not inconceivable that overtly racist politics will rear its head once more in Britain, but neither the Conservative Party nor Labour is likely to support it. Only in extreme circumstances are they likely to flourish. As such, it may be that British politics can today be considered post-racial.

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

The post Has Britain Achieved a Post-Racial Politics? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Polexit: Is Poland on the Way Out of the EU?

READ MORE

Freedom of movement in Europe was always something I took for granted. I saw Europe as part of our heritage, despite the grumblings of euroskeptics and sly articles in the British press about the perils of straight  and the metric system. 

I traveled a lot in my youth, but travel was never really the issue. Citizens of many countries from outside the EU can stay in the Schengen zone for up to 90 days without a visa. It wasn’t until 2009 that the  of being an EU citizen became obvious to me. 

Free to Work and Study in Europe 

I signed up for a master’s degree in Brussels, Belgium. The beauty of this was, as an EU citizen, the entire degree cost me only €500 ($560). It was taught in English and full of students from all over the world.

There was no paperwork to deal with, no need to prove income, no need to apply for any student visas. Education in Belgium was as open to me as education in my country of origin. And that would have been the same for education in any country in the EU. 

I stayed in Belgium for two years. During that time, I could work freely without any authorization. I taught English at the European Parliament. I also did a number of freelance jobs on the side. But I could have worked anywhere, from behind a bar, to the top levels of the European institutions. 

As an EU citizen, I had the right to live and work in Belgium, just as I did with any other country in the EU and the European Economic Area (EEA). No sponsorship needed, no work visa, no permission of any kind. 

I often traveled back and forth between London and Brussels. The Eurostar was, and still is, the best mode of transport. It takes you directly from the center of one capital into the center of the other. With an EU passport, going through immigration was quick and simple. In contrast, passport holders from outside the EU had to wait in a separate queue, all herded together. 

I didn’t use my EU freedom of movement rights again for 10 years. But that would be for the final time, as a big change was coming. 

The Vote That Changed Everything

In 2016, a majority of British voters decided the UK should leave the European Union. Millions of British citizens would soon lose their EU rights. People with Irish or other European relatives were desperately applying for second passports.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

The next few years were chaotic, full of political turmoil and tribalism. The Brexit referendum had the country down the middle, and things would never be the same again.

After the vote, there was a rapidly closing window of opportunity to move to the EU. I knew that was the only option for me. So, in the early weeks of 2020, I moved to Lisbon, the capital of Portugal. Time was running out by then, with the Brexit transition period in full swing. Within months, UK citizens would be officially relegated to third-country national status. 

There was no time to waste in securing  in Portugal. As an EU citizen, it was easy. I landed in Lisbon, took my passport and showed up at the nearest municipal office. Thirty minutes and €15 later, I had a five-year temporary residency document for Portugal. 

Portugal’s timeline is five years. All being well, that document will allow me to regain my EU rights sometime in 2025, this time as a proud citizen of Portugal — the country I chose.  

The EU project is far from perfect. Like any large-scale collaboration of humans, it’s fraught with issues. Yes, there’s corruption. Yes, there’s waste and inefficiency. Despite that, the EU is an ambitious project that emerged out of the devastation of the Second World War. The resulting economic cooperation has kept Europe peaceful ever since. In that sense, it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do.

Citizen of Another Somewhere

I don’t like nationalism. It’s too easily misused. And I can’t be proud of something that I didn’t achieve: the coincidence of being born on a certain piece of land. Does that mindset make me a “citizen of nowhere”? If so, that’s good. Thanks for the , Theresa. 

As the late John le Carre once said, “If you want to make me a citizen of nowhere, I will become a citizen of another somewhere.” An Englishman all his life, le Carre an Irish citizen, so disappointed was he at the fallout from Brexit. He was fortunate to have that Irish heritage. Not everyone does. And those that don’t have become second-class citizens in Europe.

National pride is artificially constructed to hold the nation-state together. It plays on our natural inclinations toward tribalism, which is merely an evolutionary hangover. Benedict Anderson’s classic book, “Imagined Communities,” explains these ideas better than I ever could.

Perhaps the EU is an “imagined community” too. But countries working together, no matter how flawed the process, is the only route we have to improving the world. It’s a project I’m determined to be part of. And if I can’t do so as a British citizen, then I’ll happily do so as a Portuguese. 

*[Samantha North is the founder of , an EU citizenship consultancy.]

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

The post The Value of EU Citizenship in a Post-Brexit World appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Fiji’s Women Are Living the Reality of Climate Change

READ MORE

Climate change, as the skeptics like to remind us, does occur naturally. Analysis by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)  that temperatures during the last interglacial period, which began 130,000 years ago and lasted somewhere between 13,000 and 15,000 years, were 0.5˚C and 1˚C warmer than in pre-industrial times and up to 2˚C or even 4˚C warmer during the mid-Pliocene Warm Period, around 3 million years ago. But while there are natural processes in place, the pace of climate change over the past century has demonstrated the devastating effect of anthropogenic activity on the delicate balance of life on Earth. 

The Seas Are Rising

What is significant about the IPCC assessment is that during the last interglacial period, sea levels were likely between 6 meters and 9 meters higher, possibly reaching 25 meters during the mid-Pliocene. That may sound farfetched, but modeling suggests a 2.3-meter rise per 1˚C of warming. Globally, the average sea level has already  by 0.2 meters since the late 19^th century, starting at a  of 1.4 millimeters a year from 1901 to 1990 and accelerating to 3.6 millimeters a year between 2006 and 2015.

This spells disaster for the coastal areas. A  published in Environmental Research Letters earlier this year suggests that, even with no net global emissions after 2020, “the carbon already in the atmosphere could sustain enough warming for global mean sea level to rise 1.9 (0–3.8) meters over the coming centuries,” meaning that currently, anywhere between 120 million and 650 million people — or a mean of 5.3% of the world’s population — live on land below the new tide lines. 

Even if warming is kept under the upper limit of the Paris Agreement of 2˚C above pre-industrial levels, multi-century sea level rise can reach 4.7 meters, threatening the livelihoods of double the number of people, the authors assess. In 2019, the IPCC estimated that this number could reach  by 2050. The panel predicts a rise of anywhere between 0.29 meters and 1.1 meters by 2100 relative to 1985-2005, depending on emission rates. A paper published in Nature concluded that if we stay on the current emissions course heading for 3˚C warming, we will reach a , with the Antarctic ice sheet alone adding 0.5 centimeters to global sea levels each year. 

According to the authors of a 2019 study on sea-level rise and migration, rising waters are  to be the “most expensive and irreversible future consequences of global climate change, costing up to 4.5% of global gross domestic product.” A 2018  by C40, a network of mayors of nearly 100 global cities, estimated that a 2˚C rise could affect 800 million people in 570 urban centers by mid-century. As the authors of a 2021 study , “Although there is large variability in future sea level projections, due, for instance, to the uncertainty in anthropogenic emissions, there is consensus on the potentially catastrophic worldwide impact of SLR.”

A 2˚C rise puts land that houses over half the population of Vietnam and Bangladesh and over 80% of those living in the island nations like Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Bahamas and the Marshall Islands . The , with 80% of its 1,200 atolls not even reaching 1 meter above sea level — the , with its highest elevation point of just 2.4 meters — is particularly at risk; there is literally nowhere to hide. In May, the minister for the environment, climate change and technology, Aminath Shauna,  CNBC that if current trends continue, the island nation “will not be here” by 2100. “We will not survive. … There’s no higher ground for us … it’s just us, it’s just our islands and the sea.”

Water, Water Everywhere

It is clear that Alisi Rabukawaqa, project liaison officer at the International Union for Conservation of Nature, she has given this a lot of thought. When I ask her about the reality of climate change in what many would consider to be a tropical paradise — her native Fiji — she doesn’t stop talking for nearly 10 minutes. She remembers a time when devastating cyclones were “lifetimes apart.” Now, category 5 storms are a regular, looming threat. 

“And if it’s not cyclones, it’s the drought. And if it’s not the drought, it’s the saltwater intrusion that’s impacting where people plant; and if it’s not that, it’s seeping into drinking sources and boreholes from outer islands,” she tells me from a Fiji so hot, everyone is bracing for another cyclone.

While for most communities affected by sea-level rise and saltwater intrusion relocation is still “further down the line,” traditional land ownership laws mean that you can’t just pack up and move anywhere you like, even if, unlike in the Maldives, there is higher ground. In 2017, the government’s  identified over 830 vulnerable communities, 48 of which were in urgent need of resettlement. The plan was developed a year after , which hit Fiji in February 2016, significantly affected around 350,000 people. That is a high number by any standard; here, it’s more than a third of the population. 

“Fiji is a small place relatively, so all those things combined, it’s made us more vulnerable,” Rabukawaqa says. “In the past, it was just the issue of development, thinking of proper development, like, How do we do this right? How do you ensure it’s sustainable? Reforestation. Those seem like simpler times.”

Saltwater intrusion is what is having a major impact on the coastal community of Barishal in Bangladesh, home to Kathak Biswas Joy, district coordinator with Youth Net for Climate Justice, member of the advisory team with Child Rights Connect and the founder of the non-profit Aranyak. It was his work on children’s rights that made him realize that “in Bangladesh, everything is related to climate change.” As it exacerbates existing inequalities,  from the countryside — where salinity and flooding are destroying farmland — to the coastal cities, child labor and child marriage become ever more commonplace. 

So does disease. Increased  has been linked to numerous problems during  and , hair loss and skin diseases, dysentery, hypertension, risk of miscarriage and changes in menstrual cycles as well as difficulty with maintaining hygiene. The deadly dengue fever, already the “fastest growing vector-borne viral disease in the world” as a result of a , has  Bangladesh alongside the COVID-19 pandemic. In a country where water is everywhere, it seems to bring as little relief as it did to Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s ancient .

Rabukawaqa echoes this sentiment. In a nation that depends almost entirely on the ocean, the traditional and cultural relationship with it is turning from “a beautiful, loving, caring one … into one where the ocean is suddenly becoming our enemy. And we don’t want it to be that way.”

On Your Doorstep

If you think that Alisi Rabukawaqa’s and Kathak Biswas Joy’s problems are far from your world, think again. While  out of 10 top large countries at risk from sea-level rise are located in Asia, no place is safe. Many of the world’s most vibrant cities already face a considerable threat from flooding by as early as 2030 — less than a decade from now. , a nonprofit, has used data from “peer-reviewed science in leading journals” to map areas most at risk over the coming century. While the creators warn that the mapping is bound to include errors, its scope of doom is frightening. 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

If global warming is not halted, cities as diverse as Bangkok, New Orleans, Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, Hamburg, Yangon, Antwerp, Basra, Dhaka, New York and Dubai may see entire neighborhoods submerged. On average, coastal residents experience a sea-level rise of around 8 millimeters to 10 millimeters a year for every 3-millimeter rise in sea levels due to  — the slow sinking of land that occurs in river deltas that can be exacerbated by the extraction of resources like groundwater and oil. 

Tokyo, for example, sank by 4 meters over the course of last century, Shanghai, Bangkok and New Orleans by 2 meters. The Thai capital, built on what is known as “,” saw the water-logged areas it sits on drained to accommodate for agriculture and urban expansion, making flooding a recurring problem, exacerbated by a six-month-long rainy season. 

In Shanghai alone, China’s financial hub that sits in the Yangtze River estuary surrounded by lakes, nearly $1 trillion of assets are at risk as a result of rising waters, according to  by the Financial Times. The Pearl River Delta Economic Zone, which  20% of China’s GDP and 3.8% of global wealth, is one of the areas most at risk of sea-level rise. In May, China’s Ministry of Ecology and Environment  that its coastal waters were 73 millimeters above “normal” average for the period between 1993 and 2011, with temperatures 0.7˚C above the 1981-2010 range.

In Venice, the aqua alta, or “high water,” usually occurs between autumn and spring caused a combination of tide peaks, sirocco winds and the lunar cycle. The city that encompasses some 100 lagoon islands has been threatened by water for centuries, but according to , Venice had experienced as many inundations over 1.1-meters aqua alta levels in the last two decades alone as over the whole of the previous century. The 2019 flood that  80% of the city, killing two and causing devastating damage to historical landmarks and $1 billion of losses, saw the second-highest water level in its history.

Mozambique, with one of the longest coastlines in Africa that spans 2,470 kilometers and is home to 60% of the population, is in danger of losing an estimated 4,850 square kilometers of land surface by 2040, according to an  by USAID. With 45% already living below the poverty line, 70% currently depend on  living conditions. According to a 2021 study published in the Journal of Marine Science and Engineering, 20% of the population relies on fishing as the main income, contributing some 10% of the country’s GDP, alongside 5% brought in by tourism.

Coastal erosion and increasing extreme weather events like Cyclone Idai, the deadliest storm in the history of southern Africa, and Cyclone Kenneth, that hit Mozambique in 2019, threaten all of this — as well as the country’s fragile ecosystems like coral reefs. Idai and Kenneth caused ; at around 22% of the country’s GDP, that’s about half the annual budget. 

If the current projections are correct, 12 of  may be under 1 meter of water by the end of the century. Mumbai, the country’s economic capital, and Kolkata, India’s third-largest city built in the lower Ganges Delta, rely on drainage systems dating back to colonial times. Consequently, Mumbai experiences floods every year these days. According to IPCC assessment, Kolkata  more than any other studied city between 1950 and 2018, by 2.6˚C — ahead of  Tehran’s 2.3˚C and Moscow’s 1˚C — and may see its one-day maximum rainfall rise by 50% by 2100. 

While the United Kingdom is not exactly known for sunny climes, the Albion has been experiencing record-breaking rainfall, more frequent storms and flooding, at a cost of £1.4 billion a year in damages, or around £800 million per flood,  to government figures. With the temperature already a  than a century and a half ago, storms like Desmond, which caused £1.6 billion worth of devastation in 2015, may become . 

In the Thames floodplain,  like Tower Bridge, Hampton Court and the London Eye are at risk by 2050. Earlier this year, flooding in central London influenced Queen guitarist Brian May’s  to pack up and leave, one of the more high-profile climate refugees escaping the rising seas.

In its latest report published in September, the World Bank suggested that as many as 200 million people could be  as a result of climate change, an upgrade from its 2018 figure of 148 million. The Institute for Economics and Peace put the number of  at 1.2 billion. While it is difficult to predict how people will respond to the new circumstances over the coming decades,  by Brookings suggests that of the 68.5 million displaced in 2017, approximately one-third was on the move due to “’sudden onset’ weather events — flooding, forest fires after droughts, and intensified storms.” 

Conflicting studies on migration flows demonstrate just how difficult it is to model human behavior in the face of crisis. But we are highly adaptable and can move relatively freely (in the absence of border restrictions). In the animal kingdom faced with loss of vital habitats and fragile ecosystems, up to a third of all the world’s species can go  as a result of climate change by 2070, or more than half under a less optimistic emissions scenario. It is a tragedy the scope of which merits its own elegy. 

A Drop in the Ocean

To quite literally stem the tide, many countries are adopting new technology in the hope to secure their future. China launched its “” initiative in 2015, with the aim to absorb and reuse 70% of rainwater by 2030; some 30 cities are taking part in the scheme, including Shanghai. Egypt’s historical city of , where landmarks like Cleopatra’s palace and the famed lighthouse are in danger of submersion, has opted for widening its canals and rehousing people living alongside them. 

The Netherlands, a  of which already lies below sea level, has been building flood defenses for , and now prides itself on one of the most advanced systems in the world, including the giant sea gate of Maeslantkering that protects the harbor of Rotterdam. Last year, Venice managed to  the waters for the first time in 1,200 years with the help of the €7-billion  that have been under construction for nearly two decades. 

Farmers in Bangladesh are turning to the centuries-old practice of , while Mumbai has been working to conserve its  that can help absorb the impacts of cyclones and dissipate flooding. 

The Maldives is planning to start the construction of the Dutch-designed  in 2022, a first of its kind, to complement the artificial island of  and its City of Hope, a reclamation project that is currently home to around . Miami is set to spend at least  over the next four decades to fund storm pumps and 6-foot-tall sea walls to protect against a once-in-five-years storm surge. 

The Thames Estuary 2100 Plan has been developed to “protect 1.4 million people, £320 billion worth of property and critical infrastructure from increasing tidal flood risk” as well as “enhance and restore ecosystems and maximise benefits of natural floods” and enhance “the social, economic and commercial benefits the river provides.”

This is all good and well, but if we don’t halt the warming of the planet, all this effort will be but a mere drop in the ocean in the long run. 

I ask Rabukawaqa how she feels about all these high-tech, high-cost efforts to keep back the waters. As a scientist, she thinks technology has a place, but says that in this instance, it’s not enough: “If we are going to look for and promote new technology that only results in us mining and extracting more from our lands and, in our case, most likely our oceans through deep-sea mining, it makes absolutely zero sense.” Across Fiji, there is widespread extraction of materials like sand and gravel, as well as copper and bauxite ore, which is only compounding the existing problems. “Maybe it’s not profitable, the way we are living and moving on this planet,” she says. “We need to move slower in this world.”

The Conference of the Parties (COP26) in Glasgow — home to the Industrial Revolution — was  as the “’last, best chance’ to keep 1.5˚C alive.” With much fanfare and squabbling over minutiae, the summit closed with its president, Alok Sharma, reduced to tears by India’s last-minute watering down of commitments on phasing out fossil fuels. On the same day, India’s capital  experienced levels of pollution that forced it into lockdown. While it is already one of the world’s most polluted cities, the symbolism of the timing is hard to dismiss. 

Just as it is most at risk to sea-level rise, Asia — including Australia — is the world’s biggest  of coal, accounting for three-quarters of the global total. With India setting its net-zero commitment to 2070, China to 2060 and the US announcing that it is unlikely to bolster its COP26 pledges to reach net-zero by 2050 in the coming year, it feels like a losing battle for low-emitters like Fiji and Bangladesh. Biswas Joy is disappointed that world leaders ended up blaming each other instead of coming up with a concrete plan for climate financing for developing nations. “It is not a relief — it is our needs,” he says. “We are not begging.”

“We deserve to continue to exist. But our existence really depends on everyone in the world coming to agree,” echoes Rabukawaqa. Both feel that their futures have been traded for profit margins. With just  Pacific Island leaders present in Glasgow vis-à-vis over 500  representatives, it is an unsurprising sentiment.

According to  (CAT), the Glasgow agreement has left a major credibility gap, with the planet still on course to produce twice as many emissions by 2030 as are necessary to keep the temperature rise below 1.5˚C. Without long-term target amendments, CAT calculates that we are on course for a 2.4˚C increase by the end of the century based on pledges alone. Projected warming under current policies is 2.7˚C. The most optimistic scenario, if all pledges are implemented, still has us on course for 1.8˚C by 2100. 

Does all this mean that our future is out at sea? Both Biswas Joy and Rabukawaqa are hopeful. There were good things that came out of COP26, like the deforestation pledge and the fact that decades of activism by small island nations — or large ocean states, as they like to call themselves, Rabukawaqa jokes — have finally moved the needle on fossil fuels. Biswas Joy plans to continue his activism — and vote, when he is finally old enough. “Tomorrow, we come in, we try again,” says Rabukawaqa. “It’s big work.” But for her, “Optimism is not a choice. We have to do this.” She laughs, contagiously.   

*[Correction: An earlier version of this piece stated that Cyclone Idai alone caused $3.2 billion worth of damage in Mozambique in 2019. This article was updated at 16:45 GMT on December 13, 2021.]

*[With thanks to  for his help with fact-checking the article.]

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

The post Water World: Is Climate Change Driving Our Future Out to Sea?   appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The British Radical Right’s Connection to the Past

READ MORE

Historian and broadcaster David Olusoga with force against the idea that decolonizing was simply about banning white authors, as the report suggested. True, deep decolonization of the curriculum is about representing the experiences of all people within the subjects offered and giving expression to those often rendered voiceless by traditional histories. But what place does this have in the study and history of the radical right in Britain?

Diverse Sources

Though many of the groups we study, especially those of the far and extreme right, are small and ultimately have very little impact on Britain as a whole, we should not underplay the harm that these organiztaions and their activity often inflict on the communities they target. This can be through the creation of a culture that is permissive of violence, as was argued by the made by Searchlight — an archive of materials documenting the activity of fascist and racist organizations — to the Macpherson Inquiry, or indeed in a more targeted fashion against those they felt in conflict with, as I’ve about previously. 

The actions of these groups, and the material they produce, not only speak to events in our broader sociopolitical history in Britain but also to the specific experiences of those groups targeted by the far right, such as the Jewish and black communities. While including these community experiences is an important first step, to truly answer David Olusoga’s call to give a voice to those previously marginalized, decolonization must also include the use of sources from both the radical right and its targets.

Of course, we must also be careful not to reduce community experiences to simply the opposition and hatred directed toward them. But we also must not ignore those experiences. Studying the radical right and the use of its material is one way we can engage with that.

Recently, at the University of Northampton, the team has been undertaking a funded exploration of how material related to radical activity can be used to not just teach our own undergraduates but to engage the wider public with this history. This culminated in a one-day workshop in December last year that brought together academics, archivists, librarians, digital resource providers and others to help explore best practices from a range of perspectives. A best practice guide will soon be made available based on the findings.

Not only did the workshop underline the importance of studying radical movements and their materials in terms of broader student engagement and attainment, but it also demonstrated the possibility to engage people from broader and more diverse backgrounds with history as a discipline. Examining the actions of the extreme right gives an opportunity to examine the responses from communities and activists, whose voices are often ignored or minimized due to their lack of scholarly standing.

These responses and the material, however, can be problematic given the circumstances of their creation. It is important that this material is used in a sensitive way, with the affected communities engaged in its curation.

Building the Next Generation

This engagement with the community can also have great benefits in the classroom. As the Runnymede Trust in 2015, although black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) students make up around a quarter of all school-age children, they only represent 8.7% of those studying historical or philosophical subjects at an undergraduate level. This means there are few trainee teachers specializing in history who come from a BAME background.

One of the solutions proposed by Runnymede for the secondary curriculum is a better approach to teaching the history of migration in Britain and the impacts of colonialism. Part of this history is the reaction against migration and decolonization, driven by the radical right, and teaching it at the undergraduate level will help prepare the next generation of teachers to tackle these curriculum changes. 

More than that, however, it makes the history curriculum more attractive to BAME students when they see their experiences taught and valued as part of British history. A more diverse classroom, representing greater experiences, helps stimulate discussion and, in turn, peer learning. undertaken at Northampton has shown that engagement increased when material from the radical right was used in the courses. Engagement increases attainment and can also be a step to tackling the recognized in British universities between white British and other ethnic groups.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

In telling the stories of how the radical-right narrative against migration took hold and how it was opposed by anti-fascist movements and by community responses, the study of the radical right has an important part to play in decolonizing the curriculum. Through engagement with primary sources that reflect these experiences, we can deliver deep decolonization that allows for thoughtful conversation and impactful learning experiences.

We can help provide the opportunity for related subjects to recruit more diverse student populations and, in doing so, be part of generational change. As more diverse students go into teaching history, as well as into archive and heritage roles, they will be able to make the decisions on how history is preserved and presented.

If the decolonization of the curriculum were indeed a shallow and tokenistic effort that simply seeks to ban white authors as the Sewell Report seems to suggest, it would indeed have been at the very least a wasted opportunity, if not actively harmful. However, that is not what decolonizing the curriculum is. In studying the radical right, we have an opportunity to not only engage people with difficult histories but to do so using innovative sources and to engage outside of academia. That is an opportunity we must take.

 *[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

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

The post Should the Study of Extremism Be Part of the Curriculum? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Being caught in purgatory suggests the current crisis has the ability to cleanse or purify. The case of Azeem Rafiq has the potential to do exactly this.

What Is Behind Football’s Persistent Racism?

READ MORE

Rafiq is the former professional cricketer who that, during his employment at Yorkshire County Cricket Club, between 2008 and 2014 (he also played for the club in 2016 and 2018), he was habitually subjected to racial abuse, was obliged to listen to offensive language, including the epithet “paki,” and experienced “bullying.” His initial complaints of institutional racism were reviewed by the club which, in October 2020, confirmed that an and instructed a legal team to investigate. The findings were anodyne and, while the club apologized to Rafiq, it cited “insufficient evidence” in relation to several claims.

Rafiq escalated the matter, making an additional legal claim against the club for “direct discrimination and harassment.” He had his testimony heard by an employment tribunal and, more recently, a government select committee. Key officials at the club were embarrassed into resigning, and , including Emerald Books, Yorkshire Tea and Nike, dissociated themselves, relieving the club of a valuable source of income.

Rise of the Political Athlete

Imagine if Rafiq had voiced his concerns two years ago. An individual athlete making largely uncorroborated but momentous claims, many contested by whites, from years before would have been unlikely to be taken seriously. He would have probably been dismissed as oversensitive, thin-skinned or even paranoid.

The default escape route of “banter” — that catch-all word habitually used to dismiss offense and harassment — would probably have been used to elude culpability or deny malice or aggression. A lack of hard, unequivocal evidence or confessions would not have helped his argument, and it’s unlikely most people would ever have heard of Azeem Rafiq today.

Black Lives Matter has changed all that. Since the movement, which has existed since 2013, turned its focus on the Floyd murder, the world has taken notice. Its effects in Britain have been truly transformative. Statues of historical figures associated with slavery have been pulled down, entertainers from film and television have been reprimanded, shunned or canceled for characterizations that have racist connotations, every program or film is now accurately representative of Britain’s culturally diverse population and practically every TV show has a disclaimer about language and scenes that may offend.

Britain already has , but employers are probably scrutinizing how obediently they follow the letter of the law nowadays. It’s doubtful whether any other country has reacted as positively to Black Lives Matter as Britain. Rafiq’s case appears at a propitious time in history and now promises to batter whatever remnants of racism are left.

There is also providence in Rafiq’s position. At no time in history have athletes been taken so seriously. The old stereotype about dimwitted or politically ignorant jocks has been destroyed by a generation of spirited and culturally aware athletes, who are determined to use their sports as platforms. Five years ago, this would have been unthinkable. In 2016, NFL player , then a quarterback with the San Francisco 49ers, decided to fashion his own protest against police violence against African Americans by dropping to his knee while others stood proudly before the American flag as the national anthem played.

It was a near-seditious act at the time that barred him from the field ever since. Now, sports teams all over the world spend a few moments kneeling to signify a commitment to the fight against racism.

Athletes like Rafiq are now taken seriously. Their views and proposals on such human rights matters as child poverty, migrant workers and the National Health Service are not only listened to but, as in the case of Manchester United player Marcus Rashford’s for free school meals, acted upon. A blunt repudiation of Rafiq’s claims from ex-colleagues impresses no one. The so-called white privilege that afforded whites credibility when denying racist behavior is fast disappearing.

Revelations that Rafiq posted messages on social media several years ago do not invalidate his present claims. No one seriously believes victims of bigotry — of whatever kind — are always innocents themselves. There is also no reason to think, as Marie van der Zyl, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews suggests, that Rafiq’s apology was not “heartfelt” or “completely sincere.”

Day of Reckoning for Institutional Racism?

The weakness in Rafiq’s argument may turn on institutional racism, which is denied by Yorkshire Cricket, but which is, according to many, pervasive in many aspects of British society. The term came into popular use after the 1999 on the killing of Stephen Lawrence, a black teenager from east London. The police service as a whole was affected, concluded the report.

Institutional racism is a property of an organization, such as a firm, an educational authority or a government department. It is notoriously hard to detect, hence why it usually goes unnoticed. Let’s say, for example, a government department awards lucrative contracts for the provision of services or commodities, such as personal protective equipment, to a number of firms, all of which are owned by whites. No company owned by ethnic minorities is awarded a contract, yet no one bothers to check, and the practice continues.

There may be no intention to discriminate, nor any individual may deliberately intend to disadvantage ethnic minorities. But the disparate impact is felt all the same. This is how institutional racism operates — surreptitiously.

There have been suggestions that Yorkshire County Cricket Club operates an analogous policy in hiring a disproportionately high number of white players. It is conceivable, though unlikely. While cricket is a popular recreational sport with British Asians, it offers a limited long-term career. The chances of securing a professional contract are negligible, anyway. So, while the glamour of a life in professional sport is attractive, maybe many young Asians are rational enough to make a cost-benefit calculation and arrive at the decision that their best interests will be served in accountancy, law, medicine or another profession. We at least need to consider this possibility before assuming the presence of racism.

Whether or not one agrees with the above, it is hard to miss the fact that there has been no comparable reckoning across the Atlantic. The nearest may be the case involving the Phoenix Suns owner, , who allegedly used racist terms in a heated locker-room exchange. Interestingly, the incident has not been swept to prominence by Black Lives Matter. Britain, I venture, has embraced the movement more enthusiastically than the .

The root and branch introspections promised in the 1980s and in the 1990s yielded change for sure. But racism was never expunged and, every so often, research would remind us that African Caribbean children at school and are overrepresented in courts and prisons, and British Asians are subject to racial profiling by the police and often fall victim to hate crimes. The visibility of racism has diminished over the decades, and its consequences are undeniably less severe. Yet it remains. But for how much longer?

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The case of Azeem Rafiq is like one of those traffic signs that warns of something ahead, such as a hazard or a fork in the road. In this case, it is the day of reckoning, a time when past misdeeds are acknowledged and put right. The cricketer has already won his case, at least in a moral sense. Over the next several years, every individual, corporation and public institution will self-investigate to ensure they are faultless in their practices and that no semblance of racist behavior exists.

What of Yorkshire County Cricket Club? It will never be restored to its hallowed position in the sports pantheon and may yet become a symbol, albeit a reluctant one, of a Britain of the past, a vestige of a time when offenses could be caused without consequence, racial slurs communicated with impunity and complainants dismissed with a shrug. No longer.  

*[Ellis Cashmore is the author of “.”]

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

The post Will the Azeem Rafiq Case Purge Britain of Racism? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

What’s astonishing is that people outside the United States had a much better understanding of what was going on inside this country. By all objective standards, America was doing a terrible job back in 2020. We had the highest number of infections and the highest number of deaths. We had critical shortages of personal protective equipment, and hospitals in a number of cities and rural areas were completely overwhelmed. Contact tracing was sporadic and masking requirements inconsistent. The federal government was incoherent, to put it mildly, and states veered off in very different directions, some of them suicidal.

Fiji’s Women Are Living the Reality of Climate Change

READ MORE

So, how could nearly half of America give a thumb’s up to such a nightmare? Part of it was pure nationalism (whatever America does is by definition great), part ideological (whatever the Trump administration did was by definition great), and part of it simply ignorance (the pandemic was a hoax, the numbers were exaggerated, it’s bad all over).

This perception gap between outsiders and insiders does not bode well for the global response to the climate crisis. After all, the tendency has been to point fingers at others and rarely at one’s self. Everyone has criticized China for its expanding carbon footprint. The Global South has criticized the industrialized north for producing the lion’s share of carbon emissions over the last 150 years. The United States has been attacked for its devotion to fossil fuels, its radical swings in policy and its ungenerous arrogance. They are all correct. But rarely are such judgments balanced by self-criticism.

The domestic-international gap in perceptions is not quite as large on climate change as it was on the pandemic back in 2020. For instance, 39% of non-Americans surveyed by Pew in 2021  the US record on climate change as “good.” A much larger number of Americans, 49%, that opinion. More troubling is the ideological in the United States, with 67% of those on the right and only 26% on the left thinking that the US record is good.

At COP26 in Glasgow

Such gaps in perception were on full display at the big climate confab that’s taking place in Glasgow. Last week, leaders gathered to make declarations while critics mobilized in the streets to decry the insufficiency of those efforts. This week, the negotiators try to transform the declarations into numbers.

A couple of those declarations look promising. A deal on beginning to reverse deforestation by 2030 would be a great step forward (of course, a similar agreement in 2014 would also have been a great step forward). A pact to cut methane levels by 30% by 2030 is certainly welcome, but the biggest sinners in this regard (India, Russia and China) are not yet on board.

The assembled leaders agreed to what they have called the “Glasgow Breakthrough Agenda” five sectors that account for half of all carbon emissions: power, road transport, steel, hydrogen and agriculture. This collection of initiatives is meant to create 20 million jobs and increase global GDP by 4% over what it would otherwise be by 2030.

Deeply troubling in all of these declarations is the continued reliance on private finance to lead the way toward a carbon-neutral world, like the pledge from the captains of finance to push for cleaner technologies. Unfortunately, they are not making a comparable commitment to stop investing in fossil fuels.

Just as citizens of countries tend to view the climate policies of their own governments more favorably than outsiders do, the leaders of the international community generally have a self-congratulatory approach to their own efforts. Those on the outside of the Glasgow meetings, on the other hand, were harshly critical. “Blah, blah, blah,” said climate activist Greta Thunberg in one of her latest jeremiads against the insufficiency of response. Let’s be clear: it’s not nothing.

Going into the Glasgow meeting, the cumulative impact of all the pledges countries have made to reduce their carbon emissions would have led to the world heating up to 2.1 degrees Celsius (over pre-industrial levels) by 2100. Factoring in the pledges made at Glasgow, to the International Energy Agency (IEA), will bring down that number to 1.8 degrees.

It’s not the 1.5 degree level that represents the consensus of scientists and activists who want to avoid the worst effects of climate change. But it’s also the first time that the international community has managed to get below the 2-degree mark, which was the upper level established by the 2015 Paris Agreement. But wait, this analysis comes with a number of important asterisks.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

First, despite all the fine words surrounding the Paris accords, countries have largely not met the agreement’s voluntary limits. Five years after making those commitments, countries on track to reduce carbon emissions by a mere 5.5% by 2030 compared to the minimum requirement of 40-50%. That’s probably a generous estimate. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, meeting the Paris commitments would only result, by 2030, in a 1% reduction from 2010 levels.

Both estimates, in any case, are probably off because, as The Washington Post  this week, the data is incomplete and sometimes falsified outright. Algeria hasn’t reported since 2000, Qatar since 2007, Iran since 2010, China since 2014, Libya and Taiwan since, well, never. In all, 45 countries haven’t reported data since 2009. No country claims the carbon emissions from international travel and shipping (more than a billion tons a year). Countries like Russia and Malaysia have subtracted carbon emissions from their balance sheets based on their forests, and sometimes those estimates bear little relationship to reality. Even the emissions they do report don’t line up with the estimates of independent assessments. According to The Post, as much as 13.3 billion tons of carbon each year goes unreported.

Compounding this problem is the so-called brown recovery. The modest reductions in carbon emissions that took place during the COVID-19 economic shutdowns are being obliterated by the burst of post-pandemic economic activity. The world could have built back better in a sustainable manner. Instead, it is back brown.

So, let’s take another look at the IEA prediction of substantial progress after Glasgow. The UN’s own estimate,  this week, suggests that the combined reduction in global temperature as a result of the Glasgow pledges — given the failures to meet earlier commitments, the gaps in the data and the current upsurge in post-pandemic emissions — will be a mere .1 degrees, not .3 degrees. And the world is heading not toward a 2.1-degree Celsius increase by the turn of the next century but 2.5 degrees.

So, the gap between perception and reality has some very dangerous consequences indeed. To narrow that gap, activists will have to continue to push governments to do better. Individuals think they are doing enough, think that their governments are doing enough and, on the whole, consider climate change to be somebody else’s problem. They have to be persuaded otherwise.

Bridging the Gap

One of the great compromises — or grand delusions, if you prefer — at the heart of the Breakthrough Agenda is encapsulated in the phrase “green growth.” At Glasgow, the luminaries promise millions more jobs and a boost in global GDP. Political leaders are not in the business of taking things away from people, of promising belt-tightening, of Scrooging everyone’s Black Friday buying spree. At Glasgow, like pretty much everywhere else, politicians promised more jobs (green ones), more energy (the clean kind), more gadgets (like electric cars).

More, more, more has been humanity’s mantra for the last 150 years or so. It used to be only the watchword of the rich. The Industrial Revolution democratized the phrase. The problem, however, is that the planet can no longer accommodate our collective voracity. There just isn’t enough stuff to go around.

Oh, yes, of course, sunlight is unlimited and will be for the next umpteen million years. But the resources it takes to capture that sunlight — the materials for the solar panels, the energy to build those panels, the land to site solar farms — are not unlimited. The same applies to wind and waves and geothermal.

So, we’re going to have to have a serious sit-down about this problem of economic growth and our unexamined assumptions about more, more, more. That needs to be a global conversation, but the north continues to out-consume the south by an order of nine to one, if you  the per capita carbon footprint of the United States (15.53) with that of Indonesia (1.72). So, global equity has to be part of this conversation as well — transferring resources to the Global South on an unprecedented level to ensure an equitable green transition.

It’s not just a bill of reparations for what the industrialized world has extracted — often through outright theft — over the last few hundred years. It would also need to reverse the current outflow of resources from the Global South. As I wrote recently, “By one estimate, the Global North enjoys a $2.2 trillion annual benefit in the form of underpriced labor and commodities from there, an extraction that rivals the magnitude of the colonial era.” And that doesn’t even count the debt repayment outflow. Or the costs associated with ongoing climate change, which disproportionately affects the Global South.

Here, the gap in perceptions turns deadly. Consumers can believe that they are doing their part by buying electric cars. Americans can believe their government is going the extra mile with the clean energy provisions of the new infrastructure bill (all those charging stations) and perhaps one day the Build Back Better bill as well. Europeans can feel good about themselves by meeting the  of their new Fit for 55 provisions (which mandate a 55 percent reduction of carbon emissions from 1990 levels by 2030). The international community is awash in self-congratulation after the meeting in Glasgow and all the promises made.

But all that good feeling will leave us thinking that we’ve done enough. In this case, the perfect needs to be the enemy of the merely good. As the waters continue to rise, good simply is no longer good enough.

*[This article was originally published by .]

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

The post Climate Change Is Not Somebody Else’s Problem appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Uncomfortable Presence of US Politicians at COP26

READ MORE

Cox is not an isolated case. It follows that of MP Owen Paterson, who was forced to resign. Reacting to what The Guardian as “revelations about the private earnings of his party colleagues,” UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson expressed his faith in his nation’s integrity. “I genuinely believe,” Johnson insisted, “that the UK is not remotely a corrupt country, nor do I believe that our institutions are corrupt.” 

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Believe:

When used affirmatively, as in “I believe,” to accept an idea or proposition as credible and even probable

When used negatively, as in “I don’t believe,” the verb serves to deny what is both credible and probable. This is especially true when preceded by adverbs such as “genuinely,” “sincerely” or “truly.”

Contextual Note

The Guardian sums up the nature of the scandal as “a flurry of claims about MPs’ lucrative second jobs and whether they create conflicts of interest.” How on earth, Johnson appears to be wondering, do the self-appointed moralists imagine that earning large sums of money from other sources could possibly influence the integrity of public servants? Don’t they know — as billionaire Donald Trump insisted during his presidential campaign in the US — that good government can only be carried out by people so flush with money that they can think and act with total independence? The reason they seek massive amounts of supplementary income is precisely to ensure that they will not be influenced by the pressures typically felt by people who have no idea where their next meal will come from.

Reaffirming what many Western politicians like to cite as the founding principle of their brand of civilization — the ethics of a “rules-based order” — Johnson affirmed his belief that the solution would be simply to apply the rules. “I think what you’ve got is cases where, sadly, MPs have broken the rules in the past, may be guilty of breaking the rules today,” he said. “The most important thing is, those who break the rules must be investigated and should be punished.” His distinction between “must” (be investigated) and “should” (be punished) would itself be worth investigating.

Pushed further, Johnson insisted that “‘it is crucial that MPs follow the rules’ by devoting themselves primarily to their constituents and avoiding ‘paid advocacy.’” Paid advocacy is a synonym for lobbying. Paterson chose to resign, which could be called one way of respecting the rules. He blatantly lobbied “the government on behalf of two companies paying him more than £100,000 a year.” How indiscreet!

American politicians — for example, Senator Joe Manchin — can only be astonished at Paterson’s amateurism. In a democracy, as opposed to Britain’s monarchy, there is no upper class that supposes traditions will allow it to get away with abusing its privileges. American ingenuity has crafted much more sophisticated ways of doing it. It works through campaign financing and revolving doors, insider or, as in Manchin’s own case, having a major stake in companies that may be the object of legislation or getting his daughter appointed CEO of a pharmaceutical company.

Commenting on the scandal of 44 US legislators “who’ve failed to properly report their financial trades as mandated by the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act of 2012, also known as the STOCK Act,” Business Insider that ethics “watchdogs and even some members of Congress have called for stricter penalties or even a ban on federal lawmakers from trading individual stocks, although neither has come to pass.” 

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Nor are they likely to come to pass. Not because members of Congress are thought of in the same privileged terms as the UK’s upper class, but because in the American value system, speculating on the stock market is considered not just a legitimate activity, but also a healthy sport on a par with baseball. People see investing in the stock as a patriotic act. Taking advantage of the (insider) knowledge that falls into your lap is little more than exercising “good sense” or, at worst, assertiveness. You can never accuse an American of being too patriotic or too assertive, even when the behavior amounts to breaking the rules.

One thing that differentiates British from American political corruption is the traditional British upper-class sense of honor that has been largely adopted by the nouveau-riche upper-middle class. True to the style required of people of his standing, rather than adamantly denying the facts, after being found out, Cox accepts to humbly submit to the judgment of his peers. To maintain his dignity, it suffices that he “not believe” in his culpability, just as Johnson doesn’t believe Britain is corrupt.

“He does not believe,” The Guardian notes of Cox, “that he breached the rules, but will of course accept the judgment of the parliamentary commissioner or of the committee on the matter.” American politicians deny, contest or eventually appeal their way to the Supreme Court. Alternatively, if they fear the inevitable, they can propose to enter rehab. They are not likely to patiently await and respect the judgment of the authorities who accuse them.

Historical Note

As both an outsider and insider of Britain’s upper-class culture, Boris Johnson may not believe that the UK and its institutions are corrupt, but he has had multiple opportunities to see it at work, even in his own career. In 2019, he was the subject of a corruption scandal. It wasn’t on the scale of the millions of pounds Sir Geoffrey Cox and Owen Paterson seem to have earned.

Moreover, Johnson was the giver rather than the receiver of favors. But what most differentiates his public case of corruption is the fact that it was about sexual attraction to a blonde, ambitious American businesswoman who apparently had some sort of “relationship” with Johnson. Jennifer Arcuri, The Guardian at the time, “was also given thousands of pounds of sponsorship by the mayor’s promotional agency London & Partners and access to trade trips with Johnson despite failing to meeting the criteria.” In other words, Johnson’s most visible personal experience of corruption can be deemed shockingly minor league.

A scandal that emerged this year proved to be slightly more significant. Johnson’s former protégé, Dominic Cummings, provoked a formal investigation of possible public financing of an expensive plan to renovate the prime minister’s apartment. The conducted by the independent adviser on ministers’ interests, Sir Christopher Geidt, ended by clearing Johnson of the principal charges but found “‘reasonable grounds’ to suspect that multiple offences might have been committed.”

These incidents help to clarify why Johnson doesn’t “believe” specific corrupt acts reflect a general state of corruption. Except in the rarest occasions, a truly corrupt system tends to be skilled at finding ways of dismissing scandals whenever they emerge or forgetting them once the media loses interest. True political corruption is crafted by expert hands so as to remain invisible to all but the truly inquiring. 

In 2002, one of those inquirers, The Observer’s chief political commentator, Andrew Rawnsley, accused Tony Blair of systemic . He called Blair, the UK prime minister at the time, “the rentboy of Number 10, cruising Downing Street, available for hire to any kerb-crawling businessman with enough of the folding stuff?”

Rawnsley added that the Conservatives, eager to attack Blair, were “vestigially conscious that they have to tread cautiously on the subject of sleaze,” implying a similar taste for corruption. For the Tories, Blair’s crime was to practice it in an ostentatious, in-your-face way that violated their own carefully cultivated discretion. Blair, in his way, was a precursor of Donald Trump. After abandoning politics, he showed a similar talent for accumulating personal wealth, capitalizing not on a gift from his father, but on his extensive experience of capitalizing on fame and buying and selling political influence.

Johnson insists on respecting “the rules.” Superficially, he is responding to the resoundingly negative reaction to his initial to “protect Paterson by hastily voting to change the rules” of Parliament. At a deeper level, British politicians, financiers and business people have their own set of rules that never need to be changed.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

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

The post What Boris Johnson Doesn’t Believe appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Climate Around Climate Is Far From Sunny

READ MORE

Yet the planet has, so far, only warmed 1.2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times. We already have the technology we need to convert our energy systems to clean, renewable energy. Doing so would create millions of good jobs for people all over the world. So, in practical terms, the steps we must take are clear, achievable and urgent. 

The greatest obstacle to action that we face is our dysfunctional, neoliberal political and economic system and its control by plutocratic and corporate interests, which are determined to keep profiting from fossil fuels even at the cost of destroying the Earth’s uniquely livable climate. The climate crisis has exposed this system’s structural inability to act in the real interests of humanity, even when our very future hangs in the balance.      

Looking at COP26

So, what is the answer? Can COP26 in Glasgow be different? What could make the difference between more slick political PR and decisive action? Counting on the same politicians and fossil fuel interests (yes, they are there too) to do something different this time seems suicidal, but what is the alternative?   

Since Barack Obama’s Pied Piper leadership in Copenhagen and Paris produced a system in which individual countries set their own targets and decided how to meet them, most countries have made little progress toward the aims they set in Paris in 2015. Now, they have come to Glasgow with predetermined and inadequate pledges that, even if fulfilled, would still lead to a much hotter world by 2100.

A of UN and civil society reports in the lead-up to COP26 have been sounding the alarm with what UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has a “thundering wake-up call” and a “code red for humanity.” In Guterres’ opening speech at COP26 on November 1, he that “we are digging our own graves” by failing to solve this crisis.

Yet governments are still focusing on long-term goals like reaching “net zero” emissions by 2050, 2060 or even 2070. These targets are so far in the future that they can keep postponing the radical steps needed to limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Even if they somehow stopped pumping greenhouse gases into the air, the amount of GHG in the atmosphere by 2050 would keep heating up the planet for generations. The more we load up the atmosphere with GHG, the longer their effect will last and the hotter the Earth will keep getting.

Wealthy Nations

The United States has set a target of reducing its emissions by 50% from their peak 2005 level by 2030. But its present policies would only lead to a 17% to 25% reduction by then. The Clean Energy Performance Program (CEPP), which was part of the Build Back Better Act, could make up a lot of that gap by paying electric utilities to increase reliance on renewables by 4% year over year and penalizing utilities that don’t. But on the eve of COP26, US President Joe Biden dropped the CEPP from the bill under pressure from Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema and their fossil fuel puppet masters.

Meanwhile, the US military, the largest institutional emitter of GHG on Earth, was exempted from any constraints whatsoever under the Paris Agreement. Peace activists in Glasgow are demanding that COP26 fix this huge in global climate policy by including the US war machine’s GHG emissions, and those of other militaries, in national emissions reporting and reductions. At the same time, every penny that governments around the world have spent to address the climate crisis amounts to a small fraction of what the United States alone has spent on its nation-destroying war machine during the same period.

China now officially emits more CO2 than the United States. But a large part of China’s emissions are driven by the rest of the world’s consumption of Chinese products, and its largest customer is the United States. An in 2014 estimated that exports account for 22% of China’s carbon emissions. On a per capita consumption basis, Americans still account for three times the GHG emissions of the Chinese and double the emissions of Europeans.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Wealthy countries have also on the commitment they made in Copenhagen in 2009 to help poorer countries tackle climate change by providing financial aid that would grow to $100 billion per year by 2020. They have provided increasing amounts, reaching $79 billion in 2019, but the failure to deliver the full amount that was promised has eroded trust between rich and poor countries. A committee headed by Canada and Germany at COP26 is charged with resolving the shortfall and restoring trust. 

When the world’s political leaders are failing so badly that they are destroying the natural world and the livable climate that sustains human civilization, it is urgent for people everywhere to get much more active, vocal and creative. The appropriate public response to governments that are ready to squander the lives of millions of people, whether by war or ecological mass suicide, is rebellion and revolution. Non-violent forms of revolution have generally proved more effective and beneficial than violent ones. 

Demanding Action

People are rising up against this corrupt neoliberal political and economic system in countries all over the world, as its savage impacts affect their lives in different ways. But the climate crisis is a universal danger to all of humanity that requires a universal, global response. 

One inspiring civil society group on the streets in Glasgow during COP26 is, which proclaims: “We accuse world leaders of failure, and with a daring vision of hope, we demand the impossible. … We will sing and dance and lock arms against despair and remind the world there is so much worth rebelling for.” Extinction Rebellion and other climate groups at COP26 are calling for net-zero emissions by 2025, not 2050, as the only way to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees Celsius agreed to in Paris.

is calling for an immediate global moratorium on new fossil fuel projects and a quick phase-out of coal-burning power plants. Even the new German coalition government, which is expected to include the Green Party and has more ambitious goals than other large wealthy countries, has only moved up the final deadline on Germany’s coal phaseout from 2038 to 2030.

The Indigenous Environmental Network is bringing people from the Global South to Glasgow to tell their stories at the conference. They are calling on the northern industrialized countries to declare a climate emergency, to keep fossil fuels in the ground and end subsidies of fossil fuels globally.

Friends of the Earth (FOE) has published a new titled “Nature-Based Solutions: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” as a focus for its work at COP26. It exposes a new trend in corporate greenwashing involving industrial-scale tree plantations in poor countries, which corporations plan to claim as “offsets” for continued fossil fuel production. 

The UK government that is hosting the conference in Glasgow has endorsed these schemes as part of the program at COP26. FOE is highlighting the effect of these massive land-grabs on local and indigenous communities and calls them “a dangerous deception and distraction from the real solutions to the climate crisis.” If this is what governments mean by “net-zero,” it would just be one more step in the financialization of the Earth and all its resources, not a real solution.

As it is hard for activists to get to Glasgow for COP26 during a pandemic, activist groups are simultaneously organizing around the world to put pressure on governments in their own countries. Hundreds of climate activists and indigenous people have been in protests at the White House in Washington, and five young Sunrise Movement activists began a there on October 19. 

US climate groups also support the “Green New Deal” that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has introduced in Congress. The bill, known as , specifically calls for policies to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius and currently has 103 co-sponsors. It sets ambitious targets for 2030 but only calls for net-zero by 2050.

The environmental and climate groups converging on Glasgow agree that we need a real global program of energy conversion now as a practical matter, not as the aspirational goal of an endlessly ineffective, hopelessly corrupt political process. 

“Blah, Blah, Blah”

At COP25 in Madrid in 2019, Extinction Rebellion dumped a pile of horse manure outside the conference hall with the message, “The horse-shit stops here.” Of course, that didn’t stop anything, but it made the point that empty talk must rapidly be eclipsed by real action. Greta Thunberg, the Swedish climate activist, has hit the nail on the head, slamming world leaders for covering up their failures with “blah, blah, blah,” instead of taking real action. 

Like Thunberg’s “School Strike for the Climate,” the climate movement in the streets of Glasgow is informed by the recognition that the science is clear and the solutions to the climate crisis are readily available. It is only political will that is lacking. This must be supplied by ordinary people — from all walks of life — through creative, dramatic action and mass mobilization, to demand the political and economic transformation we so desperately need. 

The usually mild-mannered Secretary-General Guterres made it clear that street heat will be key to saving humanity. “The climate action army — led by young people — is unstoppable,” he world leaders in Glasgow. “They are larger. They are louder. And, I assure you, they are not going away.”

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

The post COP26: Can People Power Save the World? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

From Opera to MMA: Nationalist Symbolism and the German Far Right

READ MORE

The quality of inertia is a common characteristic. By acquiring the cachet of ritual and tradition, far-right demonstration campaigns grow stronger as they persist. How, then, do these campaigns come to an end? How do they demobilize?

Countermobilization

In an recently published in Mobilization, I investigate this question. Looking at large far-right demonstration campaigns in Germany, Austria and England between 1990 and 2015 offers a useful cross-section of contexts because the of far-right movements varies, as do the measures governments put in place to constrain far-right activity.

The quarter of a century from 1990 to 2015 also marks an important era for far-right activism. A rising tide of far-right mobilization followed the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Particularly notorious is the in Germany in the early 1990s. Similarly, the end of 2015 coincided with a shift of far-right activism in Europe. Seismic geopolitical developments, such as the Brexit vote in the UK, the election of Donald Trump in the United States, coincided with specific changes to the context surrounding the organized far right.

In 2016, the UK banned a far-right group for the first time since World War II, and across Europe, the 2015-16 refugee crisis heralded a new era of far-right mobilization. In total, between 1990 and 2015, there were 32 large far-right demonstration campaigns active in Germany, Austria and England.

The study applied qualitative comparative analysis techniques and found four patterns that account for far-right demobilization. Within the study, the most common pattern is marked by civil countermobilization. This includes cases of social movement organizations and other non-state actors working to stop far-right campaigns. Looking at the cases covered in this grouping shows the presence of other conditions that are relevant to the demobilization outcome.

For instance, the second “” campaign, which occurred in the first half of the 2000s in Germany and honored the memory of Rudolf Hess, a prominent Nazi leader, demobilized only after a new law criminalized glorification of the Nazi regime. The law was certainly spurred on by civil countermobilization, when residents from the location of the campaign in Wunsiedel lobbied national politicians to “stop Nazi glorification.” In this way, civil countermobilization can act as a causal trigger, setting various demobilization processes in motion.

Opportunity Disruption

The second pattern represents coercive state repression in the form of arrests, prosecutions, bans and proscription. In flagrant cases of illegal activity or of public order, the state may intervene to stop the far right. However, when it comes to campaigns that are innocuous enough to avoid state repression, eschewing blatantly fascistic displays and not inciting unrest, state repression is rare. It is uncommon even in Germany, where its “militant democracy” principle is configured to defend against the perils of far-right mobilization.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

The third pattern reflects a phenomenon familiar to social movement activists and researchers: closing opportunity. New laws or changes to the surrounding (enabling) context can stop or deter far-right campaigns. In Austria, for example, commemorations in Ulrichsberg used to honor Wehrmacht and SS soldiers with state support. The Austrian army participated in the ceremonies and state subsidies supported transport to the memorial site.

But participation shrank dramatically to only a few hundred by 2015, after the state withdrew support and stopped the army from taking part. Notwithstanding the decisiveness of state action, non-state actors were important. The Working Group against the Carinthian Consensus began problematizing and counterprotesting the event several years before the national government intervened.

The final pattern covers cases of militant action against the far right. Non-state actors applying coercive measures — physical confrontation and violence, blockading far-right march routes or event venues, etc. — can disrupt and ultimately demobilize far-right campaigns. However, cases representing this pattern suggest brawling, bashing and “punching a fascist,” and are perhaps not the most effective approach.

Instead, blockades are a common and evidently powerful tactic. Indeed, much has been written about this tactic, particularly among German activists opposing far-right groups. Some suggests that confrontational tactics, whether blockades or more direct coercion, are counterproductive as they confirm the “stereotype threat” of far-right activists.

Yet militant anti-fascist activists tend to take a dim view of prospects for persuading far-right activists away from their prejudices. Rather, they assert firmly that far-right organizing must be stopped. Notwithstanding qualms and moral objections about the methods, the militant action pattern suggests that these tactics can stop the far right.

These patterns confirm that there are many means of demobilizing the far right. Most striking, though, is the importance of non-state actors. Sometimes, their actions alone are enough to demobilize far-right campaigns. At other times, state intervention is key, but non-state actors often spark and spur on state action. This point is especially relevant in England and Austria where, for different reasons, the state is reluctant to act against far-right demonstrations.

But even in Germany, where specific legal instruments exist and political actors are often willing to use them against the far right, non-state action is vital to problematize and resist far-right campaigns. Given the resilience of far-right scenes in these countries and beyond, non-state actors must remain able and ready to countermobilize against far-right demonstrations that menace state and society alike.

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

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

The post How to Demobilize the Far Right appeared first on 51�Թ�.

At the same time, the rich withdraw into gated villas, travel in their own private jets and buy their own Picassos so that they don’t have to mix with the hoi polloi at museums. The rich want us to know about their wealth, but they also want to be left alone to enjoy it. They engage in an enormous game of peekaboo with the public. Now you see my wealth, now you don’t.

Yahoo Finance’s Social Darwinism

READ MORE

In our globalized era, this game of peekaboo has become a vast enterprise. Enormous fortunes are generated by multinational operations and transnational financial flows. The profits, in turn, are protected by a baroque system of secret bank accounts and tax shelters. The rich will give away their money, occasionally, but as little as possible to governments. Their gifts to private charity are often just another way of robbing the public. Global tax shelters, meanwhile, are grand theft.

The recently released Pandora Papers, a trove of nearly 12 million documents, shines some light on the mechanisms by which the wealthy squirrel away their gains. One example jumps out: Tony Blair. The former British prime minister and his lawyer wife Cherie purchased a multi-million-dollar townhouse in London as her office but did it in such a way as to avoid paying a tax on the sale. In this offshore financial sleight of hand, they skipped out on paying several hundred thousand dollars to the very government over which Blair once presided. The maneuver, which was perfectly legal, is salient for two reasons.

First, Blair himself had initially railed against tax dodges of this nature. “Offshore trusts get tax relief while homeowners pay VAT on insurance premiums,” he  as Labour Party leader. “We will create a tax system that is fair which is related to ability to pay.”

Second, Blair celebrated a “third way” that was supposedly an accommodation between socialism and capitalism. When it came to global markets, Blair wanted “to remove regulatory burdens and to untie the hands of business,” as he put it in a .

It’s no surprise, then, that he took advantage of the very mechanisms that he initially opposed and subsequently facilitated through deregulation.

Blair is by no means alone in his opportunism. The Pandora Papers are full of politicians who campaigned on anti-corruption platforms and are now being hoisted by their own petards. The billionaire Czech prime minister, Andrej Babis, for instance, made his political fortune on the basis of  to stand up to corruption and run the Czech Republic like a business. When Czechs gave his party an overwhelming in 2017, they didn’t seem to find anything contradictory about such promises. Babis at that time stood accused of various corrupt practices involving his businesses, including improper receipt of European subsidies. These allegations continued to dog him throughout his term of office, leading to an official European Parliament  several months ago.

So, naturally, Babis turns up in the Pandora Papers as well. According to the documents, the businessman transferred $22 million to offshore entities to buy a luxury French chateau. He  in this subterfuge to keep the purchase secret and probably to reduce his tax burden as well. This week, Czech voters finally changed their minds about Babis and  him out of office.

Other anti-corruption campaigners have been ensnared in the Pandora web of incriminating documents. Volodymyr Zelensky, for instance, promised voters that he would clean up Ukraine’s swamp of corruption, but the Pandora Papers  of shares in offshore entities and shell companies. Oh, Zelensky “cleaned up” all right.

What was surprising about many of the 35 current and former world leaders who appear in the Pandora Papers was not so much their presence on the list — Gabon’s Ali Bongo, for instance, is , while Chile’s Sebastian Pinera was already linked to 14 corruption  before he became president again at the end of 2017 — but that they went to such great lengths to hide their purchases from the public.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

���ǰ��岹��’s King Abdullah is a monarch, for goodness sake. Monarchs are expected to spend royally. The queen of England  in personal assets, and hardly anyone blinks an eye at all the money the royals spend very publicly on weddings, junkets, and the like. And yet, according to the Pandora Papers, King Abdullah went about collecting $100 million of property around the world in secret. Of course, Jordan is a relatively poor country, and the government has imposed very unpopular austerity measures. It doesn’t look so good for their king to  three cliff-top mansions in Malibu, four apartments in Georgetown and several properties near Buckingham Palace.

Tolerance for the fabulously wealthy waxes and wanes. Back in the 1980s, TV viewers were thrilled to see of the “lifestyles of the rich and famous.” Nowadays, anger has been steadily mounting against the 1%. That’s why kings and politicians have been more discreet in moving their wealth around. And that’s why governments feel they have the public on their side when they try, even in half-hearted ways, to tap into this stream of globally circulating wealth.

Doing the Minimum

One of the virtues of globalization, from the perspective of a corporation, is the ability to move operations from one jurisdiction to another to take advantage of better tax deals. Some countries, like Ireland and Hungary, have billed themselves as havens for corporations that want to pay as little tax as possible.

At the prodding of the United States, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has been pushing through a corporate minimum tax rate of 15%. It will also tax digital companies in locations where they operate even if they don’t maintain any offices there.

All of this is lower than what the US  pushed for — a 21% rate. The measure, if passed, will have a 10-year transition period. And it’s not entirely clear that the United States itself will ratify the accord given the predictable Republican opposition. But hey, it’s something.

This effort might make a small dent in the gross receipts of the world’s wealthiest, like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos and Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg. But even a small dent adds up to a lot of revenue. “Tax havens collectively cost governments between $500 billion and $600 billion a year in lost corporate tax revenue,”  tax haven expert Nicholas Shaxson. “Of that lost revenue, low-income economies account for some $200 billion—a larger hit as a percentage of GDP than advanced economies and more than the $150 billion or so they receive each year in foreign development assistance.”

It’s not just corporations that are hiding their profits from tax authorities. Individuals continue to profit enormously from the global economy and, with the help of their accountants, avoid paying as much as possible to their respective governments. Shaxson offers a range of anywhere between $8.7 trillion and $36 trillion, which adds at least another $200 billion in lost government tax revenue per year.

To take advantage of low to non-existent tax rates, the rich love to park their money, and sometimes themselves, in places like the Bahamas and the Cayman Islands. But the real surprise of the Pandora Papers is South Dakota’s status as a capital magnet. Like those island hideaways, South Dakota has no income tax, inheritance tax or capital gains tax. And, like the Switzerland of old, it protects the money of the rich behind walls of secrecy.

On top of that, South Dakota trusts offer something else the rich crave: deniability. As Felix Salmon : “All three parties — the settlor, the trustee, and the beneficiary — can legally claim that the money isn’t theirs. The settlor and the beneficiary can say they don’t have the money, it’s all in a trust run by someone else. The trustee can say that she is just looking after the money and doesn’t own it.” In other words, the rich often want to be as inconspicuous as possible — to avoid the tax inspector, that persistent creditor and the anger of crowds.

So, the first step to clean up this highly lucrative mess is sunlight. One global tool is the Common Reporting Standard by which participating countries provide basic information about foreign assets held in their territories. Guess what: The United States is alone among major countries in not participating. In its usual exceptionalist way, America shares financial information on its , not according to a global standard. Sunlight should extend to corporations as well, which should be  financial information on every country where they operate.

The next step is to crack down on tax havens. The European Union maintains a tax haven blacklist, but it only has nine locations on it after the recent removal of Anguilla, Dominica and the Seychelles. “Today’s decision to delist Anguilla, the only remaining jurisdiction with a 0% tax rate, and the Seychelles, which are at the heart of the latest tax scandal, renders the EU’s blacklist a joke,”  Oxfam’s Chiara Putaturo. So: better blacklists.

And, of course, more should be done to raise the floor on corporate tax rates. The United States was right (for once): 15% is too low.

Soak the Rich

Decades of deregulation have led to the rise of a new class of the super-rich. More than 500,000 people around the world possess more than $30 million each and  of these live in the United States. Of that latter number, over 700 are billionaires and they saw their collective wealth  by $1.8 trillion during the COVID-19 pandemic.

It’s time for rich people to fork over their fair share. The planet is presenting its bill to humanity. Pay up, says Mother Earth, or you’re toast.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Right now, those who are the least able to shoulder the costs of climate change are suffering its worst effects. In 2015, the World Bank estimated that, unless the international community took immediate steps, climate change would 100 million people into poverty by 2030. Those immediate steps have not been taken. As a result, more than a million people are on the of famine because of drought in Madagascar. Poor islands like Haiti are especially vulnerable to climate change, and the population simply doesn’t the capacity to adapt to their changing circumstances.

Elsewhere, the poor are doing whatever they can to keep their heads above water. In a recent astonishing study, the International Institute for Environment and Development reports that the rural poor in Bangladesh are  than their government or aid agencies to combat the climate impacts on their communities.

The rich are clearly embarrassed by their riches, so much so that they are going to great lengths to keep their transactions a secret. Now, can we embarrass them even more so that they pay what is necessary to save the planet?

*[This article was originally published by .]

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

The post Are the Rich Embarrassed by Their Riches? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Relationship Between Football and Populism

LISTEN

There’s not a country on earth where citizens will not know the name of at least three football teams, wear club regalia and watch, play and bet on football. Around 3.5 billion people some part of the 2018 World Cup, with 1.12 billion watching at least one minute, according to FIFA, the sport’s global governing organization.

With over , football’s faithful following is comparable to that of a major religion, like Christianity (2.38 billion) or Islam (1.9 billion). But, unlike religions, football, like other sports, isn’t expected to make pronouncements on torture, gay rights, labor exploitation, freedom of expression or any of the other moral issues of the day. The trouble is, it does.

Global Society of Inclusion

Football’s moral philosophy seems clear. FIFA expressed its two key directives in its , “Making Football Truly Global: The Vision 2020-2023” as “Fight against Racism and all other forms of discrimination” and “Protect human rights.” To demonstrate its sincerity, in June 2020, England’s Premier League approved football players taking the knee before games to showcase a committed opposition to racism in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd by police in the US.

Other major sports organizations, including the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the National Football League (NFL) in the US, steadfastly refused to allow the gesture, recognizing it would compromise the traditional stance on political and partisan actions. Football was one of the first to adopt a “” to the controversial ritual and remains an enthusiastic supporter despite objections, some from black players. Other sports have grudgingly accepted kneeling, largely as a result of pressure from players. The NFL finally its position last year and the IOC prior to the .

Football continued without compunction. “We remain resolutely committed to our singular objective of eradicating racial prejudice wherever it exists, to bring about a global society of inclusion, respect and equal opportunities for all,” a affirmed in August. “The Premier League will continue to work with our clubs, players and football partners to bring about tangible change to remove inequality from our game.” Yet two recent developments suggest that practical considerations complicate principles.

Eighteen months ago, an attempted takeover of Newcastle United by a consortium collapsed after the Premier League decided that, had the deal been allowed to proceed, Saudi Arabia would have effectively become the club’s owner. The Gulf state would be subject to the league’s . Failure to pass the test means potential buyers can be stopped if they’ve committed an act in a foreign jurisdiction that would be considered a criminal offense in the UK — even if the act is not illegal in their home territory.

The original potential buyers pulled out, the popular assumption at the time being the killing of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul in 2018. It was widely reported that Saudi agents were responsible for the murder.

However, it appeared that the real stumbling block was Saudi Arabia’s apparent involvement in a television network that streamed Premier League games. Qatar-based broadcaster beIN Sports had spent billions to acquire territorial rights for the games, but Saudis “” its license and suspended its channels in 2017. Reduced to basics, the deal stalled because of money. So, when the dispute between Qatar and Saudi was settled earlier this year, the deal was revived.

Sportswashing

The completed sale of Newcastle United Football Club to the Saudi Public Investment Fund, which lists as its chair Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is widely thought responsible for ordering Khashoggi’s murder, has horrified and disgusted critics. Amnesty International has that Saudi authorities are “sportswashing their appalling human rights record with the glamour of top-flight football.” Sportswashing is an attempt by odious political regimes to clean up their international image by associating themselves with prestigious sporting events or competitions.

Amnesty that Saudi Arabia regularly violates human rights in various ways, including using torture as punishment, banning freedom of speech and expression, and subjugating women. The Saudi government denies claims of rights abuses and claims its apparent excesses are designed with national security in mind. Presumably, the Premier League — and perhaps football generally — accepts this.

Saudi Arabia’s Gulf neighbors, all of which have questionable human rights records, have already acquired top-tier football clubs: Qatar Sports Investments owns Paris Saint-Germain; Sheikh Mansour, an Abu Dhabi royal, owns Manchester City. Qatar is scheduled to host next year’s FIFA World Cup.

The timing of the takeover is hardly propitious. In Saudi Arabia, women have essentially the same legal status as children, having to rely on husbands or male relatives to make nearly all decisions in their lives. Much of the workspaces in the territory are gender-segregated. In 2019, Saudi was rated the fourth most dangerous place in the world for gay travelers by magazine, which reported that the country “implements the death penalty for consensual homosexuality under their interpretation of Sharia law.”

Football ostensibly lauds freedom, equality and open-mindedness while indulging insular regimes that encourage practices it officially denounces. In the 1970s, Commonwealth countries prohibited sporting contacts with South Africa, then operating a constitutional racial segregation policy known as apartheid. The Gleneagles Agreement, as it was called, effectively closed down South African sport. Non-Commonwealth nations showed solidarity by supporting the ban, which was relaxed only at the end of apartheid in 1990. No one has dared suggest a comparable ban on the Gulf states.

Freedom or Dereliction of Duty?

But this isn’t the only dilemma football has faced in recent weeks.

West Bromwich Albion player is among an unknown but probably sizeable number of professional football players who are opting not to get vaccinated against COVID-19. Robinson is worthy of attention because he’s contracted COVID twice, survived (obviously) and presumably decided the dangers of the virus are less significant than the potential side effects of the vaccine.

He isn’t, as far as we know, a QAnon affiliate, doesn’t subscribe to any known conspiracy theory and has not aligned himself with anti-vaccination campaigners. He enjoys the support of some teammates and not others. He is 26 and is probably expecting to play competitively for another 10 years, maybe more, if he avoids injury. His decision has drawn the ire of Liverpool manager , who says that footballers “are role models in society.” Currently, 16 to 29-year-olds are the most vaccine-hesitant demographic in the UK and elsewhere; Klopp is 54.

We can only use educated guesswork to divine the reasons so many professional athletes choose not to vaccinate. Their bodies are, in a sense, the tools of their trade and they have presumably made a cost-benefit calculation, recognizing that, given the brevity of the development and trialing of the vaccine compared to other pharmaceuticals, the medium-to-long-term side effects are unknown and, without the benefit of a time machine, unknowable at present.

In the US, the National Basketball Association (NBA), when confronted with a similarly reluctant percentage of players, compelled them to get vaccinated or face suspension without pay. The order worked: 95% of NBA players are now . Football’s governing organizations have eschewed this approach. FIFA instead issued a saying that “We encourage Covid-19 vaccinations.”

Depending on your perspective, this is either an admirable defense of freedom of choice or dereliction of duty. Those who believe the latter are maddened by football’s indecision, if that’s what it is. They consider public health a priority over personal freedom.

If FIFA had blocked the Newcastle takeover, people would probably accuse football of favoritism, pointing to the Manchester and Paris ownerships. If it followed the NBA mandate, people would accuse it of restricting freedom of choice. But football’s own piety invites these criticisms. Other sports see no need to make their moral philosophy so public, at least not as ostentatiously or in such a self-congratulatory manner. Why does football?  

No sport has struggled so painfully and for so long with racism, nor has any sport witnessed spectator violence on a comparable scale or duration. Bribery and corruption were once commonplace in boxing, but a 2015 expose revealed football’s epic history of venality and led to the removal of FIFA president Joseph “Sepp” Blatter.

Child abuse was once thought to exist only in gymnastics, but a recent found that it has been in football since at least the 1970s. Australia’s female players have recently of a” culture of sexual harassment.” 

No other sport in history has been as as football or, alas, manifested so many pernicious, multiform wrongdoings. Football constantly struggles to map its way out of a maze of malevolence. Its visible attempt to occupy the moral high ground is perhaps football’s attempt to place itself above suspicion, making its morality clear to everyone. It’s a bold move, but one with serious drawbacks. It puts football’s hypocrisy in plain sight.

[Ellis Cashmore is a co-editor of .]

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

The post Can Football Find a Way Out of a Moral Maze? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Is the Havana Syndrome a Psychogenic Illusion?

READ MORE

While all responsible citizens adhered to the ideal, a much smaller number of people reflected on the means to achieve it, the pedagogues. According to the natural laws of democracy, the minority who cared was consistently overruled by the vast majority of those who had no time or inclination to encourage, fund and implement the required means to realize the ideal. Instead, education has for at least the past century focused on defining curricula increasingly focused on orientating the economic behavior of the young. This meant creating and implementing procedures and teaching methods designed less to instill knowledge than to judge learners on their capacity to conform to artificially defined societal norms.

In recent times, knowledge itself was removed from its pedestal and made entirely tributary to vocational skills. The value of knowledge has been reduced to its utility for earning a living. Once young people have an idea of how they are likely to earn their livelihood, they can concentrate on mastering the technical knowledge associated with the type of work they will be doing, whether it’s accounting, coding or bicycle repair.

On the whole, culture has become economic, pragmatic and individualized. Living, interacting with society, thinking and voting — acts tending toward the development and refinement of cultural depth — became secondary, if not irrelevant. The message to the rising generations became: Focus on the knowledge required for your work and dedicate the rest of your time to video games and social media… or whatever.

Young people acquired a view of the world outside of their immediate assignments and tasks as precisely that: whatever. Today’s educators, most of whom think of themselves as promoters of knowledge even though the system they work within has decided otherwise, feel helpless and confused as they seek ways to incite their students toward behavior that at least looks civilized.

Long regarded as the key to acquiring knowledge, the ability of our educational systems to deal constructively with language has disappeared, provoking a pervasive crisis. Last week, The Guardian on the measures some schools in the UK have begun adopting to respond to the crisis. One “London secondary school is trying to stop its pupils from using ‘basically’ at the beginning of sentences and deploying phrases such as ‘oh my days’ in a crackdown on ‘fillers’ and ‘slang’ in the classroom.” In the name of helping pupils express themselves “clearly and accurately,” it has produced lists of banned words and expressions.

The Guardian cites an educator who opposes banning words justified the list’s existence on the grounds that developing “reading and speaking skills is a central part of what drives our school to help our students learn effectively and fulfil their potential in academic and non-academic ways.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Fulfill potential:

Stay out of serious trouble by disappearing into the crowd

Contextual Note

Unlike the politically correct (PC) phenomenon, which seeks to shame or cancel people who use forbidden words, the lists of banned expressions have been devised to “help students understand the importance of expressing themselves clearly and accurately, not least through written language in examinations.” The purpose of study and acquisition of knowledge is, after all, not to acquire a culture but to pass an exam. 

Helping students to express themselves clearly and accurately sounds like a reasonable goal, but believing that banning specific language to achieve is a dangerous pedagogical fallacy. It instills the Manichean notion that some things are, by definition, wholesome and pure and others, evil.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Interestingly, the debate about banning words reveals a series of pedagogical fallacies on both sides. Critiquing the reflex of the ban, The Guardian resorts to a different fallacy: the appeal to authority. It cites writers (Lily Anderson, Richard Ford), singers (the British rapper Stormzy) and sports celebrities (Dutch footballer Jeremie Frimpong) who have used words in the list. This suggests words that “have been widely used in books and music” are legitimate because they are associated with creativity. This principle is as simplistic as the act of banning. Worse, it comforts the idea that if successful people have used a word, it must always be appropriate.

The article then offers a third fallacy based on the idea of multicultural respect. It warns against “dismissing students’ home or own use of language” because it “may have negative effects on identity and confidence.” This phenomenon is real and has a long, painful history in the UK, where the educated elite routinely shamed regional dialects and accents as inferior. But seeking to avoid offending individual students rather than addressing the fundamental issue may aggravate the problem. An honest educational policy can help learners understand that linguistic diversity serves a positive purpose in all societies. But so long as the implicit goal of education remains social and cultural standardization, this will never be done.

The fourth fallacy in the article is the idea — intended to correct the third — that diversity is, by definition, good and deserves being uncritically encouraged. “We should celebrate the different ways language is being used and concentrate on the content of what is being said,” according to one enthusiastic linguist. Celebrating diversity without seeking to understand its components encourages chaos and confusion. Before celebrating, it is important to recognize distinctions of register, rhetorical function and style. A linguist cited by The Guardian comes closer to the underlying truth: “It shouldn’t be about good or bad language, it should be about appropriate language for the context.”

But today, in every subject matter, standardized education shies away from exploring context. If it didn’t, it would no longer be standardized.

Historical Note

Defending the notion of diversity, one linguist notes that “it would be a shame if it becomes a case of if you want to be successful, this is the way you have to speak.” That is a valid moral point, but denying this feature of every human society could be called the fallacy of idealism. Education can do its part, but society must also accept its own evolution.

Despite all the pedagogical fallacies, the problem is naggingly real and should be addressed. Language is not, as some educators appear to believe, a code to be learned and respected. It is a system of intentions. Real language consists of an infinitely wide range of ideational and rhetorical resources that produce meaning in complex ways. Just think about the meaning of the word “meaning.” It toggles between our idea of a dictionary definition and the subjective expression of intention. In one case we may say: Check the dictionary for the meaning. In another, we can object: I don’t get your meaning.

In the pre-industrial world, European education focused on the “.” Learners studied language from three angles: grammar, rhetoric and logic. Grammar, through the study of Latin, included everything related to the structure of language. Rhetoric (the “art of persuasion”) focused on intention. Logic produced a perspective pointing language toward science. The scientific revolution as well as the wealth of great literature from the 15^th to the 17^th century were the fruit of this orientation.

We can bring rhetoric and logic back into linguistic education, even in this era of algorithmic despotism. Recently, a team I was leading designed, for pedagogical purposes, a sophisticated authoring system based on the non-linear logic at the core of video games. The software we produced invites learners in a classroom to create language anchored in context and focused on the shifting intentions of conversational logic. The students become the creators. Their task is to produce language that makes sense of the context. In the course of this creative work, vocabulary, style, grammar and rhetoric all appear in patterns they, playing the dual role of creator and critic, can understand. The teacher oversees the process and guides the students in their production.

What do they produce? An actual functioning video game. More than a deep learning experience, it is also an artistic achievement.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

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

The post Education’s Struggle to Make Sense of Language appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Liberalizing India’s Economy Is Critical for Global Stability

READ MORE

Cash, an integral part of daily life for millions of people, is being sidelined to make way for digital payment systems, under the guise of anti-corruption efforts, increased convenience and security for consumers. The act of going cashless has crept into our everyday lives, and it seems somewhat inevitable that advanced economies will fully digitalize in the not-so-distant future. In the UK, for example, over a third of consumers have  being refused when trying to pay with cash “at least once since the first lockdown in March 2020.”

These efforts to move away from using cash have inevitably led to the gradual removal of free-to-use ATM machines. In 2018, the British consumer website Which? that cash machines in the UK had been shut down, often with machines that charge users a fee per withdrawal.

This has subsequently had an adverse effect on low-income earners. In some of the most deprived areas of the UK, as many as people do not have access to a bank account. For them, cash continues to be an essential part of their daily lives, particularly those who get paid in hard cash. The same applies to many small businesses that rely on cash to operate as they do not have to pay card fees or wait for funds to be transferred to their bank accounts.

Protecting Cash Means Protecting the Vulnerable

On average, around 340 ATM machines are from UK high streets per month. The decline in the use of cash during the pandemic has resulted in a swift fall in available cash machines. This has subsequently led to a debate about the financial exclusion of the most vulnerable people in society. This those who are “poor or in debt, disabled people, rural families and anyone who may be at risk of having their finances controlled by an abuser.”

Since cash is fundamental to the lives of millions, the continued disappearance of ATMs is inexorably putting the economic security of these sections of society in jeopardy. The UK government has consequently come under increasing  to introduce legislation to “protect access to cash for vulnerable ���DZ����.”

In 2018, a by Access to Cash found that 25 million people in the UK, nearly half of the population, “use cash as a necessity.” Many, it would seem, could be ready to fight back and protect cash from the advancement of cashless systems in order to insulate certain sections of society. For those most affected, ATMs represent access, inclusion, identity and autonomy.

Why ATMs Still Matter

What FinTech advocates of digitalization often fail to take into account when pushing for cashless societies is the social value of hard cash. The most deprived sections of society rely on cash to live. Nearly of those who depend on cash in the UK are over 65, an age group whose cultural association with cash is deeply rooted.

It would seem that these groups are being somewhat ignored. “Everyone should have reasonable access to their own money without having to pay,” Gareth Shaw, the head of money at Which? “Yet our research shows free cash machines are vanishing at an alarming rate — often in areas where people need them most.” The unintended consequences of going cashless have often involved panic around accessibility and public debate about social exclusion, as in the cases of and . It also raises questions about the impact on small businesses. The removal of ATMs will continue to exacerbate these anxieties.

Martin Lewis, a financial journalist and founder of MoneySavingExpert,  the societal disparities in accessing hard cash. He told The Times, “Many, especially the more affluent and technologically savvy, now live mostly cashless lives. That’s exactly why protecting access to cash is so important. We must learn lessons from the past and plan now to protect those who need it in future.”

Moreover, simple infrastructural issues, such as lack of adequate access to broadband in remote areas, compound the need for accessing cash. Coupled with a traditional emotional attachment to cash, this has led some town halls in France to pay €1,500 ($1,740) per month to retain ATMs, even though few people use them.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

These municipalities appear to have understood the importance of providing access to cash for the public good, particularly in the context of the pandemic. Caroline Abrahams, the charity director of Age UK, governments “must legislate to protect cash access within a reasonable travel distance of people’s homes. This will not only help the millions of citizens of all ages who risk being excluded from society if cash is allowed to die, but can also help revitalise our high streets as local businesses strive to recover.”

It remains of paramount importance for general social cohesion that banking regulators do not cut off the most vulnerable people from society. The ATM remains an economic bulwark for financial inclusion. Their continued removal can only aggravate the already negative consequences of going cashless on the most vulnerable in society. Our economic systems must be accessible to all. As things stand, digital systems remain out of reach for millions.

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

The post Cashless Economies Raise Ethical Concerns About Inclusion appeared first on 51�Թ�.

French ire led to the withdrawal of its ambassadors from Washington and Canberra. This was particularly surprising given France’s strong political and security ties — not to mention historical, as America’s oldest ally — to both nations. Inexplicably, President Emmanuel Macron did not recall his ambassador to London, prompting some to posit that after Britain’s withdrawal from the EU, it didn’t matter as much.

The Raucous Sound of AUKUS

READ MORE

It’s also very likely that Macron, who has been Europe’s strongest advocate on behalf of a stand-alone European defense capability — i.e., less dependence on the US — did not want to alienate Britain in his efforts.

Prenez un Grip!

Leave it to Britain’s blunt-speaking prime minister, Boris Johnson, to succinctly lend some reality to the blow-up among allies. Speaking in Washington, DC, Johnson it was “time for some of our dearest friends around the world to prenez un grip about all this and donnez moi un break” — to get a grip and give him a break. A “stab in the back” was how the French publicly described the situation following the announcement of the agreement.

Johnson has it right. This was not a betrayal of the North Atlantic alliance, nor France’s especially close ties with Britain or America, or its strong relationship with Australia. While there are unquestionably important strategic elements of this deal, it is a commercial one. Australia wanted to boost its naval defense capabilities in the increasingly competitive and dynamic Western Pacific.

France’s conventionally-powered subs would not have been state of the art, requiring periodic surfacing for refueling, and wouldn’t be available until 2035. Moreover, Canberra and Australian politicians had already begun to express reservations over these deficiencies and the exorbitant cost.

Enter the Americans, who apparently invited the British to join. In the world of diplomacy and international affairs, all issues are understood to be open for discussion and negotiation. Business is something else, however. Allies and adversaries regularly compete for business and commercial deals. Governments back their businesses and even add sweeteners from time to time to clinch the deal. It’s understood; everyone does it. It’s business — not personal and not political.

The surprise here is that Paris seemed to be caught unaware of the American-British offer. The French should have suspected others might be talking to the Australians, especially as their own deal was beginning to sour. Their embassies in Washington, London and Canberra, doubtlessly staffed with some of their top diplomats and intelligence and military personnel, should have picked up on it. That is what embassies are for, among other things.

What Is It Good For?

Political sensibilities aside, is this the right undertaking for the three countries? A somewhat qualified answer would be yes. US President Joe Biden has repeatedly made clear America will compete with China in the Western Pacific and around the world. To date, America has shouldered the lion’s share of the security responsibilities in that region, though Japan, South Korea, Australia, Britain and even France also play roles.

Providing the Australians with nuclear-powered subs greatly enhances their own defense capabilities and augments what the US and others are doing to shore up security in the Western Pacific.

It is a genuine security enhancement for the West, giving pause to the Chinese, who themselves possess about a dozen nuclear-powered subs, most dedicated to their ballistic missile submarine fleet. (It is important to note that the AUKUS deal will not provide Australia with nuclear weapons of any kind.)

So, Australian nuclear-powered submarines provide an excellent complement to both American and British nuclear-powered subs as well as those French nuclear submarines deployed to the region. Moreover, while the others deploy their submarines around the world, Australia will likely be confined to the Western Pacific, giving the Western allies a greater presence.

Other Asia-Pacific nations either hailed the deal or remained silent, the latter owing to sensitive trade and other economic arrangements with China they do not wish to jeopardize. After all, they saw what may have provoked all of this, namely China’s unusually harsh response to Australia’s call for an investigation into the origins of COVID-19, including the still unproven lab leak theory.

Canberra was blasted with a torrent of shockingly virulent verbal attacks from Beijing, which then accused Australia of “dumping” its wines on China and imposed daunting tariffs on future imports. The result was a precipitous decline in Australian wine exports to China, down as much as 96% in the final quarter of 2020.

The response shocked the Australians, who have maintained strong and important trade ties with Beijing and had sought to remain out of the US-China wrangling. But that all changed after Beijing’s tough-guy actions. Anti-China sentiment is now at a peak in Australia’s Parliament and among the population. More importantly, the overreaction drove Canberra right back into the waiting arms of its long-time ally, the US. Beijing’s so-called wolf-warrior actions against Australia were uncalled for and most definitely counterproductive.

A Win for Biden and the US

France’s ruffled feathers notwithstanding, the AUKUS deal leverages one of America’s strongest assets in the competition with China, namely its ability to forge alliances and partnerships with nations around the world, based not only on shared interests but very often on shared values. China has no such alliance network — Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and a handful of others hardly amount to what the US has managed in Europe, Asia and elsewhere.

It is perfectly consistent with Biden’s repeated assertion that he will forge stronger ties with our allies and work to strengthen alliance networks. No one should be surprised with this natural evolution, a win-win for all involved.

One Asian nation whose response and views will be critical to US interests is India. India is a member of a new, American-initiated group known as the Quad, comprising Australia, India, Japan and the US. New Delhi has distanced the AUKUS deal from the Quad but otherwise remained neutral in its response, though commentary ranges from strong endorsement to equally strong criticism and warnings of an Indo-Pacific arms race.

The latter may be a bit exaggerated. Australia already has submarines, and soon these will be nuclear-powered, allowing them to remain submerged much longer or even indefinitely, depending on whether their fuel is high or low-enriched uranium. The latter would require surfacing about every 10 years or so to refuel.

But that still leaves the question of France. One might have and, indeed, should have expected some heads up to the French in advance of the announcement. France is a core indispensable member of NATO and one of America’s most important allies.

The countries have already begun to patch up their tiff. Biden and Macron spoke last week and will meet next month when Biden attends the G-20 summit. The US president endorsed his French counterpart’s call for greater European defense autonomy, “consistent with NATO” objectives and obligations. Macron returned his ambassador to Washington.

Nevertheless, Washington would be wise to find some way to include Paris in this deal. If its underlying basis is security and strengthening alliances, then why not include this vital ally? France already possesses significant blue-water naval capabilities as well as genuine interests in the Pacific, with territories in French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Futuna.

Moreover, the French could be brought in to supply or develop the nuclear-power trains for the Australian submarines using low-enriched uranium, which fuel France’s nuclear subs. (Britain and the US use high-enriched uranium.) The use of would also help keep AUKUS from potentially running afoul of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It is better to have France on board the AUKUS fleet than not. The most awkward bit: What to do with the added “F”?

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

The post What Is the Ruckus Over AUKUS? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Pax Romana, a Fascist Peace

READ MORE

You’ve probably seen Nazi flags, war medals and photos of Benito Mussolini before, but that is not what this exhibition is all about. Rather than focus on fascist regimes, with Adolf Hitler’s Third Reich taking pride of place as the epitome of all evil, “This Fascist Life” focuses on fascist movements — radical-right groups that rarely seized power but nonetheless encouraged mainstream politicians to adopt racist and chauvinistic policies, transforming city streets into arenas of fighting and bloodshed.

Displays of Fascism

So much of British national identity has been shaped by the war against Nazi Germany that it is easy to forget that the United Kingdom had its fascists as well. Newspapers, printing blocks and sheet music from Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists are on display, alongside material from the Britons’ Publishing House and the Imperial Fascist League.

Many of the objects are from the Wiener Holocaust Library’s own collection, while others come from the at the University of Northampton or were purchased specifically for the exhibition. The widespread popularity of the , as Mosley supporters were known, in Britain and the in Ireland reminds us how easily radical-right movements were able to mobilize men and women who were disgruntled by poverty and taxes, and felt that their national values were being undermined by internationalism and humanitarianism.

Racism and anti-Semitism played their part too, and the books and pamphlets on display are full of hate speech toward Jews and immigrants.

Every country in Europe had one — usually several — fascist movements in the 1930s. Chauvinism and an ideology of national rebirth were not the only motivating forces that attracted people to join. In fact, in many cases, movements existed for several years before publishing substantial ideological statements. For war veterans and young men, fascist movements often provided an excuse to socialize with friends and possibly to have a bit of fun by beating up communists and Jews or by vandalizing a synagogue.

These movements gave young women a chance to get involved in political systems that otherwise excluded them while still displaying the conservative cultural values they cherished, turning their backs on left-wing ideologies such as feminism.

Fascists promoted sport and physical fitness as the key to creating the “new men” who would rule their countries in the future. Joining thus involved playing football, cycling, boxing, gymnastics or basketball, and movements in Britain and France ran summer camps and sporting competitions for their members. Uniforms — in some cases homemade — transformed fascists into walking advertisements for their movements, and they paraded through city streets demonstrating their strength and unity.

Transnational Phenomenon

Reflecting recent trends in historical research on fascism, the exhibition emerges out of a funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council that brings together experts on interwar fascism in 18 different countries across Europe. Specialists on Finland, France, Germany, Latvia, the Netherlands, Romania and Sweden are giving talks at the library in conjunction with the exhibition, showing that fascism was a truly transnational phenomenon in the interwar years.

Even while they claimed to be fighting to put their own countries first, fascists wrote to fascists in other countries, traveled to meet them, shared news in right-wing magazines and organized international conferences for the radical right. When the Second World War broke out, fascists in many countries collaborated in the mass murder of Jews and Roma that became known as the Holocaust.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Whereas so often pictures and films of Nazi rallies at Nuremberg or of shouting crowds in Italy make fascism seem surreal or from another world, the images, objects, books, newspapers and posters on display in the “This Fascist Life” exhibition bring us back to reality. Fascists met in villages as well as cities, attracted the young and the old, men and women, workers and artists, peaceful patriots and violent thugs.

People joined for a variety of reasons, many of them petty, and became swept up in the excitement of movements that promised to create whole new worlds on top of the ruins of this one.

The Wiener Holocaust Library’s mission is “to oppose antisemitism and other forms of prejudice and intolerance … through an active educational programme.” Understanding the attraction and tactics of fascist movements in their heyday provides us with the knowledge and tools we need to diffuse the power of the radical right in the 21^st century.

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

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

The post Exhibiting Fascism: An Exhibition Explores the Allure of Radicalism appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Now that the war the Bush and Blair team enthusiastically launched in 2001 has been officially lost, the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) was to hear what the former leader might have to say. Would Blair offer some insider perspective on an episode of history now judged to have been a vainglorious attempt to punish a spectacular criminal act by mounting a military campaign that turned out to be more spectacular, equally criminal, much more costly and far more self-destructive of the civilization that was presumably defending itself? Would he apologize for his own mistakes? Would he coldly analyze the political and ideological sources of those mistakes?

The Media Embrace the Martyrdom of Afghan Women

READ MORE

Blair did that “maybe my generation of leaders were naive in thinking countries could be remade.” That was neither a confession nor an apology, especially as he immediately followed up by implicitly critiquing President Joe Biden’s precipitated withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan, adding that “maybe the remaking needed to last longer.” He then used the now obligatory example of the plight of Afghan women to assert that “we mustn’t forget … that our values are still those which free people choose.”

Instead of confessing and clarifying, the monologue he delivered resembled a self-parody of the reasoning that drove his error-ridden decision-making in 2001. “Islamism,” he proclaimed, “both the ideology and the violence, is a first order security threat… COVID-19 has taught us about deadly pathogens. Bio-terror possibilities may seem like the realm of science fiction, but we would be wise now to prepare for their potential use by non-state actors.” In short, once again, we need to be afraid, very afraid.

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Potential use:

A term used by politicians to describe an unlikely event that usefully inspires fear in the public’s mind to justify aggressive efforts labeled “defense,” but which objectively appear to take the form of offensive assault against other nations and peoples

Contextual Note

In such moments, Blair can appear as if he is vying to become a stand-up comedian, a kind of one-man Monty Python, satirizing his nation’s historical institutions. Unfortunately, despite Blair’s notoriety, they are not in the same league. The Flying Circus boys came together initially as irreverent university wits, who targeted post-colonial British culture and the pompous establishment’s status quo. As the former living symbol of that pompous establishment, Blair’s comic ambition is fraught with insurmountable obstacles. Even when his discourse manages to sound as surreally unhinged as that of any of the characters invented by the Python, Blair will never break free from his former identity as the real-life representative of the establishment’s fake wisdom and pseudo-sanity.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

In the later years of his reign as the young and glamorous prime minister, even before the devastating findings of the Chilcot on the UK’s involvement in the Iraq War, many politically aware Brits were already tempted to change the spelling of his name from Blair to Bliar, to highlight his habit of solemnly lying his way into disastrous wars, alongside his buddy, President Bush. Together, those two men led an enterprise that some observers assess as a complex and long-enduring war crime.

That both of those men should still be welcomed on the world stage, treated as sages and counted on to deliver wise commentary on current events should shock only those who are unaware of how today’s media works. It systematically honors those who have been the boldest in committing crimes, so long as such crimes are committed in the name of national security. That rationale has become so fundamental and so obsessively inculcated by those who exercise any form of political or economic power that committing extreme violence in the name of “national security” will always be lauded in the media as proof of a politician’s courage to go beyond the call of duty. 

Historical Note

Tony Blair’s comedy appears to be based on a simple premise. His onstage character assumes the stance of taking seriously the startling idea in 1989 by Francis Fukuyama, as the Cold War was ending. According to the young political scientist, a golden age governed by the principles of Western liberalism was dawning. Fukuyama claimed that “we are witnessing… the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind’s ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government.”

Fukuyama himself eventually abandoned that thesis or at least corrected our of what he meant by it. Blair thinks we can return to 1992, a year in which the book, “The End of History and the Last Man” was published and the Soviet Union only existed in the past tense. In his secular , Blair maintains the faith in the triumph of liberal values. “Recovering confidence in our values and in their universal application,” he affirmed, “is a necessary part of ensuring we stand up for them and are prepared to defend them.”

Blair’s forward-looking aims at new battlegrounds. “Britain should work more closely with European countries on how best to develop capacity to tackle the threat in areas such as Africa’s Sahel region,” he said. This stands as a scintillating demonstration of how the neocolonialist mind works. It seeks a region of interest and then invents the threat. 

Why is Blair singling out the Sahel? The answer should be obvious. It is the logic used by 19^th-century European colonialist powers, who opportunistically looked for occasions to exploit the weakness of their rivals to dominate a particular part of the world. France is currently retreating from its futile engagement in the Sahel, an area it dominated to a large extent as a colonial power and in which it has been active as a neocolonial defender in the “global war on terror.”

Blair’s plan reads like a comic book version of traditional British imperialism. “We need some boots on the ground,” he . “Naturally our preference is for the boots to be local, but that will not always be possible.” Let the natives die as we secure our rule. It is already laughable to suggest that Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s post-Brexit Britain might “work more closely with European countries” on its relations with the African continent.

Blair is obviously thinking of a tandem with France, whose citizens have lost all patience with their nation’s inept military operation across the Sahel region. He imagines France and Britain together renewing the glory formerly achieved by the US-UK duo in the Middle East. Together they will ensure that the “remaking” lasts longer. France’s Jupiterian president, Emmanuel Macron, humiliated by the current pressure to withdraw troops, would clearly welcome the chance of participating in such an alliance, even if the French people are reticent.

For Blair, it isn’t about power and money, though he is clearly attracted to both, especially the latter, which he has shown a talent for . No, it’s about universal values, Blair’s own singularly enlightened values. That’s a language dear to the president of the French Republic, a nation that has tirelessly sought to exercise its “mission civilisatrice” across the globe for the last three centuries. Blair, the stand-up comedian, will “stand up for” those values and be “prepared to defend them.”

“Be prepared” is the Boy Scouts’ motto. In the final act of Shakespeare’s “Hamlet,” the young prince of Denmark declared to his friend Horatio that “the readiness is all.” Unlike Blair, however, Hamlet wasn’t interested in magnifying real or imaginary threats to his well-being. Instead, he was affirming a certain equanimity and trust in his own capacities. No need to invest in his training before what turned out to be a rigged fencing match. Hamlet refused to let fear be his guide.

From the beginning of Shakespeare’s play, Denmark was in a state of war, feverishly building its armaments to defend itself from a “hot and full” Norwegian prince, Fortinbras. But it was Denmark’s own criminal king who brought the country down, leaving bodies strewn across the stage just as the young Fortinbras is about to arrive, survey the damage and take control of the state.

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

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

The post Tony Blair’s Stand-Up Number appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Ben John’s crime consisted of downloading exactly that appeal to right-wing terrorists. Call it downloading with intent to read. According to the BBC, “He was arrested in January 2020 and later charged with offenses under the Terrorism Act, including possessing documents on combat, homemade weapons and explosives.” To be clear, he didn’t actually possess weapons and explosives, merely documents about them. According to John’s attorney, even the prosecution didn’t believe he was planning a terrorist attack. 

The Musical Is Political: Black Metal and the Extreme Right

READ MORE

Understanding the diminished nature of the threat, alongside the fact that he technically did violate a modern law that some complain encourages , the judge gave this account of John’s taste in downloading: “It is repellent, this content, to any right-thinking person. This material is largely relating to Nazi, fascist and Adolf Hitler-inspired ideology.”

Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Right-thinking person:

Someone who understands the importance of limiting their thinking not only to approved topics but also to approved takes on those topics while accepting to make a concerted effort not to let their thinking wander into unsavory areas

Contextual Note

Britain is a nation and a culture that lives and breathes through its awareness of its centuries-old traditions. The idea of “right-thinking” cannot be defined by any law, but instead of being discarded, as it would be in the US, thanks to the British perception of the weight of its inherited culture, the concept can be credibly invoked in a courtroom and even figure in a verdict. Judge Spencer apparently believes the key to becoming a right-thinking citizen is to practice being a right-reading citizen. A clear-headed judge in the US applying the same logic would impose reading the law, not works of fiction.

Judge Spencer understands that knowing the law isn’t enough. Thinking like a good Englishman requires familiarity with great English writers of the past. And it must be the past. In his list there is no Martin Amis, Ali Smith, Ian MacEwan or even 20^th modernists such as Virginia Woolf, Joyce Cary or D.H. Lawrence. Right-thinking English society reached its pinnacle more than a century ago.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

It stopped evolving at the beginning of the 20^th century, by which time all British citizens were expected to understand at least that part of a dying empire’s heritage. This judgment reveals that the nostalgia for a society of the queen’s right-thinking subjects remains a powerful cultural force in British society.

John’s lawyer described his client’s character as “a young man who struggled with emotions; however, he is plainly an intelligent young man and now has a greater insight.” Perhaps the judge expects that John’s reading of great works from the past will inspire him to become a writer himself, making him not only right-thinking but even an active contributor to the perpetuation of the literary tradition that defines the nation’s greatness. John may even be inspired to take up writing his own dramatic story. Instead of engaging in the crime of downloading with intent, he may start uploading with creative ambition. 

This legal episode may leave the reader of the article with the impression that the judge regrets not having pursued a vocation in academia and is using the opportunity to hone his skills as a literature teacher. On that score, Judge Spencer may risk falling into the trap of the great British tradition of imitating a cast of despotic, if not sadistic headmasters and superintendents, on the model of Dickens’ Thomas Gradgrind in “Hard Times.”

There is a hint of Dickensian severity in Spencer’s formulation of the young man’s sentence: “On 4 January you will tell me what you have read and I will test you on it. I will test you and if I think you are [lying to] me you will suffer.” But unlike Gradgrind — who condemned “fancy” (“You are never to fancy”) and promoted “fact, fact, fact” — by imposing fiction, Spencer may even be encouraging the development of John’s fancy, so long as it stays close to what right-thinking people fancy.

John’s barrister, Harry Bentley, reassured the judge: “He is by no means a lost cause and is capable of living a normal, pro-social life.” The term “pro-social” should be taken as a synonym of “right-thinking,” which means not “Nazi, fascist and Adolf Hitler-inspired.”

Historical Note

The judge mentioned some specific titles of works that John will be expected to read, all of them works that belong to the prestigious history of English literature. Judge Spencer gave this specific instruction: “Start with Pride and Prejudice and Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities. Shakespeare’s Twelfth Night. Think about Hardy. Think about Trollope.” Apart from Shakespeare, these are all 19^th-century writers. In their works, they describe the material, social and economic conflicts that concerned people living in a world that has little in common with today’s reality.

These novels reflect in different ways the impact of the momentous change as a formerly rural society was overturned by industrialization. Is it reasonable to think a young extremist of the 21^st century will be able to learn from such examples?

We are left wondering at what the chosen titles mean for the judge himself and what impact he expects them to have on the man accused of terrorist tendencies. Will the preoccupations of a destitute gentry in the early 19^th century in “Pride and Prejudice” provoke some epiphany for the young man? Will the absurdly melodramatic pseudo-political events Dickens situates during the French Revolution in “The Tale of Two Cities” clarify his ideas about radical politics?

Does the judge expect that the subtle confusion about a twin playing at reversing her gender role in Shakespeare’s sublime comedy will effectively educate John on the subtleties of sexual identity and help him to nuance his opinions on homosexuality?

Depending on how he conducts the discussion sessions around the convicted man’s readings, the magistrate may be creating a precedent that is worth imitating in other cases of individuals with terrorist inclinations. Calling great writers of the past as witnesses of what right-thinking people believe will at least rob such individuals of the time they would dedicate to reading downloaded extremist literature. It’s a question not of fighting fire with fire, but with comforting warmth. 

There is a problem, however. Understanding what Shakespeare, Austen, Dickens and others had to say requires delving into the history of their times and the modes of thought that accompanied those times. We might even wonder how right-thinking these authors were. Shakespeare in particular left hints that he wasn’t very fond of the oppressive order he was living under. His form of protest was not to download instructions provided by Guy Fawkes (who did attempt to blow up Parliament), but the texts of his tragedies that indirectly express his doubts about the existing political order.

For Shakespeare, something was rotten in England as well as Denmark, and the time was clearly out of joint. He carefully avoided appearing too subversive from fear of the temporal power that would inevitably accuse him under the Elizabethan version of the Terror Act.

Judge Spencer has nevertheless defined a noble course of action in this particular case. Let us hope that he is up to the task as a teacher. If he does succeed, we should recommend his example for handling future cases of intelligent individuals so disturbed by the reigning hypocrisy that they become ready to embrace ideas pointing in the direction of terrorism. Given the constant degradation of our political culture and of the trust people are willing to put in our political leaders and the justice system itself, such examples in the near future are likely to be legion. 

*[In the age of Oscar Wilde and Mark Twain, another American wit, the journalist Ambrose Bierce, produced a series of satirical definitions of commonly used terms, throwing light on their hidden meanings in real discourse. Bierce eventually collected and published them as a book, The Devil’s Dictionary, in 1911. We have shamelessly appropriated his title in the interest of continuing his wholesome pedagogical effort to enlighten generations of readers of the news. Read more of The Daily Devil’s Dictionary on 51�Թ�.]

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

The post Right Think: Jane Austen Against Terrorism appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Understanding Racism in All Its Forms

READ MORE

This demonization of an academic theory is supported by virulent media discourses. says that the teachers’ unions support CRT and will push it on your schools at a cost of $127,600. takes it further, suggesting that CRT is going to set up “a dictatorship of the anti-racists.” On Twitter, opponents compare CRT to and the far-right conspiracy of .

Undoing Racism

So what is critical race theory? Is it a radical anti-racist Marxist program bent on overturning power structures for an amount equivalent to what Tucker Carlson in a week? Scholars say CRT is in fact a from critical legal studies emphasizing not the social construction of race but the reality of racism, in particular racism’s deep roots in American history and its perpetuation in legal and social structures. Kimberlé Crenshaw, who coined the term, emphasizes that it is an ongoing scholarly practice of .

Is it being taught in your schools? Nobody is teaching CRT to kindergarteners. Critical race theory has become part of , one of many frameworks influencing researchers and instuctors who want a framework for understanding, and undoing, racism in education. Some link CRT in schools to launched by The New York Times that seeks to center black history and slavery in the story of America’s founding.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

So why does your uncle who spends too much time on the internet think this is a ? The over CRT is the brainchild of Chris Rufo, who began using the term to refer to a catch-all, nefarious force behind all kinds of social change, from Joe Biden’s weak liberalism to Black Lives Matter. Conservatives link CRT to trans rights and communism, the compares it to Marxist critical theory. The Trump administration launched a counter to The 1619 Project, the, to elevate whiteness and fight “critical race theorists” and “anti-American historical revisionism.”

Moral panics one idea, process, identity or group as evil, a threat to public order, values and morality, but they align institutional power with popular discourses to enforce the social positions and identities behind them. As of July, 22 states have proposed against teaching critical race theory and five have signed them into law. These bills ban teaching CRT, which they insist makes white students uncomfortable and introduces “divisive concepts.” For the right, the vision of US history is one that teaches color-blind unity and pride in being American. Of course, it also that the KKK was OK.

Anti-Anti-Racist Panic

This is far from the first moral panic over education. Historian Adam Laats the fight against CRT to the fight against the evolution of teaching. This first moral panic led to widespread distrust in public schools. More recent moral panics also led to divestment in social institutions. In the 1980s, a panic about satanic kindergartens in the US led to the reinforcement of dominant gender and racial power structures, but also to the withdrawal of and early childhood education.

Panics over sex education, from to , called for defunding these programs, shrinking already limited school budgets while increasing conservative opposition to public education. In the UK, the Conservative Party wants to ban teaching white privilege because it hurts working-class boys — while at the same time dismantling the .

What will the effects of this anti-anti-racist panic be? Will they curb the freedom of teachers to share the truths of history or push them to teach a still more nationalist version of the American story? Will history classes explicitly celebrate white masculinity, full of heroic founders fulfilling a holy promise for freedom and capital? Or might it also serve as another push to demonize public schools, painting them not as (unequally funded) shared democratic institutions but as anti-American indoctrination centers?

Even if the bills do not reshape education standards, the dramatic language around CRT and white genocide continues the longstanding push to defund and privatize public schools. As education scholar notes, the right’s education reform has long linked neoliberal privatization with neoconservative curriculums, something that continues with the opposition to CRT.

Breitbart Utah’s Say No to Indoctrination Act that will “keep taxpayer dollars from funding discriminatory practices and divisive worldviews,” linking cost and curriculum. It is not a coincidence that conservative media mention the price of anti-racist interventions and the dog whistle of “taxpayer dollars.” Fighting CRT might mean bills to change curriculum standards, but it could equally mean a push to cut funding for public schools reframed as cutting funding for CRT — as Senate candidate J.D. Vance on Twitter — or a call for greater support for private, religious and home education.

Both increased nationalism and privatization of education were for the right. Donald Trump’s 2020 education platform’s was to teach American exceptionalism; his second was to have school choice. With this panic over critical race theory, far-right drama serves to reinforce the more banal nationalism of capital and conservatism. Painting schools as cultural-Marxist madrassas makes it a lot easier to stop paying for them.

*[51�Թ� is a  partner of the .]

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

The post Critical Race Theory: A Dictatorship of the Woke? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The German government has repeatedly drawn attention to China’s disregard for international law, especially in the context of its refusal to abide by a ruling of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which declared its territorial claims in the South China Sea illegal under international law in 2016. Yet the German warship’s chosen route takes it to a US base whose status under international law is — to say the least — contested, thus torpedoing the implicit criticism of China.

US Media Amplifies Afghan Chaos

READ MORE

Diego Garcia is the largest island in the Chagos Archipelago, which formerly belonged to the British Indian Ocean colony of Mauritius. In 1965, the British illegally retained the Chagos Islands in order to construct a military base there. The United Kingdom declared the archipelago a restricted military area and deported its entire population to Mauritius and the Seychelles. Since then, the base on Diego Garcia has largely been used by the United States. The Brits have leased the island to the Americans until 2036.

Violation of the Right to Self-Determination

Mauritius has been seeking to reclaim its sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago since the 1980s. In 2019, an advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the UK’s claim to the archipelago contradicted the right to self-determination and on UN member states to “co-operate with the United Nations to complete the decolonization of Mauritius.” A resolution by a large majority of the UN General Assembly called for the United Kingdom to “withdraw its colonial administration.” Most European states abstained, including Germany.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

While the advisory opinion and resolution are not legally binding, they certainly possess normative power. In 2021, a ruling by the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) in Hamburg concurred with the ICJ’s interpretation. A separate issue of fundamental human rights is also involved: The US base housed a detention facility where terror suspects are known to have been tortured. Unlike Guantanamo Bay, the Diego Garcia facility remained completely secret until it was revealed by investigative journalists in 2003.

A so-called bunker call at Diego Garcia is the obvious option for keeping the German warship’s replenishment as simple as possible on the long leg from Karachi in Pakistan to Perth in Australia. Calling at a NATO ally’s port is easy to arrange, with simplified procedures for procuring food and fuel. Resupplying in Sri Lanka or Indonesia, for example, would be much more complex.

Alternative Route Possible

The obvious operational benefits are outweighed by the cost to the mission’s normative objectives: Calling at Diego Garcia will inevitably invite accusations of double standards. The UK’s open defiance of the ICJ opinion and UN resolution means that visits to the Chagos Islands implicitly accept — if not openly support — a status quo that is at the very least problematic under international law.

The bunker call would run counter to both the ICJ opinion and the ITLOS ruling, as well as boosting Beijing’s narrative that the West is selective in its application of the rules of an already Western-dominated international order. At a juncture where international norms and rules are increasingly contested in the context of Sino-American rivalry, none of this is in Germany’s strategic interest.

There are alternatives to replenishing at Diego Garcia. Changing the route would involve costs, but it would also underline Germany’s interest in upholding the rules-based international order. One possible outcome of a reevaluation of the current route planning would be to omit the call at Diego Garcia but, at the same time, to take the vessel closer than currently planned to the contested Chinese-built artificial islands in the South China Sea.

In connection with a detour avoiding Diego Garcia, that would represent a gesture boosting international law, rather than a demonstration of military might toward China. Germany could show that it is willing to comply with international law, even where doing so contradicts its own immediate operational interests and its partners’ expectations.

*[This was originally published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), which advises the German government and Bundestag on all questions related to foreign and security policy.]

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

The post Stopping at Diego Garcia Raises Questions for Germany appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Prince Andrew — rumored to be the queen’s favorite son — has insisted he has no recollection of meeting Giuffre, though there is a , taken in London in 2001, showing him with his arm around her waist. Also in the picture is , currently imprisoned and pending trial in the US for allegedly procuring underage women for the late Jeffrey Epstein. Formerly a powerbroker-financier, Epstein was in a New York City prison cell in August 2019 while awaiting a criminal trial for allegedly trafficking underage girls.

#MeToo: Power, Let’s Talk About It

READ MORE

Despite Prince Andrew’s denials, the case haunts him: In 2019, he stood down from his official duties after being widely condemned for his seeming indifference to Giuffre and his unconvincing account of his relationship with Epstein in a .

From Palm Beach to Stockholm

On Giuffre’s account, she met Maxwell when she was 16 and working as a spa attendant at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida. She claims Epstein and Maxwell then abused her sexually and pressured her to have sex with other men, including Prince Andrew. She says she had sex with him on many occasions between 2000 and 2002, at Maxwell’s home in London, Epstein’s New York City residence and on his private Caribbean island.

Of course, the two decades separating the offenses and the legal proceedings have made many wonder why Giuffre waited so long before bringing her case to public attention and, now, to the courts. The rise of #MeToo and the confidence the movement has given many previously constrained women is surely a factor. But to imagine Giuffre as an opportunist, who was never coerced but actually chose to remain under the iniquitous stewardship of Epstein, trivializes the deeper violence she endured. This was violence disguised as care, which Epstein used as his means of possession.

To understand how she, as a teenager, abandoned herself to a world that obliged her to give readily and fulsomely to any number of strangers, we have to try to trespass into her mind. She didn’t surrender herself to sex trafficking — this was her retrospective interpretation. More likely she became part of a glamorous milieu in which she wanted for nothing, at least in material terms. Was she fleeing her family? She has been quite silent about it, but her father, it seems, knew all about her first ventures with Epstein, having worked at the same place as his daughter did when she was approached. Was she attracted to a wonderworld where luxury and extravagance were normal? A combination, most likely.

It’s been suggested that Giuffre found herself in a -like predicament. But this simplifies her experience. There were no captors with whom she learned to identify, only confederates. Today she talks about coercion, but there was no physical threat, as far as we know. Yes, she could have left, but for what? A return to the mundane, and perhaps a family life she found unappealing. Like anyone else, she had options, if you could call it that. Having been caught in a web woven by professional abusers from such a yet-unformed age, did she really see a way out? Our circumstances impose limits on how we’re able to exercise choice.

Giuffre accepted the values and followed the norms of her new culture in a manner somewhat reminiscent of religious cult converts who tiptoe into what strikes them as a strange and unfamiliar environment but adjust and become part of what becomes a new normal. After that, her logic would have changed and any asperse against Epstein and his accomplices lacked plausibility. How could they be such bad people while they were providing lavish gifts and travel by private jet to exotic parts of the world? And how could a woman act so inhumanly against the interest of so many other women? 

Henchwoman?

The role played by British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell, is still not completely clear. (Robert Maxwell was a media mogul, who fell to his death from his £15-million yacht off the Canary Islands, aged 68, in 1991. There was talk of suicide or murder by Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service.) The FBI is currently investigating Maxwell, who had an affair with Epstein and worked for him, recruiting staff to work in his mansions and girls to give him massages. Giuffre has said Maxwell procured underage girls for Epstein.

Maxwell has issued a denial, though an affidavit by a woman filed in a separate case in February 2019 claimed she had visited Epstein’s island in 2006 and seen many girls, some “young teenagers,” who had been recruited by Maxwell. Ghislaine Maxwell has denied any wrongdoing and may or may not be a key figure. Until she appears in under oath, we can only surmise. But the optics are not promising.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information..

Giuffre portrays Maxwell as someone who had Epstein’s unshakable confidence. Maxwell was apparently awestruck by powerful men like Epstein and Prince Andrew. The girls encouraged each other to treat Maxwell worshipfully or risk the consequences. Presumably, they thought she would safeguard the girls; Maxwell was, after all, a woman — and a mature woman — in a conclave dominated by men. She may have been abrasive and unapproachable, but she was still a woman, albeit one who, in the presence of men, “.”

Maxwell’s relationship with the girls must have been complex. We can only imagine that their trust in her was laced with trepidation, and any confidence they had in her would have been tempered by her deference to Epstein. It must have been destabilizing, perhaps devastating, to realize that far from being a protector, Maxwell might have been a henchwoman.

���Բ�é�Գܱ�?

We can’t tell for sure whether Giuffre was the ingénue her narrative suggests, but it’s not necessary to assume she either had wisdom beyond her years or the naiveté of a child. Like the other recruits, she probably took a juvenile pleasure from the leverage conferred by her youthful good looks. There is even the possibility that a world of wealthy hedonists was to her liking. It was, as Sarah Ditum reminds us, after all, a time when “” was a commonly accepted trope that elicited no more than a wink from the onlookers; girls caught up in these situations did not yet have the vocabulary to understand themselves to be victims. Equally, there’s no reason to suppose Giuffre was aware of the destructive afterlife of this world.

Alternatively, she may have experienced, in common with a great many women in abusive relationships, the terrifying prospect of nihilism, the absence of solidity and permanence that might await them if they leave. The simplistic “Why didn’t she just go?” often has no answer that makes objective sense. Fight is not an option. Flight seems petrifying. Staying put sometimes appears the best of three bad choices.

Some will say that any person, particularly a woman, who engages in sex for payment is a prostitute. But the term disguises not only the range of relationships and roles in what we now call the commercial sex industry but the gamut of motivations and circumstances contributing to someone’s position in an enterprise (if I can call it that). It’s doubtful that Giuffre ever set out to dispense sexual favors for money, though she probably had no qualms about using them to advance her own interests. She probably never thought she was doing that, anyway.

More likely she just assumed that sex was just part of her duties, which were to supply contentment, repose and a sense of wellbeing to Epstein’s friends. She said of her with Epstein: “He was laying naked on top of a massage table … I’m a 15-year-old girl and seeing him on the table was weird.” But familiarity probably made it less weird, and living in Epstein’s domain probably inclined her toward a docile observance of daily routines so that giving massages to naked men seemed as quotidian as doing grocery shopping. Yet she has survived and appears to be recovering. Her vengeance is probably part of her recovery.

Beyond Reproach?

How this will play out for Prince Andrew and, indeed, for the Windsors, is uncertain. After Prince Harry’s withdrawal and his apparent enthusiasm for sharing family secrets with anyone prepared to listen, a sex scandal is likely not on the royal family’s list of priorities. Andrew’s intransigence and his unwillingness to cooperate with police inquiries invite speculation. Were he an entertainer, such as an actor or a pop singer, this would be manna from heaven. But he isn’t: He is the son of a monarch, a nobleman and, as such, regarded as a person beyond reproach.

The royal family is now properly in crisis. The once-great rulers of a once-great nation struggle defiantly to find anchorage after casting itself adrift of its historical mooring. Even Princess Diana has reappeared like an unwelcome albatross thanks to revelations of Martin Bashir’s untoward behavior in securing her notorious . The family has survived crises before and will survive this one, but not unscathed.

Make Sense of the World

Unique Insights from 2,500+ Contributors in 90+ Countries

I agree to receive emails and other content from 51�Թ�. I understand that I may repeal my consent at any time. You can review our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for further information .

Andrew now has a dilemma like no other. He must choose between two equally daunting options. He’ll maintain his innocence, of course. But a refusal to appear in court to defend himself may be interpreted as timorousness. In a civil lawsuit, the court has no power to compel attendance, but the prince could still be tried in absentia and face possible damage to his character and, by implication, the crown’s.

A more robust response, on the other hand, could yield the wrong result and perhaps prosecution, in which case the crisis will become a cataclysm for the royal family — and long-awaited justice for countless women like Victoria Roberts Guiffre, who once found themselves trapped in the world of powerful men.

*[Ellis Cashmore is the author of “.”]

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

The post The Prince, the Financier, the Henchwoman and the Girl appeared first on 51�Թ�.