Measuring impact

To explore these questions, we surveyed 1,100 men across a broad age spectrum, primarily in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia. The results challenge common assumptions.

Only 7% of respondents reported being influenced by Tate in any meaningful way. Among this small group, many described their response as critical rather than imitative. Over three-quarters (76%) found his views on women offensive or harmful, and while 84% agreed that “toxic masculinity” exists, few recognized it in themselves or associated it with Tate. Just 4% described his ideas on masculinity as insightful.

Tate presents a composite identity: misogynist, alpha male, free speech martyr, self-styled philosopher and walking embodiment of the supposed masculinity crisis. He has been described as a figurehead for a backlash among men unsettled by shifting gender norms and the erosion of traditional roles. His message is argued to appeal to those who feel disoriented by feminism, gender fluidity and the growing visibility of women in public life.

In that sense, Tate is not just out of step with the zeitgeist—he’s proudly backward-looking. His retrograde vision is part of his marketing strategy: a fantasy of regression, in which men rule by birthright and women willingly cleave to subservience.

A manufactured Messiah

Tate, a former professional kickboxer born in Chicago and raised in the UK, entered public consciousness after appearing on in 2016, where he was subsequently removed from the house. His prominence grew through provocative online content, amplified on platforms like TikTok and further fueled by extensive media coverage. 

This promoted a version of masculinity based on getting rich, building physical strength and retaliating against contemporary feminism (which, in this context, we understand as the advocacy of women’s rights based on the premise of gender equality). He allegedly became wealthy by selling access to his “Hustlers University,” which claims to teach subscribers how to make money online.

In 2022, Meta banned him from Facebook and Instagram. Shortly after, Hope Not Hate’s research director, Joe Mulhall, him as a “genuine threat to young men, radicalizing them towards extremism, misogyny, racism and homophobia.” TikTok and YouTube later followed suit, banning his content and inadvertently increasing his notoriety. Today, he has around 10 million followers on X (formerly Twitter).

Garrulous and always ready to offend, Tate became a magnet, attracting interest from everywhere, including Romania where he and his similarly regressive brother were arrested on suspicion of human trafficking and rape, charges they both deny.

Tate has been variously labelled the or of toxic by outlets including The Washington Post, The Sunday Times (South Africa), The Irish Independent and The Guardian. Yet such designations raise a central question: is Tate genuinely shaping minds, or has he become a symbol for broader anxieties?

Limited influence, strong rejection

Our research suggests Tate’s real-world impact is limited. Only a small proportion of men reported any influence, and even then, many described a kind of inverse effect. One participant noted that encountering Tate’s views increased his willingness to confront misogyny: “His influence means I’m more likely to take a stand when I hear those views. So perhaps I have been influenced by Tate—but in the opposite direction.”

Others echoed this sense of reactive engagement: “I feel a more direct responsibility to challenge misogyny than I did before the manosphere existed. Previously, if one of my friends or someone at work said something ignorant about men or women, I’d probably let it go. Now, I feel it’s more important to say something—even if it makes people uncomfortable.”

Far from adopting Tate’s ideology, a significant proportion of men describe their response as deliberately oppositional. “I’m more determined than ever to be an ally to women—just to spite men like Andrew Tate,” said one participant. Similarly, another man stated plainly: “It’s made me a much stronger advocate for female causes.”

The majority of respondents found Tate’s views harmful. Even those who rejected his ideas acknowledged their potential to influence others. One participant observed: “Tate believes men should have authority over women in relationships—including controlling how they dress, who they speak to and what they do. He also thinks women bear some responsibility for being sexually assaulted. It’s completely misogynistic and toxic and just shows how out of touch he is in the 21st century.”

Indeed, the danger may lie less in what Tate says than in what he allegedly does. In April 2025, four women filed a civil lawsuit against Tate alleging sexual violence and coercive control—a pattern of behavior intended to dominate and isolate. He denies all allegations.

A crisis questioned

Toxic masculinity is often invoked as both cause and symptom of a broader crisis in masculinity.  It bears resemblance to “hegemonic masculinity,” a phrase first coined in the 1990s by Australian sociologist R.W. Connell (now Raewyn Connell), to describe a form of masculinity culturally idealized by the likes of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone and associated with strength, power and control. The new equivalent is coupled with a crisis captured by the observation: In the USA and UK,  boys are more likely to own a smartphone than to live with their biological father.

As one participant in the survey put it: “Many younger lads find it hard to find their place in the world, especially when it comes to relationships. That’s always been the case. Tate tells them it’s not their fault—and that the way to overcome it is by acting dominant and treating women not as equals, but as possessions.” Another was more direct: “He’s brainwashing boys, young men and adult males who should know better.”

Although 84% of respondents acknowledged the existence of toxic masculinity, few saw it as personally relevant. The concept appears widely accepted but weakly internalized—more a matter of cultural script than personal conviction.

A cultural mirror

The story of Andrew Tate may reveal more about the cultural context in which he operates than about the man himself. Like Hans Christian Andersen’s fable of The Emperor’s New Clothes, the discourse around Tate reveals how narratives can gain authority through repetition rather than evidence. It captures a timeless social truth about the power of groupthink, fear of dissent and a tendency to uphold a fiction for fear of exclusion or ridicule.

A consensus has formed, amplified by media, educators and policymakers. Young men, we are told, are in thrall to a pernicious ideology perpetrated by Tate. But our research suggests a different reality: Most young men reject Tate’s views and don’t see themselves in this alleged crisis. Like the emperor’s subjects, many may privately dissent from the prevailing narrative but remain silent, assuming everyone else sees what they do not. 

In that sense, andrew Tate functions less as a catalyst and more as a mirror, reflecting broader concerns about gender, authority and social change. His influence may lie not in what he says, but in how society reacts to him.

[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 Andrew Tate Myth: In Reality, He Has Only Limited Influence appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The US emerged as the global superpower thanks to World War II. In 1945, Europe was in ruins. The war caused widespread destruction in Europe because of the bombing of cities and factories. European powers lost millions of people in the war. Being far from Europe and Japan, the incurred a very low rate of civilian casualties. There was almost no destruction of US infrastructure, with the Japanese attack on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, as a notable exception. Naturally, the US emerged as the leader of the West. Although the Soviet Union was a US ally during the war, it competed with the US for global hegemony following the Allied victory, a period referred to as the Cold War.

During the Cold War, the US and its Western allies engaged in a brutal global competition with the Soviets and other communist states. Notable confrontations between these two power centers included the Korean War (1950–1953), the Vietnam War (1955–1975) and the Soviet–Afghan War (1979–1989). Using Soviet influence as an excuse, the US intervened in many countries, including Iran. At the behest of the UK, the US overthrew the first democratically elected government of Iran. Only 26 years after the infamous 1953 coup, the Iranian Revolution deposed the Shah and established Iran’s independence from both the US and the UK.

The US tacitly supported European imperial and colonial powers when they committed some of the worst genocides in human history. The most notable include the horrendous atrocities committed in Congo, Kenya and Algeria.

After the fall of the Soviet Union in December 1991, the world looked forward to years of peace and prosperity. Although the US proclaimed that this new era was one of peace, it began with the Rwandan Genocide (1994), the Bosnian Genocide (1995), to the present day with the US-backed genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Syria by al-Qaeda’s affiliates.

The of the Soviet Union did not make the world more peaceful; it worsened it under unilateral US leadership. The fall produced a power vacuum that has yet to be filled. In particular, it released nationalistic, ethical, cultural and self-determination movements in the former Soviet states. It led to social unrest, organized crime, terrorism and corruption. The ripple effects of the fall will “continue to be felt for some time yet.”

After the Soviets were gone, the US no longer faced any serious challenges to its global hegemony. However, the US considered Iran’s independence from US influence a challenge to its global domination and has supported efforts to undermine the Islamic Republic of Iran. Presently, the US efforts that have unseated Assad of Syria were meant to undermine Iran’s dominance in the region. 

Recently, reporters saw US President Joe Biden leaving a bookstore with a copy of The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine by Rashid Khalidi in his hand. The book describes the Palestinian struggle for their homeland. “Settler-colonial confrontations with indigenous peoples have only ended in one of three ways: with the elimination or full subjugation of the native population, as in North America; with the defeat and expulsion of the colonizer, as in Algeria, which is extremely rare; or with the abandonment of colonial supremacy, in the context of compromise and reconciliation, as in South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Ireland,” Khalidi writes. 

Hopefully, Biden will read this book and realize that instigating the war in Ukraine, enabling Israel’s genocide against Palestinians and aiding al-Qaeda affiliates are immoral.

The US’s prestige is falling worldwide, all it can do is slow the fall

The world is waking up thanks to Iran. The US’s decision to back Ukraine in the war and enable Israel’s genocide against the Palestinians has placed global attention on Iran. In particular, Iran’s support of the oppressed Palestinians has been a popular move. In the US, like around the world, young people with the oppressed Palestinians.

Iran has become so notable for its global standing as a supporter of the oppressed that its archenemy, Israel, admits it. On July 25, Israeli Prime Minister , against whom the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, addressed the US Congress.

Hearing the loud protest outside, he felt frustrated with the protesters, crying in his speech that “Iran is funding the anti-Israel protests that are going on right now outside this building.”

Led by Iran, worldwide, people realize the US is not what it claims to be. The US is not a promoter of democracy or peace but a brutal warmonger with no regard for human rights and international law. Internationally, it has used its veto power since 1970 against UN resolutions concerning Israel, with four in the last year. In November, it vetoed the latest UN resolution calling for a ceasefire in . Recently, it blundered by the rise to power in Syria of Hayʼat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) formerly part of al-Qaeda.

To stop the US’ destructive behaviors globally, China, Russia, Iran and some other countries have moved away from the US and formed the alliance. More countries are planning to do the same. Within the new alliance, China pushes for more collaboration between countries rather than subjugating them, as the US does.

No supporter of democracy, not even much of a democracy

Globally, people are becoming more aware that the US does not support democracy. Its ventures into other countries in the name of democracy are a ploy to access their resources and wealth. In pursuit of power and wealth, the US has destroyed lives. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen are just a few known examples where millions of innocent people were killed and billions of dollars of infrastructure were destroyed by US-led aggression.

The US is also a very flawed democracy itself. According to a poll from the Harris Poll and the Quincy Institute, around of Americans want the US to pursue peace with Russia. Yet, the US continues arming Ukraine against Russia. Likewise, of Americans disapprove of Biden’s handling of the “Israel–Palestine conflict,” but Biden continues arming Israel. Biden is acting as a dictator, ignoring the will of the people. This is not unique to Biden. US presidents have been getting the US in wars since its inception. Despite its global proclamation as a beacon of democracy, the US has never been a true democracy.

The US presidential system is flawed. The winner of the majority of Electoral College votes wins. In 2000 and 2016, George W. Bush and Donald Trump lost the popular vote but still became presidents because they commanded a majority of Electoral College votes. Furthermore, the US is dominated by two main parties. Third parties are not even on the ballot in many states. Big money in politics also strengthens the hand of the two main political parties.

This means that American politics makes for the strangest of bedfellows. Christian evangelicals voted for Trump despite his chauvinism, infidelity, nepotism, racism and corruption. So did many working-class Americans as well as a majority of white women and Latino men voted for this celebrity billionaire who has given and plans to give tax cuts to the rich. On the other hand, Ivy League elites largely voted for Democrats even if they had misgivings about Kamala Harris.

Giving the rich tax breaks and spending too much on the military-industrial complex has led to the US suffering the highest rate among industrial countries. The US ranks last in outcomes among the ten major developed countries despite spending nearly twice as much — about 18% of gross domestic product — on healthcare than the others. The crisis is also worse than in other Western countries and the country has the highest rate among high-income countries.

As is well known, American interventions in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Yemen and other countries led to the expansion of the military-industrial complex. Today, the US sends its poor to war who come back with post-traumatic stress disorder if not wounds or in body bags.

The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 killed thousands of innocents. Its intervention in Libya caused a civil war that continues to this day. Today, the US is inflicting similar misery on Syria. Together with Turkey and Israel, the US is supporting HTS. Note that HTS is an affiliate of al-Qaeda. The HTS fighters are nothing but terrorists who have innocents, including 12-year-olds and Americans. That is the reason why the US put a $10 million bounty on HTS leader . Yet today the US has supported HTS to get rid of the Assad family, legitimizing the very fighters it has designated as terrorists.

Instead of continuing to support death and destruction, the US should support peace and harmony. First, Washington must stop threatening, invading and harming other countries. This includes stopping support for terrorists like al-Golani as well as dropping sanctions that hurt millions of innocents. Second, the US must stop its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine. A peace deal is in the interest of the entire world. Third, the US must support a free Palestine where Christians, Jews and Muslims can live together 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 Facilitating the Rise of HTS Is the Latest US Blunder appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Economist’s choice of this year’s word of the year tells us what its editors see as the biggest challenge our civilization is facing. It isn’t the disastrous wars in Ukraine and the Middle East in which the Atlantic alliance is fully implicated. It isn’t even the destabilization of the global financial order so long organized around the unassailable status of the United States dollar. It isn’t rising temperatures causing climate havoc or the towering levels of debt that threaten, at a moment’s notice, to unravel the global financial system. No, for The Economist, dedicated to the ideal of “liberal rationality,” the real threat worth focusing on can only be… Donald Trump.

The “word of the year” article bears the subtitle: “The Greeks knew how to talk about politics and power.” Classical references always help buttress one’s case. The article cites Plato and Aristotle’s “political thinking,” which may be a subtle hint that there has been much of it in recent years. After seven paragraphs — punctuated by various interesting but not always very accurate details concerning history, philosophy and language — the finally reveals, in three sentences, the identity of the mysterious word it has selected.

“So the word everyone was Googling was kakistocracy: the rule of the worst. The first root, kakos, is found in few others in English. ‘Kakistocracy’ is not found in ancient sources; it seems to have been coined in English as an intentional antonym to aristocracy, originally ‘rule by the best.’”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Kakistocracy:

The natural form any democracy will take when its political system is made subservient to the principles that undergird liberal, free market capitalism, in which the overriding authority of an anonymous class of wealthy individuals is rendered invisible thanks to the ruse of allowing unwealthy people to cast a vote in elections engineered by the same invisible wealthy class for one or another of their preselected representatives.

Contextual note

Our Devil’s Dictionary gloss obviously differs from — and directly contradicts — The Economist’s far more succinct definition. Let’s explore the reasons.

Our first objection to the content of the article may seem trivial, but is significant in that it points to something that strongly resembles “disinformation.” The article tells us that the root “kakos” in Greek means “worst.” In fact, it means “bad, inferior, worthless or poor.” Κάκιστος (kakistos), however, is the superlative of kakos and does mean “excessively bad” and in some contexts “worst.” The article also misleadingly informs us that kakos is “found in few other” words in English, but a notable example is “cacophony,” which obviously does not mean the “worst sound,” but simply bad, incoherent, unharmonic or disagreeable sound.

But let’s drop the niggling while trying to be charitable and forgiving in this season of good cheer. Apart from the venial sin of offering an inaccurate explanation of a Greek word, we should acknowledge that the magazine’s “word of the year” ritual is little more than an innocent exercise of holiday season levity. The article is essentially entertainment. It makes no pretension to be taken as serious scholarship… other than its annoying invocation of Plato and Aristotle, which actually does come across as pretentious.

Nevertheless, it’s there for another reason: to make a polemical political point. The Economist clearly sees Trump as a difficult morsel to digest. When the article informs us that kakistocracy is the inversion of aristocracy, we sense an undeclared nostalgia for an epoch in which the nation’s values reflected the refined culture of its nobility. The power wielded by the aristocratic caste disappeared with the empire, but not without regret. The free market’s new ruling class successfully promoted the culture of meritocracy to replace aristocracy. The author nevertheless reminds us that aristocracy is literally “the rule of the best,” just in case we allow ourselves to become too enamored of meritocratic upstarts. Still, The Economist’s readers will have no trouble empathizing with the idea of rule by the meritorious. This idea pretty much defines the social status of the majority of the magazine’s readership.

The choice of kakistocracy expresses the magazine’s pessimism, not about the state of the world — which is quite naturally becoming increasingly kakistocratic — but about the situation in the “indispensable nation,” the US. Its critique focuses on that particular embodiment of evil known as Trump. But in doing so, this liberal-minded British publication at least avoids the kind of alarmism that infects US media when it lays into Trump. Relying on irony rather than invective, The Economist bravely attempts to make an erudite joke. But, in this particular instance, it largely fails to where so many of its literary predecessors have succeeded, from Chaucer and Shakespeare to Jonathan Swift, Laurence Sterne, Lewis Carroll, Monty Python and beyond.

Here is one example: “Kakistocracy has the crisp, hard sounds of glass breaking. Whether that is a good or bad thing depends on whether you think the glass had it coming.” The synesthetic metaphor of breaking glass is intriguing. But the attempt at wit goes nowhere. It fails because there is no reasonable hypothetical case in which the reader might think that glass has “something coming.” Breaking glass, for almost everyone, including Greeks, is “kakos.”

Even worse is this attempt at an amusing analogy: “Last time round he [Trump] seemed to fire more officials than most presidents have trips on Air Force One.” What could possibly justify the comparison of fired officials to presidential trips on Air Force One? Talk about apples and oranges!

Historical note

The Economist is known for its ability to avoid alarmism, keep a stiff upper lip and confidently roll with the crises and disappointments that sometimes rock a world order the journal prefers to defend. Since 1843, it has promoted the central themes of a worldview characterized at the time as laissez-faire and today as economic liberalism, including its scion neoliberalism.

For the past century and more particularly throughout the “unipolar moment” in which the US, having assimilated the “political thinking” (ideology) of the Plato and Aristotle of our age — Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher — we have been living confidently in an economic utopia characterized by democracy and a “rules-based international order.” Enforcing the rules consisted in maintaining the belief that actions undertaken by the governments in our democracy were made in the name of the people and with their consent.

The double tsunami of 2016 — first Brexit in the UK, then Trump’s election in the US — began to sow a few doubts about the future of democracy. The voters could easily be persuaded to make the wrong decisions. In so doing, they were breaking down the force of the rules that had been put in place by the wise leaders elected in the past (especially Reagan and Thatcher). Their wisdom suddenly appeared to be called into question.

The door to kakistocracy was now wide open. It took a second Trump election, in which he won even the popular vote, to make it official. For The Economist, kakistos, the worst, is yet to come… and it will be installed on January 20, 2025.

*[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 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

[ 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 Economist Blames the Greeks for Trump’s Election appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The UN has been a nightmare. It is as dysfunctional as the League of Nations. The world has not seen peace even for a day since the UN’s inception in 1945. Delegates should have foreseen the UN’s failure in 1945. The organization came into existence for the UK, the US and the Soviets to expand their hegemony across the world. They projected peace for themselves, and not necessarily for the rest of the world.

How the Allies became the United Nations

On September 1, 1939, started with Germany invading Poland. The United Kingdom (UK) and France declared war on Germany as allies. The Soviet Union (Soviets) invaded eastern Poland on September 17. In June 1941, the Soviets joined the Allies. The Big Three (the UK, the US and the Soviets) formed a united organization of nations to maintain their global peace and security. The Allied powers met and signed the , pledging collaboration in fighting aggression. It proclaimed that “the only true basis of enduring peace is the willing cooperation of free peoples in a world in which, relieved of the menace of aggression, all may enjoy economic and social security.”

The US Constitution strictly limits the president’s power and rests the war declaration with Congress. However, President Franklin D. Roosevelt short-circuited the Constitution, by authorizing the US to finance and arm the UK and France. In March 1941, Congress put this policy into law in the form of the without the constitutional process of declaring war. Germany and its allies, Italy and Japan (the Axis Powers), of course, considered the US to be aiding the enemy in war. 

The US later entered the war formally. In December 1941, Japan’s air force attacked the American naval base at Pearl Harbor in Honolulu, Hawaii, catching the US by surprise. Within days, that attack triggered the US to declare war on Germany. Within hours, Germany also declared war on the US. That month, China joined the Allies while resisting Japan’s expansion in China since 1937.

In August 1941, US President Franklin D. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister Winston Churchill signed the pledging to stop territorial expansion, engage in free trade, collaborate with other nations, have access to “high seas and oceans”, stop the use of force, and work for a world peace free of “fear and want”, where all individuals are free to choose their form of government and enjoy economic advancement and social security. In January 1942, about four weeks after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the Big Three (the UK, the US, and the Soviet Union) and China, along with 22 other countries, signed a document pledging to accept the , which is referred to as the Declaration by the United Nations.

During World War II, the devastating effect of that war encouraged the the Big Four, to put aside their differences and collaborate in the war. To avoid such a war in the future, they began planning for the world. As the discussion progressed, the idea of a united world organization emerged. In October 1943, the Big Four signed the , recognizing “the necessity of establishing at the earliest practicable date a general international organization, based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all peace-loving States, and open to membership by all such States, large and small, for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

In November- December 1943, Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin met for the first time in Tehran, Iran. They discussed the post-war arrangement and partitions. Roosevelt and Churchill assured Stalin that he could expand Soviet territory into Poland and Germany. President Roosevelt was so infatuated with Stalin that he called him Uncle Joe. “I began to tease Churchill,” the American President boasted, “… Winston got red and scowled and finally Stalin broke into a deep, hearty guffaw. It was then that I called him Uncle Joe.” This cavalier attitude of President Roosevelt regarding Eastern Europe is a typical example of a public servant intoxicated with power, and turning into a despot. Such a cavalier is responsible for the US presidents’ empowering the Zionist genocide against Palestinians and the takeover of Palestine. At the end of the Tehran meeting, they agreed on the Tehran Conference. They said: “We are sure that our concord will win an enduring peace. We recognize fully the supreme responsibility resting upon us and all the United Nations to make a peace which will command the goodwill of the overwhelming mass of the world’s peoples and banish the scourge and terror of war for many generations.”

The victorious Allies founded the UN

In October 1944, the Big Four met at Dumbarton Oaks, in Washington, DC. They proposed a United Nations consisting of the following:

• A General Assembly, composed of all the member nations oversees an Economic and Social Council. Nowadays, it oversees other councils, too.
• A Security Council is composed of eleven members, five permanent and six chosen by the GA for two-year terms.
• An International Court of Justice.
• A United Nations Secretariat.

After the war, they all wanted to be in of the global issues. The US had risen to the most powerful one among the Big Three but felt needed Soviet cooperation to finish the war. The Soviets did not trust the UK or the US. They insisted on restoring the old Russian Empire and succeeded. 

In April 1945, delegates from 46 nations attended the and discussed and approved the UN. They set up the UN objectives to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights…to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.” 

On June 25, 1945, the delegates met in San Francisco. After days of meetings, they unanimously passed the UN Charter. The major debacle was the veto power of the Big Five (the UK, the US, France, the Soviets, and China). Less powerful nations feared that if a veto power threatened peace, the Security Council would lose its significance. They wanted more power distribution. Finally, they went along in the interest of global peace. 

On September 2, 1945, the war ended. The Big Three decided to expand the United Nations by inviting other nations to join it. 

The shortcomings of the victors’ peace

To ensure their global hegemony, they planned the UN Security Council (UNSC) in the UN. The UK insisted on limiting the UNSC to the UK, the US and the Soviets. The US wanted China to be included because of its strong resistance against Japan, which freed the US to support Europe. To ensure Western control, the UK insisted on adding France to the Council. That is how the Big Five surfaced. The Soviets felt outnumbered by the West and asked for veto power, which was granted to all permanent members. 

The UN General Assembly (UNGA) is the only organ in the UN in which all member nations vote. Regardless of size or population, each member nation has only one vote. A simple majority decides procedural questions while a simple majority or a two-thirds vote decides substantive ones, depending on importance. It is mainly a deliberative body empowered to make recommendations to the UN Security Council (UNSC) regarding international issues. 

In contrast, the UNSC is primarily responsible for maintaining international peace and security. It is an exclusive club. Nowadays, it has 15 members, 5 of whom are permanent members and endowed with veto power on every issue. The permanent members are the US, the UK, China, France, and Russia, also known as the Big Five. The GA chooses the other ten for two-year terms.

Like the League, the UN’s primary purpose has been to preserve peace and security. The UN members have promised not to use force except in self-defense and to use force collectively to preserve peace. In apparent violation of the UN Charter, the veto powers granted to certain member states have led to conflicts and wars, rather than preventing them. Until the fall of the Soviets in December 1991, the world faced two superpowers, the US and the Soviets, competing for global influence, a period known as the Cold War. They incited proxy wars nearly everywhere. 

Following the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the US emerged as the world’s sole superpower. This shift in global dynamics has led to military interventions and interference in various countries, resulting in significant human suffering and destruction. Presently, the US is responsible for much of the global deaths and destruction, particularly in Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Somalia, and Yemen. The US complicity in the genocide against Palestinians is the talk of the world these days.

Given these ongoing challenges, it is clear that the current state of the UN is not conducive to achieving lasting global peace. Meaningful reform or even the dismantling of the organization may be necessary. Adding Brazil, Germany, India, Japan or another country is unlikely to address the fundamental issues.

[ and 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 Can You See Why the UN Is Bad at Peace? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Fast forward 75 years. The world has changed dramatically, yet NATO persists as a relic of a bygone era. The Soviet Union is no more, replaced by a Russia with a GDP than Italy’s. The European Union, along with the United Kingdom, boasts a combined economy nearly ten times the size of Russia’s. France and the UK possess their own nuclear deterrents. Yet, inexplicably, US taxpayers continue to foot the bill for Europe’s defense.

With Russia weakened, Europe is getting a free ride

Some argue that Russia’s actions in recent years, particularly its invasion of Ukraine, justify the US’s continued NATO membership. They paint a picture of a resurgent Russian threat, echoing the Cold War narratives of the past. But this comparison falls flat when we examine the facts.

During the Cold War, the US faced off against an empire of comparable might. The Soviet Union’s military and economic power posed a genuine threat to both Western Europe and US interests. �մǻ岹��’s Russia, however, is a shadow of its former self. With a GDP of about , it pales in comparison to the combined economic might of the and the , which totals more than $22 trillion.

Moreover, the population demographics tell a similar story. Russia’s population is less than , dwarfed by that of the EU and UK totaling more than 500 million. The combined military spending of the and stands at $370 billion, far outstripping Russia’s total defense budget of . Yet, despite these advantages, Europe continues to rely on the United States for its security.

Ironically, the US’s persistent role in NATO may be making Europe less secure, not more. What matters for European defense isn’t raw might, but speed, agility and political will. NATO’s cumbersome decision-making process, requiring consensus among 32 members, is ill-suited to respond to modern threats. An army of motivated Polish and German fighters willing to fight and die to protect their freedom is a far greater deterrent to Russia than a US military that is truly awesome in its capabilities, but reliant on the whims of a foot-dragging US Congress for that to translate to the battlefield. The current arrangement doesn’t strengthen Europe; it weakens it, leaving the continent less prepared to address threats from Russia and elsewhere.

While US citizens shoulder the burden of NATO’s defense spending, Europeans have grown complacent. They’ve built generous welfare states where they enjoy long vacations, early retirements and universal healthcare. Meanwhile, US workers struggle with rising healthcare costs, minimal paid leave and relentless anxiety about how they will pay the bills.

This disparity is not just a matter of different priorities; it’s a direct result of Europe’s ability to skimp on defense spending, knowing full well that Uncle Sam will always be there to pick up the slack. It’s time to ask: Why should the US taxpayer subsidize Europe’s lavish lifestyle?

A new era demands new priorities

Proponents of NATO often point to the US’s nuclear umbrella as a critical component of European security. But this argument ignores a crucial fact: Both the UK and France possess their own nuclear arsenals, which was not the case when NATO was formed. These two European powers have more than enough nuclear capability to deter any potential aggressor. The idea that US nuclear weapons are necessary for European security is a Cold War anachronism that does not stand up to scrutiny.

As we approach 2025, the world faces challenges that were unimaginable when NATO was founded. Climate change, cyber and biological warfare and the rotting minds of our children addicted to social media platforms like and like Fortnite are the true existential threats of our time. These are the battles that will define the 21st century and beyond, not a rehash of 20th century geopolitics. If there is a new Cold War between rival superpowers, it exists across the North Pacific, not the North Atlantic.

It’s better for the US to leave

Some will argue that leaving NATO is too risky, that it could destabilize Europe and embolden Russia. But this view underestimates Europe’s capabilities and overestimates Russia’s. By continuing its outdated commitment to NATO, the US is fostering dependency and resentment, preventing Europe from developing the military self-reliance it needs.

Proponents of NATO often point to its invocation of Article 5 after the September 11 attacks as proof of the alliance’s value. However, this argument ignores a crucial reality: The response to the attacks would have happened with or without NATO. When faced with acts of aggression that demand a response, the United States has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to rapidly form and provide leadership to coalitions outside of formal alliance structures.

The First Gulf War in 1991 serves as a prime example. In response to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, the US quickly assembled a coalition of 42 nations, many of whom were not NATO members. This “coalition of the willing” included fighters from countries as diverse as Japan, New Zealand and Afghanistan. The swift and effective formation of this coalition underscores a fundamental truth: When genuine threats arise, nations band together to address them, which can be easier without the cumbersome framework of an organization like NATO.

Game theory offers another compelling reason for the US to leave: the strategic value of . In a world of mass surveillance where concealing actions is increasingly difficult, being predictable can be a significant disadvantage. Consider a poker game where one player always has a pair of kings, while the other has queens or aces with equal probability. Despite each player having the stronger hand half the time, the unpredictable player will on average win more.

This principle applies similarly to military strategy. NATO’s rigid structure and well-defined protocols make its responses predictable. By leaving NATO, the US introduces an element of uncertainty that can serve as a more effective deterrent. Potential adversaries would no longer be able to rely on a known command and control structure or anticipate specific responses. This unpredictability can in turn force adversaries to be more cautious, preventing conflicts before they begin.

Moreover, while it is true that P implies Q does not mean the same as not P implies not Q, there is often an implicit assumption that it does. By the United States declaring “If there is an attack on a NATO country, there will be an overwhelming response from the United States” it suggests to potential enemies that “If there is an attack on a non-NATO country, the United States will not respond with overwhelming force.” This is clearly seen in Ukraine, where Putin is in plain sight employing the principle: “Ukraine not NATO, therefore Ukraine fair game.”

The reality on the ground is that the Iron curtain no longer exists and we live in a world with fuzzy borders and hybrid warfare. The correct response to this is illustrated regarding Taiwan. Will America go to war to defend Taiwan? It might. That should be the answer to every question of that form. Will America go to war over a sabotaged undersea cable or gas pipeline? It might. Will it go to war over an act of terrorism? It might. Will America go to war to defend Europe? It might. America should go to war when the American President and Congress decide that it should, not because of a treaty from three quarters of a century ago born of a different age. By withdrawing from NATO, the United States would put Ukraine on equal footing with not just Poland but also France and Germany, and be a masterstroke of expanding not contracting American influence.

In essence, by stepping away from NATO, the US would paradoxically enhance global security by keeping potential aggressors guessing about the nature and extent of possible responses to their actions.

It’s time to go

The time has come for bold leadership. President-elect Donald Trump’s landslide victory and Republican control of Congress provide a unique opportunity to reshape the US’s foreign policy. The nation must seize this moment to chart a new course. Leaving NATO will not only serve the interests of the US taxpayer, it will also help Europe by teaching it the pride of taking care of its own needs with its own hard work.

The US’s departure from NATO won’t be easy. It will require careful diplomacy, detailed planning and time. But it is a necessary step for both the US and Europe to address the real challenges of the 21st century.

And to those reading this in a nice coffee shop in a town square in Europe, I say this: If you want to continue enjoying your wine and your swimming pools, and your relaxed way of life, it’s time for you to fight for it — and pay for it — yourself.

[ 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 It’s Time for the US To Bid Farewell to NATO appeared first on 51�Թ�.

PACE is a key institution within the Council of Europe, the platform for cooperation and dialogue among Europe’s 27 nations. PACE focuses on promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law across Europe. These are topics of universal interest one might expect United States news media and especially the US government, who spent so much time and money seeking Assange’s extradition, to be keenly interested in. But the story got little coverage in the West and practically none in the US. The last time The New York Times even mentioned PACE was over a year ago, in September 2023, in an with the title: “In occupied areas of Ukraine, Russia is holding local elections that have been widely denounced.”

PACE not only monitors the implementation of Council of Europe conventions and agreements between member states, it also elects judges to the European Court of Human Rights. You would be justified in thinking of it as the “conscience” of Europe. Its role in human rights advocacy empowers it to adopt resolutions and make recommendations to improve human rights protection. In that capacity, following Assange’s testimony, PACE “ deep concern at ‘the disproportionately harsh treatment’ faced by Julian Assange and said this has had a ‘dangerous chilling effect’ which undermines the protection of journalists and whistleblowers around the world.”

�մǻ岹��’s Weekly Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Disproportionately harsh treatment:

The US administration’s chosen strategy for dealing with anything or anyone that in any way threatens or even criticizes its actions abroad.

Contextual note

Assange’s legal saga began in 2010, four months after the publication of classified documents on the war in Iraq. It lasted until June 26, 2024 when Assange entered into a guilty plea agreement with the US justice system.

In the opening act, the Australian journalist and founder of WikiLeaks was charged with a sexual offense in Sweden. The case was closed in 2017, as the evidence required for a conviction had not been gathered. Simultaneously, the US Justice Department initiated an investigation using the pretext of the 1917 Espionage Act, a tool that the administration of former President Barack Obama became fond of using against whistleblowers. Fearing extradition to the US, the Ecuadorian embassy granted Assange asylum in London, where he remained for seven years. Then on April 11, 2019, he was forcibly handed over to the British authorities after the election of a new Ecuadorian president, whom WikiLeaks had accused of corruption.

The denouement came after Assange had spent five years in a high-security Belmarsh prison in the UK. It is still unclear why Washington agreed to his release. It should however be obvious that the administration of current President Joe Biden — used to benefiting from European indulgence, if not solidarity with even the harshest of US foreign policy positions — was not expecting the conclusions reached by PACE following Assange’s testimony earlier this month. The Parliamentary Assembly pulled no punches as it reached a conclusion with potentially deep implications for the behavior of all self-respecting democracies, especially those that like to lecture other nations about human rights, freedom of expression and the need to respect a rules-based order.

PACE noted explicitly that Assange’s treatment has had a dangerous deterrent effect on journalists and whistleblowers worldwide. “Chilling” is the term it chose. For the sake of the future of democracy, it becomes urgent to ask ourselves on both sides of the Atlantic: After the Assange case, will journalists and whistleblowers be better protected? On the basis of this judgment, we should hope so, but at the same time we must ask ourselves: Are the politicians in the US and in Europe even listening?

PACE specifically called on the US to go beyond its concern for the protection of journalists by actively combating the tradition of impunity for state agents guilty of war crimes. Will this call be heeded? In the context of ongoing conflicts today in which the US has become implicated, and at a moment when a democratic US presidential candidate openly embraces and celebrates the “service” of former Vice President Dick Cheney, there is reason to doubt it.

Historical note

This episode underlines the perception most people have today that we are living through a period of rapid historical transition. The question of the survival of democracy appears to be on everyone’s mind. We easily understand that democracy can never be perfect, but now that it appears threatened from various sides, can we even find the means to preserve it? Should we consider whistleblowers like Assange and Edward Snowden servants of a citizenry focused on the integrity of governance or dangerous enemies of a system that must be protected not just from physical assault but from critical assessment of any kind?

At a time when the fight for information control has been in the headlines with new pressures on Telegram and Twitter, we should see PACE’s resolution as a strong signal of encouragement to journalists and whistleblowers and a warning to governments easily tempted to justify or paper over the most extreme acts of their militaries and allies in times of war. European governments should be the first to take its recommendations on board. Journalism is already threatened in its theoretical independence by the domination of the economic interests that control or influence the media. If the wheels of justice can be manipulated to suppress truth-telling, democracy cannot survive.

PACE looks beyond Europe and its media. It specifically addresses the US, a nation that has persistently and assiduously put Assange through more than a decade of confinement and even torture. That he is now free to circulate and speak publicly is something of a victory, but it is a victory in a battle that should never have taken place in a democratic society. The atrocities revealed by Assange in his WikiLeaks must not be hidden from the public in the name of a nation’s raison d’Etat.

If PACE’s resolution has any real impact, it means that a clarified legal context will make it more difficult for governments to gag the media and allow crimes committed by their agents to go unpunished. In 2010, WikiLeaks published incontrovertible evidence of atrocities committed by American and British forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Governments and armies will always attempt to conceal acts they find embarrassing. But the press must be allowed to uncover them and publish the truth, with no fear of legal repercussions for doing so.

In recent times, European institutions have been the object of justified and unjustified criticism. Europe today suffers materially and psychologically from its ambiguous relationship with the most powerful member of the Atlantic Alliance. Defining Europe’s “strategic autonomy” is an ongoing. The Council of Europe is once again proving itself to be a major institution for the protection of human rights. In 2005, this same Council the late Dick Marty to investigate the CIA’s secret prisons in Europe. In 2015 and 2016, the European Court of Human Rights condemned Poland, Lithuania and Romania for housing such detention centers.

The governments called into question by such actions will always react defensively to such initiatives. They are rarely “brought to justice” in the sense of holding individuals and institutions legally and formally responsible for identified crimes and atrocities and subject to punishment under the law. But such resolutions help to set standards that will reduce the amount of abuse meted out to independent voices seeking to keep the public informed.

Assange is a journalist whose career was interrupted at the height of his powers and his potential contribution to society and democracy effectively silenced. In Gaza and Lebanon today we are seeing other cases of “disproportionately harsh treatment” that for some political leaders appears to be their privileged form of governance, if not a way of life. Even “proportional” harsh treatment needs to be used as sparingly as possible. As a society, we need to bring the taste for disproportionality under control. For some, it appears to be an addiction.

*[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 51�Թ� Devil’s Dictionary.]

[ 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 Europe Calls Assange a Victim of Disproportionate Harshness appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Blinken these media outlets of spreading “Russian government propaganda and disinformation,” of engaging in “covert influence activities aimed at undermining American elections and democracies” and of functioning as a “de facto arm of Russia’s intelligence apparatus.” To dispel the impression that these new bans are motivated by domestic political calculations, he tried to project Russian media as a global problem. He alleged that the outlets meddle in the sovereign affairs of nations in coordination with Russian intelligence services — that their goal is to manipulate elections not only in the US, but worldwide.

It is difficult for outsiders to believe that “Russian disinformation” can so easily influence US elections. US democracy has strong roots and cannot be destabilized by foreign propaganda; surely it is not so fragile.

In democracies, elections are won or lost on a multitude of issues: national and local issues, the electorate’s understanding of the contending parties and individuals’ positions, the media’s influence, the electorate’s political awareness, the voters’ perception regarding how the candidates’ platforms could affect their own well-being and so on. The final results often are not known until the actual voting takes place.

So the idea that foreign actors could manipulate elections in India, the world’s oldest democracy, seems far-fetched.

Blinken’s alliance and goals

Blinken asserts that RT “possess[es] cyber capabilities” for “covert” operations around the world. He says that the network uses oblivious US citizens to spread “Kremlin-produced content” and attitudes to the public. He elaborated, stating that Russia utilizes similar strategies “around the world.” One example is how the Russian capital of Moscow allegedly runs the online platform African Stream across social media. Blinken says that this platform claims to give a voice to Africans everywhere, but “in reality, the only voice it gives is to Kremlin propagandists.”

As a counter, Blinken states that the US is building a “more resilient global information system, where objective facts are elevated and deceptive messages gain less traction.” He adds that the US is going to promote campaigns that protect the freedom of the press — ones that strengthen the populace’s media literacy, to help people “better distinguish fact from fiction.” The US is coordinating with other governments via the State Department Global Engagement Center in an effort to quash information manipulation.

Blinken announced that the US is partnering with the United Kingdom and Canada to combat “Russian weaponization of disinformation.” In his words, the three nations are beginning a “joint diplomatic campaign to rally allies and partners around the world” to join them in addressing this Russian threat. Further, he instructed US diplomats everywhere to share their acquired evidence of RT’s capabilities and targeting strategies. While each government will decide how it responds to this, the US advises its allies to treat “RT’s activities as they do other intelligence activities by Russia within their borders.”

Blinken claims that the US “respects and champions freedom of expression, even when it comes to media outlets that wittingly spread government propaganda.” He says the nation will keep protecting media freedom around the globe. However, the US will not watch idly while actors like RT conduct hidden operations to support Russia’s diabolical schemes. The US, he adds, will aggressively combat subversive Russian ploys, namely those of “invading sovereign nations, fomenting coups, weaponizing corruption, carrying out assassinations, meddling in elections, and unjustly detaining foreign nationals.”

US hypocrisy and Western narrative control

To put it lightly, many of Blinken’s claims are highly debatable. Worse, they contradict the US’s own policies and actions on the global level.

The US treats freedom of expression as a core value and considers dissent to be an intrinsic part of democracy. In this case, however, the nation is sanctioning Russian media and placing legal curbs against its own citizens who appear on RT to criticize US policy on the respective Ukraine and Gaza conflicts. So the Biden administration is violating its own declared values. As a further blow to freedom of speech, the social media company Meta, undoubtedly pressured, has also Russian media on its platforms, including the outlet Sputnik and the aforementioned RT.��

This US double standard is not surprising. When non-Western nations place curbs on their own media or suppress dissent, the US quickly condemns it as a breach of democracy — even when their goal is to thwart rioting and violence. Yet the US does not seem to recognize the contradiction between its sanctions against RT, which violate the principle of freedom of expression, and limited restrictions that foreign countries implement to domestically curb social unrest, which it routinely condemns.

The West largely controls the flow of information globally. It can create and control narratives at the international level. Its power to disseminate distorted narratives about foreign nations makes those nations feel vulnerable. In fact, as far back as the 1970s, the developing world tried and failed to promote a new international information order — the New World Information and Communication Order () — to fix this vulnerability.

Today, some major non-Western countries are trying to break into this quasi-monopoly on global information flows, but are handicapped. The West has several advantages: Its native language, English, is the of international trade and business. Its print media and news agencies have long exercised global domination. The US also controls the social media space with its audiences worldwide. Russian President Vladimir Putin said in a 2024 with American journalist Tucker Carlson that Russia could try to promote its own narratives, but this would require an enormous, risky investment. Since this space is dominated by the West, Putin is uncertain that such an effort would yield success.

People widely believe that the CIA is connected to the US mainstream, social media and . Allegedly, it gets work from journalists abroad. The capacity of the National Security Agency to intercept communications worldwide, including illegal tapping of communications of enemies and allies alike, is well-established.

It is widely accepted that the US media, its democracy promotion organizations and its intelligence agencies promote regime change in foreign countries. A recent in the Financial Times by Bill Burns and Richard Moore — the heads of the US’s CIA and the ����’s MI6, respectively — publicly displayed their role in policy-making in the Ukraine conflict, for instance.

Largest democracy vs dominant democracy

India knows all about the US’s hypocrisy when it comes to suppressing free speech. The nation has protested the nation’s interference in its internal affairs.

In India’s case, Russian media has not interfered in the functioning of our democracy or our elections. We have not been victims of Russian propaganda or disinformation. Russian media has limited access to the Indian media space, while the Western media, especially that of the US and UK, dominates the dissemination of international news in it.

Even if some European countries also allege that Moscow interferes in their elections, there is no evidence that Russian media linked to Russian intelligence seeks to manipulate the outcome of elections “worldwide.” It is certainly not the case with India, whose colossal democracy would surely be affected if Russian meddling were as prominent as other nations say.

The US and the rest of the West continue to dominate the global information system, which India has experienced at its own cost. Western journals and broadcasting networks like The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, The Economist, Le Monde, Foreign Affairs, BBC, France 24 and DW are politically oriented the Indian government. They, alongside human rights organizations and groups that promote democracy and religious freedoms, spread about Indian developments. Even official US State Department reports do this.

India would therefore have questions about the US’s efforts to build “a more resilient global information system, where objective facts are elevated and deceptive messages gain less traction.” The US missions in India are tutoring local journalists on “fact-checking” — this fact-checking presumably comes with a bias for the US’s claims about India.

It would be ironic if the UK and Canada raised issues about Russian media with India. These two nations harbor people whom India considers ; those who question India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, attack our missions and threaten to kill our leaders and diplomats, among other things. India has no such problem with Russia.

It is not likely that the US would raise the issue of RT’s operations in India directly with the Ministry of External Affairs. They would already know what India’s response would be. This is not a bilateral issue between the US and India and should not be treated as such. The Global South will almost certainly be largely unresponsive as well.

[ 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 Reasons Why India Doesn’t Buy the US’s Underhanded Free Speech appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In the early 2000s, the United States’ hegemonic position in the Middle East changed. The 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union eliminated the need to contain communist influence and decreased the urgency of refereeing regional disagreements or addressing the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

However, the Middle East came sharply into focus when the Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda orchestrated the 9/11 terrorist attacks on US soil, killing 2,977. The George W. Bush administration declared a “War on Terror,” training its guns not only on groups like al-Qaeda but also states like Baathist dictator Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Claiming that Saddam was hiding weapons of mass destruction, the US invaded Iraq in 2003 and toppled his regime.

With the invasion, the generally successful half-century of US foreign policy in the Middle East that had begun with the 1953 Iranian coup d’état came to a close. The US found itself mired in a destabilized Iraq, unable to pull out as the newly installed democratic government could not combat Islamist insurgencies on its own.

Disengagement and reengagement

The Barack Obama administration attempt to reduce Middle East involvement and “pivot towards Asia.” The rise of the brutal and initially successful Sunni terrorist group ISIS, the 2011 Arab Spring and the outbreak of the Syrian Civil War prevented the US from disengaging. Obama did make progress by striking a deal with Iran, agreeing to lift financial sanctions in exchange for the cessation of the Islamic republic’s nuclear program. However, Obama’s successor Donald Trump later scrapped the deal.

Despite these setbacks, the US succeeded in protecting its interests while attempting to resolve regional wars and the enduring Arab–Israeli conflict. The Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, in which Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) normalized ties with Israel. Morocco soon followed suit. Saudi Arabia also entered negotiations with Israel, but the prospect of normalization stalled following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and the subsequent Israeli invasion of Gaza. Since the war broke out, the US has seen decreased popularity among Arab populations as they blamed the hegemonic power for backing up what they saw as Zionist aggression in Palestine. However, a bilateral security agreement between the US and Saudi Arabia remains possible.

In recent years, the US reduced its dependency on imported fuels by exploiting its own fossil fuel reserves. The US is rich in oil and natural gas, but they are usually in a form that requires more effort to extract than in the Middle East. Fracking and other technological advancements have helped close this gap. However, Saudi Arabia continues to be the biggest figure in oil production.

The region continues to evolve. Gone is the binary US–Soviet dynamic, and gone, too, is unipolar US preponderance. More independent actors like China, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the UAE now shape the region. China, heavily reliant on Middle Eastern oil, is increasing its economic and political presence.

Domestically, American attitudes toward the Middle East are also in flux. Younger Americans are growing more critical of Israel. Having grown up during the Iraq War, this generation is leery of US involvement in the region. For now, though, the US continues to prioritize regional stability, oil price stability and containment of Iranian influence in its Middle East policy.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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

The post FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East Part 2 appeared first on 51�Թ�.

To understand the role the US plays in the Middle East today, we need to look at history. In the aftermath of World War II, America turned to the region mainly due to its strategic interest in the Middle East’s vast energy resources, particularly oil. On February 19, 1945, President Roosevelt met with King Abdulaziz bin Abdul Rahman al Saud (better known in the West as Ibn Saud) aboard the USS Quincy on the Great Bitter Lake in Egypt. Despite the colorful pageantry, including the slaughtering of goats for a feast, the central focus of the talks was disposition of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees following World War II and the future relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia, with a notable absence of direct discussions about oil.

Britain’s losing gamble in Iran

Meanwhile, the British, previously dominant in the Middle East, made a critical miscalculation regarding Saudi Arabia’s mineral potential. The British underestimated Saudi oil reserves. The Americans, adopting a more persistent approach, eventually struck oil in the eastern part of the country. This discovery solidified the relationship between Saudi Arabia and the United States and US oil interests, marking the beginning of an enduring alliance. This partnership involved US oil companies drilling for oil in Saudi Arabia, with an even split in profits.

The British, with a historical interest in preserving its global empire, particularly in India and the Middle East, had a vested interest in maintaining its strong influence in the region, most notably Egypt and Iran. However, their misjudgment of Saudi Arabia’s oil reserves created a strategic setback, contributing to the evolution of the Middle East’s power dynamics.

As a result, the British focused on the oil in Iran; however, they had a different relationship with the Iranians. The British attempted to maintain control in Egypt and Iran but faced setbacks. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company, Ltd., (today known as BP), stood at the center of international tension. Under Prime Minister Mohammed Mosadegh, the Iranians sought to nationalize the oil company, which Britain vigorously opposed. The US encouraged the two parties to look to the US–Saudi partnership as a model. Yet both sides stubbornly refused and held on inflexibly. Along with Mossadegh’s obstinance, British and later American concerns about the direction of the Mossadegh government in its relationship with the Soviet Union led to the deposition of the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran and the reinstatement of the absolute monarchy. Years later, the CIA admitted to America’s part in backing the coup to rid Iran of its Prime Minister.

Discontentment with the new regime and anti-Western sentiment eventually led to the 1979 Iranian Revolution. Islamists expelled Western interests from the country and set Iran as the foremost anti-Western power in the region, which it remains to this day.

Washington takes up the banner from London

As the 1950s wore on, US influence on the world stage and participation in Middle East politics continued to grow, taking on the role of peacekeeper. When Israel, France and the UK attempted to invade Egypt in 1956 to gain canal control, the US publicly condemned the plan, leading to the breakdown of the attempted attack. This marked a break between the European colonial powers with the US, which paradoxically found itself on the same side of the dispute as the Soviet Union, which that same year had invaded Hungary..

Yet the stage had been set. 1956 marked a turning point in the global balance of power. No longer would Paris and London dictate the terms of engagement, but two new and formally anti-colonial superpowers — the US and the Soviet Union — would shape the international system. For the succeeding three and a half decades, the Middle East, like the rest of the world, would become a Cold War chessboard.

[ wrote the first draft of this piece.]

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

The post FO° Talks: America’s New Fast-Changing Role in the Middle East, Part 1 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�.

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�.

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�.

Bryson was convicted of raping two women, one in 2016, the other in 2019. At the time of the offenses, he was male, his sex assigned at birth, and known as Adam Graham. In 2020, court papers reflected Graham’s wish to transition from natal male to female, and their name was changed to Isla Bryson. During the trial, the court heard of Bryson’s troubled background, including a brief marriage to a woman. Bryson told the court how they had felt a sense of dysphoria since the age of 4, and eventually decided to transition to female at the age of 29. Now 31, she was found guilty and initially remanded to a segregated wing of a women’s jail in Stirling, central Scotland, to await sentencing.

 While it is part of the United Kingdom, Scotland has its own parliament and this has power to make laws on issues that affect Scotland, for example on education, health, transport and some aspects of the criminal justice system—in much the same way that US states are able to legislate. The UK Parliament controls defense and foreign affairs. Scotland’s Gender Recognition Act, of 2004, determined the process by which transgender people can legally change their gender. Recently, the Scottish Government proposed contentious changes to the law that would reduce the waiting period for adults to change their legal gender from two years to three months and, crucially, withdraw the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. In other words, gender would become a matter of self-identification—whatever a person declared themselves to be, male, female, or neither.

The Last Days of Nicola Sturgeon

A central proponent of this change, known as the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, was Nicola Sturgeon, who was the first woman to hold the position of Scotland’s First Minister when she was elected unopposed in 2014. Sturgeon, for most of her term of office, was enormously popular: a sterling advocate of Scottish independence, a redoubtable supporter of the European Union and a conscientious and belligerent defender of her own beliefs. She was politically dominant in Scotland and had few, if any, peers. But her support of transgender rights insinuated her into a debate that consumed her. She recently resigned, at 52, her political career prematurely ended by an issue that is sure to doom many more politicians and other kinds of leaders in the years ahead.

Without realizing it, Sturgeon staked her political life on the transgender reforms. She pushed through the changes. Trans people in the UK generally have the same kind of legal protections against discrimination as other protected groups under the 2010 Equality Act and the Scottish reforms were, for some, not necessary., the United Nations special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, warned Sturgeon that the reform would be open to abuse by male sex offenders, thus endangering women. Feminist campaigners argued similarly that male sex offenders would attempt to use transgender recognition to gain access to female spaces. submitted to the UK Houses of Parliament in 2021 provided British Ministry of Justice statistics that showed sex offenders accounted for 59% of trans inmates, compared with 17% of male inmates and just over 3% of female inmates. The Equality and Human Rights Commission also expressed.

But Sturgeon was adamant and the reaction was virulent. Harry Potter’s creator, the novelist J. K. Rowling, a resident of Scotland, was seen in a tee-shirt the phrase, “Sturgeon … destroyer of women’s rights.” Sturgeon is a self-professed feminist and Rowling’s protest was damning.

Threat to Women

Meanwhile, concerns grew about Bryson’s presence in a women’s facility. Bryson, remember, was convicted of rape, the most invidious male crime against a woman’s body autonomy. It seemed perverse that a rapist was in a female prison. In a rare intervention, Sturgeon overturned the situation, defending her decision in a somewhat oblique manner: Isla Bryson “regards herself as a woman,” Sturgeon, but “I regard the individual as a rapist.” She emphasized it was important not to suggest “even inadvertently” that trans women posed an inherent threat to women.

There is no unanimity, nor even close to a consensus on how to deal with single-sex spaces such as prisons, nor indeed most of the other questions posed by trans people. How, for example, is society meant to respond to children who experience gender ambivalence or just do not comply with binary expectations? But Sturgeon, during the passage of the Gender Recognition Reform Bill, was in no mood to tolerate alternatives to her vision. She decried those who with that vision as “deeply misogynist, often homophobic, possibly some of them racist as well.” Opponents of transgender rights are more usually described as transphobic.

In January 2023, Bryson was moved to a male prison in Edinburgh. A month later, she was sentenced to with 3 years of supervision after release. The court heard that Bryson was taking hormones and seeking gender reassignment. At the time of sentencing, it seemed as if she would be taken to a male prison, presumably in a Vulnerable Prisoners’ Unit (VPU), where she would be segregated from other prisoners. These kinds of units do not always afford protection: for example,, a sex offender, was found dead in his cell in a Yorkshire prison’s VPU in 2019. One wonders whether Bryson will survive her full sentence. The maintains that it determines where transgender prisoners serve their sentences “on an individualized basis, informed by a multi-disciplinary assessment of both risk and need.”

Inclusivity and Fairness

How is this case a parody, an exaggerated imitation of wider society? If we stand back, it’s possible to imagine how Bryson, or rather an imagined Bryson, is how many people perceive transgender people: sly, deceptive, inauthentic and possibly dangerous. That may be a subjective and wildly inaccurate representation, but it is a persuasive misconception and one that affects much of the transgender debate. Anxiety over the case expresses a more general apprehension that women are often abused, attacked and sometimes killed by physically imposing men, as Bryson once was.

Do people really see all trans people with a sense of trepidation? Yes and no. A great deal of the opposition to the extension of transgender rights is fueled by a fear that every gain made by transgender people means a loss to natal women (those assigned female at birth). But not everyone accepts that there is a zero-sum game in play and many believe that a mature 21st culture should be capable of encircling and supporting all manner of groups that have been traditionally excluded, marginalized or, in some way,.

Scotland now has to wrestle with the ideological questions that have already challenged some other countries and will surely demand responses from many more in the coming years: How can the law affirm and enforce transgender rights while upholding the entitlements, protections and privacy of natal women? There are two fundamental but potentially incompatible principles at stake. The first is inclusivity — the policy of providing equal access, opportunities and resources to people who have been historically regarded as peripheral. This has become almost totemic of modern culture and its effects are visible in the arts, entertainment, industry, politics and in practically every public sphere. Inclusivity has become one of those sacrosanct postulates like the right to work or fundamental human entitlements. Its moral value is so obvious, it needs no justification. The trouble is: it sometimes leads to unfairness.

The principle of fairness is older and involves the provision of impartial and just treatment without either discrimination or favoritism. It remains a distinctive feature of society and, while in practice it is often compromised, the essential value of fairness, particularly in democratic societies, is beyond dispute. Or at least it has been. Now, the concept of fairness may need adjustment.

Unwinnable?

People born after, say, 1950, will have grown, advanced and learned to live in a world that was, at once, liberated, yet still bound by tradition. They would have been inured to critiques of patriarchy and the persistent pressures for equal pay and conditions of service for women. They would have lived through times when Women’s Liberation, as it was called in the 1960s and 1970s, broke barriers, and when the Pill combined with the legalization of abortion, gave women previously unheard of control over their own bodies.  A parallel fight for release and self-assertion was fought by gay activists, principally Stonewall and the Gay Liberation Front. The removal of sodomy laws in the US and the 1967 Sexual Offences Act in Britain wiped away legal restrictions, but not the stigma attached to homosexuality. That started to disappear after celebrities like George Michael and k.d.lang either came out or were outed in the late 20th century.

Today, it would be unthinkable to suggest there could be a fair society without strenuous efforts to amalgamate the best interests of the widest possible range of groups. Extra efforts to accommodate once marginalized groups are regarded as perfectly compatible with fairness. Yet, satisfying the claims, wishes and perhaps demands of the transgender lobby, for many, leads inevitably to unfairness — as the ramifications of the Bryson case suggest.

So, how do we square a circle in which the interest of one such group conflicts with those of another? Many women see this as easy: transgender women are exactly that: not women, but “transgender women.” Women have, at various times, been denied the right to vote, own property, keep their own income, be educated, serve in the military or in politics, or participate in countless other pursuits that men have overseen. Women haven’t been gifted their current rights — they’ve fought for them and, as far as they are concerned, paid their dues. It must be galling (and I write as a straight cisgender man) for many to discover that some people born men –and who have enjoyed the privileges that this status confers–  have now chosen to live as women and are demanding rights of their own.

My guess is that inclusivity has become a cultural value of such unquestioned paramountcy, it will supplant other considerations. The women’s rights lobby fought, fought hard and emerged victorious on many fronts. It may now be engaged in an unwinnable fight, caught in a culture war that is sure to dominate social and political discourses in the years ahead. [Ellis Cashmore’s latest book is “.”]

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

The post Sensational Parody of the Transgender Question in Scotland 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�.

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�.

The post Lithium: The Battery Race 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.’”

�մǻ岹��’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.”

�մǻ岹��’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�.

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�.

Last week ended with its own day of infamy when a British court overturned an earlier judgment banning the extradition to the US of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Following in the footsteps of the Trump administration, President Joe Biden’s Justice Department successfully appealed the ban in its relentless effort to judge Assange for violating the 1917 Espionage Act, itself a relic of the history of the First World War.

Guns and the Wrong Side of Rights

READ MORE

Back then, President Woodrow Wilson’s government pulled no jingoistic punches when promoting America’s participation in Europe’s war. It actively incited the population to indulge in xenophobia. Public paranoia targeting Germany, the nation’s enemy, reached such a pitch that Beethoven was banned from the concert stage, sauerkraut was officially renamed “liberty cabbage” and hamburger “liberty steak.”

The manifestly paranoid sought to punish anyone who “communicates, delivers, or transmits, or attempts to communicate, deliver or transmit to any foreign government … any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, etc.” The law, specifically for a state of war, was so extreme it was rarely used until Barack Obama unearthed it as the elegant solution for the whistleblowers he had to defend in his first presidential campaign.

Despite overindulging his taste for punishing whistleblowers, Obama refrained from seeking to extradite Assange. He feared it might appear as an assault on freedom of the press and might even incriminate The New York Times, which had published the WikiLeaks documents in 2010. In the meantime, Democrats found a stronger reason to blame Assange. He had leaked the Democratic National Committee’s emails during the 2016 presidential primary campaign. Democrats blamed the Australian for electing Donald Trump.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump repeatedly WikiLeaks for its willingness to expose the undemocratic practices of the Clinton campaign. But once in power, Trump’s administration vindictively demanded Assange’s extradition from the UK for having revealed war crimes that deserved being hidden for eternity from the prying eyes of journalists and historians. 

Many observers expected Biden to return to the prudent wisdom of Obama and break with Trump’s vindictive initiative. He could have quietly accepted the British judge’s decision pronounced in January. Instead, his Justice Department appealed. Unlike Trump, who sought to undermine everything Obama had achieved, Biden has surprisingly revealed a deep, largely passive respect for his predecessor’s most dangerous innovations — not challenging corporate tax cuts, the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal and Trump’s aggressive support for Israel’s most oppressive policies with regard to Palestinians.

Biden’s eagerness to follow Trump’s gambit aimed at subjecting Assange to the US brand of military-style justice allowed New York Times journalists Megan Specia and Charlie Savage to Friday’s decision by the British court as a success for the administration. “The ruling was a victory,” they wrote, “at least for now, for the Biden administration, which has pursued an effort to prosecute Mr. Assange begun under the Trump administration.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Victory:

Triumph in combat, including, at two extremes, cases marked by heroic action and others prompted by malicious self-serving motives and driven by the perpetrator’s confusion of the idea of justice with sadistic, vindictive pleasure

Contextual Note

The Times journalists quote Wyn Hornbuckle, a Justice Department spokesman, who “said the government was ‘pleased by the ruling’ and would have no further comment.” At no point in the article do the authors evoke the hypothesis that Biden might have sought to overturn Trump’s policy. Nor do they analyze the reasons that could undermine the government’s case. They do quote several of Assange’s supporters, including one who called “on the Biden administration again to withdraw” the charge. Serious observers of the media might expect that a pillar of the press in a liberal democracy might be tempted to express its own concern with laws and policies that risk threatening its own freedom. Not The New York Times. This story didn’t even make its front page. None of its columnists deemed it deserving of comment.

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 .

Journalist Kalinga Seneviratne, writing for The Manila Times, offered a radical . “If this year’s Nobel Peace Prize is about promoting ‘press freedom,’” he speculates, “the Norwegian Nobel Committee missed a golden opportunity to make a powerful statement at a time when such freedom is under threat in the very countries that have traditionally claimed a patent on it.” He quotes the UN’s special rapporteur on torture, Nils Melzer, who claims that “what has been done to Julian Assange is not to punish or coerce him, but to silence him and to do so in broad daylight, making visible to the entire world that those who expose the misconduct of the powerful no longer enjoy the protection of the law.” 

Deutsche Welle’s Matthias von Hein the interesting coincidence that three converging events took place on the same day. “In a bitter twist of irony,” he writes, “a court in London has essentially paved the way for Assange’s prosecution on Human Rights Day — of all days. And how ironic that it happened on the day two journalists were honored with the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Last, but not least, it coincided with the second day of the Summit on Democracy organized by US President Joe Biden.”

Von Hein added this observation: “We’re constantly hearing how Western democracies are in competition with autocratic systems. If Biden is serious about that, he should strive to be better than the world’s dictators.” But, as the saying goes, you can’t teach a 79-year old dog new tricks.

Historical Note

The coincidences do not end there. On the same day the news of Julian Assange’s fate emerged, Yahoo’s investigative reporter Michael Isikoff the story of another man “brought to justice” by US authorities: Mohamedou Ould Slahi. The Mauritanian citizen had the privilege of spending 14 years in the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba without ever being charged with a crime, even after confessing to the crimes imagined by his torturers.

It turns out to be a touching moral tale. Even after years of imprisonment and gruesome torture, Slahi “holds no personal animus against his interrogators.” According to Isikoff, “he has even met and bonded with some of those interrogators,” years after the event. “I took it upon myself,” Slahi explained, “to be a nice person and took a vow of kindness no matter what. And you cannot have a vow of kindness without forgiving ���DZ����.”

It wasn’t the Prophet Muhammad who said, “turn the other cheek” or “Forgive, and you will be forgiven.” Those words were spoken by the man George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfeld claimed to revere and whom Bush considered his “favorite philosopher.” The Quran did continue the original Christian insight, pronouncing that “retribution for an evil act is an evil one like it,” and that reconciliation and forgiveness will be rewarded by Allah.

There has clearly been no forgiveness in Washington for the “evil” committed by Assange: exposing war crimes conducted in secret with American taxpayers’ money. Slahi’s torture was conducted by the declared proponents of “Judeo-Christian” culture. Shahi’s forgiveness stands as an example of what that culture claims as a virtue but fails to embrace in its own actions.

Shahi is reconciled with his interrogators. But does he also feel reconciled with those who gave them their orders? In 2019, he , “I accept that the United States should follow and put to trial all the people who are harming their citizens. I agree with that. But I disagree with them that if they suspect you, they kidnap you, they torture you, and let you rot in prison for 15 or 16 years. And then they dump you in your country and they say you cannot have your passport because you have already seen so many things that we don’t want you to travel around the world to talk about.”

Despite appearances, Mohamedou Ould Shahi’s case is not all that different from Julian Assange’s.

*[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 Washington’s Tawdry Victory Over Julian Assange appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The post What Next for Britain in the Middle East? 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.” 

�մǻ岹��’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�.

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. “�մǻ岹��’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�.

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. �մǻ岹��’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.”

�մǻ岹��’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�.

In India, I disliked school and grew to hate exams. My time in the UK transformed my school experience. I loved my classes and going to school. When I returned to India, I decided not to go to school. Instead, I studied at home and curiously missed not having to write exams at the end of the year.

360° Context: The State of the Indian Republic

READ MORE

I can speak about the Indian schooling system with confidence. My experience has been corroborated by others. The Indian schooling system seems to have common problems across the country and needs major reform. I stayed in London only briefly and do not know as much about British schooling. Some experiences may be unique to the particular school I attended.

My Indian Experience

When I went to school in India, I studied diligently and my teachers liked me. I participated in many extracurricular activities such as dance and art that I tremendously enjoyed. On the whole, however, I did not like school and was unhappy.

One of the reasons for my unhappiness was my school’s rigid dress code. Every day, I was supposed to turn up wearing an impeccable uniform. My hair had to be shiny, well-oiled and held together by a black hair tie. Every morning, teachers would scrutinize uniforms before class. They expected students to follow the school dress code diligently. We were warned of the dire consequences if we violated the code. For example, they threatened to paint the nails of boys who grew them long.

Ironically, teachers imposed these rules most strictly on those too young to dress themselves. The 6-year-olds who came to school were terrified of being publicly humiliated and punished for something outside their control. I found this system of punishment archaic and problematic. To me, the rules my school obsessed about did not seem relevant. I felt the school was trying to fault students for the smallest of details.

Another reason why I did not enjoy school was the poor behavior of certain teachers. They mocked some students by giving them humiliating names. These teachers also casually swore at us if we erred. Although I was never a target of this, I found such behavior disconcerting. 

My physical education teacher often behaved this way. He gave us demeaning names, swore at us and imposed severe punishments, such as running around the playground and performing squats. This teacher also hit children who frustrated him. Because of this teacher, I did not like the physical education classes and stayed away from sports. My mother and I lodged a complaint against him but nothing came out of it. The school principal claimed to be against the teacher’s methods. However, she did nothing. To this day, the teacher remains unchanged. 

I have vivid memories of the vice principal too. On one occasion, she interrupted class to announce a new rule: No student would speak any language other than English at school. She told us menacingly that, if students broke this rule, they would be fined. Immediately after making this announcement, the vice principal started conversing with the class teacher in Gujarati. The fact that the class teacher taught us English exaggerated the irony of the situation. The vice principal was also infamous for being rude and condescending not only toward students, but also their parents and even grandparents.

Insults, threats and hypocrisy made school unpleasant. I eagerly looked forward to afternoons when I could leave school and return home. At night, I felt anxious because I feared the morning when I would have to get ready and leave for school. Often, I missed school by claiming to be unwell.

I must point out that my school enjoyed a great reputation. It is deemed to be one of the best in Ahmedabad. Schools in my city and in much of India are run according to the same norms. My friends in other schools had similar experiences. Changing schools seemed futile. After going away to the UK and experiencing British schooling for a year, I came to realize exactly why I had disliked school in India. The problem was much bigger and systemic than the occasional rude teacher.

My British Experience

I moved to the United Kingdom because my father chose to do a degree there. When we moved, the school year had already begun. Few schools were admitting students. We went to different schools to see if they would admit my elder sister and me. My sister visited two or three schools before finding a place in one. I was unexpectedly admitted into the first school we stepped into. The school administrator told me that I would start the next day.

This news came as a surprise to me. A bigger shock awaited when the administrator revealed that my teacher was to be a “he.” In India, I had found male teachers to be the most aggressive, insensitive and rude. I feared this would be the case in the UK as well. I was already anxious about going to school in a new continent. Knowing that my new teacher would be male added to that anxiety.

On my first day at school, I arrived late. My mother and I lost our way in a new city. To my surprise, the teacher was waiting for us. He was friendly and kind. Within minutes of meeting him, I calmed down. I was ashamed of the preconception I had formed of him. My teacher had turned out to be very different. He asked three classmates who had volunteered to be my “buddies” to show me around. They broke the ice and I felt welcomed on the first day at school.

I found my British school to be completely different from my Indian one. Teacher–student interactions were more friendly, open and informal. Students called teachers by their first names. This was rare even for UK schools and took some getting used to. 

In India, schools are hierarchical. Teachers are patronizing even when they are polite. Students are almost always belittled. They have to address their teachers as “sir” and “madam” as a sign of respect. However, teachers rarely reciprocate the respect, which I have always believed to be unfair. Students are the most important people in any education system, deserving of respect in return.

In the UK, I liked addressing my teacher by his first name. In my view, this formed a closer connection and an amiable learning atmosphere. My British teacher often sat down with us and shared what was planned for us academically. We could ask questions freely and he would respond to them diligently. He had high expectations from us and made us think. In the UK, I realized that schools could maintain discipline without condescension. The teacher–student relationship can be one of mutual respect.

In India, schools obsess about discipline. Students have to comply with a laundry list of rules and are punished even for minor violations. Corporal punishment is now rare in urban areas but still occurs. Some parents even support this form of punishment. They believe in the archaic dictum, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.”

The discipline enforced in Indian schools seems to have surprisingly little impact. When they leave school, the people of India are hardly rule-conforming; in fact, they are rebellious. This is most evidently seen on the roads of India where drivers blatantly ignore traffic rules. Painting zebra-crossings, for example, is wasteful. The drivers of India have unanimously decided to ignore them, despite being instructed otherwise when obtaining their licenses.

In the UK, my school did have rules and imposed them. However, they were fewer, less controlling and more sensible than those in India. The teachers were authoritative when necessary but never authoritarian. 

In India, even when teachers acted in our best interest, they did so in an intimidating manner. One teacher once asked us if we had social media accounts. Those who raised their hands were told there would be “legal action” against them because no one under 18 was supposed to have social media accounts. The teacher was trying to protect us from online dangers, but the aggressive approach did not inspire trust. It was in the UK that I discovered the dangers of cybercrime when we were taught about it at school. Our Indian school could have done the same instead of threatening students. Schools in India choose to scare children out of problems where they could reason with them instead.

In India, I hated school and lied about being sick to stay at home. In contrast, I loved school in the UK. For the first time, I wanted to go to school even when I was ill.

Contrasting Approaches to Learning

In India, textbooks were treated like the Bible and teachers followed them completely. Once they taught a chapter, we had to answer questions at the end of it. Most of the time, the teacher would simply dictate the answer to us and all we had to do was write down what they said. Older students had the liberty to write down answers on their own, but there was little need for originality. Copying down relevant sections of the chapter could fully answer most, if not all, questions. 

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..

Questions were invariably formulaic as well. For example, this question was posed at the end of chapter six of the class eight geography textbook of the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT): “The world population has grown very rapidly. Why?” Teachers expected students to pull out an excerpt from the chapter verbatim. This was deemed to be the correct answer: “The main reason for this growth was that with better food supplies and medicine, deaths were reducing, while the number of births remained fairly high.” The five other questions that followed had to be answered similarly by quoting relevant lines from chapter six.

To answer questions, teachers told us to put brackets around appropriate sentences in chapters and write down the respective question numbers next to them. Once we had matched questions with answers, we simply had to copy both of them down in our notebook. This process of answering questions was tedious and almost pointless. Preparing for exams was similarly mind-numbing. All we had to do was memorize what we had written in our notebook and reproduce the answers during the exams.

Only creative writing offered an escape from the monotony. Even here the topics teachers gave out for essays and stories were again mostly formulaic. Books were available that had essays and stories on these topics. All that most students did was memorize from them and present the material as their own. The “writing” in “creative writing” was anything but creative.

In India, school involved little learning. I did not make inferences, analyze topics or interpret things originally. We were not encouraged to think critically and express our opinions. I realized that the Indian education system does not foster critical thinking or creativity.

In the UK, school was rich in learning. We were divided into sets with different teachers depending on our level of understanding of the subject. We began every class by writing down the learning intention in our notebooks. 

I remember my math classes well. Sometimes, we played mathematical games. We had to use formal methods and the language of mathematics to explain our strategies, making us vocalize our way of thinking. 

I enjoyed my English classes as well. In class, we were supposed to make inferences about the theme of the text and explain our reasoning. I also learned to structure arguments in the point, evidence and explanation format, popularly known as PEE. I learned not only to write but also to edit my writing. Teachers would mark our work and students would do a “response to marking” exercise. This meant students could improve their work iteratively.

In the UK, answers would ask for a contribution by the student, which resulted in a collaboration. The experience was individualized. We also discussed things in detail during class, which meant we heard many points of view. We learned how to justify our opinions instead of merely asserting and how to challenge an idea or defend it. We made our case and debated issues. Listening to opposing arguments expanded our mental horizons.

The books we used in Britain were a world apart from textbooks in India. For instance, “” is a reference book from the UK. It has an extract from Chinua Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart” and then poses the following question: “The writer presents the reader with a strongly negative view of Unoka. He is clearly a flawed character with very few redeeming qualities.’ How far do you agree with this statement? You should include: your own perceptions of Unoka; the techniques the writer has used to influence your perceptions; evidence from the text to support your ideas.”

Such questions demand original thinking and make the students express their own thoughts. These questions also make students more rigorous in their thinking as they have to read the text carefully and engage deeply with the author. Opinions and assertions are not enough. Students have to construct arguments based on logic and facts. During my time in the UK, I had to learn how to analyze, understand implications and form judgments. I got an excellent education.

Contrasting Attitudes Toward Examinations

In India, success in examinations is the holy grail. People believe that examinations are accurate measures of capability, but they fail to recognize how problematic they are. Examinations reward rote learning. Little more than a sharp memory and handling time pressure is needed to guarantee a good result. Indians do not realize that some of the most original thinkers have struggled in tests. Nobel laureate in physics was “very slow” and “didn’t necessarily do very well” in his tests.

Students in India take a lot of examinations and are under enormous pressure to perform well in them. So, the purpose of studying is mostly to do well in exams and not to learn. When I was in India, examinations were the main incentive to study. Schools prepare students for the end-of-year tests, succeeding in which is painted to be the goal of the academic year.

In the UK, we had examinations too. In Year 6, students take the Standard Assessment Tests (SATs). These are similar to nationwide board exams in India, but there is less pressure in Britain compared to India. In India, students taking board exams are expected to give up all extra-curricular activities. For many months, they are supposed to focus only on their studies.  The SATs were different. Teachers prepared us for them and we took mock tests, but there was no syllabus given and no memorization was needed. Coming from India, I asked my teacher for a syllabus but was told there was none. The atmosphere before the SATs was strangely calm and, for most of the year, school was normal.

I understand that this comparison of the UK and India might be unfair. India is a poorer country with a much larger population and there are only a few good schools and colleges. As a result, competition for places is intense. Therefore, Indians care deeply about examinations as they are a gateway to success. This nurtures a culture in which Indians obsess about examinations even when they do not really matter, such as those taken in lower grades. The system is examination-centric, not student-centric.

My Return to India

When my father’s stint in the UK ended, we returned to India. I had no intention of rejoining my much-hated old school. I enrolled in another school but quickly realized that it was worse than my previous one. After only a day at the new school, I rejoined the old school.

On the very first day at the old school, I found myself comparing it to my time in the UK. I found the school greatly problematic and it made me deeply unhappy. As a result, I did not attend school for three weeks and had to summon a lot of courage to return.  To make matters worse, I had returned in the middle of the academic year and needed to catch up.

Few teachers were supportive. In fact, most teachers demanded an impossible feat. They wanted me to write up everything that had been done over six months in my notebooks while simultaneously keeping up with their teaching. I tried to find the superhuman strength necessary for this task and wrote persistently to catch up. This caused exhaustion and I started missing school. This only added to the burden because I had to catch up with the days I missed. 

By the time the annual examinations approached, I was almost worn out. We were to be tested on everything taught throughout the year, but the extra writing was hindering my exam preparation. My parents requested my teachers to exempt me from the extra writing assignments. I did not make the request because that would have been deemed rude. 

In any case, I had no interest in taking the annual examination. In the UK, I had learned much of what the school was teaching and testing. I was putting in so much effort in copying out what I had missed, but I was learning nothing. I concluded that a school that taught me nothing was pointless, so I decided not to return until the new academic year began when I would be learning something new.

My parents opposed my decision. According to them, one could not skip ahead. They had followed the norm their entire lives and had turned out just fine. They did not want me jeopardizing my future. They also did not believe that I already knew what was being taught. On their insistence, I reversed my decision of not going to school and took the year-end examinations. My results were splendid but the experience of taking the examinations was horrible. On the day the results were announced, I broke school rules, dressed boldly and showed up in my colorful clothes instead of the school uniform. I was making a statement on what I had decided would be my last day in school.

My decision not to go to school worried my parents. To add to their worries, I did not study at all for four months. I spent this time playing games, creating art and enjoying myself. School had made me angry and I loathed the idea of taking tests. So, I took a break. My father was worried about me not studying and repeatedly requested me to restart and not fall behind my peers. I dismissed his concern.

My Homeschooling Experience

After four months, I started getting bored. Around this time, I was asked a math question. To my surprise, I could not answer it. I realized my four months of inactivity had taken a toll. The idea of intellectually falling behind my ex-peers shocked me, which motivated me to start studying again. I began with a mathematics textbook that my parents had bought for me and was able to finish the entire year’s syllabus in two months. I was amazed at my achievement and it made me realize that I did not need school. Teaching myself was much more fun, so I decided to become a homeschooler. 

My decision worried my parents. They had thought me not attending school was just a phase. In India, homeschooling is rare and rather stigmatized. Most people associate it with students who cannot keep up with their studies or are extremely uncomfortable in social settings. My parents had similar impressions. 

But my parents’ apprehensions did not affect me. I am competitive. I do not like my peers knowing more than I do whether they are from India or the UK. So, I started studying both the Indian and the British curricula. I asked my parents to order textbooks from both India and Britain. By the time these textbooks arrived, I had lost a few weeks of the academic year already shortened by the four months of inactivity. 

My challenge was to complete two curricula in less time than what students in the UK or India spent to cover one curriculum. The task was daunting, but my doubts were not enough to supersede my ambition. I started by making a plan. 

I wrote down all the subjects I planned to study, along with my learning goals for the year. I then planned out every single day for the next two months. I had never planned my studies before. Inevitably, I overestimated and underestimated the time I would take to study some topics and there were days I struggled to meet my goals. However, I disliked falling short and would work harder on such days to achieve my objectives. I did my utmost to keep to my schedule.

The line between studying and not studying became blurred at home. There were no school hours and I would sometimes study till late in the evening. My self-imposed deadlines were helpful as they made me avoid succumbing to laziness. Making a schedule for myself made me appreciate the work of teachers behind the scenes. Structuring student schedules is no easy task. Eventually, I learned to set better deadlines and began to understand how much time I would need to spend on various topics. 

Although doing two curricula simultaneously put me under pressure, it allowed me to learn more. I discovered that some topics were introduced to students in the UK but not in India and vice-versa in the same academic year. Some of the topics that overlapped were explained better in the UK curriculum, while others in the Indian one. This deepened my understanding.

Homeschooling required great self-discipline. I had to plan my studies for the year and then adhere to that plan in an environment not dedicated to studying. Distraction came easily. At one point, I began cutting corners because there was no one to stop me. I missed many targets and gave myself a written warning, a practice common in Indian schools. Fortunately, this worked. I learned to avoid laziness and largely stuck to my deadlines.

Homeschooling has given me more choice and made me more creative. I began learning French, an Indian classical dance named Kathak and to play the drums. 

There are downsides to homeschooling. I have felt lonely. I missed chatting with my fellow students and general social interaction. To counter this isolation, I started reading aloud. I often read in different rhythms and accents, imagining and emulating different teachers teaching me the subjects. I have increased my extracurricular activities; most of my evenings are booked.

Initially, I was secretive about being a homeschooler. Only my close family knew about it. I told my friends and old classmates I had changed schools. I told new acquaintances I was still in my old school. I did so to avoid the influx of questions and presumptions that would inevitably follow the revelation. 

Completing a year of homeschooling filled me with a level of pride and a sense of accomplishment that I had not experienced before. Academically, I had covered two curricula in a short span of time. I had experimented with different learning methods and discovered which ones most suited me. I had become more adventurous and willing to venture into new areas like linguistics. I had studied for myself and not for passing exams. This was a euphoric feeling. 

Examinations, National Policy and the Future

When I was homeschooling, almost everyone suggested I take some sort of exam. It seemed to me that this suggestion came from a lack of faith in my desire, discipline and capability to learn on my own. Therefore, I would not comply. 

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..

However, once I finished both curricula, I lacked a sense of completion. Strangely and surprisingly, I wanted to mark the end of the academic year with examinations. Perhaps the Indian education system had indeed left its mark on me. So, I asked my parents to set me examinations on both sets of curricula. They were reluctant to play the role of examiners, but I insisted. 

As novice examiners, my parents made errors in choosing the questions and setting time limits. Yet the examinations were rigorous and I fared well in them. Studying for these exams and sitting for them was satisfying because I had chosen to do so, unlike those taken in school. Moreover, taking the exams had been a mere afterthought, not the purpose of the learning I had done throughout the year.   

My problems with the Indian education system arose from its arbitrariness, focus on rote learning and lack of critical thinking. To my satisfaction, India’s acknowledges these shortcomings and calls for “greater critical thinking.” It goes on to say that the “overall thrust of curriculum and pedagogy reform … will be to move the education system towards real understanding … and away from the culture of rote learning as is largely present today.” 

Change begins with an admission of the need for it. India has admitted it has a big problem. Hopefully, it will now start taking steps to resolve it.

I do not know if I will continue with homeschooling. I may end up choosing the easier option. When teachers handle the planning and responsibility for conducting studies, life is simpler. Going to school would take a huge burden off my shoulders. I am also curious to see if India’s new policy will change anything. Regardless of what I do going forward, I am proud to declare that I homeschooled and, because of it, I changed for the better.

*[Note: The author wrote this article at the age of 13. She is now 14.]

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

The post An Indian Journey From School to Homeschooling appeared first on 51�Թ�.

After four years of Donald Trump’s version of America home alone that framed geopolitics as a dog-eat-dog battle for survival fueled by the ideology of social Darwinism, Europeans expected Biden to inaugurate a new period of America in the world alongside its prosperous friends. They may have imagined something like the TV series, “Friends,” in which a group of carefree, well-off and witty roommates explored the pleasures of living through minor comic conflicts that proved how much they all loved and depended on one another.

Understanding and Misunderstanding the Biden Doctrine

READ MORE

Last week’s shocker was first of all economic. It canceled a lucrative contract Australia signed with France in 2016 for the supply of diesel submarines. Instead, Australia will receive nuclear submarines built with American and British technology. But even more than economic, the move was strategic, leaving the rest of the world to wonder how to react to an initiative that sets the three most significant English-speaking nations on a path of their own. Boris Johnson, the British prime minister, may see it as a life raft for the UK, seriously struggling to emerge from Brexit. In any case, it has seriously upended many of the assumptions related to the “new world order” set in motion by the Bushes, father and son.

The French foreign minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, reacted to the news with “total incomprehension,” especially evident after celebrating, earlier this year, the “excellent news for all of us that America is back.”

�մǻ岹��’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

Incomprehension:

Thanks to a presidential tradition inaugurated by George W. Bush, intensified by Donald Trump and now maintained by Joe Biden, the expected reaction of allies of the United States to any of the unilateral foreign policy decisions made by an American president.

Contextual note

Le Drian went further, describing the move in these terms: “It was really a stab in the back. It looks a lot like what Trump did.” The stab in the back could be shaken off like Monty Python’s as a mere “flesh wound.” But the idea that Biden was the new Trump has frightening implications for every realist in the world of diplomacy.

The Europeans and indeed the rest of the world have begun to realize that Trump may not have been the aberration his Democratic opponents made him out to be. Instead, Trump was the purest expression of the historical logic of America’s foreign policy at any point in time. Once he had left his mark, it became indelible because it perfectly though somewhat exaggeratedly reproduced the underlying logic of the US empire’s view of geopolitics. It appears equally in the fact that President Biden, having promised to return to the Iran nuclear deal and revive Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, has failed to move on either issues, leaving those much deeper flesh wounds to fester.

Like the situation in Afghanistan, this move not only increases the level of uncertainty about how the forces in place will regroup or what new alliances may form, it has already had the effect of providing fuel to those Europeans who have been debating the merits of creating an autonomous European defense and security system, independent of the US and NATO. The US believes the 27 nations of the European Union will never agree to that, but France and Germany have the motivation to move forward and the US abandonment of Afghanistan has Eastern Europe’s traditionally pro-US nations worried.

Australia’s prime minister, Scott Morrison, called the pact a “forever partnership … between the oldest and most trusted of friends.” He appears to be suggesting that after the English-speaking empire’s abandonment of forever hot wars in the Middle East, a forever Cold War in the Pacific may be brewing. By “the most trusted of friends,” he appears to suggest that English-speaking nations share not only the same language, but also the same imperial, economically aggressive ideology.

But what does it mean to be a “trusted friend” in the world of geopolitics? The Irish philosopher Fran O’Rourke recently explained Aristotle’s concept of three types of , pointing out that only the third type — a “perfect friendship” built on virtue and love — may last forever. “Friendships of pleasure and usefulness,” according to Aristotle, “are only incidental; they are easily dissolved, when the other person is no longer pleasant or useful. True friends wish the good of each other. Their friendship lasts as long as they are themselves good.” The “forever partnership” Morrison envisions would require the commitment to the good. But what he proposes is a friendship not just of utility, which is usual in international treaties and alliances, but of aggression.

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 .

Aristotle would object that nations can never be friends, precisely because they exist as arrangements between groups of people who are not friends. They are political fictions, the result of complex compromises defined primarily by tenuously structured relationships of utility. Only human beings striving for virtue have the privilege of friendship.

The commentators have all understood that the entire purpose of the new alliance turns around the idea of containing China. Framed as a pivot to Asia, it is clearly a pivot against China, with a psychological structure duplicating that of the Cold War against the Soviet Union. Such relationships are defined not by the Aristotelian notion of friendship, but by enmity. Rather than lasting forever, they tend to end very badly for all sides, with only one group of people certain of prospering: the arms industry.

Historical note

The implications of this arbitrary and unilateral move by the Biden administration are likely to be far-reaching. Unless Europe ends up capitulating to the US, this could render NATO obsolete. Looking further into the historical consequences, it might comfort Xi Jinping’s strategy of extending and consolidating the Belt and Road Initiative across the entire Eurasian continent. This would point toward what the historian Alfred McCoy sees as a possible economic entity he refers to — borrowing a term formulated a century ago by the geopolitical thinker Sir Halford Mackinder — as “the World Island.”

There is something eerily logical, perhaps even culturally inevitable about Joe Biden’s initiative. It doesn’t bode well for his presumed intention of bolstering the hegemony the US has enjoyed since the Second World War. In 1992, when James Carville told Bill Clinton not to waste time talking about the position of the US in the world because “It’s the economy, stupid,” he was drawing the consequences of an easily observable trend that Democrats were inclined to forget, that Americans are simply not interested in the feelings, interests or suffering of the rest of the world.

George W. Bush was the first president to fully exploit American indifference by living up to his Texas cowboy image and treating the world stage as his private rodeo. Donald Trump criticized Bush’s policies, not because they were too reckless, but not reckless enough. On becoming president in 2017, Trump showed that, as an imperial power, the US had no need to stick to agreements or rules or curry favor with its supposed allies. Washington still insisted on maintaining a “rules-based order,” but on the condition that it could rewrite the rules at any given moment. He put into action as demonstrably as possible the thinking of the “” John Mearsheimer. It consists, as Mearsheimer often insisted, of living up to the of the “biggest and baddest dude on the block.”

President Biden appears to be seeking a new way of fulfilling the dude’s mission. McCoy sees it as just another indicator of the US empire’s decline. By inciting Europe to assume its own defense now that Europe no longer has the UK to worry about, a scenario may emerge in which the Chinese and the Europeans begin collaborating on a way of managing the World Island.

*[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 The Raucous Sound of AUKUS 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.

�մǻ岹��’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�.

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�.

There are only around 50 working days left in which to make a broader agreement for a post-Brexit trade deal between the UK and the EU. The consequences of failing to do so for Ireland will be as profound — and perhaps even as long-lasting — as those caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

A failure to reach a UK-EU agreement would mean a deep rift between the UK and Ireland. It would also mean heightened tensions within Northern Ireland, disruptions to century-old business relations and a succession of high-profile court cases between the EU and the UK dragging on for years.

How Global Britain Confronts the Asian Century

READ MORE

Issues on which a deal could have easily been reached in amicable give-and-take negotiations will be used as hostages or leverage on other matters. The economic and political damage would be incalculable. And we must do everything we can to avoid this.

Changing the EU trade commissioner, , under such circumstances would be dangerous. Trying to change horses in midstream is always difficult. But attempting to do so at the height of a flood — in high winds — would be even more so.

The EU would lose an exceptionally competent trade commissioner when he was never more needed. An Irishman would no longer hold the trade portfolio. The independence of the European Commission, a vital ingredient in the EU’s success, would have been compromised — a huge loss for all smaller EU states.

According to the EU’s chief negotiator, Michel Barnier, talks between the European Union and the UK, which ended last week, seemed at times to be going “backwards rather than forwards.” The impasse has been reached for three reasons.

The Meaning of Sovereignty

First, the two sides have set themselves incompatible objectives. The European Union wants a wide-ranging “economic partnership” between the UK and the EU, with a “level playing field” for “open and fair” competition. The UK agreed to this objective in the joint political declaration made with the EU at the time of the withdrawal agreement, which was reached in October 2019.

Since then, the UK has held a general election with the ruling Conservative Party winning an overall majority in Parliament, and it has changed its mind. It is now insisting, in the uncompromising of it chief negotiator, David Frost, on “sovereign control of our own laws, borders, and waters.”

This formula fails to take account of the fact that any agreement the UK might make with the EU (or with anyone else) on standards for goods, services or food items necessarily involves a diminution of sovereign control. Even being in the World Trade Organization (WTO) involves accepting its rulings, which are a diminution of “sovereign control.” This is why US President Donald Trump does not like the WTO and is trying to undermine it.

The 2019 withdrawal agreement from the EU also involves a diminution of sovereign control by Westminster over the laws that will apply in Northern Ireland and thus within the UK. That agreement obliges the UK to apply EU laws on tariffs and standards to goods entering Northern Ireland from Britain — i.e., going from one part of the UK to another.

This obligation is one of the reasons given by a group of UK parliamentarians — including Iain Duncan Smith, David Trimble, Bill Cash, Owen Paterson and Sammy Wilson — for wanting the UK to pull out from the withdrawal agreement, even though most of them voted for it last year.

Sovereignty is a metaphysical concept, not a practical policy. Attempting to apply it literally would make structured and predictable international cooperation between states impossible. That is not understood by many in the Conservative Party.

The Method of Negotiation

Second, the negotiating method has proved challenging. The legal and political timetables do not gel. The UK wants to discuss the legal texts of a possible free trade agreement first and leave the controversial issues — like competition and fisheries — until the endgame in October. But the EU wants serious engagement to start on these sticking points straight away.

Any resolution of these matters will require complex legal drafting, which cannot be left to the last minute. After all, these texts will have to be approved by the European and British Parliaments before the end of 2020. There can be no ambiguities or late-night sloppy drafting.

The problem is that the UK negotiator cannot yet get instructions on the compromises he can make from Boris Johnson, the British prime minister. Johnson is instead preoccupied with combating the spread of the COVID-19 disease, as well as keeping the likes of Duncan Smith and Co. onside. The prime minister is a last-minute type of guy.

Trade Relations With Other Blocs

Third, there is the matter of making provisions for the trade agreements the UK wants to make in the future with other countries, such as the US, Japan and New Zealand. Freedom to make such deals was presented to UK voters as one of the benefits of Brexit.

The underlying problem here is that the UK government has yet to make up its mind on whether it will continue with the European Union’s strict precautionary policy on food safety or adopt the more permissive approach favored by the US. Similar policy choices will have to be made by the UK on chemicals, energy efficiency displays and geographical indicators.

The more the UK diverges from existing EU standards on these issues, the more intrusive the controls on goods coming into Northern Ireland from Britain will have to be, and the more acute the distress will be for Unionist circles in Northern Ireland. Issues that are uncontroversial in themselves will assume vast symbolic significance and threaten peace on the island of Ireland

The UK is likely to be forced to make side deals with the US on issues like hormone-treated beef, genetically modified organisms and chlorinated chicken. The US questions the scientific basis for the existing EU restrictions and has won a WTO case on beef over this. It would probably win on chlorinated chicken, too.

If Britain conceded to the US on hormones and chlorination, this would create control problems at the border between the UK and the EU, wherever that border is in Ireland. Either UK officials would enforce EU rules on hormones and chlorination on the entry of beef or chicken to this island, or there would be a huge international court case.

All this shows that, in the absence of some sort of partnership agreement between the EU and the UK, relations could spiral out of control. Ireland, as well as the European Union, needs its best team on the pitch to ensure that this does not happen.

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

The post Negotiating the End of Brexit appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The BRI: Keeping the Plates Spinning on China’s Economy

READ MORE

Six months and a global pandemic later, Britain faces the unique and unprecedented challenge of redefining its place in a world that is in the midst of a historic watershed moment. The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a catalyst for deep-rooted trends that have long been evident to politicians, policymakers and analysts alike — none more so than the tectonic shift in the globe’s geopolitical center of gravity from West to East.

Whether it be China’s much-publicized “” diplomacy against states criticizing its initial response to the outbreak, or the initial success of East Asian states in  the pandemic using artificial intelligence and digital surveillance, COVID-19 has shown that the much-hyped “Asian century” is not merely a future prognosis but a present-day reality.

Brexit Britain on the World Stage

If the pandemic has served to boost Asia’s image on the world stage, the opposite is true for Brexit Britain. The UK’s bumbling response to the COVID-19 crisis has confirmed many of the suspicions of ill-placed grandeur held in foreign capitals since the referendum to leave the European Union in 2016.

Despite Johnson’s boastful  in Britain’s “world-beating” response to the novel coronavirus (which causes the COVID-19 disease), fatal early errors by the government — notably the initial refusal to enforce a lockdown in a forlorn effort to preserve the economy — have resulted in Britain suffering the worst of both worlds. Not only is the UK facing one of the highest per-capita death rates and the worst economic fallout as a result of COVID-19 in the developed world, but the situation has been exacerbated by the looming threat of no post-Brexit trade deal being agreed with the EU by the end of 2020.

In this context, a global Britain’s success in navigating the increasingly volatile “new normal” of the post-pandemic geopolitical order will hinge more than ever on the government’s ability to leverage ties with partners old and new across the Asian continent.

Johnson’s vision of a buccaneering global Britain on the world stage is fundamentally predicated upon two core pillars: trade and security. Whitehall is acutely aware that Britain’s ability to harness the ascendance of Asia’s emerging powerhouses hinges upon striking a fragile balance between these two, often inconsistent, objectives.

On one hand, Britain’s strategic planners look hungrily toward contemporary geopolitical hotspots like the South China Sea as testing grounds for a new  security footprint in the Indo-Pacific region. Britain’s armed forces already possess a string of strategic outposts, from the Brunei-based Gurkha garrison to Royal Naval logistical hubs in Singapore and Diego Garcia. The recently formed UK Defence Staff (Asia Pacific) has outlined plans for a further base in Southeast Asia in a bid to affirm Britain’s commitment to upholding the regional security architecture.

In a symbolic gesture, the scheduled deployment of the Royal Navy’s brand new state-of-the-art aircraft carrier, HMS Queen Elizabeth, to conduct “freedom of navigation” patrols in the disputed South China Sea during 2021 is indicative of a wholesale rejection of the strategic retrenchment from east of Suez that has typified British security policy in the Indo-Pacific since the 1960s.

Beijing’s Sphere of Influence

Nevertheless, such grandiose ambitions of a more assertive military and diplomatic footprint in Asia do not come without their costs. Given China’s increasingly assertive posture on the international stage since the outbreak of COVID-19, it is not unreasonable to expect the diplomatic blowback from Britain’s perceived meddling within Beijing’s sphere of influence to grow stronger in the post-COVID era.

In July, after the UK offered citizenship to almost 3 million Hong Kong residents following Beijing’s implementation of a controversial new security law in Britain’s ex-colony, China issued a strongly-worded yet ambiguous  of “retaliation.” China’s response is illustrative of the fact that Brexit Britain’s ability to fully harness the Asian century is dependent upon London playing second fiddle to the preferences of Tokyo, Beijing and New Delhi.  

Despite Johnson’s lofty  hailing Britain’s post-Brexit transformation into a “great, global trading nation,” such a vision is not exactly conducive to geopolitical maneuvers that can all too readily be perceived as antagonistic by prospective partners. For instance, Whitehall’s  over the contracting of Huawei, a Chinese technology company, to construct large tracts of Britain’s 5G infrastructure over national security concerns does not bode well for a future UK–China free trade deal. Similarly, efforts to introduce restrictions on immigration via the adoption of an Australia-style points-based system have proved to be a sticking point in post-Brexit trade negotiations with India, the former “jewel of the empire” with whom Britain shares extensive historical, cultural and linguistic ties.

As a global Britain seeks to navigate a post-pandemic order characterized by increased great power antagonism, retreating globalization and resurgent authoritarianism, Whitehall’s strategic planners must be prepared to make hard-headed compromises between geopolitical and economic objectives in Asia in a manner that has been sorely lacking from Brexit negotiations with Britain’s European partners. Cut adrift from Europe at a time when the global order is becoming increasingly fragmented into competing regional blocs, a rudderless Britain lacking a coherent, sustainable vision of how it seeks to engage with Asia’s emerging superpowers risks becoming caught in the middle of an escalating cold war between the US and China.

Reason for Optimism

Despite the gloomy prognosis for a global Britain standing at the dawn of the Asian century, there remains reason for optimism once the short-term shockwaves of the pandemic have receded. Britain’s elite universities retain a mystical allure for ambitious young Asians seeking a world-class education. China, India, Hong Kong and Malaysia  for four of the top five countries of origin for international students in the UK. In addition, with two leading vaccine candidates in development at Oxford and Imperial, a British breakthrough in the fight against COVID-19 would further bolster Britain’s reputation as a global hub of research and innovation.

Such cutting-edge academic expertise — combined with London’s enduring status as a global financial center, post-2021 visa and immigration reforms  highly-skilled professionals, and the cultural imprint of large Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Chinese diasporas — ensures that even post-Brexit Britain possesses the latent potential not only to attract top-class Asian talent, but also to emerge as one of the Asian century’s biggest winners outside of the Indo-Pacific. Whilst Brexit has undercut the Blairite vision of Britain as a “pivotal power” bridging the gap between the US and Europe, the United Kingdom’s deep-rooted historical, cultural, linguistic and economic ties with Asia’s rising powers provide ample scope for recasting Britain as a pivot on a grander scale: as a global hub bridging East and West.

However, such aspirations remain little more than wishful thinking unless British policymakers can formulate a coherent approach toward the Asian century, which has so far been absent. Nevertheless, tentative steps have been taken in such a direction over recent months. Whitehall’s  of the Department for International Development with the Foreign Office is likely to deal a blow to British influence in less-developed corners of Asia, at least in the short term. Yet Johnson’s renewed commitment to spend 0.7% of GDP on foreign aid enables a more cohesive, long-term approach with developmental issues, allowing funding to be streamlined toward teams of world-class specialists, such as the UK Climate Change Unit in Indonesia or the Stabilisation Unit supporting post-conflict reconstruction in fragile states like Pakistan and Myanmar.

Similarly, the Foreign Office’s recent  of an “All of Asia” strategy is indicative of a more comprehensive approach to forging partnerships across the continent, balancing conflicting security, diplomatic, trade, developmental priorities, as illustrated through the establishment of the ����’s first permanent mission to Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) bloc in January 2020.

Before It Sets Sail

As the nature of post-pandemic global order emerges over the coming months and years, a global Britain will find itself navigating a turbulent geopolitical environment made infinitely more challenging by the aftershocks of the coronavirus. This includes a worldwide economic crisis, decreased globalization, declining faith in multilateral institutions and rising great power tension, all of which threaten to derail Johnson’s post-Brexit voyage into the unknown before it has even set sail.

Whilst Britain and its Western allies have bungled their response to the public health crisis, Asia’s dynamic rising powers are already bouncing back from the pandemic and laying the building blocks to ensure that the 21st century truly is Asian. From Beijing’s “Belt and Road Initiative” to New Delhi’s “Make in India” to ambitious future vision projects such as Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, Vision of Indonesia 2045 or Kazakhstan 2050, Asia’s emerging powerhouses all champion integrated strategic frameworks to harness the unprecedented shift in global wealth and power eastward, which the COVID-19 pandemic has catalyzed.

A global Britain’s greatest mistake would be to supplement such a long-term calculated strategy with the half-baked geopolitical gambits that have so far typified Brexit Britain’s approach to the world’s largest continent. Indeed, for the UK to truly unleash its full potential in the dawning Asian century, it must look to Asia itself for inspiration.

*[Will Marshall is an intern at , which is a media partner of 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 How Global Britain Confronts the Asian Century appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The Brexit Transition Period Will Be Extended

READ MORE

Perhaps it was unrealistic for Barnier to have expected the UK to engage seriously with the trade-offs and concessions that are essential to a long-term trade agreement while Johnson was in the hospital. Brexit is Boris’ big thing. He made it. Other Tory ministers have no leeway to make Brexit decisions without his personal imprimatur. He has purged the Conservative Party of all significant figures who might have advocated a different vision of a post-Brexit trade agreement with the EU.

The point of Barnier’s intervention is that now Johnson is back at work, he will need to give clear strategic leadership to the UK negotiating team. If he fails to do so, we will end up on January 1, 2021, with no post-Brexit deal on future relations and an incipient trade war between the UK and the EU — and Ireland will be on the front line.

The scars left by the COVID-19 pandemic will eventually fade, but those left by a willfully bad Brexit —  whether brought on deliberately or by inattention — may never heal. This is because a bad Brexit will be a deliberate political act, whereas COVID-19 is just a reminder of our shared human vulnerability. 

No Draft Proposal on Future Relations

In 2019, Johnson signed up to an EU withdrawal treaty to allow the UK to leave the union. This legally committed the UK to customs, controls between Britain and Northern Ireland, so as to avoid checks of goods between the north and south on the island of Ireland. So far, Barnier says he has detected no evidence that the UK is making serious preparations to do this. An attempt by the UK to back out of these ratified legal commitments would be seen as a sign of profound bad faith.

Barnier said that negotiating by video link due to the pandemic was “surreal,” but that the deadlines to be met are very real. The first deadline is the end of June. This is the last date at which an extension to the transition period beyond December 31 might be agreed upon by both sides. While the EU would almost certainly agree to this, there is no sign that the UK will. Tory politicians repeatedly say they will not extend.

This tight deadline would be fine if the UK was engaging seriously and purposefully in the talks. But, according to Barnier, the Brits have not yet even produced a full version of a draft agreement that would reflect their expectations of future relations between the UK and the European Union. The EU, on the other hand, produced its full draft weeks ago. Without full texts of the proposals, it is hard to begin real negotiations.

So far, the UK has only produced portions of the proposed treaty. The UK insists that Barnier keep these parts of the draft UK text secret and not share them with the 27 member states of the EU. Giving Barnier texts that he cannot share with those on whose behalf he is negotiating is just wasting his time. It seems that UK negotiators are adopting this strange tactic because they have no clear political direction from their own side. They do not know whether these proposals are even acceptable in the UK.

In the political declaration that accompanied the EU withdrawal deal, Prime Minister Johnson agreed that his government would use its best endeavors to reach an agreement on fisheries by the end of July. This would be vital if the UK fishing industry were to be able to continue to export its surplus fish to the EU. Apparently, there has not been serious engagement from the British side on this matter either.

Level Playing Field

The other issue on which Barnier detected a lack of engagement by the UK was the so-called “level-playing-field” question. The EU wants binding guarantees that the UK will not — through state subsidies or via lax environmental or labor rules — give its exporters an artificial advantage over EU (and Irish) competitors.

This issue is becoming a difficult issue within the EU itself. In response to the COVID-19 economic downturn, some wealthier EU states (like Germany) are giving generous cash/liquidity support to the industries in their own countries. On the other hand, EU states with weaker budgetary positions (Italy, Spain and perhaps even Ireland) cannot compete with this.

It is understandable that temporary help may be given to prevent firms from going bust in the wake of the economic disruption. But what is temporary at the beginning can easily become indefinite, and what is indefinite can become permanent. Subsidies are addictive.

The reason we have a common agricultural policy in the EU is that when the common market was created, nobody wanted rich countries to be able to give their farmers an advantage over farmers in countries whose governments could not afford the same level of help. The same consideration applies to industry. Subsidies should be equal or they should not be given at all.

State aid must be regulated inside the EU if a level playing field is to be preserved. To make a convincing case for a level playing field between the European Union and the UK, the EU side will need to show it is doing so internally. This will be a test for President Ursula von der Leyen as a German commissioner.

Will COVID-19 Hide the Pain of Brexit?

Which way will Johnson turn on the terms of a deal with the EU? It is unlikely he will look for an extension to the transition period beyond the end of this year. He wants a hard Brexit, a clean break as he would misleadingly call it, but he knows it will be very painful. He probably thinks the pain of a hard Brexit — or no agreement at all on future relations — at the end of December will be concealed by the even greater and more immediate pain of the economic slump caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Brexit will not be blamed for the pain. But if the transition period is postponed until January 2022, the Brexit pain will be much more visible to voters.

The Conservative Party has become the Brexit Party. It is driven by a narrative around reestablishing British identity and is quite insensitive to economic or trade arguments. It wants Brexit done quickly because it fears the British people might change their minds. That is why there is such a mad rush. It is not rational — it is imperative.

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

The post Brexit Is Heading for the Cliff Edge appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Despite that urgency, caution was abound. While the aspiration was to build a bomb that could obliterate a medium sized city, it was not to build a bomb that would obliterate an entire country or continent, nor was it to irradiate and make perpetually uninhabitable the whole world, nor was it to set off a chain reaction that would ignite the atmosphere. All these possibilities were analyzed, and analyzed carefully, by sober minded folks who knew their art. The first bomb was not detonated until July 1945, some three years later. It did its job. Roughly 200,000 Japanese lost their lives, but the bomb did not render Japan uninhabitable, nor did it ignite the earth’s atmosphere. The war in the Pacific ended, America established itself as the world’s preeminent superpower for the remainder of the 20th century, and the fact that little boys and girls around the world watch Hollywood movies, eat McDonald’s and browse Facebook is a testament to that triumph of good versus evil.

Fast forward nearly 80 years. The world faces a new threat, that of COVID-19. Because surrender is not an option, world leaders have taken arms against the disease, and vowed to fight it by all means necessary. Speaking on��April 14th, the United Kingdom’s Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak,��, “The absolute priority must be to focus all of our resources, not just of the state, but of businesses, and all of you at home as well, in a collective national effort to beat this virus.” The message could not be clearer that the virus must be defeated. At what cost? At any cost. By what means? By any means necessary.

Front and center of world leaders’ armory of preferred weapons, one policy measure has become the standard bearer above all others: social distancing. The idea is simple, by limiting social interactions the virus has less opportunity to spread, and this simple idea has resulted in the locking down of societies at every corner of the earth, so that now more than half the world’s population is under some form of house arrest.

We Must Do Something

The cost of inaction is clear. Early estimates of the lethality of COVID-19 range in the single figure percentages. Assuming crudely that 60% of the world’s 7.8 billion people contract the disease, and estimating the mortality rate as 5%, that would result in 234 million lives lost to the disease, roughly double the total lives lost in World Wars I and II. Moreover, 5% mortality assumes good medical care for the severely sick, but in the event that healthcare systems become overrun the mortality rate could be double that. Therefore, left unchecked it is entirely feasible that half a billion people could perish if our response to this pesky pathogen is to simply let it run its course. These are sobering numbers.

So, something must be done, and the currently preferred something is telling everyone to stay at home and not allow the virus to spread. On the face of it, early official numbers suggest the policy is working, from a public health point of view at least. However, the less obvious consequences of this policy have not been thought through, at least not with the level of care that is needed for a planet-wide intervention of this magnitude.

Political, Economic and Spiritual Consequences

So, what are the less obvious consequences of social distancing? These are not just limited to public health, and looking at COVID-19 as a public health crisis alone is like looking at the assassination of Franz Ferdinand in 1914 as an Austro-Hungarian Empire succession crisis. Rather, coronavirus and our response to it will have economic consequences, political consequences and spiritual consequences, in addition to public health consequences.

On the economic side, the damage is clear. Social distancing will result in an ongoing flight to online work available only to those with the necessary education. For the majority of people who need to turn up in person to work, times will be very tough indeed. The biggest visible changes will be in the urban centers that previously bustled with office workers and now stand empty. These empty streets will not stay empty however, and there will be a tendency for all kinds of unsavory sorts to move in. Many cities will be isolated and abandoned to a wave of criminality and gang violence unless draconian measures are put in place to prevent that. Places where a robust state intervention happens first, like the UK and most of Europe, will appear very different in character to places like the US and India with weaker states, but the underlying tensions caused by social distancing will be the same.

Moreover, shrinking economies run into the problem of too many people and not enough resources, and where that happens political consequences are inevitable. People will retreat into tribes, and these tribes will be complex and multifaceted, reflecting nationality, religion, political ideology and many other divisions. Each of these rifts will become deeper and wider. People’s response to the virus, both practical and psychological, will reflect their previously felt inclinations. Where differences rub up against each other, either across borders or internal divides, there will be problems, ranging from tensions between and within institutions and communities to outright war in places.

Out of the dust there will be both winners and losers, but the transition will not be peaceful for those at the interface. Places like Sweden, with comparative cultural and political harmoniousness, combined with abundant resources and wise political leadership, will escape the worst of the troubles. Places like the India-Pakistan border where scarce resources, geopolitical tensions and religious and cultural differences overlap will be the hardest hit.

Of course, many of these tensions have been rumbling for a long time. At a geopolitical level, it is naive to not realize that countries facing lockdown are vulnerable from the point of view of defense. Who will exploit those vulnerabilities and how is hard to say, but one does not have to look very far to find saber rattling at every scale, from neighbors being a little more possessive about the parking spot outside their house to Donald Trump tweeting about the “Chinese Virus.”

One invasion that is easy to predict, and made more iminent by social distancing, is the coming Facebook push to virtual and augmented reality communication, which will bring with it the ability of a private company, under the control of one man, to control literally everything we see. He will argue he is bringing people together, but that was what Hitler said during the annexation of Austria in 1938. Many people will have a sense something is wrong but few will protest, and certainly not enough to prevent this Internet Anschluss, within which we will be thoroughly insulated from news of the world burning around us.

And so what about our minds? The confusion created by destroying many of the rituals people depended on, simple things like pizza with friends or movies together, in addition to actual worship, will create a spiritual crisis like no other, causing many people to lose their grip on reality. This will be the true madness of social distancing: not the madness of the policy but the madness we will all struggle not to descend into.

Many will embrace the new normal, almost relishing the loss of liberties that were so hard fought for and so hard won. Even for those who miss the old days, social distancing will turn from being strictly a public health measure into a moral framework of sorts, the same way the theory of evolution evolved itself in the latter 19th and early 20th centuries from being a scientific theory to a moral framework, providing the intellectual basis for eugenics movements in both America and Europe that ultimately culminated in the horrors of Nazism.

Long after social distancing is over and coronavirus is cured or vaccinated against, citizens who don’t wear a facemask will be shamed as being “unhygienic.” Well-meaning puritans will argue that “it’s not just your own health you’re risking” just as people today criticize those who break the speed limit when they drive. Each side will be maddened and infuriated by the other, each bolstered with self-righteous confidence that their political views are in fact derived from unbreakable principles of scientific fact.

Trust Me, I’m a Scientist

So let’s look at the science. Just as Catholics and Protestants disagree about Christianity, so too do reductionists and systems-level thinkers in biology. Right now the reductionists hold sway in political circles and argue that as long as R-zero, the average number of people each infected person infects, can be reduced below one by aggressive action we can all breathe a sigh of relief. What they underestimate is the natural homeostasis of life, guided by many different interrelated causes and effects. For example, the “hygiene hypothesis” proposes that less exposure to pathogens results in more autoimmune disease, even though the extent of and mechanisms for this observation remain unclear. What is clear is that coronavirus is not the only thing people are dying of right now, and we do not yet know all the causes for the vast number of “extra deaths” we are currently seeing beyond those attributed to coronavirus.

Moreover, a lingering taboo following disastrous early 20th century eugenics movements is the topic of evolution in public health. Nevertheless, the complex homeostasis of life has everything to do with evolution not just of humans but all life, including pathogens themselves. Under normal circumstances, people avoid those who are visibly sick. This follows from an evolutionary adaptation by humans to feel the emotion of disgust towards people who are unwell. Moreover, sick people tend to isolate themselves by not going to work or socializing and so forth. These factors create an evolutionary pressure for normal coronaviruses and other pathogens to reach a stable equilibrium where they are symptomatic enough to be infectious, but not so symptomatic that the isolating effects of being sick take effect. This stable equilibrium explains how new normal strains of coronavirus and other upper respiratory infections continuously emerge in the human population but the symptoms remain relatively stable over time.

With the policies adopted by most of the world’s governments, social distancing has reversed the evolutionary pressure for pathogens to not become too symptomatic. Rather than sick people isolating themselves, it is now healthy people who are capable of self-care who are isolating themselves. On the other hand, people who have severe symptoms of coronavirus and other diseases require care, and this necessitates social contact.

In effect, we have neutralised the effect of the emotion of disgust, one that evolved over millions of years to protect humans from pathogens, and at the same time we have reversed the social mechanism that allows for the preferential spread of less symptomatic strains of disease. This applies to every pathogen, not just coronavirus. Therefore, social distancing has created an evolutionary pressure on coronavirus and other infectious diseases to become more symptomatic over time.

The emergence of a new illness placing children into intensive care at this time is not a coincidence. It will be an early example of many unintended public health consequences for a policy response that does not take into account the whole picture. Rather than narrowly impacting just coronavirus, the whole ecology of human pathogens will change as a result of social distancing, precisely because we have changed the environmental conditions in which human pathogens survive, and we may not like what emerges in the light of that change. In a nutshell: Social distancing might well reduce the short-term COVID-19 death-count, but in the long term it may cost more lives than it saves and cause more disease and suffering than it prevents.

Humpty Dumpty Sat on a Wall

To say things are complicated and we don’t understand everything is a cliche, but it is an important one we should not forget. It is especially widely forgotten in science, for while systems thinking is not new, it is somewhat new to science. For a long time the scientific method was almost synonymous with reductionism, that is finding simple laws to explain complex phenomena. Literary modernists in the 1920s and 1930s, upon examining the causes of World War I, laid the blame squarely at the feet of late 19th and early 20th century rationalism, the idea that we are at our core logical and able to understand the world. T.S. Eliot’s The Wasteland, laying bare the wreckage of war, expressed its wisdom by drawing together styles, genres and languages, in a tour-de-force of what one might call systems literature.

Sadly, that kind of systems thinking rarely finds favor in political circles, because systems biology, like modernist literature, requires a multi-layered, multi-lingual understanding only a small number of people have. It’s much easier to just give a simple explanation, like the train timetable analysts who told European leaders in the build up to World War I that we must mobilize troops because the other side already has. Reductionist epidemiological models with their daily death counts and flattened curves are scientific populism, creating a dangerous and seductive illusion of understanding for ordinary citizens and political leaders alike.

Just as the construction of the world’s biggest ever bomb is something to be done carefully and soberly over a period of time to make sure we don’t blow up the atmosphere, so too is the world’s biggest ever intervention into the survival conditions of human pathogens. And beyond unforeseen public health consequences, are we blowing up the atmosphere in ways that aren’t yet appreciated?

Economically, we have utterly abandoned the principles of free enterprise and private property, making it a crime to do something as simple as open a barber shop and offer a haircut. Politically, we have closed parliaments and courts, postponed elections, outlawed free assembly, lauded Chinese style techno-authoritarianism, and marginalized voices of dissent, such as Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell, as being unscientific when in fact all they are is non-reductionist. Spiritually, we have made it sacrilegious to suggest that science makes for a poor instrument to examine ethics, that life is finite and must be lived even in the face of death, and that in-person spiritual community matters especially in times of crisis. Staying at home browsing Facebook is not the answer. So, yes, we just blew up the economic, political and spiritual atmospheres, and the plan seems to be: “Don’t worry, we can put them back again!” Let’s hope we can.

You may argue that the prospect of hundreds of millions of deaths justifies any action. However, if you ask what was the greatest tragedy of the 20th century, most educated people would say something like Nazi genocide, Stalin’s purges, the partition of India or the Chinese Cultural Revolution. Few would say smallpox, which caused the deaths of an estimated 300 to 500 million people between 1900 and 2000, and fewer still would say cardiovascular disease, which caused over a billion. With the wisdom of historical hindsight we understand that counting deaths is not the only thing that matters. If this really is a war, and it clearly is, it’s worth spending some lives, maybe an awful lot of lives, on the things we really care about for our children and their children, and not trusting to luck that we’ll be able to rebuild the economic, political and spiritual atmospheres with the same ease with which we’ve destroyed them.

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

The post The Unintended Consequences of Social Distancing appeared first on 51�Թ�.

360° Context: Britain Faces a Historic Election

READ MORE

The debate about the Irish backstop means that the British themselves are now unsure about the answer to that question. Even more mysterious to non-Brits is the question of how a declared “constitutional monarchy” with a high-profile royal family is governed. Many who wonder about what is united in the United Kingdom also ask themselves the question: What is great about Great Britain? The nation is on the fringes of Europe and about to drift out to sea, guided by its new and as yet unelected navigator, Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Can it really be called both great and united?

Never has the official name of a nation contained a more misleading description of its reality. It’s true that every so often — thanks to the mysterious and anonymous Electoral College that, in recent years, elected two luminous US presidents, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, who actually lost the popular vote — the world is reminded that the 50 states of the US have, from the point of view of pure democracy, never been formally united. But no one inside or outside the US entertains any doubts about the unified power and universal purpose of the nation, however chaotic its leadership and however contradictory its policies.

The Crisis of Cultural and Political Authority

In contrast, the UK clearly lost both its sense of power and unique purpose with the dissolution of the British Empire following World War II. It has been struggling to find it ever since. After a decade of “angry young men” who appeared to be lost souls, The Beatles, Carnaby Street and Monty Python brought what was once remembered as “Merry England” back to life in terms of cultural impact in the second half of the 1960s. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, embracing the sobriquet of the “Iron Lady,” profiting from the windfall of North Sea oil, endowed the nation with a form of ideological leadership that helped define the belief system of late 20th-century globalized capitalism.

But Thatcher couldn’t have done it alone. She thrived in the shadow of US President Ronald Reagan. Whereas she earned her stripes and achieved her glory thanks to the skirmish called the Falklands War, Reagan stepped up in front of the microphones and TV cameras to lead the war against an “evil empire.” Eventually (some people say) his policies defeated it because that empire imploded in 1989.

Thatcher nevertheless committed Britain to a position of relative strength in the expanding European Union largely because of her belief in the commercial value of the European single market. She never believed in the EU as a political entity. For a while, though, she felt there was a real  “Thatcherism on a European scale.” The ambiguity of her attitude set the stage for the drama of Brexit that would unfold under David Cameron’s premiership a quarter of a century after her departure from politics.

Following Thatcher by a decade, Tony Blair reconstructed Labour partly in Thatcher’s image, profiting from the renewed prestige the Iron Lady had earned for the nation. Just as Thatcher’s authority depended on her game of mirrors with Reagan in the White House, Blair prospered by becoming the accomplice of Bill Clinton and then, slightly less comprehensibly, George W. Bush. In contrast with other prime ministers, both Thatcher and Blair excelled at rhetorical leadership in the absence of global political power.

Can the Omelet Return the State of Whole Eggs?

Now, after nearly four years of Brexit melodrama, the lingering divide over “remain” versus “leave” has produced and prolonged an existential debate around the identity of a kingdom that is manifestly no longer united. To complicate things further, after the seemingly never-ending cliffhanger of Theresa May’s negotiated EU withdrawal agreement, the nation is now in the throes of preparing for a general election on December 12 in the hope of achieving some form of closure. Unlike the straightforward electoral battles of the past, this campaign puts on full display the visible, profound disunity of the two dominant parties, the Conservatives and Labour. Divided by Brexit, the internal wrangling of the parties has significantly contributed to the general, rudderless disunity of the nation.

The two parties are not only divided between “remain” and “leave,” but the “leavers” themselves, especially among the Tories, are divided over a hard and soft Brexit. As if that wasn’t enough, they are further divided over the personalities of their two leaders: Boris Johnson — an ambitious, mendacious and narcissistic upstart — and Jeremy Corbyn, apparently too puritanically socialist for the taste of some in his party (especially the Blairite loyalists who truly believe in the merits of capitalism).

Then there are the parties that actually know what they want — the Liberal Democrats, on one side, and the Brexit Party, on the other. But even those who agree with their relatively simple electoral credo (“remain” for the Lib Dems and “leave” for the Brexit Party) appear, according to , to be drifting away from parties that have no chance of governing and even less of bridging the growing divide if called upon to govern.

Adding to the confusion is the increasingly doubtful status of Northern Ireland and Scotland within a future version of the unified kingdom. In Johnson’s new “acceptable” draft of a withdrawal treaty from the EU, Northern Ireland will effectively remain within the European customs and tariffs zone while remaining politically “united” with the UK government in London. At least during a period of transitioning to something else, it will retain a soft border with the Republic of Ireland and acquire a hard border with its own nation.

It required great British ingenuity to come up with that solution, much more than  seven maids with seven mops could have done when planning to clear the sand from a beach. At the same time, Scotland — a country but not a nation — whose population voted to remain within the EU, will most likely hold a new referendum for independence, with the ambition of having its own place in Europe once the government in Westminster finalizes Brexit. That will give new life to , possibly provoking a fit of jealousy on the part of Donald Trump who could well end up accusing the Roman emperor of stealing his ideas.

Can Gravity Restore Its Dissipating Force?

In short, the picture of the nation that emerges is that of a complex series of powerful centrifugal forces pushing away from the unified center, with no gravitational force to pull any of the elements back together. Unless, of course, we are to believe that the magnetic personality of Prime Minister Johnson can somehow provide that missing gravitational force. If toward the end of the 17th century the Englishman Isaac Newton could offer the world gravity — until then an unknown concept — a modern Englishman with a strong sense of mission, a charismatic personality and an unkempt mop of blond hair that demonstrates the ability to defy gravity might also find the resources to make it work for the political benefit of his people.

Until recently, the polls seemed to point to this hypothesis. If Johnson were to be elected with the resounding majority that some  (366 seats to Labour’s 199), perhaps the prime minister would find himself in a position of allowing him to play the dominant role he has so long coveted. He may even be dreaming that, with the requisite amount of power and influence, with the dissociation of the union, he could envisage abolishing the anachronistic name of the United Kingdom and calling it, say, “Johnsonia.” And because even a megalomaniac like Johnson would quickly realize that what’s left of the formerly united kingdom could hardly survive on its own after definitively cutting its ties with Europe, eventually the prime minister would have the option of applying for Johnsonia to become the 51st state of the “United States of Trumplandia,” which some predict will be the fate of the US if President Trump wins a second term in 2020.

The absurdity of the reflections in the preceding paragraph serves only to demonstrate the degraded state of democracy today. The idea that impetuous, inveterate liars — including Trump, Johnson, Rodrigo Duterte and Jair Bolsonaro — have discovered the secret to winning elections in populous nations that play a significant role in geopolitics tells us something about the health of democratic institutions today. If democracy is only about who can mobilize the means to win elections and referendums, then it’s time to admit that democracy isn’t just imperfect but, in its current form, it has become perverse.

Democracy has never sat comfortably with an empire or even a monarchy, but until recently it has managed to maintain a certain stability. �մǻ岹��’s crisis in the UK, which illustrates the general problem, boils down to two contrasting interpretations of the workings of democracy: in the , commenting on today’s crisis, the conflict lies “between a parliamentary democracy and direct democracy.”

The parliamentary model has failed to produce any solution. The 2016 Brexit referendum — an example of direct democracy — reached a simple decision without defining the terms of the choice given to the people. Whereas the meaning of “remain” didn’t require a great deal of thought, no one had any clear or even unclear idea of the meaning of “leave.” What the British population has now discovered is that no authority exists who can provide that meaning. This means that, without a second Brexit referendum, in which the meaning will be seriously debated and presumably understood by the voting population, chaos is likely to ensue for a long time to come. Even if there is a second referendum, nothing ensures that chaos will not ensue anyway.

Lewis Carroll’s Insight into Brexit and the UK General Election

The suspense of the last four years has for many people become addictive. Britain has assumed a new identity of being permanently on the brink. On the brink of what? Brexit? A newly-motivated Europe that will welcome back its straying member? Being gobbled up by the US? Forging a new empire to take over from a declining Pax Americana?

Perhaps Lewis Carroll, whose poem cited above, the “Walrus and the Carpenter,” from his book, “Alice in Wonderland,” can offer some insight. Carroll’s poem offers an oblique critique of the methods of empire in the second half of 19th-century Britain. Although commentators on the poem often insist that it’s just nonsensical entertainment for children, Carroll offers hints right from the start that he is thinking all along about the British geopolitical system and has identified features that are present even today, more than 150 years after its publication.

The poem begins with an implicit reference to a cliché that had been circulating for decades before Carroll wrote his poem, “The sun never sets on the British �𳾱辱����”:

“The sun was shining on the sea,
Shining with all his might:
He did his very best to make
The billows smooth and bright –
And this was odd, because it was
The middle of the night.”

The first line reminds us that Britain “rules the waves,” but the comic idea of daring to shine in the middle of the night points directly to the cliché about the sun never setting on the empire, something the moon justifiably objects to in the following stanza (the sun “had got no business to be there after the day was done”).

The story of the poem concerns a pair of Englishmen who stroll on the beach and then befriend a bed of oysters. They incite the mollusks to exert themselves in a walk upon the beach before mobilizing their superior knowledge of “ships and sails and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings” to lull their victims into a state in which they have no choice but to become the two Englishmen’s lunch.

The Walrus appears as the overfed, self-satisfied pontificating and profiteering Englishman wandering upon foreign shores who believes his command of culture gives him the power to manage the world, physically, economically and socially. Even before discovering the oysters on the beach, the two Englishmen speculate on the methods that would allow them to engage in the meritorious exercise of clearing the beach of its sand, presumably to make the environment resemble his idea of an organized, civilized world: “‘If this were only cleared away,’ They said, ‘it would be grand!’”

The carpenter plays the role of the engineer or colonial administrator who will put the Walrus’ plans into action. He has no personality, only technical savvy and theoretical knowledge of what’s possible and not possible. He is a realist who employs materialistic logic to solve problems. To the Walrus’ wish for a solution to clear the beach involving maids with mops, he replies, “I doubt it,” showing he recognizes the gap between the conquering Englishman’s ambition to reorganize the world and the more resistant physical reality of that world. The fact that the Carpenter sheds a bitter tear tells us two things: that, despite his realism, he identifies with the Walrus’ imperial logic and he regrets his powerlessness to change some features of the environment according to their desire.

The story of the oysters, which begins immediately after the failed plan to clear the beach, provides a perfect example of the psychological methods employed by the roving agents of the British Empire. They first establish contact with the rulers of the societies they wish to reorganize and exploit for their own purposes. In this case, the eldest, wisest oyster suspects a foul motive and declines the offer of a “pleasant walk, a pleasant talk” on the beach. Four unwary younger oysters, ambitious to profit from the solicitations of the visitors turn out to be all “eager for the treat.” These are the unsuspecting locals the British can appeal to for their profit, which in this case takes the form of eating them for their lunch after a leisurely chat.

Naturally, leaders of traditional societies tend to resist the blandishments of the European masters who came to enlighten them by sharing with them their advanced wisdom. The Englishmen state that they can only accompany four at a time. But when the eldest oyster resists, they extend their offer to the masses, seeking to identify those who are “eager” to take advantage of what appears to be the generous offer of the rich invader. It’s the world of Gunga Din, where the natives can hope to be gainfully employed by the tenors of an advanced civilization.

When he sees the potential for profit, the Walrus has no objection to breaking his own rule of “only four” and accepting the hordes of oysters who will follow the two men to their feasting place, a rock that’s “conveniently low.”

The rest of the story demonstrates another Victorian idea, a colonial variation on Charles Darwin’s scientific notion of “survival of the fittest.” The Walrus and the Carpenter must eat to survive. The “convenience” of stuffing themselves on the oysters who had trotted after them was too great to forgo.

In short, the poem offers a comically absurd view of British colonialism. It reflects on the discourse and strategies of seduction that include pseudo-scientific expertise that convey the aura of superiority of the British over the natives. From the practical work of clearing beaches to speculating on the attributes of pigs, the British represent the finesse of evolved civilization.

The final outcome — devouring the oysters — reflects the fundamental racism that accompanies the British imperial project. The two interlopers initially treat the oysters as if they were equals, proposing to cooperate, share and collaborate. The Walrus and Carpenter control the conversation and propose the topics. They include production and management of resources (cabbages), government (kings), industrial production (shoes, ships, sealing wax) and intellectual matters in the form of abstract scientific research and logical thinking (“why the sea is boiling hot … whether pigs have wings”). The Walrus and Carpenter set the agenda and never consider listening to the oysters.

The oysters are literally exploited to the death, in this case by being eaten. The British had no qualms about devouring the lives of the populations they conquered, not by eating them but by manipulating them in all sorts of “scientific” ways as they demonstrated their skills at social engineering. The final irony concerns the emotional hypocrisy with which imperial conquest was carried out. Just before eating them, the Walrus takes the opportunity to reaffirm his public commitment to the human values of civilization. He regrets his act at the very moment of completing it: “‘It seems a shame,’ the Walrus said, ‘To play them such a trick.’” He adds, “I weep for you… I deeply sympathize” and immediately stuffs himself on the delicious oysters.

After the recital of the poem, the discussion of its impact and meaning between Alice and the Tweedle twins brings us forward to the world of today’s politics:

“‘I like the Walrus best,’ said Alice: ‘because you see he was a little sorry for the poor oysters.’ He ate more than the Carpenter, though,’ said Tweedledee. ‘You see he held his handkerchief in front, so that the Carpenter couldn’t count how many he took: contrariwise.’ 

‘That was mean!’ Alice said indignantly. ‘Then I like the Carpenter best — if he didn’t eat so many as the Walrus.’ ‘But he ate as many as he could get,’ said Tweedledum.
This was a puzzler. After a pause, Alice began, ‘Well! They were both very unpleasant characters.’”

Alice reacts in the way the British population would have been expected to at the time. She tries to decide whom she likes best between the Walrus and the Carpenter. A choice similar to “leave” or “remain” or between Johnson and Corbyn.

Applying Carroll’s Wisdom to �մǻ岹��’s Election

The moral problem (Carroll calls it the “puzzler”) is reduced to a personality contest, meaning that any reflection on how and why the observed injustice occurred — its systemic causes — is banished. Carroll presents his implicit criticism of a political system that offers no other choices than between two “unpleasant characters.” This observation is ironically underlined by the fact that this dialogue is led by none other than the utterly interchangeable Tweedle twins.

Which brings us back to today’s politics leading up to the UK general election. Just like Alice, British voters must make what is essentially a new binary choice between the portly Walrus (Johnson?), who tells lies and takes as much as possible for himself, and the lithe Carpenter (Corbyn?), who refuses to comment on the crucial issue the Walrus mentions — the shame of playing “them such a trick” expresses: “The Carpenter said nothing but ‘The butter’s spread too thick!’”

To some extent, the parties today reflect the situation Lewis Carroll described a century and a half ago. Inspired by the lessons from the poem, Labour would be wise to raise the moral question Alice struggled with. They might suggest voters ask themselves: Which of the two characters do they think would be more inclined to lie about his intentions and eat as many oysters as possible? Contrariwise (as Carroll would say), the question Tories may hope the voters will seek an answer to would be this: Which of the two characters has the greater ability to successfully plan and execute the “trick” that will reduce the population of unwanted oysters on the beach?

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

The post Can Anything Unite the United Kingdom? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

It sounds very rational, but according to a conducted by University College London (UCL), “86% of headteachers were negative about the reception baseline assessment, variously dismissing it as ‘totally unnecessary’, ‘utter nonsense’, ‘a terrible idea’ and ‘one of the most poorly conceived ideas I have experienced in my 30-plus years of teaching.’”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Assessment:

A process that claims to provide objective data about levels of knowledge or skills, but which essentially serves to consolidate the supreme authority of an institution or person whose role is to program and judge all behavior

Contextual Note

Although the survey was admittedly “small-scale,” the result of 86% disapproval against 8% approval appears to be pretty damning. Not to mention the verbal descriptions provided by the commentators, people whose professional culture, working conditions and image will be affected by this bureaucratic invasion.

An organization called insists on the traditional view that sees education as an opportunity for learning, exploring and becoming, rather than the managerial view that relies on key performance indicators (KPIs) to increase output, margins and revenue. The organization’s spokesperson, Nancy Stewart, sums up the research: “Heads agree with education experts and parents: this scheme is a waste of everyone’s time and a waste of £10m [$12.2 million]. It is simply another way for the government to judge schools, using unreliable and unfair testing methods.”

The supposedly “fiscally responsible” Conservatives who run the Department for Education in the UK appear to be only too happy to spend £10 million on a scheme whose principal effect will be to upset the professionals obliged to apply it. The public has a right to wonder why.

Is it pure ideology based on the belief that standardization always equals progress, whether it achieves any other purpose or not? Or do they have a more devious motive? Could the authorities have conceived the expensive program as an additional instrument in the growing toolbox of that the UK appears to be enamored of?

Though testing and recording every generation of 4-year-olds’ ability to use numbers and letters may seem like an innocently scientific exercise, nothing prevents it from being integrated into the surveillance framework as a key element for political control. With big data, artificial intelligence (AI) and the “” combining to make everything in the world “more efficient.” Every person and object will be identified, classified, evaluated and judged according to criteria that will be managed and perfected by AI. The more raw data we produce, the greater the chance that “our” intelligence — which is no longer human, but embedded in algorithms — will understand the world, relieving us of the responsibility of doing so. And what a relief that would be, since we used to count on education, research and human insight to do that, however imperfectly, but now it will be done for us. And we (or rather our children) will be done by it. Because human imperfection will be replaced by technological perfection, the ultimate outcome of “.”

This speculation about the politicians’ motives and their vision of the future (assuming they have one) has no solid evidence to back it up and may sound alarmist as an argument against the reception baseline assessment. But if teachers and headmasters in the UK, with near unanimity, are expressing their alarm, the insistence of the government to continue its application requires some explanation.

The claims that it will allow “a fairer measure of the quality of education provided by primary schools.” In other words, it may be less about evaluating the children in the interest of their growth and education than judging the schools. This completes the picture of how politicians view schools and teaching staff. Schools and their staff are expenses that need to be assessed by powerful statistical tools and managed in a rational way.

Historical Note

The standardized test movement emerged in the US, where it has done through programs such as George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind ands Race to the Top and the Common Core. It is a direct outgrowth of the late 20th century pseudo-scientific IT management culture that insists on standardization of processes and the homogenization of culture. One of the features of this culture of homogenization is its largely hypocritical insistence on “,” as if compliance with the behavioral components of such “respect” could compensate for the more general requirement of conformity with a standard model. Diversity as a management theme has become formulated as a legal requirement, a component of a system that demands compliance, which of course translates as the surveillance and enforcement of superficial behavior.

For the Obama administration, Bill Gates provided much of the input that fed the drive toward standardization, which he saw as the key applying IT-grade industrial logic to solving the problems of education in the US, as if it was all about supply chains, production processes, promotion and distribution. It didn’t occur to him that the crisis of education may be due to a deep misunderstanding of what education meant within the culture.

In the interest of efficiency, equality and tolerance — the three guiding values of the new management approach — the purpose of education, an idea now embraced by virtually all public figures, is to prepare people to enter the job market. Once upon a time, education served to stimulate intellectual endeavor, provide young people with the cultural bases for successful integration into society irrespective of their future economic role, and build local, regional, and national links with universal culture, drawing on the resources of diversified teaching and the learning communities.

Once the purpose of education is redefined as channeling individuals toward essentially salaried employment, the very idea of citizenship, that of being a contributing member of the polis, becomes compromised. The person’s contribution will consist of three things: working for someone else (99% of the time), paying taxes and voting for the lesser of two evils to prove one is a member of the polis.

Tom Vander Ark, writing for Forbes, situates the as it was designed in the US: “While most OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] countries have sweated validity (good measures of what’s important), the U.S. has been preoccupied with reliability (inexpensive measures of what’s measurable).” This means that anything that isn’t measurable — which we would be tempted to call the “dark matter” of education — will not be considered. But just as dark matter represents as much as 85% of the universe, the culture of education and the education of culture constitute a similar proportion of the universe of knowledge, abilities, social presence and skills that define human value in society.

Most people naively accept an absolutely mad but utterly dominant ideology that says human value is principally, if not uniquely, one’s earning capacity. That’s one of the key things we learn in our schools and are never allowed to forget.

*[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,, 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.]

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

The post Education and Surveillance Are Merging in the UK appeared first on 51�Թ�.

When Adam and Evelyn reach the fabled West, they find full shelves and a bewildering variety of consumer choices, but Adam’s skills as a dressmaker are now redundant. Women in West Germany buy clothes off the rack. Dressmakers have little to do. As Sophocles once observed, “Nothing vast enters the life of mortals without a curse.” The same could be said about the brave new post-1991 world.

Barely two years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the “” collapsed. In 1992, a year after the Soviet Union crumbled, Francis Fukuyama celebrated the “.” This era was meant to be a triumphal march to liberty, democracy and free markets. Instead, populism and protectionism have risen like Draculas from their graves. What is going on?

Inequality Is Back

After World War II, the West and even other former colonies experienced a decline in inequality. Many of the British upper classes had died in airborne dogfights or on the beaches of Normandy. The terrorized huddling of both the rich and poor together when Luftwaffe bombers pounded London created a new kind of social solidarity. As a result, the National Health Service (NHS) emerged. It has survived Margaret Thatcher and her big bang reforms.

In the rest of Europe, the cradle-to-grave welfare state might stand weakened but persists. Even in the US, employers provide health insurance to employees because of World War II. In the postwar era, paid for the interstate highways, the gleaming airports and the famous American infrastructure that became the envy of the world. That era has ended. Today, the US is a deeply divided society where private splendor and public squalor is on the rise.

In fact, the postwar order is under grave threat. Ironically, the collapse of the Soviet Union sowed the seeds of its decline. The successors of the former Soviet Union, its satellite states and India entered the global economy in 1991. China had already started market reforms in 1978 and deepened them in 1992. Even as cheap labor entered the global stage, capital mobility increased by the day, putting ever-increasing downward pressure on wages in the developed world. Today, automation and artificial intelligence are increasing this exponentially. 

None other than , a Nobel laureate in economics, is arguing that inequality might imperil growth itself. Economic insecurity is undermining trust in leaders, laws, customs and institutions. This popular discontent is leading to political instability. It provides fertile soil for populists to plow. Populism leads to polarization at home and confrontation abroad. 

The Need for a New Solution

Income and wealth inequality is now alarming many people. In San Francisco, homelessness is a way of life. Silicon Valley millionaires, if not billionaires, live cheek by jowl with heroin addicts in tents. A report that came out in May reveals that the area’s homelessness problem has . In London, inequality has increased greatly. So has .

It is clear that we need new solutions. Some hark back to higher taxes. Even as 1,500 jets flew into Davos to hear Sir David Attenborough speak about saving the planet, Dutch historian became a global superstar for talking about higher taxes. That might be part of the solution but, at the moment, democracies are too deeply divided to pass any legislation to increase taxes. In fact, the US government has just done the reverse for those with wealth.

In April, the published a story on “flip-flops, falsehoods, fantasies” and shady deals that have locked in trillions of dollars of public debt for future generations. As is to be expected, dark pools of big money played a key role in the making of this legal sausage. In the current political milieu, Brexit has paralyzed the UK, the yellow shirts have brought France to a standstill and most other countries are no better.

Besides, Bregman might remember that Thatcher came to power because of the of 1979 when even the gravediggers went on strike. Just like markets, governments can go haywire too. Public benefit for all often gives way to special interests of bureaucrats or business leaders or sometimes both. After the Great Recession of 2007-08, there is little faith in either markets or governments left. So, harking back to postwar tax rates or the policies of the 1970s is unlikely to work.

Meanwhile, many thoughtful people around the world are coming to the conclusion that the current inequality and polarization is dangerous for the long-term health of any society. The moral and practical imperative of the hour is that we act. Therefore, we have to marry equity and efficiency in new, creative ways.

What About Giving Equity in Companies?

In July 2018, one of the authors proposed the “” to make companies national champions. Unsurprisingly, the other author liked the idea. So, the two authors propose something simple: To increase equity in society, founders, boards and chief executive officers must give away equity in their companies.

This might seem a utopian idea and indeed it might turn out to be. But innovators and entrepreneurs must remember that they belong to self-selecting circles. They can and do create wealth but many are left out from this process of wealth creation. When inequality rises beyond a certain degree, the have-nots start resenting the haves. In democracies, politicians emerge to channel this resentment against the haves. Polarization rises, tearing the social, political and economic fabric that any civilization rests on.

To be successful, companies need to build a broad base of support from customers and investors to policymakers and community leaders. With the current political polarization, it is time to emulate , the 19th-century entrepreneur, who boldly opposed slavery, child labor and animal cruelty. Yet this did not stop Cadbury from challenging the French domination of the chocolate market. Indeed, Cadbury’s civic and social work might have added a distinct halo to the Cadbury brand.

Today, a new generation of British business leaders are emulating Cadbury and have launched a powerful campaign. This involves distributing small quantities of equity or, simply put, ownership shares in a company to members of the public. Equity distribution is through a free-to-enter, open-to-all public lottery. This enables even early-stage companies to become high-profile “national champions” with a wider shareholder and stakeholder base than traditional businesses.

In contemporary capitalism, equity ownership is shrinking to a chosen few. Economic concentration of power is a fait accompli. The Equity Heroes Campaign is an effort to swim against the tide. It aims to increase the number of companies who distribute equity and give underserved members of society a stake in the process of wealth creation. Surprisingly, many business leaders are expressing an interest in this idea. So are politicians across party lines. They seem to be hungry for practical policy ideas that they can implement during the dangerously polarized times we find ourselves in.

It is important to note that the United Kingdom has not always been such a divided society. Back during the Blitz, British society had social solidarity. Today, social chasms have become deeper and wider. The rich worry about safeguarding their wealth and the pitchforks at their gates. The poor worry about not having food in their stomachs and roofs over their heads. A mechanism that brings the more and less fortunate together on a frequent basis might be quite useful. Giving away equity avoids judgment and the burden of long-term obligation. It brings together people from two distinct classes to share hope and create value.

The authors are well aware that this campaign is no panacea that will lower inequality, increase wages, decrease polarization, curb populism and fight protectionism in one stroke. But it is an overdue, much-needed step that business leaders must take to preserve our social, political and economic fabric.

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

The post Giving Away Equity to Create a More Equitable Society appeared first on 51�Թ�.

British academics in the field of language learning have being crying foul concerning the official, national testing and scoring system used for pre-university students who have chosen to study a modern language. They that the “exams regulator in England, Ofqual, is ‘killing off’ modern languages by failing to address the excessive difficulty of language GCSE and A-level exams.”

After the recent cheating scandal concerning adult language tests for immigrants, it would appear that Britain has a serious problem with the very notion of “other languages than English” and that the trend is worsening. The linguists who are protesting the severity of the test and decrying its impact on learner motivation have expressed their concern that post- Britain may no longer conform to the ideal of “an outward-looking, global nation.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Outward looking:

Bucking the historical trend toward intense narcissism, equally at the individual psychological level and at the political and cultural level��

Contextual note

Could the attitude toward languages, the increasingly confused melodrama of Brexit and the cultural effects of political populism be related? Unless one supposes that the academics are simply paranoid and see in the national institutions a conspiracy to eliminate their discipline, presumably to save money, there could be a very good reason to identify a deeper trend that goes beyond the mere choice of strategies for testing.

In the two major and still culturally dominant English-speaking nations, the US and the UK, most people not only spontaneously believe that English is the only “real” language of humanity, but they expect foreigners to believe that as well. The French are hardly different, who notoriously believe that French is the natural language of humanity. Knowing that English has become the international lingua franca for business and tourism, native English speakers see little reason to arrive at any kind of operational conversational ability in another language. To some extent, education, even when promoting foreign languages, has traditionally made a similar mistake. It tends to focus on the ability to read texts rather than develop communication skills.

This has led to two possible attitudes from government and educational authorities. One is to innovate pedagogically to correct the trend and try to find new ways that will get people to understand the interest of opening up and looking outward to other languages and cultures. The other is to say, cynically, that the world manages decently without having to worry about other languages and, therefore, investing education pounds or dollars in languages is an inefficient use of stretched resources.

Needless to say, in a culture that puts management principles focused on productivity far above cultural and ethical principles, the cynics tend to get their way. Add to that the mood of populations in rudderless democracies where they are tempted — in the hope of seeing simplistic solutions to their complex problems — to vote for a Brexit referendum with unknown dimensions or a president whose brain functions are programmed by hyperreality, and clearly government and educational authorities themselves will fail to appreciate the vital role of cultural and linguistic diversity in any healthy society.

And why does all the drama focus on testing rather than learning? The answer to that reveals the depth of the problem. We live in a culture guided by the need for measurement, even the obsession of measuring things that have no physical dimension. And to what end? To justify the only consideration that matters: cost. It’s the rule of the bottom line, which means that assets must be identified, measured and accounted for. That facilitates decision-making, which — whether it concerns education or climate change — will always go in the same direction: opting for the solution that reduces any cost that can’t be justified by immediate, tangible and increasingly material productivity. Cultural quality and harmonious human relations are bound to be the losers.

Historical note

Has the UK ever been an outward-looking nation? That may sound like a surprising question about an empire on which the sun never set. But what does outward looking really mean? The academics cited in the article make the standard claim, promoted as a kind of general ideal: “Giving more young people the chance to learn foreign languages helps broaden their horizons and will ensure this country remains an outward-looking, global nation.”

The question that then arises for governments and educational authorities is: How broad should anyone’s horizon be and to what purpose? An empire looks outward see what objects and wealth it can acquire and control that it doesn’t dispose of domestically. Call it the acquisitive version of the virtue of “looking outward.” The academics believe that looking outward to “broaden your horizons” means enriching yourself through contact with other cultures, their values, ideas and traditions. It’s less about acquiring than inspiring, where creativity and empathy trump mere possession.

The capitalist West continued for centuries to promote the idea that its outward-looking activities were more about inspiration than acquisition. But late-phase capitalism has dropped that pretense. Testing and obtaining grades have replaced learning as the aim of education, and the grades permit those in power to separate the wheat from the chaff in the faux meritocratic name of efficiency. Does it matter that the tests, organized around codified knowledge, have little to do with the levels of actual performance involving complex behavior they claim to differentiate?

The answer is resoundingly “no.” The tests permit the organization of new class divisions and little else. Once the best test-takers make it through, they can develop in their own time and space the skills that the tests were never intended to evaluate. In the case of the British language tests, seen as both difficult and inappropriate, they play their intended role of reducing the numbers of that particular class through the effect of discouragement, if not despair: first the learners and then the staff.

In its way, it’s a model of efficiency. But the less the UK manages to communicate “outwardly” — which means to have the capacity to reassure, implicate, encourage, involve and grow together with others — the more it will achieve its narcissistic goal of celebrating itself and not bothering about the rest of the world, except in the interest of acquisition. But without empathy, respect and involvement, acquisition will become more and more problematic.

*[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, , 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.]

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 Again Fails Its Test on Testing appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Anyone who has studied the grammar of any language in a classroom at any point in their life may remember the classification of verbs in three moods: indicative, subjunctive and imperative. The idea behind the grammatical notion of “mood” hints at the perceived truth value associated with each form of the verb. The subjunctive expresses doubt or uncertainty; the indicative points toward what is true in the present; and the imperative expresses an ambition or need for future action.

After a long period dominated by the subjunctive — doubt and uncertainty about Brexit, apparently British Prime Minister ’s preferred “mood” — the UK Parliament has decided to switch to the indicative with the implicit hope that it may turn into an imperative commanding some form of coherent future action. On March 27, two days before what was initially designated as the date for the ����’s departure from the European Union, Parliament has resolved to cast what terms “so-called indicative votes on finding a consensus Brexit solution.”

Will this be enough to end the suspense, worthy of Agatha Christie, that May has entertained right up to and, in fact, beyond the decisive moment, now grudgingly ��till April 12? More pertinently, will there actually be a decisive moment after which the nation passes from the indicative to the imperative?

As in this grammatical example: “Get the bleeding job done and over with, Goddammit!

Here is today’s 3D definition:��

Indicative vote:

A poll taken to understand what decision should be taken by people unwilling or incapable of taking a decision

Contextual note

The mood of the nation has never been more prone to doubt and even despair. The need to become “indicative” and then “imperative” has never been more pressing. On March 23, days before the indicative votes, a massive, “” demonstration by hundreds of thousands of opponents of Brexit occupied the streets of London. The crowd was clamoring for what is being called the “people’s vote,” the possibility of changing the result of the initial Brexit referendum on the basis of what the voters have learned in the interim.

But most politicians, starting with Prime Minister May, have been vehemently opposed to the idea of a new referendum, not because it doesn’t make sense, but because they sense that it would be perceived as a humiliating admission of the political class’s incompetence in calling for the initial referendum and its startlingly consistent ineptness in following it up.

The indicative votes to be cast on Wednesday are termed “indicative” not because they are meant to describe (or indicate) what exists, but because they point in the direction of possible and even desired action. The verb “” derives from the Latin word “index,” the finger that points in a direction. It thus literally means “to point out with one’s finger.”

The political meaning of the indicative vote will be more pointing in glaringly contradictory directions, as The Guardian’s partial list indicates: “leaving with May’s deal; leaving with membership of a customs union and/or single market; a no-deal departure; a second referendum.” The Guardian also informs us that the “various possible options and the form of voting are yet to be confirmed.”

In the end someone will be saddled with using the imperative, but no one seems to be sure who will ever have the authority to do so. Until then, it will be just a question of Parliament, the factions of May’s majority and the people in the streets (but not in the voting booth) indicating their moods.

Historical note

Several hundred years ago, the English language, for , set the subjunctive mood adrift, effectively banishing it from its shores except in very rare reminiscences of how English was spoken once upon a time. “Long live the queen” is a true subjunctive that may still be heard today, but speakers are hardly aware that its form is effectively that of the subjunctive. Otherwise, English has preferred to construct sentences beginning with “let” or (significantly in the UK today) “may” to represent ideas corresponding to the subjunctive mood in other languages. “Let there be light” and “may she reign forever” express the mood without having to transform the verb.

The language and its cultures (English, American, Australian, Canadian, etc.) appear to be content with the all-purpose indicative. This may reflect the pragmatic, active, business-oriented rather than reflective culture that prefers to see things getting done instead of wasting time deliberating about them.

It was this concern with getting things done and pushing a “deliberative” question aside to get on with business that led then-Prime Minister David Cameron to call for the initial referendum in 2016, which produced a result neither he nor the voters themselves were expecting. It opened the door for the opportunism of ambitious characters and provocateurs such as and to step up and occupy front stage in an improvised comedy that no one had prepared or rehearsed. Both were surprised and embarrassed when, at the end of their Act I, the curtain instantly sprung open up again before they could leave the stage, as the public was expecting them to continue with an Act II that nobody had written.

Today, the entire political class is hoping to indicate “a consensus Brexit solution,” presumably without having to appeal to the people for a new imperative.

*[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, , 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.]��

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

The post The Mood of Brexit Is More than a Grammatical Problem appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The ����’s deputy leader of the Labour Party, Tom Watson, has made headlines by publicly McDonald’s for the latest version of its monopoly competition — a clear case of a brand using another brand (and cultural meme) to increase its traction. Watson objects to what he sees as a cheap ploy designed to incite people to consume more junk food in a society suffering increasingly from obesity and diabetes.

To defend itself, a McDonald’s spokesperson said: “Customer choice is at the heart of everything we do, including our popular Monopoly promotion.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:

Customer choice:

The basic freedom in capitalist societies that allows people to define themselves and even the deformity of their physical profiles and corporal health by what they pay to consume

Contextual note��

In one short sentence defending its strategy, McDonald’s cites five culturally-loaded words intended to convince the public that they, and not Tom Watson, represent the true values of the economic and social culture we all live in. Those five words are “choice,” “heart,” “everything,” “popular” and “monopoly.” Let’s analyze how they work.

“Choice” means the opportunity to purchase what will either meet your needs, make you happy or, ideally, both. This constitutes the basis of prosperity in the consumer society. Clever marketing not only responds to needs, but cultivates and creates needs that never existed. For McDonald’s, the need to eat to sustain the body was so basic that the marketers could focus on cost — the savings from which can be directed to other needs, such as clothing — and speed, since in the US (where McDonald’s originated) “time is money.”

The appeal to happiness — which, since Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence, all Americans are invited to pursue — is contained within the feeling that the customer is meeting an essential need, saving time (cooking is a time-consuming activity) and money (“a penny saved is a penny earned”), all virtuous acts. Taste is secondary.

The “heart of everything we do” communicates the idea that McDonald’s isn’t just a business, but is a caring community serving the needs and requirements of the wider community. Everyone should know that the core value of every impersonal business — and McDonald’s is typically an impersonal business — is making a profit and nothing else: the company’s fiduciary duty to its shareholders. Calling that core value a “heart” humanizes it.

“Everything” has become an all-purpose trope in a culture that values homogenization and conformity. The Daily Devil’s Dictionary recently looked at CNN commentator Don Lemon’s abuse of the word “everything.” Assuming that any can easily morph into every has become a feature of cheap rhetoric in US culture, with its particular taste for hyperbole.

“Popular” points to the justification of any marketing initiative, as companies seek commitment from a maximum number of consumers.

The idea of popularity introduces the last word in the list: “monopoly.” The “Monopoly” that McDonald’s refers to — with a capital “M” — is the iconic board game first marketed in 1935. Mobilizing the recently invented marketing concept of , McDonald’s has created its essentially non-interactive reward system while harnessing the brand of a world-famous competitive game to motivate its customers to consume more. It connects with the implicit motivational appeal of the board game: acquisitive greed and overconsumption. As per�� Ciana O’Reilly, “Think of it like regular Monopoly, but with more prizes and the added benefit of getting delicious McDonald’s food.”��This links with the idea of saving money (free food) and involves the notion of possibly getting more than the customer paid for (prizes).

And, of course, in the background we are reminded that��“monopoly” is more than a game. It represents the ideal of any (and therefore every) business in the US: to achieve something close to monopoly status, with a captive public. McDonald’s has competitors, of course, but it has achieved the modern ideal of global branding: becoming its own monopoly.

Historical note

Though it has spread all over the world, McDonald’s grew directly out of US culture. Founded by the Puritans who imposed proverbial maxims such as “eat to live, not live to eat,” the notion of need to justify the pleasure associated with eating has acquired a moral force that other more Epicurean cultures ignore. This may explain why the French and Italians but also Chinese, Mexicans, Greeks, Indians and other cultures have allowed themselves to take great pride in the gustatory quality of their cooking, while in the US the taste of food has traditionally been deemed secondary. The taste of food must be agreeable enough to justify responding to one’s need to eat. Salt and sugar have played a major role in achieving that minimal level of taste in many of the foods Americans eat.

In a purely puritanical perspective, food should be tasteless, as sensual pleasure is considered sinful. That idea marked the tradition for quite a long time in the United Kingdom, influenced by the radical Puritan values that briefly dominated the culture in the 17th century under Oliver Cromwell but persisted long afterwards in the lower classes. US culture tried to strike a balance between Puritan frugality, which increasingly focused on money, and the idea associated with the “pursuit of happiness,” a basic right alongside life and liberty. The English philosopher John Locke defined the basic rights of “natural law” as “life, liberty and property.” Thomas Jefferson substituted the dynamic notion of pursuit of an objective (happiness) for Locke’s inert notion of property, eventually opening the floodgates of the consumer society that would finally emerge in the 20th century.

By insisting that it is focused on “customer choice,” McDonald’s wants us to believe it is fulfilling the Jeffersonian ideal. But McDonald’s has always clung to the tradition of limiting customer choice, a concept initiated by Henry Ford when he “any color so long as it’s black.” No one more than McDonald’s has incarnated the notion of standardized food. The firm’s defense of its monopoly promotion isn’t about customer choice. It’s about appealing to customers’ basic instincts related to the acquisition of things and obtaining rewards. Rewards for what act of prowess of virtuous action? Consumption!

McDonald’s does what any commercial company with something close to monopolistic scope will always do: find ways of promoting addiction not just to their products, but to the act of consuming their products. It works with the , but also with the old — notably , a man who knows something about monopoly as well as saving and acquiring money.

Gordon Gekko, the fictional character in Oliver Stone’s movie, Wall Street, , “Greed is good.” Monopolistic entrepreneurs tend to say, “Addiction is good.”

*[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, , 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.]��

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

The post McDonald’s, Monopoly and the Culture of Addiction appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As the social psychodrama of Brexit continues to unfold, promising a springtime tsunami of uncertainty and anguish for an entire population, a commissioned by the Prince’s Trust charity reveals that “18% of young people in UK do not think life is worth living.” That figure has doubled from a decade ago.��

Focusing on the lifestyle of today’s youth, everyone seems to agree that the use of social media is a major factor explaining this trend. The Guardian reports on the reflection of Education Secretary Damian Hinds, who proclaimed “that social media companies have a ‘moral duty’ to act.” He even announced the remedy: “[C]hildren will have lessons in how to deal with the pressures of social media.”

To understand what Hinds means by “moral duty,” we need to contrast the three types of duty that compete to guide social behavior in modern society.

Here are today’s 3D definitions:

Moral duty:

Respect of others. Increasingly in modern practice, the opposite of fiduciary duty, which elevates profit-making to the highest value, following the logic that says money in hand (investment, property) always deserves more money (interest) — effectively displacing the traditional notion of morality that focused on the respect of disinterested norms regulating cooperative social behavior between human beings, rather than between their possessions

Fiduciary duty:

The responsibility of managers for defending other people’s investments and financial interests��

Legal duty:

Compliance with the letter of the law

Contextual note

Cornell Law School explains in these terms: “When someone has a fiduciary duty to someone else, the person with the duty must act in a way that will benefit someone else, usually financially.” The notion of duty has increasingly shifted toward the defense of assets rather than the respect for people.

There are two essential reasons for this. Litigation — the active use of the law, outside of law enforcement, to settle differences — has become a reflex and not only in the commercial world. But more significantly, the trend to convert all values — even of shared ideas (now protected by copyright), education (purchased through debt) or of life itself — into monetary terms and to devalue creativity, spontaneity and generosity means that the idea of “moral” duty increasingly shades into the notion of financial obligation.

In cruder terms, expecting Facebook to acknowledge and observe its “moral duty” can only be illusory. First, where should we look to find the source of that moral duty? It can’t be the community itself because Facebook has created artificial and self-sustaining communities unaffected by real communities. Second, Facebook has only one way to make money: by manipulating and encouraging its users to manipulate one another, either for profit or pleasure. In today’s moral system, allowing people to do things for profit or pleasure is considered virtuous, the very definition of freedom.

What about the solution Hinds proposes? Can we really devise “lessons in how to deal with the pressures of social media”? Will they consist of behavioral conditioning, psychological counseling or maybe even critical thinking based on analysis of Facebook’s business model?

The real question for an education minister should be this: Does anyone have the slightest idea of how to deal effectively with the pressures of social media? The pressures don’t come from social media itself, but from the way social media allows interested parties — including the individuals who are addicted to it — to apply the real-world methods for influencing, manipulating, intimidating and, more generally, imposing one’s will that have become the model for what is deemed “competitive success.”

If our educational systems were capable of teaching creativity, collaboration and critical thinking, the “lessons” Hinds proposes might make sense. But the stated preference of the current generation of politicians and the overall trend has pointed toward curricula controlled and validated by . The key to understanding moral behavior lies in exploring creativity — the potential and social limits of freedom — and encouraging collaboration rather than competition. This implies developing the faculties of critical thinking, which allows learners to put issues in perspective and to tease out their own solutions, individually and collectively. Instead, what we are likely to see is a series of preformulated lessons in how to resist the pressures of social media.��

Historical note

To explain why so many British youngsters feel there is nothing to live for, the analysts have focused their attention on the role of social media. But other environmental factors are at work as well. Although it would be tempting to blame Brexit, which is more a symptom of the same malaise than a cause, the timing of the two studies — the first dating from 2009 — suggests that the financial crisis of 2008 may have played a role. By rewarding the banks and, thanks to a policy of austerity, neglecting the victims (the parents of the youngsters), it radically changed the economic landscape for the younger generations, transforming their outlook on education, work and life planning, not just in Britain but in every Western nation.

The entire globe, like the physical planet itself, is undergoing massive change that has increasingly disrupted patterns of behavior and lifestyles, particularly in the West. Learning that 18% of the youngsters in a wealthy developed nation no longer feel there is something to live for tells us a lot about how precarious our civilization has become. The lessons required to move beyond that despair will have to do with much more than dealing with the pressures of social media.

*[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, , 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.]��

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

The post British Youths Feel They Have Nothing to Live For appeared first on 51�Թ�.

, a British charity, has done a study of girls in the United Kingdom that may have implications for our understanding of one of the major trends in Western civilization itself, beyond girls and the UK. on a “sharp decline in happiness among girls and young women in the UK in the last decade.”

Here is today’s 3D definition:��

Happiness:

One of the three basic rights in a modern democracy, first formulated in the US Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, not as a right in itself, but as the object of a pursuit that every citizen is entitled to��

Contextual note

The study��identifies behavioral trends as the root of the problem. Girls are “socialising less in person and spending more time online.” The statistics are startling: “[M]ore than a quarter (27%) of young women aged 17 to 21 said they did not feel happy, up from 11% in 2009.” Of course, an optimist would say that it means 73% did feel reasonably happy. But a 250% increase over 10 years should give us pause.

In contrast to all the bad news, one of the guides in the study saw some silver lining: “Young girls were more likely to consider themselves a feminist.” The article doesn’t tell us whether it’s the happy or unhappy girls who have discovered they are feminists. It leaves the curious impression that feminism depends on unhappiness, as well as the dangerous idea that thinking of oneself as a victim is in itself desirable.

The one thing the study and the article avoid telling us is what they mean by happiness. In recent years, happiness has become a theme in the corporate world. It has been lauded as a. Thinking like managers, the experts have even put a precise figure on the gain (12%), as well as estimating the annual loss for the US economy ($450-550 billion). And they have done this without defining happiness as anything more than “positive feeling.”

The recent focus on happiness comes after years of disappointment with the equally indefinable and once trendy concept of “,” introduced as a counterweight to economist Milton Friedman’s insistence that the sole responsibility of a corporation was to the shareholders. Friedman’s initial reaction to the idea of social responsibility was to call it a “subversive doctrine.” To his mind, only shareholders need to be made happy.

Historical note

When Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he had a clear understanding of what life was, a relatively stable concept of liberty (at least in relation to the English monarchy), and only a vague and relativistic philosophical and cultural notion of what happiness might be. He thus avoided speaking of the right to happiness itself. Our right was to pursue it, not attain it. It was a convenient distinction. After all, even Jefferson’s slaves — whose happiness was severely constrained if not nonexistent — had the opportunity to pursue it.��For example, by fleeing the plantation (while hoping not to be “pursued” themselves).

The philosophical roots Jefferson appealed to dated back to Aristotle, who actually did take the trouble to define it. The cultural roots were encapsulated in the expression, “An Englishman’s home is his castle,” “a man can do as he pleases in his own house” — in other words, pursue his own version of happiness and not have to justify what it turned out to be.

Sean Illing, interviewing Carl Cederström, the author of the recently published book , sums up Aristotle’s view: “Happiness consisted of being a good person, of living virtuously and not being a slave to one’s lowest impulses.” We suspect this is not the definition that was in the minds of the researchers who conducted the study on girls in the UK.

The Greek word for . It implied a link, through virtue, to the community making it quite different from the individualist orientation of modern happiness, or pleasure-seeking. Cederström explains the concept: “[B]y living our life to the full according to our essential nature as rational beings, we are bound to become happy regardless.” “Living our life to the full” means living in society and interacting with others.

Could eudaimonia be the key, as ? The opportunities for “living our life to the full” appear to be diminishing, at least for girls and young women in the UK. Could this be an indication of a general historical trend that affects men as well as women, across borders, in our increasingly individualistic societies?

Cederström realizes that “it’s impossible to actually know what happiness is.” But he does believe that our ideal of happiness is a cultural construct. Since the middle of the 20th century. a certain “vision of happiness [became] the dominant cultural norm in Western society.” It was quickly exploited by the corporate world and the advertising industry” to create our “mania for individual satisfaction and this idea that buying and collecting more stuff will make us happy.”

It has produced a society “where people feel constantly anxious, alienated, and where bonds between people are being broken down, and any sense of solidarity is being crushed.” Cederström’s hope is that if we “care more about equality, community, vulnerability, and empathy” we might be able to “build a better world.”

*[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, , 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.]

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

The post The Daily Devil’s Dictionary: “Happiness” for Girls and Women appeared first on 51�Թ�.

As the clock ticks down on Britain’s exit from the European Union, one could not go far wrong casting British Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as the hopeful Miranda in Shakespeare’s��Tempest:��“How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world that has such people in’t.” And Conservative Party Prime Minister Theresa May as Lady Macbeth: “Out damned spot, out, I say!”

With the French sharpening their knives, the Tories in disarray, the Irish demanding answers, and a scant 17 months to go before Brexit kicks in, the whole matter is making for some pretty good theater. The difficulty is distinguishing between tragedy and farce.

The Conservative Party’s October conference in Manchester was certainly low comedy. The meeting hall was half empty, May’s signature address was torpedoed by a coughing fit, and a prankster handed her a layoff notice. Then the Tories’ vapid slogan “Building a country that works for everyone” fell onto the stage. And several of May’s cabinet members were openly jockeying to��.

In contrast, the����conference at Brighton a week earlier was jam-packed with young activists busily writing position papers, and Corbyn gave a rousing speech that called for rolling back austerity measures, raising taxes on the wealthy, and investing in education, health care and technology.

Looming over all of this is March 2019, the date by which the complex issues involving Britain’s divorce from the EU need to be resolved. The actual timeline is even shorter, since it will take at least six months for the European Parliament and the EU’s 27 remaining members to ratify any agreement.

Keeping all those ducks in a row is going to take considerable skill, something May and the Conservatives have showed not a whit of.

Britain and the EU: A Messy Divorce

The key questions to be resolved revolve around people and money, of which the first is the stickiest.

Members of the EU have the right to travel and work anywhere within the countries that make up the trade alliance. They also have access to health and welfare benefits, although there are some restrictions on these. Millions of non-British EU citizens currently reside in the United Kingdom. What happens to those people when Brexit kicks in? And what about the����who live in other EU countries?

Controlling immigration was a major argument for those supporting an exit from the EU, though its role has been overestimated. Many Brexit voters simply wanted to register their outrage with the mainstream parties — Labour and the Conservatives alike — that had, to one extent or another, backed policies that favored the wealthy and increased economic inequality. In part, the EU was designed to lower labor costs in order to increase exports.

Indeed, German����(1982 to 1998) pressed the EU to admit Central and Eastern European countries precisely because they would provide a pool of cheap labor that could be used to weaken unions throughout the trade bloc. In this he was strongly supported by the British.����in Britain has declined from over 13 million in 1979 to just over 6 million today.

The Conservatives want to impede immigration while also having full access to the trade bloc, in what has been termed the “have your cake and eat it too” strategy. So far that approach has been a non-starter with the rest of the EU.����that only 30% of EU members think that Britain should be offered a favorable deal. This drops to 19% in France.

The Conservatives themselves are split on what they want. One faction is pressing for a��“”��that rigidly controls immigration, abandons the single market and customs union, and rejects any role for the European Court of Justice. A rival “soft Brexit” faction would accept EU regulations and the Court of Justice, because they are afraid that bailing out of the single market will damage the British economy. Given that countries like Japan, China and the United States seem reluctant to cut independent trade deals with the UK, that is probably an accurate assessment.

While the Tories are beating up on one another, the Labour Party has distanced itself from the issue,����a “soft” exit, but mainly talking about the issues that motivated many of the Brexit voters in the first place: the housing crisis, health care, the rising cost of education and growing inequality. That platform worked in the snap election in June that saw the Conservatives lose their parliamentary majority and Labour pick up 32 seats.

Divorces are not only messy, they’re expensive.

In September, May offered to pay the €20 billion ($23 billion) to disentangle Britain from the bloc, but EU members are demanding at least €60 billion — some want up to €100 billion — and refuse to talk about Britain’s access to the trade bloc until that issue is resolved. All talk of “cake” has vanished.

Troubles on the Border

And then there is Ireland. The island is hardly a major player in the EU — the Irish Republic’s GDP is 15th��in the big bloc. But it shares a border with Northern Ireland. Even though the north voted to remain in the EU, as part of the UK it will have to leave when Britain does. What happens with its border is no small matter, in part because it is not a natural one.

Those counties that were a majority Protestant in 1921 became part of Ulster, while Catholic-majority counties remained in the southern republic. During the “Troubles” from the late 1960s to the late 1990s, the border was heavily militarized and guarded by thousands of British troops. No one — north or south — wants walls and watch towers again.

But����between the Irish Republic and Ulster will have to be monitored to ensure that taxes are paid, environmental laws are followed, and all of the myriad of EU rules are adhered to.

Other than trade, there is the matter of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that ended the fighting between Catholics and Protestants. While laying out a way to settle the differences between the two communities through power sharing, it also redefined the nature of��. Essentially, the Irish Republic and Britain agreed that neither country had a claim on Ulster, and that Northern Irish residents be accepted as “Irish, or British or both, as they may so choose.”

Such fluid definition of sovereignty is threatened by Brexit, and most of all by the fact that May and the Conservatives — at the price of a €2 billion bribe — have�� with the extremely right-wing and sectarian Protestant party, the Democratic Unionist Party, in order to pass legislation. While the pact between the two is not a formal alliance, it nonetheless undermines the notion that the British government is a “neutral and honest broker” in Northern Ireland.

May didn’t even mention the Irish border issue in her September talk, although the EU has made it clear that the subject must be resolved.

“That Day Is Finally Upon Us”

Talks between Britain and the EU are barely��, partly because the Conservatives are deeply divided, partly because the EU isn’t sure May can deliver or that the current government will last to the next general elections in 2022. With Labour on the ascendency, May reliant on an extremist party to stay in power, and countries like France licking their chops at the prospect of poaching the financial institutions that currently work out of London, EU members are in no rush to settle things. May is playing a weak hand and Brussels knows it.

Eventually, the Labour Party will have to engage with Brexit more than it has, but Corbyn is probably correct in his estimate that the major specter haunting Europe today isn’t Britain’s exit, but anger at growing inequality, increasing job insecurity, a housing crisis and EU strictures that have turned economic strategy over to unelected bureaucrats and banks.

“The neoliberal agenda of the last four decades may have been good for the 1 percent,” says Nobel Laureate��, “but not for the rest.” Those policies were bound to have “political consequences,” he says, and “that day is finally upon us.”

*[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.

Photo Credit:�� /

The post Britain Faces a Brave New World After Brexit appeared first on 51�Թ�.

In his book , which describes how country after country tumbled into what became the Second World War, British historian Ian Kershaw wrote: “The fateful choices that were made were not predetermined or axiomatic. But they did reflect the sort of political system that produced them.” A global war was not anyone’s preferred option, but a combination of ideology, a fear of being encircled or preempted, and miscalculation of the intentions or reactions of others gave the world the most destructive conflict in human history.

There are similar blind forces at play in the Brexit talks. The current political system in the United Kingdom, and the anxieties and obsessions it has generated, determine the British position on Brexit. This expresses itself in an artificially inflexible and brittle interpretation of the 2016 referendum result.

The British government has, so far, been unable to convert that into a detailed, legally viable and constructive outline of its desired relationship with the European Union. If it went into detail, the disagreement between cabinet members is so deep that the Conservative Party would split and the government would fall. The Labour Party opposition has a similar problem.

It suits both of parties that the EU is insisting that substantial progress must be made on other issues before talks about future relations between Brussels and London can begin. This is because if the British government had to set out a detailed position on the future relationship, it is liable to split. Party and public opinion in the UK has been polarized and is unready for compromise. The Conservative Party is consumed with its leadership struggle and cannot be relied upon to make a deal that will stick. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson’s four “” make compromise impossible.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT

Likewise, the EU political system determines the union’s approach. There is quite understandable annoyance that the UK, for whom so many special deals were made in the past, now wants to leave the union it freely joined over 40 years ago. The EU negotiating position is inflexible because it has to be determined by 27 countries. It can only be changed by consensus among them, and that can only be arrived at very slowly.

Yet the time limit set in Article 50 of the EU treaty is very short. It will require immense speed of talks on a range of difficult questions. These not only focus on the EU and the UK, but also potentially with the World Trade Organization (WTO) and perhaps the European Free Trade Association, which the UK would have to join if it wants to be in the European Economic Area like Norway. All of this will have to be done between January and November 2018.

Theresa May © Drop of Light

Both sides in this negotiation should ask themselves: Are they at risk of finding themselves on rigid tramlines heading straight for a cliff? If so, should some side rails be put in place just for a moment of reflection before they go over the edge?

Franklin Dehousse, a former judge at the European Court of Justice, ��trade issues from those concerning the��Irish border��end up artificially disconnecting those connected topics, and thus limited the possibility of constructive tradeoffs. But he also insisted that the UK must first come up with “precise proposals on all withdrawal matters.”

He’s right. There is no point in the UK asking the EU to move on to trade matters��unless and until the country itself is capable of spelling out what it wants and says exactly what trade, environmental and consumer safety policies it will follow after Brexit. It is because the United Kingdom is unable to even say what it wants in the long term on these issues that there has been no progress on discussing the Irish border.

Meanwhile ��the UK Trade Policy Observatory (UKTPO), in an by Professors Alan Winters, Peter Holmes and Erika Szyscak, has suggested that Prime Minister Theresa May’s idea of a “transition” or “implementation” period of two years — after the UK has left the EU — might be very difficult to implement. If so, the United Kingdom will crash out of the European Union in March 2019. They saw several problems with May’s transition idea. They are not trivial issues. One was that, when the UK leaves the EU, it will automatically be out of the EU Customs Union. Therefore, they claim it would have to negotiate a new temporary customs union with the EU for the transition period. It would have to notify the WTO of this temporary union, which could potentially lead to protracted talks with WTO partners.

London and Brussels would also have to agree on how all EU regulations and directives would apply in the United Kingdom during the transition period, with complete certainty on how mutual recognition of testing and certification��and the free mobility of labor would work. According to the UKTPO authors, the status of such an agreement under EU law would not be certain. But because it would cover issues on which EU member states retain competence, this might mean that the transition agreement itself might require ratification by all EU member states too. That would take time. Meanwhile, the UK and its EU trade partners would be in limbo. The UK might be already out of the EU while its transition deal has not yet been ratified and is inoperable.

Given the delays to ratifying the EU-Canada deal, which got bogged down in the politics of the French-speaking part of Belgium, this is a daunting prospect. Imagine going through all of that for a deal that might only last two years, and then going through the same process all over again for the final deal. So, negotiating and ratifying a transition deal could be almost as difficult as negotiating the final, permanent deal.

EXTENSION

The UK needs to engage itself seriously with the complexities of Brexit.��If it looks at all these issues thoroughly, it may then conclude that, despite Johnson’s anxiety to leave quickly, the time limits are far too severe and that more time is needed. If Britain is wise, it would ask its EU partners to extend the negotiation time from two years to around six years.��That extension could be done by unanimous agreement among the 27 EU states and the UK. With a longer negotiation period, the UK would need no transition deal and would remain a member of the EU until the final exit deal is done. There would be only one deal to negotiate and ratify: the final one.

There are really no good options here. It would be politically difficult for any UK government to ask for an extension to the negotiation period. Leave supporters would suspect betrayal.��There would be very deep reluctance from the EU to grant such a request. Some member states would feel that extending the period would be far too easy on the UK and that the Brits need a reality check.��Others would argue that prolongation of the exit process might destabilize other EU members and distract the union from other urgent work. These are valid objections, but they are arguably less damaging than the real likelihood that the UK will crash out of the EU without any deal.

Extending the period to six years would, however, allow the UK electorate to consider — in a more informed way — the full implications of the course they are following. The present tight timeframe minimizes the opportunity for creative thought. Instead, it maximizes the influence of blind, bureaucratic and political forces. It increases the likelihood of miscalculation and the situation of the UK leaving the EU with no deal at all. That would be very bad for Ireland and the European Union as a whole.

If more negotiating time cannot be agreed,��then the tempo of talks must be immediately and dramatically increased. Unfortunately, there is little sign that the current UK government, the originator of Brexit, understands this.

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

Photo Credit: /

The post Time Limits Risk a Brexit Crash appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Despite the shock, regret and the thinly veiled hope from the Democrats that the result of the US presidential election may still somehow be overturned, Donald J. Trump is about to become the 45^th president of the United States and its commander-in-chief.

Much has been made over the past year about Trump’s bombastic approach during the campaign, offhand remarks, insults, divisive language toward minorities, lack of diplomacy skills and his seeming benevolence toward one Vladimir Putin.

There are two significant and possibly destabilizing positions the new administration could take that would shake European security for decades. Both positions factor around the relationship Trump ultimately decides to take with the Kremlin early next year.

There are few within NATO who welcomed a Trump win and many now fear Europe may yet be sunk into a new cold war—one that may well see conflict on the borders of Europe as Russia’s aggressive stance potentially boils over.

Sabre-Rattling

The of troops and arsenal along the Eastern European border is not to be disregarded as mere sabre-rattling by the Kremlin. Russia now has an estimated 55,000 troops to the east of Ukraine—brigades that cover the entire length of the porous border.

In addition, troops have been moved east of Poland as well as nuclear capable missile systems into the port of , which sits in Russia’s territorial exclave north of Poland, south of Lithuania. Russian warships are already in the Mediterranean, as too are warships with cruise missiles now based in the Baltic Sea between Sweden and Denmark. A close eye is also being cast over the estimated 330,000 Russian troops currently based west of Moscow—the “western flank.” Any movement west will spark alarm at NATO HQ.

NATO has of course reacted: There are some 40,000 troops as part of the rapid-reaction force ready to deploy and brigades have been sent to Poland and Estonia to reinforce existing troop numbers. There has also been a build-up of air and reconnaissance planes with additional capability sent from the UK and US.

All of this has brought about tensions, and relations between the EU, US and the Kremlin are at their lowest for many years. Trump, however, has been given copious opportunities to condemn the previous annexation of Crimea and the ongoing support for the rebels in Eastern Ukraine, but has failed, repeatedly, to take a stance that would encourage both NATO commanders and the citizens of the Baltic states.

To put it bluntly, Russia could walk into Eastern Ukraine tonight and annex the territory with relative speed and ease, with the implausible reality of military reaction from NATO. Russian aggression has built up despite a White House administration that has condemned Putin over almost all foreign policy decisions in recent years. If Trump is to show a lack of interest in NATO as he has already alluded to and remains ambivalent toward Putin, the reality of further gains by the Kremlin is not a thing of myth or fantasy, but a reality that will test NATO strength, guile and resolve for the foreseeable future.

State of Purgatory

While Europe and NATO sit in a state of purgatory until Trump takes office and makes his choice over the direction he wishes to take with Russia instability will continue, and the incoming president’s decisions over conflicts in the Middle East may also affect European security on an altogether different footing.

Europe appears to be slowly but surely coming to terms with the threat from Islamic extremism. Finance has been systematically poured into building up manpower within intelligence agencies while extending Europe’s critical infrastructure and border security. Underlying these initiatives are the efforts being made to increase education in communities and schools, preventing radicalization at its roots.

Politics across the continent may well have set course for the next decade, and post Brexit all eyes have moved to the next set of elections: Austria, where the far-right candidate Norbert Hofer secured 46.4% of the vote; Italy, where there was a crushing defeat for Matteo Renzi, who is now set to step aside; and in France early next year, which could send shockwaves through Europe if Marine Le Pen’s National Front party are victorious.

However, much of the work done on counter-radicalization must now be welcomed, from securitization to education in the community. European countries affected by terrorist acts have acted quickly to scrutinize outdated or frankly inept policy. While right-wing populism may spread in the coming year, there are clear indications of wide-ranging that encompass both hard and soft elements, from raids to education in primary schools, and hopefully will be built upon.

Bomb the Hell Out of Them

But as Europe begins to lead the way on counter-radicalization, with countries such as the UK having an established and extensive that has fundamentally sought to include the community and those most at risk from radicalization, it is President-elect Trump, however, who could prove to be the most significant disturbance to counterterrorism efforts��globally.

Trump has not been shy in delivering his solution to the problem of the so-called Islamic State (IS)—“bomb the hell out of them”—amongst his most notable strategy on the campaign trail. The danger is that while IS seems to be dying in Europe as its cells are and policy develops, a genuine policy—as his own states, to “Pursue an aggressive and coalition military operations to crush and destroy ISIS”—could prove counterproductive and harmful to the West in general, with significant ramifications to those states with large Muslim, poor and disenfranchised communities such as Belgium and France.

Any aggressive strategy taken by the US at this stage in the fight against IS beyond air support, training and special-forces operatives already on the ground could potentially see a new wave of jihadists, many from the West, once again become disfranchised and answer the inevitable call to fight the imperialists, in the Middle East or indeed locally.

Throughout the Obama administration there was a deliberate and obvious policy of from international intervention with withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq. Likewise, however, the current administration has failed to take control of the staggeringly weak and insignificant counter-radicalization strategy that has seen a steady stream of attacks take place over the last 15 months.

It is becoming acutely clear to many states in the West that counterterrorism at home is effective through both clear and proficient preventative policy, but also foreign diplomacy and calculated intervention. The danger now is that Trump may pursue his aggressive foreign policy toward IS in conjunction with a divisive domestic strategy, in part due to the attacks that have crept into the country from home-grown terrorists.

The knock-on effect of an aggressive policy against IS, both foreign and domestic, at a time when the group is losing territory and its numbers are deteriorating could cause mayhem for European security agencies. They have fought hard to get on top of the situation and identify both those who are already involved with extreme Islam and those whom are most vulnerable and sympathetic to the cause.

If Trump is genuinely prepared to increase ground operations against IS, then the backlash in Europe could be significant and counter-radicalization strategies tested. Much of the underlying cause of American aggression against IS may be due to the seemingly lack of understanding of countering terrorism at home and the misapprehension that the policies are intrinsically connected.

As with many departments in European governments, security agencies will also be quietly but undoubtedly watching and waiting for Trump to disclose and show his hand on IS while the Kremlin remains poised and dangerously unpredictable.

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

Photo Credit:��

The post Securing Europe Under President Trump appeared first on 51�Թ�.

No religious minority in the world today has received so much global attention as the Muslims in Europe. From the burkini and burqa ban in France to the alleged charges of involvement in radical activities, Muslims have unceasingly made the headlines and been singled out as a “problem community” in the West. They are deemed as outliers due to their strong attachment to Islam and their aversion to secular values.

Such a bleak picture has been made worse by the rise of Islamic activism since the 1970s. With the growth of Europe-based Islamic movements came loud calls for resistance against the incursion of European liberal norms and lifestyles into Muslim life.

What has emerged from the confluence of media sensationalism of Muslim minorities and Muslim antagonism toward all things Western are influential works with goading, often misleading titles such as “Europe’s Angry Muslims” and “The War for Muslim Minds,” among many others.

SUFIS, SALAFIS AND ISLAMISTS: THE BOOK REVIEW

In this well-researched and cogently-argued book, , seeks to unsettle contemporary suppositions about the “Muslim question” in Europe. Hamid writes from the perspective of a British-born Muslim who, as Akbar Ahmed sharply observes in his foreword, “has channelled his intellect, passion and vigour into writing sharp academic studies and developed new programmes for studying Muslim youth work in the UK.”

Sufis, Salafis and Islamists must, therefore, be read not only as an academic tome about Islamic activism in the United Kingdom, but as a reflexive interpretation of the visions and programs, experiments and failures as well as the fragmented nature of missionary (dawah) activities in the country.

This book is, at once, an oblique reflection by a second-generation European Muslim about the future of Islam in Europe and the paths within which Islamic activists ought to thread in order for them to remain relevant in the face of the challenges of Islamophobia and the global war against terror.

Although limited to the UK, Hamid’s study belies the perception of Islamic activists in Europe as a united front bent upon asserting Muslim values in a secular society. Rather, Hamid shows that Islamic activists have rarely moved beyond the recurrent splits and multifarious disagreements within their own circles.

Islamic activists have, in actuality, taken on different ideological stances as succeeding generations of Muslims adapt to the rapidly changing world, particularly in light of the 9/11 attacks and the London bombings of July 7, 2005.

Indeed, as Hamid expertly notes, the British Islamic activist landscape is so diverse and fluid that it makes difficult to situate its actors within the typologies and categorizations devised by many preceding scholars. The author, however, leans closer toward Tariq Ramadan’s depiction of Islamic activism as divided into a few proclivities: “Scholastic Traditionalism,” “Salafi Literalism,” “Salafi Reformism,” “Salafi Political Reformism,” “Liberal or Rational Reformism” and “Sufism.”

But rather than taking such categorizations uncritically, Hamid reconstructs them based on the UK experience by centering his analytical lens on four dominant groups which, to him, could be placed squarely within Ramadan’s typologies. The four groups covered in lucid detail throughout the book are Young Muslims (YM) UK, Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT), Salafis and Sufis.

Although not made explicit, this book is, in effect, divided into three main parts. The introduction and Chapters one to four provide readers with deep insights into the importance of the four Islamic activist groups, their geneses and twisting fates. Chapters five and six bring to light the discourses employed by the groups to expand their appeal and the various social conditions that aided in their growth and decline. Chapter seven and the conclusion provide an up-to-date consideration of Islamic activism in the UK at present.

LOOKING CLOSER

Chapter one traces the ebb and flow of Young Muslims (YM) UK. Organized and operating in the same manner as the Muslim Brotherhood in the Middle East and elsewhere in the Muslim world, YM gained a wide following among young British Muslims from the 1980s up till the beginnings of the 21^st century.

Hamid attributes the decline of the movement to internal crises and splinter groups that broke away as YM leadership sought to reorient their objectives in the post-7/7 era. One other reason that may explain the decline of YM is the rise of other contending Islamic activist groups. YM’s story parallels that of another movement: the Hizb ut-Tahrir (HT). Chapter two tracks the growth of the group, the programs its members pursued to achieve the dreams of reviving the Islamic caliphate and its belligerent calls for the end of the secular world order.

HT’s utopian visions contributed to its own downfall. Hamid registers this but expresses it in a manner that is somewhat hyperbolic. He writes that HT “offered little that is constructive, beyond vague general prescriptions about the superiority of Islamic systems and did not have much to say about pressing social issues affecting British Muslim communities at the grass roots.” In reality, the movement did engage in many social- and welfare-based activities, bringing youths from troubled neighborhoods such as Bradford and Luton away from drugs and gangster culture. But one has to concede with the author’s main point that HT’s rhetorical claims tended to obscure all of its other efforts at uplifting the dire state of the Muslims.

51�Թ� provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

In Chapter three, Hamid places in sharp relief the Salafi dawah under the wings of the Jamiyah Ihya Minhaj as Sunnah (JIMAS). Popular only for a brief moment in the 1990s, JIMAS struggled to convince Salafis themselves that it remained true to the methodology (manhaj) of pious Muslims of the past. The advent of different versions of Salafism in the UK Islamic activist scene coupled by the revival of Sufism, however, made it difficult for Salafis to expand their reach in the country.

To be sure, Sufism or the “traditional Islam network,” as Hamid terms it, has been growing from strength to strength as explained in Chapter four of the book. The chief factor that underlies the flourishing of Sufism was the creative abilities of its activists in leveraging upon globally recognized preachers such as Hamza Yusuf to breathe new life and meaning to the Sufi message in the UK. These preachers “re-established Sufism as a legitimate and necessary part of mainstream Islam and inspired young people to deepen their knowledge of religious tradition.”

The next two chapters of the book outline some common themes that surface from the careers of the four Islamic activist groups. Drawing from social movement theory, Hamid discerns that amidst their manifest differences, these groups share the use of similar ideological frames to justify their existence and to rally others to their respective causes.

These frames include “To Be a Good Muslim,” “Islam is the Solution,” “We are One Ummah,” Struggle Between Islam and the Rest” and “The Search for a British Islam.”

The allure of these discourses was to be found in the changing demography of the British Muslim population from one that was dominated by transient migrants who saw the UK as a temporary abode to a community that was determined on making Britain their homes and shaping the country in ways that would make it more conducive for Muslims to live in. Global and local events and the rising terrorist threat in the UK have encouraged Muslims to pay due emphasis to the idea of “moderation in Islam.”

The book closes with an interesting observation that Islamic activists are now moving away from formal and structured collectives and movements to embracing “a post-ideological position, which is eclectic, hybridised and heavily uses digital communication technologies.” This statement deserves a book in its own right, and Hamid is perchance the best person to write it as a sequel to the current study. Whether this trend of “eclectic piety and activism” would lead to the demise of the four groups discussed in the author’s first book remains to be seen.

What is, however, clear is that the informal networks and collectives that are currently populating the cyberspace have the potential of filling in the voids left behind by established Islamic activist groups. They are able to connect with estranged Muslim youths who are cynical toward institutionalized Islam while engaging in issues such as human rights, justice and gender equality—issues that have escaped the attention of erstwhile Islamic activists.

THE VERDICT

Scholars hoping to get an insider and yet critical appraisal of Islamic activism in Europe should take this book as their starting point. Sufis, Salafis and Islamists unravels the complex struggles of Muslims living in the West and their attempts to safeguard their faith, their religious values and moral visions. The book informs us that Islam will continue to the shape the lives of ordinary Europeans just as Europe would inevitably structure and graft Muslim piety in its own image.

*[Sufis, Salafis and Islamists: The Contested Ground of British Islamic Activism can be purchased at the .]

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

Photo Credit:

The post Sufis, Salafis and Islamists: Activism in the United Kingdom appeared first on 51�Թ�.

The steep dive on October 7 of the British pound in early Asian trading—losing more than 6% against the US dollar—has been attributed to computerized trades amid low liquidity. It has, nevertheless, become the most visible barometer of how painful Britain’s imminent exit from the European Union (EU) could be.

On October 2, stressed immigration over economic issues as the driving factor behind Brexit at a Conservative Party meeting, where she said negotiations on leaving the EU must get underway by March 2017. Experts predict that Britain will have a tough time at the bargaining table, and advise the EU to play hardball, if only to deter others among its member-states from considering similar exits.

How Brexit can be achieved with minimum damage to either side depends on how exactly it is negotiated and how the transition is managed, says Mauro Guillen, Wharton professor of management and director of��The Lauder Institute. “The UK is a large economy and to take it out of the EU of course disrupts years of assumptions that investors, companies and consumers have been making.”

For sure, the United Kingdom will attempt the least painful way out while trying to protect trade, capital and labor flows with the EU. Indeed, French Prime Minister Francois Hollande’s latest statement calling for tough exit negotiations increases the pressure on the pound. “The pound continues to lose value because markets are anticipating that this is going to be messy,” says Guillen. “�մǻ岹��’s fall is a reflection of the fears over how this is going to be negotiated.”

Uncertainty is the dominant sentiment. “The steep fall of the pound is very much softening the blow, but it is also showing that there is clear lack of confidence in the long-term impact of Brexit,” says��Olivier Chatain, professor of strategy and business policy at the HEC Paris business school and a senior fellow at Wharton’s Mack Institute of Innovation Management.

Wharton Finance Professor��Joao Gomes��thinks May is making “a grave mistake by rushing to the negotiation table.” For one, he expects the EU to take a tough stance on Brexit ahead of the French and German elections next year. The French presidential elections will be held in April and May 2017, while the German federal elections are set for between August and October 2017. “Afterwards, it is very likely that realism and a fair dose of euro-skepticism will creep into the views of those two key governments,” he says. He advises against the haste he sees in May also because “time would allow every party to take a more objective stand on what is simply the negotiation of an international treaty by sovereign parties.”

“I’d recommend the EU, the EC [European Commission] and member states to play hardball,” says Michelle Egan, a��professor at American University’s��School of International Service and a��fellow at the Wilson Center’s Global Europe Program. She notes that����of the Treaty on European Union, the legal mechanism for an EU member state to break away, has never been used before. “If they make it easy and give too many concessions to Britain, then the risk is other states will want an��à la carte Europe as well,” adds Egan.

Egan spoke on the issues that will come up as Brexit nears on the Knowledge@Wharton show��.

Guillen feels the EU should not take a tough stance on Brexit but find some middle path. “It is not in the best interests of the EU to be tough on the UK,” he says. “The problem of course is that they also need to signal that there is a cost to leaving the EU because otherwise other countries may also say they want to get out. They have to find a balance.” He expects “some form of a soft Brexit,” adding that a hard Brexit would be difficult to implement.

Impact on Businesses

In gauging the business impact of Brexit, Guillen makes a distinction between the financial services and the non-financial industries such as manufacturing and tourism in the UK. He says the non-financial industries would prefer some type of deal that allows them to remain in some way in the European single market.

The situation is much different with the financial services sector because of the fallout from the 2008 crisis, notes Guillen. “The uncertainty of the financial sector in Europe is because there is a lot of concern about the state of its banks,” he says. Banks in Italy, France, Spain and even Germany—with��—are in difficult straits, he explains.

For British banks, it would be important to negotiate a deal where they and their dealers could continue to do Europe-wide business, says Guillen. “But it is contentious because the Europeans don’t want to give the British the best possible deal without paying a cost for all this,” he adds.

Guillen notes that the City of London is critical for the UK because it is a major source of jobs and income. “Remember, the people in London voted to remain in the EU,” he says. All things considered, his projection is: “I think it is going to be very difficult for them to negotiate a soft Brexit in financial services.”

Economic Impact Thus Far

According to Gomes, the projections on the economic impact of Brexit have been “too pessimistic.” He says that is partly because he believes that “the Brexit vote will not amount to a significant change to business as usual.”

51�Թ� provides you deep and diverse insights for free. Remember that we still have to pay for servers, website maintenance and much more. So, to keep us free, fair and independent.

Gomes’ views are supported by the data for the months after the Brexit vote in June. “The economic indicators are strong after the Brexit vote, surprisingly,” says Egan. She notes that in July, unemployment stayed at about 4.9%, and company output, sales and orders have also been buoyant.

However, longer term pressures loom over the economy. In August, the Bank of England cut the interest rate to 0.25% and introduced monetary stimulus measures,����that “the outlook for growth in the short to medium term has weakened markedly.” Egan points also to announcements by Philip Hammond, the ����’s chancellor of the exchequer, on higher infrastructure spending, housing growth, a focus on regional economic development and dropping an earlier plan to eliminate the budget deficit by 2020. Hammond, on October 3, warned of a period of “turbulence” following Brexit, as��The Telegraph��. “He is focusing jobs, economy and living standards,” says Egan.

Businesses will face changes in customs procedures, tariffs, their relationship with the EU single market, dealings with global supply chains and integrated production, says Egan. Brexit also brings new complexities for free trade agreements, especially the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) that has been agreed between Canada and the EU, and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the United States and the EU. “The US has to evaluate what it means for its negotiating position if Britain leaves the EU,” says Egan.

Chatain notes that businesses clearly were not for Brexit, and the recent controversy over British Home Secretary Amber Rudd’s proposals to require businesses to hire more locals sharpens the battle lines. “[Businesses] are making it clear that they want as much flexibility on immigration and visas as they can have, but this contradicts the mandate given by the Brexit vote [to limit immigration],” he says. Businesses also fear that Rudd’s proposals may force them to disclose how many foreigners they employ. “Business groups reacted warily to the proposals, warning they would limit their members’ ability to recruit people with the right skills for the job,” says an October 5 BBC��.

Brexit will also affect the daily lives of people. The pressures of Brexit will be felt everywhere, from travel to health care, according to Egan. She notes that 44 million trips were made in 2015 from Britain to the rest of Europe for pleasure and business. She says the benefits of being part of the EU shouldn’t be forgotten: “We’ve benefitted from travel without visas and passports. Airline liberalization has led to cheap flights. People don’t realize that if you are an EU citizen, if you are in another country and you fall sick, you can use your Europe-wide health card. All of those things are up in the air.”

With respect to Brexit, there are clearly “two Britains,” says Gomes. “The internationally mobile, mostly urban population will clearly find the costs very high,” he adds. “But for a large fraction of the population, the only perceived contact with the EU is either by watching TV, interacting with immigrants or buying European goods at various shops. They voted for Brexit and are unlikely to feel many of the direct costs of an exit—at least in the near term.”

The Immigration Factor

The overriding theme in the Brexit mandate is immigration, and May has lost no opportunity to reiterate that.��The Guardian����May as saying at the Conservative Party Conference: “We have voted to leave the European Union and become a fully independent, sovereign country. We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws.”

However, Egan notes that the immigration debate is different in England as opposed to the rest of Europe. “A lot of the concern in rest of Europe has been with refugees and migrants coming from outside the EU,” she says. “In Britain, the debate has focused on EU nationals coming into Britain.”

Egan notes that the UK will face hard questions on this front. “What will they do with the 3 million existing EU nationals already in the UK? When will they start putting up any borders and visa requirements? What will they do with the almost 1 million British citizens who are in other EU member states?”

Egan says Britain will have to find ways to keep its labor markets flexible, noting that many in its agricultural workforce are EU nationals. “There will be some knock-on effects if the UK starts clamping down on labor mobility,” she adds. “The basic issue will be of people from other countries working in the UK and British citizens working in the EU.”

Outlook for Brexit Negotiations

Navigating between those political and economic uncertainties would be among May’s toughest challenges in the months ahead. “[May] is looking at the political timetable as well as the economic uncertainty and its implications,” says Egan. She notes that May herself will have to have an election by 2020; the next general elections in the UK will be held in May 2020. Further, the European Parliament and the European Commission that will vote on the Brexit deal will change in 2019 when the former has its next elections, she adds.

How Brexit can be achieved with minimum damage to either side depends on how exactly it is negotiated and how the transition is managed, says Mauro Guillen…

Chatain points to two obstacles ahead, even as he believes that a common agreement could be found. “On the one end, the ‘leavers’ (those in favor of Britain leaving the EU) run the risk of overestimating the leverage they will have with the EU, and overestimating how good the trade deals [are that] they will get outside of the EU,” he says. “Moreover, the EU will clearly not accept a deal that offers better terms than what is given currently to Norway and Switzerland, because doing so would undermine the value of staying in the EU” (Norway and Switzerland are not part of the EU, but have access to the European single market.)

That scenario of a tough EU stance “creates the conditions for very hard negotiations as there might be no deal that will seem politically acceptable to each party vis-à-vis their own political base,” says Chatain. “The ‘leave’ advocates might prefer a hard Brexit to what the EU is ready to offer. Similarly, the remaining EU members might prefer to let the UK go without a deal than any deal that the UK government is ready to accept given the composition of its majority in the parliament.”

The Countdown

Once Article 50 is triggered, the UK will be under a tight timeframe to complete the legalities around Brexit, says Egan. “They cannot negotiate any other free trade agreement or see themselves in a new position within the WTO (World Trade Organization) until they divorce from the EU,” she adds. “Until they formally leave and repeal all the acts that join the EU, they are still subject to EU laws, regulations and judicial decisions.”

May’s government, meanwhile, seems to be getting ready for life after Brexit. “You are starting to see the British foreign service, the treasury and others getting their act together in terms of what they would like in terms of a trade deal and a negotiating strategy [with the EU],” Egan says.

All those negotiations have to work against a surge of negative sentiment against the Brexit vote, notes Gomes. “Many people in Brussels continue to find it difficult to get over a sense of betrayal and shock,” he says. (Brussels hosts the European Commission and is considered the de facto capital of the EU.) “Their seeming need to exact some sort of punishment on the UK is bound to make any negotiations very complicated.”

Another factor that isn’t helping the sentiment in favor of the UK lies within the British government, says Guillen. “Apparently, the more radical Brexit people and their strength dominate, and that is a problem. That is also what is causing the uncertainty.”

In fact, Egan notes that euro-skeptics like Denmark are now more supportive of the EU than they have been in the past. “[The Brexit vote] has had an effect on other states,” she says. “They are saying they don’t want this disarray, so it has had a blowback effect politically.”

*[This article was originally published by , a partner institution of .]

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

Photo Credit:

The post Can Brexit Be Achieved With Minimal Damage? appeared first on 51�Թ�.

Disengaging the (EU) will be like undoing all the stitching of a patchwork quilt, and then re-stitching some parts together while making a new quilt with the rest.

The UK is, at the moment, stitched into thousands of regulations and international treaties, which it made as a member of the EU over the last 43 years. Each piece of stitching will have to be reviewed both on its own merits and��for the effect that rearranging it might have on other parts of the quilt. This is, first and foremost, a problem for the UK itself.

UNKNOWN UK GOALS

We all think we know what British citizens voted against on June 23. But nobody, even in the Conservative government itself, has a clear idea about what the people voted for.��The Brits voted to leave the EU for contradictory reasons.

Many voted��to leave because they wanted more protection from global competition. On the other hand, many leaders of the Vote Leave campaign wanted to get out of the EU so they could deregulate their economy, dispense with EU social rights, and promote more global competition and lower costs (wages) in the UK economy.

The UK government must first decide which of these economic policies it wants, and only when it has done that can it decide what sort of relationship it wants with the EU.

MUST THE UK BE OUT OF THE EU BEFORE IT MAKES A DEAL?

On June 29, the remaining 27 EU heads of government told the UK that any trade agreement concluded with it will be done “as a third country.” This could be interpreted as meaning that Britain must first become a “third country” by withdrawing from the EU before it can have a trade agreement with the union. This could mean that the UK would have to be out of the EU before it knew what terms it might get on trade. This would be a very hardline EU position.

If that is what the 27 leaders meant, it is��probably contrary to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which says a withdrawal treaty must take into account the “framework” of the withdrawing country’s��“future relationship” with the EU.

OR CAN THERE BE TWO SIMULTANEOUS NEGOTIATIONS?

Article 50 means that there will be two negotiations: one on “withdrawal” and another on the “framework” of the future relationship. The two treaties should be negotiated simultaneously and in parallel, and the framework��agreement cannot wait until the UK is already a “third country.”

The Irish��cannot afford to wait until the UK is already a “third country” before border, travel and residency issues between Ireland and the United Kingdom are sorted out. These issues need to be addressed before Britain leaves.

LIKE A DIVORCE SETTLEMENT

As with a divorce, the withdrawal treaty will be about dividing up the property. It may be easy enough to negotiate. The framework treaty will be about the future, and like marital disputes about access to and care for children, it will prove to be much more fraught and complex.

The question of whether there is a “hard border” or not��will flow from what the UK��looks for and what it��gets in its framework negotiations. Nobody knows yet what the United Kingdom will look for, so this question is impossible to answer.

The 27 EU leaders rightly insisted that the four freedoms— freedom of movement of people, goods, capital��and services—go together. Nobody has any idea yet how the UK will propose to get around that.

UK CANNOT MAKE DEALS WITH OTHERS

If Britain were to heed the call of Minister for International Trade Liam Fox—that the UK leaves the EU Customs Union so it could negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU—this would mean an immediate��hard border in Ireland. The Irish prime minister’s diplomacy in recent months has probably helped head off that threat. Implementing Fox’s proposal would have breached a UK treaty obligation—a very serious matter for a country that relies on 30,000 international Treaties.

The sort of border we have in Ireland will depend on the shape of the final UK-EU Framework agreement on all the four freedoms. Ireland can do no side deal with the United Kingdom. And if Ireland is to influence the EU positions in its favor, it has to present its case as��beneficial to Europe as a whole. It cannot be—or be seen as—on both sides of the table at the same time, in what will prove to be a highly contentious negotiation.

Until it leaves, the UK is still a member of the EU and is bound by all EU rules. It will fully participate in all key EU decisions, except those concerning��its own exit terms. This means the UK cannot do trade deals with other countries while still being an EU member.

Subscribe to 51�Թ� for and we will gift you our and invite you to inspiring events.

Indeed, it would appear that Britain cannot even enter into commitments about future deals, particularly ones that might undercut EU negotiating positions.

This is because, as long as it is still an EU member, the UK must, under Article 4 of the treaty, act in “sincere cooperation” with its EU partners. The meaning of “sincere cooperation” was elaborated by the European Court��in judgments it made on��cases the European Commission took against Germany and Greece��to overturn separate understandings that each had forged��with other countries on matters that were EU responsibilities without EU involvement.

So, to ensure that he stays within the law, Liam Fox may have to take a European Commission official with him on all his trade travels around the globe—at least until the UK leaves the European Union.

THE UK SHOULD NOT BE RUSHED

Indeed, the more closely the UK government looks at its options, the longer it may take to decide when to trigger Article 50. The leaders of the remaining 27 EU member states should not rush the UK on this.��Short-term uncertainty is a very small price to pay for avoiding a failed and ill-prepared exit negotiation.��Everyone would lose from that.

The UK civil service did not, after all, expect to find itself in this position. Indeed, UK civil service studies conducted long before the EU referendum concluded that Britain’s then-existing relationship with the European Union was just about right. Furthermore, once Article 50 is triggered, the UK cannot—easily or legally—change its mind and revert to the status quo, even after a general election.

A MAJOR DISTRACTION FROM OTHER VITAL WORK

Meanwhile, Europe, with so much other work to do, has to turn inward and devote itself to unraveling 43 years of interweaving between Britain and Europe.

All this highly demanding technical work has to be done at a time when Europe should be looking outward toward the opportunities and threats of a rapidly changing and unstable world.

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

Photo Credit:

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

The post Pulling the UK Out of Europe is No Easy Task appeared first on 51�Թ�.