Philippa Kaur

More stories

  • 88 Shares169 Views

    in World Politics

    Live Free or Die: America vs. Science

    A few days ago, the testimony of a nurse from South Dakota made international headlines. In a tweet, Jodi Doering recounted the harrowing experience of having to deal with patients dying from COVID-19 complications while denying that the virus is real: “The ones who scream at you for a magic medicine and that Joe Biden is (g)oing to ruin the USA. All while gasping for breath on 100% Vapotherm. They tell you there must be another reason they are sick. They call you names and ask why you have to wear all that ‘stuff’ because they don’t have COViD because it’s not real.”

    Donald Trump’s Treason Against the American People

    READ MORE

    By now, North and South Dakotas have earned the distinction of being among the states hit hardest by the second wave of the pandemic — and least prepared for its impact. As in so many of America’s red states dominated by the Republican Party, the good citizens of the Dakotas largely ignored reality, and this is putting it graciously. As a recent article in The New York Times put it, “Deep into the coronavirus pandemic, when there was no doubt about the damage that Covid-19 could do, the Dakotas scaled their morbid heights, propelled by denial and defiance.” Public officials did their part reinforcing the illusion, adamantly refusing to mandate basic safety measures, such as the wearing of masks and keeping social distancing rules.

    Live Free or Die

    “Live Free or Die” — ironically enough, the motto of the blue state of New Hampshire in New England — assumed an entirely new meaning in the Dakotas. At the end of November, the Bismarck Tribune reported that a quarter of North Dakotans had known somebody who had died of COVID-19. At the start of this month, just three weeks after reporting the highest mortality rate in the world, North Dakota hit a new record: One in 800 residents here has died of COVID-19.

    In South Dakota, where the governor refused to mandate safety measures, things were equally bad. Intensive care units in small towns were quickly getting overwhelmed as the pandemic ravaged the very fabric of civil society, which observers such as Alex de Tocqueville have considered essential to the health of American democracy. And yet,  as Annie Gowan writes in The Washington Post, “anti-maskers” have continued to agitate, “alleging that masks don’t work and that the measure was an overreach that would violate their civil rights.” Given the fact that wearing a mask is above all a means to protect others against infection, this is a rather specious argument.

    Embed from Getty Images

    There has been widespread resistance to following the most basic safety precautions. Clinging on to a false sense of liberty is one reason, but arguably not the most important one. Instead, what infuses the refusal to take COVID-19 seriously among a substantial part of the American public is a profound suspicion toward health care experts, the scientific community and science-based evidence in general.

    This is part of a larger populist syndrome, which has suffused significant parts of the United States over the past several years and which was instrumental in propelling Donald Trump into the White House four years ago. Populism represents above all a revolt against the established elite — economic, political, social, cultural — in the name of ordinary citizens and their allegedly superior “common sense.”  Populists promote the virtue of personal experience and observation — Trump famously asked how global warming could be real if it was so cold outside — and the rule of thumb.

    Add to that the impact of right-wing influencers and opinion leaders like Rush Limbaugh, who in early spring claimed that COVID-19 was nothing more than the flu and who has insisted that masks are a symbol of fear and therefore “un-American.” No wonder that in the land of the free, that vast landmass between the two coasts, disparaged by the “coastal elites” as “flyover country,” they rather believe in the wisdom of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and the Great Man himself than the “disaster” Anthony Fauci and his “idiots” in the scientific community.

    As a result, according to a recent Pew survey, in the United States, public opinion about COVID-19 has been far more divided than in comparable advanced liberal democracies. In October, more than 80% of Biden supporters said that COVID-19 was “very important” for their vote; among Trump supporters, less than a quarter. At the same time, there was a large partisan divide on trust in scientists. In September, more than two-thirds of liberal Democrats expressed trust in scientists; among conservative Republicans, less than 20%.

    Under the circumstances, the health care catastrophe that has invested the Dakotas and other parts of the American Midwest should come as no surprise. It is part of the disastrous legacy four years of President Trump have left, a legacy that has poisoned the political climate to an extent never before seen in the United States.

    Human, All Too Human

    Over the past several months, COVID-19 — what it is, what it means and how to respond to it —has become part of the polarization that has consumed American politics way before the onset of the pandemic. Polarization means that almost everything political is defined in partisan terms. Extended to its most extreme, it means that the other side is no longer seen as legitimate, but as the enemy that needs to be destroyed since it poses a fundamental threat to the common good.

    This, of course, is the fundamental dictum of Carl Schmitt, the brilliant 19th-century German legal and political theorist whose posthumous influence has significantly grown over the past few decades, both on the left and on the right. Schmitt was a great supporter of the Nazis, infamous for his defense of Hitler’s order in 1934 to eliminate his adversaries (the Röhm Purge) in an article with the cynical title, “The Führer Protects the Law.” Central to Schmitt’s thinking was the notion that democracy meant both to treat equals as equals and to treat not-equals as not-equals. For Schmitt, democracy required homogeneity as well as the exclusion, even “destruction of the heterogeneous.” No wonder Carl Schmitt has found enthusiastic acolytes among China’s patriotic intelligentsia.

    It is within this context that the dismissal of the threat posed by COVID-19 as, at best, negligible and, at worst, as a hoax designed to undermine the Trump administration becomes understandable.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Throughout his presidency, Donald Trump has been obsessed with China. Trump’s pet project of making America great again only makes sense in the face of the challenge that the fulminant rise of China has posed to America’s claim to be the greatest country in the world. The way the slogan is phrased already reveals its weakness. Making America great “again” implies a recognition that it no longer is. There are numerous reasons why this might be the case. Most of them — such as decrepit infrastructure or the opioid crisis — have nothing to do with China.

    But, as Friedrich Nietzsche once put it, it is human, all too human to blame others for one’s own shortcomings. This might explain why Trump has insisted on referring to COVID-19 as the “China virus,” most recently in a tweet acknowledging that Rudy Giuliani, his personal lawyer who had “been working tirelessly exposing the most corrupt election (by far!) in the history of the USA” had been tested positive for the “China Virus.” Giuliani has done no such thing, i.e., exposing massive election fraud. Giuliani once was a respectable politician, arguably one of the best mayors New York City has ever had. By now, he is reminiscent of Wormtail, Voldemort’s pathetic factotum.

    Trump’s obsession with China not only explains his nonchalance toward COVID-19 but also his take on climate change and global warming. It deserves remembering that at one time, Trump was adamant about his concern regarding the climate. In 2009, Trump, together with his three oldest children, signed an open letter to the Obama administration that stated, “If we fail to act now, it is scientifically irrefutable that there will be catastrophic and irreversible consequences for humanity and our planet.” Among other things, the letter called for “U.S. climate legislation, investment in the clean energy economy, and leadership to inspire the rest of the world to join the fight against climate change.”

    I Don’t Believe It

    A couple of years later, all was forgotten. By 2012, the focus was on China’s rapid ascent. In this context, global warming assumed a new meaning in Trump’s narrative. As he put it in a tweet at the time, the “concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” Three years later, he referred to climate change as a hoax, and, once in office, he dismissed the warnings of his own government’s scientists with a simple “I don’t believe it.”

    Trump’s denial of climate change had a significant impact among his support base. In 2018, more than two-thirds of Republicans considered concerns about global warming to be exaggerated; among Democrats, less than 5% thought so. Around a third of Republicans thought global warming was caused by human activities; among Democrats, some 90%. And when asked whether they thought global warming would pose a serious threat in their lifetime, a mere 18% of Republicans voiced concern among Democrats, about two-thirds.

    A month before the November election, an article in Nature sounded the alarm bell. As the election approached, the author warned, “Trump’s actions in the face of COVID-19 are just one example of the damage he has inflicted on science and its institutions over the past four years, with repercussions for lives and livelihoods.” In the process, his administration, across many federal agencies, had “undermined scientific integrity by suppressing or distorting evidence to support political decisions.”

    In November, Trump spectacularly lost his bid for a second term. At the end of January, Joe Biden will be inaugurated as the new president. There is great hope that this will be the beginning of a “new dawn for America.” Don’t bet on it. Trump’s legacy is likely to linger on, some of the harm his administration has caused potentially exerting its impact for years to come. One of the most deleterious legacies is that by now, belief in science — at least with respect to certain issues — has become overridden by partisanship.

    Climate change is a prominent example, so is COVID-19, and so is likely to be the question of vaccination as anti-coronavirus jabs become available over the next few months. In late November, among Democrats, 75% said they would get vaccinated; among Republicans, only half. Under the circumstances, it is probably prudent to be wary.

    *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.]

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

  • 150 Shares159 Views

    in US Politics

    Biden's chance to revive US tradition of inserting ethics in foreign policy

    Donald Trump’s foreign policy has, in the judgment of many analysts, damaged U.S. moral standing around the world. During four years of “America First,” the Trump administration has gotten cozy with governments that disdain human rights norms and laws, restricted immigration on the basis of religion and withdrawn from treaties aimed to bolster international well-being.
    Joe Biden has promised to set a different course, to “reclaim” America’s “position as the moral and economic leader of the world.” Doing so might be vital as the U.S. competes for international influence against rival powers China and Russia.
    What strikes me, a scholar of history and foreign policy, is that this Biden orientation aligns with one of the vivid strands in U.S. tradition: to apply American versions of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the conception and implementation of foreign policy. This American “idealism” has not only fortified U.S. security, but has also helped smooth the jagged edges of international politics.
    Society of nations
    Washington has periodically tried over the decades to improve the quality and tone of the “international society” – defined by scholar Hedley Bull as the common set of rules, both informal and codified, by which states are bound.
    Less coherent or robust than domestic structures of laws and norms, “international society” has been, and remains, a fragile and somewhat amorphous concept. Yet, as theorized by scholars like Bull, “international society” has always had a tangible aspect. It draws states into occasional cooperation, mediated by treaties, laws, diplomatic traditions, customs and transnational institutions.
    In contrast, the current administration has used foreign policy as a tool for a narrowly defined transactional national interest, in accordance with Trump’s “America First” agenda.
    But a more elevated approach appears throughout U.S. history.
    Francis Lieber numbered among the earlier proponents of practices to mitigate wartime suffering. A German-American political-legal thinker, Lieber advanced ideas in the 1860s regarding the humane treatment of enemy prisoners and wounded soldiers.
    Blowing bubbles – a cartoonist’s verdict on Woodrow Wilson’s attempt at international cooperation. Fine Art Images/Heritage Images via Getty Images
    In the 20th century, attempts to bring ethics into foreign policy were made by successive U.S. presidents. President Woodrow Wilson in 1919 promoted the League of Nations, which he conceived as an institutional guarantor of world order and peace. And American diplomats played a prominent role in the 1928 outlawing of war through the quixotic Kellogg-Briand Pact.
    President Franklin Roosevelt in January 1941 asserted that people everywhere were entitled to four fundamental freedoms – freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. He later proved an insistent and effective advocate for creating the United Nations.
    This desire to improve the tone and quality of “international society” persisted into the post-World War II era. American jurists were involved in the Nuremberg inquests into Nazi atrocities. The trials were in large part convened to salvage and reassert the meaningfulness of civilized standards of conduct in world affairs.
    Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt played a leading role in the formulation of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And Raphael Lemkin, a Polish-born Jewish lawyer who found permanent refuge in the United States, became the main architect of the 1948 Genocide Convention.
    Kissinger to Carter
    In recent decades, the most lucid expression by a president on ethics and foreign policy came from Jimmy Carter. To help expunge the stain of the Vietnam War and counter the influence of former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s stark realpolitik, Carter promoted human rights as a U.S. foreign policy goal.
    Two very different approaches to foreign policy: Kissinger and Carter. Benjamin E. ‘Gene’ Forte/CNP/Getty Images
    According to Carter, and echoing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, human rights included both political and material rights. On the political side, this meant the right to be free from abuse and torture, arbitrary arrest, random imprisonment or denial of a fair public trial. In the Carter definition, human rights also encompassed religious freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of press and access to education. On the material side, human rights entailed fulfillment of basics, notably food, shelter, decent employment and health care.
    To Carter, U.S. policy needed to be “rooted in our moral values” and “designed to serve mankind.” In practical terms this meant an end to ignoring human rights transgressions by allies, as in the case of South Africa’s apartheid regime, and terminating U.S. military support of Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza.
    Albeit ridiculed by “realist” skeptics at the time and later for amounting to empty piety, or dismissed by others as merely cloaking the structures of power, these proclamations and actions – from Lieber to Carter – nonetheless helped create the modern international order. Collectively, they constitute the intermittent triumph of hopefulness against despair and infamy.
    Retreat from the world
    The disorientation and anxiety caused by the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks led to a U.S. retreat from building a world order that, however partial and imperfectly realized, had stimulated the moral imagination of many Americans.
    The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – and by extension, drone attacks in Pakistan – inflicted devastation and disruption incompatible with America’s alleged mission, namely promoting the welfare of people in those afflicted countries and safeguarding U.S. safety.
    The horrors of Abu Ghraib and the rendition of prisoners to secret sites where they endured water boarding and other torture caused the United States to forfeit much of the good will it had accumulated over decades.
    This diminished U.S. stature was compounded under Trump by the spectacle of children being separated from parents along the Southern border and by moves to disengage from the international community – such as withdrawing from the World Health Organization and the Paris climate agreement.
    [Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter.]
    Biden’s administration faces the daunting task of rehabilitating U.S. standing. In the ongoing competitions for influence and power between America, China and Russia, the retrieval of U.S. ethical traditions may prove vital.
    Incoming Secretary of State Antony Blinken, National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan and Ambassador to the United Nations Linda Thomas-Greenfield appear determined to rebuild America’s reputation. Their success or failure could affect not only U.S. well-being but also the character of “international society” for coming decades. Moderation, restraint and ethical clarity have been in short supply since 2001, but they might be replenished if the Biden team dips back into America’s tradition of inserting an ethical component in foreign policy. More

  • 88 Shares109 Views

    in World Politics

    Oman Has Much to Offer the EU

    Oman and the European Union share common interests in a number of political, economic, commercial and security fields. Oman’s strategic location and links to key international trade routes are of great importance to European interests in the region. In September 2018, Brussels and Muscat signed a cooperation agreement, in addition to the one signed by the European External Action Department and the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with the aim of strengthening political dialogue and cooperation in sectors of mutual interest.

    Sultan Qaboos Brought Light and Modernity to Oman

    READ MORE

    Oman shares with the EU the challenge of maritime piracy, which is one of the most pressing security issues that both sides face in the Indian Ocean. Since 2008, Oman has been an important partner in Operation Atlanta, the EU Naval Force mission to combat piracy on the coasts of Somalia, the Horn of Africa and the Gulf of Aden.

    Oman’s policy of being open with the world and balanced between the poles on opposing sides of regional conflicts — especially those represented by the Islamic Republic of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States — is similar to many EU policies in the Middle East. Muscat has highlighted its role in many regional and international issues, with Omani diplomacy complementing EU efforts to preserve stability and security in the region in ways that serve European interests.

    Investor Confidence

    Oman is considered a major logistical center for the Middle East, with its three major ports of Sohar, Duqm and Salalah, as well as a number of economic, marine and land “free zones.” With the aim of establishing an integrated infrastructure system for Oman, the General Authority for Special Economic Zones and Free Zones was launched in August to supervise the Special Economic Zone in Duqm and the free zones in Mazyouna, Salalah and Sohar.

    Embed from Getty Images

    An attractive environment for foreign direct investment (FDI) was created with the coming into force of the Foreign Capital Investment Law in January this year that allows foreigners to own 100% of investment projects as well as granting tax exemptions and customs duties. Moreover, the law does not set a minimum investment capital, facilitates procedures for establishing investment projects, grants extended rights to the use of investment lands and permits the transfer of capital to investor countries.

    In addition, Oman is the fifth safest country in the world and the third in the region, according to a recent report by Numbeo, which adds to investor confidence. In the first quarter of 2020, FDI reached over 15 billion Omani rials ($40 billion). With money coming from Iran, Kuwait, China, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, numbers from the National Center for Statistics and Information indicate that American and British capital constituted the highest share of FDI. The EU, however, has seen low investment rates in the country, with only the Netherlands coming in at roughly 304.7 million rials.

    The Vice President of the European Investment Bank (EBI) Vazil Hudak, during the International Investors Forum held in Muscat in 2019, spoke of the strengths of EU investment in Oman and the “huge” opportunities it offers. EBI is the largest financial investment institution in the world, with assets of more than €600 billion ($726 billion) and annually lends out nearly €70 billion. The EU could deepen its bilateral cooperation with Oman, directing EIB investments to achieve sustainable economic development in Oman, particularly after the economic crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Crisis Cooperation

    In the long term, Oman has paid attention to improving its economy by diversifying sources of income and raising the contribution of non-oil sectors to the gross domestic product. Oman was the first of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries to develop plans to reduce its dependence on oil and diversify its economy. As a result of these policies, in 2020, Oman achieved nearly 3 billion rials in profits in the non-petroleum sector that made up 28% of the total contribution to the GDP, an increase of 6% over 2019.

    Despite the COVID-19 pandemic and accompanying lockdown measures that put strains on the economy, Oman has sought to avoid withdrawing from its sovereign reserves estimated to be worth $17 billion and moved toward setting policies to cut spending and adopt a short-term fiscal balance plan for the next four years with the aim of improving the economic situation and raising the country’s credit rating.

    The EU is currently witnessing difficult times as a result of the pandemic and the severe economic effects associated with it, coinciding with the UK’s exit from the European Union at the end of the year. In light of the circumstances, commercial and economic interests between Oman and the EU should expand into joint action, moving forward on pending agreements, including the free trade agreement that the two sides used to manage collectively through dialogue between the GCC and the EU. These negotiations were hit by apathy due to a lack of agreement over customs tariffs and the continuing blockade of Qatar since 2017. But talks on bilateral free trade agreements between Oman and the EU countries have become crucial to removing trade barriers and spurring economic growth.

    Tourism and transport sectors were among the most affected by the COVID-19 pandemic globally, with analysts predicting that tourism recovery will take up to two years, and air transportation estimated to take anywhere from two to six years. In 2018, the tourism sector contributed 2.6% to the country’s economy and was one of the five key sectors that Oman’s Ninth Five-Year Plan focused on. Given the damage inflicted on the sector during the pandemic, recovery should be stimulated by easing travel procedures. On December 9, Omani authorities issued a decision to exempt citizens of 103 countries (including the EU) from entry visa requirements for 10 days with the aim of stimulating transport and tourism after the pandemic.

    On the European Union side, the decision to exempt Omanis from the Schengen zone is still under consideration despite the ongoing talks between the two sides over the last years. An easing of entry requirements for Omanis will contribute to enhancing tourism traffic between the two sides.

    The cooperation and partnership in times of crisis creates opportunities for broader ties and paths toward economic sustainability, political stability and security for countries. The European Union is an important partner for Oman and can take advantage of the sultanate’s fortunate geographical location. The advancement of Oman-EU relations is an important factor for both sides, especially in the post-COVID-19 era.

    *[Fair Observer is a media partner of Gulf State Analytics.]

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

  • 150 Shares129 Views

    in World Politics

    Amidst the Pandemic, Central and Eastern Europe Witnesses an Erosion of Democracy

    Nearly a year since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, its effects on people’s lives, countries’ economies and health care around the world are becoming clearer. In some Central and Eastern European countries, however, this pandemic has had repercussions in another crucial area: democracy. This begs the question of whether the COVID-19 pandemic is emboldening the rise of illiberal politics in certain parts of the region. Indeed, the US-based Freedom House concluded earlier this year that Hungary and Serbia are no longer democracies but are “in a ‘grey zone’ between democracies and pure autocracies.”

    One democratic process affected by the COVID-19 pandemic around the world was elections. Indeed, according to the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, elections have been canceled or postponed in at least 67 nations around the globe. Central and Eastern Europe was no exception. Serbia’s parliamentary election, originally set for April 26, was postponed by two months even though it was boycotted by much of the opposition due to the steady decline of democracy and media freedom in the country, resulting in a turnout of less than 50%.

    The controversial election secured another term for President Aleksandar Vucic with over 60% of the vote, granting his Serbian Progressive Party 190 seats in the country’s 250-seat parliament. As a result of the election and in-person voting, while the rest of Europe is now in its second wave of the pandemic, Serbia is now in its third.

    Europe’s Far Right Fails to Capitalize on COVID-19

    READ MORE

    Leading up to the elections in Poland, the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS) party proposed a change to the constitution to postpone the election for two years due to the pandemic, automatically extending President Andrzej Duda’s term in office. In the end, elections were held in June and July, with Duda narrowly beating the opposition Civic Platform’s candidate.

    Beyond elections, the pandemic has been used to mask legal and constitutional changes in the region. In Hungary, Viktor Orban’s government first passed the Authorization Act during the first wave of the pandemic, effectively giving the prime minister the power to rule by decree. The government’s first action was to pass a law mandating that transgender people only be recognized by their sex at birth. The government also announced that disseminating “fake news” about the pandemic or the government’s response to it was a crime punishable by up to five years in prison.

    As a result, although no one has yet been charged under the new laws, several people were arrested and detained after criticizing the government on social media, which some commentators likened to being picked up by the notorious black cars driven by the secret police during the communist era.

    In November, as the country entered its second wave of the pandemic, the Orban government announced the Second Authorization Act for a period of 90 days. The following day, proposed amendments to the constitution were announced that would make it mandatory for children to be raised amid “Christian cultural values,” defining the mother as female and the father as male, as well as prohibiting changing gender after birth. These amendments bar same-sex couples from adopting, but single parents can request an exemption through special ministerial permission.

    Additionally, one minute before midnight on the day before new curfew measures went into effect, the government proposed a change to the election law, making it impossible for coalitions to contest elections, effectively wiping out the opposition.

    Embed from Getty Images

    At the same time that Hungary adopted its first Authorization Act, Poland adopted the Act on Special Solutions Related to the Prevention, Counteracting and Combating of COVID-19, which was ultimately used by the Polish government and PiS to limit social dialogue. A few weeks later, the “Stop Abortion” bill was enacted by the Polish parliament. Already among the strictest abortion laws in Europe, the high court’s October ruling that it was unconstitutional to abort a fetus with congenital defects effectively baned all abortions, bar in the case of incest, rape or a danger to the mother’s health.

    This new ruling was met with mass protests around the country, even spreading to church services in the devoutly Catholic Poland and seeing as many as 100,000 people on the streets of the capital Warsaw. This attack on women’s health was also met by a push to leave the European treaty on violence against women, known as the Istanbul Convention, citing that it is “harmful” for children to be taught about gender in schools. Hungary refused to ratify the treaty in May, stating that it promotes “destructive gender ideologies” and “illegal migration.”

    It is likely that what the world is seeing in these countries is what Ozan Varol calls “stealth authoritarianism” that “serves as a way to protect and entrench power when direct repression is not a viable option,” with the ultimate goal of creating a one-party state. The pandemic seems to be helping authoritarian leaders to secure their grip on power. In Serbia, Vucic gained popularity during the first wave and, even after criticism from the opposition and supporters alike, Orban maintained his popularity in Hungary, as shown in a recent Závecz Research poll.

    Findings from interviews carried out as part of a project, Illiberal Turn, funded by the Economic & Social Research Council, suggest that while people were predominantly supportive of democracy in the months before the pandemic, some of those interviewed in Hungary, Poland and Serbia during the first wave in the spring seemed to have a change of heart, expressing more sympathies toward authoritarian forms of government. This trend is worrying, as it shows the potential effects that crisis can have on democratic values. These abuses of power in Central and Eastern Europe cannot be ignored. It is crucial to pay attention to how these times of crisis can further exacerbate the already existing illiberal tendencies across the region.

    *[Fair Observer is a media partner of the Centre for Analysis of the Radical Right.]

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

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in World Politics

    The Problem of Food Security in America’s Consumer Society

    Since the beginning of the 21st century and, more particularly, since September 11, 2001, the notion of security in the West has turned around the idea of terrorism and, more particularly, Muslim terrorism. During its first term, George W. Bush’s administration categorically refused the CIA’s findings identifying white supremacy as by far the most significant threat to national security. Bush forced the agency’s experts to put Muslim terrorism at the top of the list, despite all evidence to the contrary. Bush needed a reason to call himself a “wartime president.”

    Organized violence, such as the threat of war or terrorism, is not the only threat to security — or even the most significant. Today’s pandemic provides a dramatic example of a threat to security with an impact as great as war.

    Poverty has always been an unrecognized security threat. In a capitalist society, we have all been taught that poverty is inevitable because some people have failed to take advantage of the opportunities civilization offers them. Poverty represents some people’s failure to exercise their freedom to succeed. For some, it may be due to unmerited misfortune. But for most, it is explained as their own moral failings or their incapacity to rise to the challenge. That is why that wonderful activity we call charity exists. Because poverty is seen as an inevitable consequence of our wonderful system of economic organization, it is dismissed as a security threat.

    As past history has shown, poverty and famine have often led to revolt. But in this age of technology, those who might fear revolt take comfort from the sophistication of the technology that now exists to repress it. Pitchforks simply cannot rival armored Humvees operated by the security state.

    Who’s to Blame for a Tanking Economy?

    READ MORE

    Nevertheless, poverty has other ways of destabilizing societies whose elites believe their way of life represents the ideal of order and good behavior. The Trump years have vindicated the CIA’s traditional analysis identifying white supremacy as the most obvious threat to domestic security. Republicans like to characterize the essentially peaceful protests of Black Lives Matter as threatening, but they have clearly retained a character of protest rather than revolt. No one knows how the white supremacists currently refusing Trump’s electoral defeat may react when he is definitively dislodged in January.

    US culture has always minimized the reality of poverty, which now has a new face. Living in squalor in the inner city is one thing. But now more and more “respectable” Americans simply don’t have enough to eat. And at the end of this month, millions will discover they won’t be able to pay their arrears on rent. Already, millions can’t afford their daily bread. Some struggle to even bury their dead.

    The Associated Press quotes a report that lists some startling numbers: “In four states — Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama and Louisiana — more than 1 in 5 residents are expected to be food insecure by year’s end, meaning they won’t have money or resources to put food on the table.” Some states are more affected than others: “Nevada, a tourist mecca whose hotel, casino and restaurant industries were battered by the pandemic, is projected to vault from 20th place in 2018 to 5th place this year in food insecurity, according to a report from Feeding America.”

    Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

    Food insecurity:

    The inability to feed a significant portion of the population, a condition that theoretically disappeared after the agricultural revolution of the 20th century, but which has become endemic principally in the United States in the 21st century due to the acceptance of its dogma that wealth inequality is the vocation of a dynamic modern society.

    Contextual Note

    The media present the idea of food insecurity as a problem for individuals and their families, not as a social problem. And yet the queues of cars waiting for hours for handouts bear comparison with the image of soup lines we associate with the Great Depression. The sheer length of these modern-day bread lines puts to shame the black-and-white images of people waiting for handouts in the 1930s. For many, the car they drive to the food banks has become their only shelter. Many have lost their homes, as many more will in the months to come. It isn’t even clear how many own their cars, though repossessing from the homeless has become a challenge for creditors.

    Embed from Getty Images

    Law enforcement strategists may already be thinking that the idea of food insecurity represents something more than a state of personal anguish for isolated individuals in times of pandemic. At some point, today’s pandemic may become tomorrow’s pandemonium. In other words, like everything else in a society built on the foundational idea of the individual’s “pursuit of happiness,” the cumulative effect of an experience shared on an increasingly wide scale leads to its recognition as a potentially insoluble social problem.

    What better illustrates the phenomenon than the opioid crisis? Until only a few years ago, US media treated the problem of addiction as a personal drama that affected random individuals. Like Frank Sinatra’s character in the 1955 film “The Man with the Golden Arm,” the victims needed to acquire the courage to kick the habit and rejoin healthy society. But when, a decade ago, statistics began revealing a rapidly mounting number of deaths by overdose — not limited to down-and-out jazz musicians in an urban nightmare or the black minority — opioid addiction became “the opioid crisis.” Even rural whites were involved. 

    That meant that it was time to analyze the phenomenon as a security threat, to be treated the way any extensive social crisis is treated, by taking into account complex economic, sociological and even commercial factors that structure the crisis. It became a topic that politicians could now talk about out in the open. In 2020, food security is reaching a similar point of public recognition. Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, Republicans have led an insurgency campaign against food stamps. They see food assistance as a demeaning symbol of the acceptance of the maligned welfare state. Given a challenge, true Americans will always rise up on their own initiative to meet it. Handing out food shamefully discourages that vibrant sense of initiative.

    Earlier this year, as the cars began lining up in increasing numbers on their way to food banks, the Trump administration tried to block the distribution of food stamps allowed by the Coronavirus Food Assistance program. But in an economy that is shedding jobs, hunger doesn’t simply go away thanks to an individual’s willpower, especially in a consumer society that for decades has literally fed the trend toward super-sizing and obesity.

    Historical Note

    When the symptoms of poverty traditionally associated with marginalized minorities emerge as a feature of the landscape to which a majority may be exposed, even an ideologically rigid society may begin to rethink the relationship between poverty and security. The poorer classes in the US have for most of the past century created a false sense of order in their lives through obsessive consumer behavior. Addiction took a variety of forms, most of which were deemed “healthy” for the economy, if not for the consumers themselves, from Coca-Cola and McDonalds to reality TV. 

    Addictive behavior seemed to define the American way of life. In contrast, the wealthier segments of society focused on ensuring their security by living in a separate mental and physical world. One prominent late 20th-century trend among the upper-middle class was the retreat into gated communities. Seeking to move further and further away from multiracial cities, neighborhoods emerged that looked comfortably residential while benefiting from military-style security, including armed guards at their unique entrance. They were effectively sealed off from the rest of society.

    The gated community mentality has now become a largely unconscious feature of US culture. The idea of security has itself become an obsession in stark contrast with the romantic tradition that celebrated the rugged individualism of the West and of early capitalism. It has justified the creation of the national security state.

    The US is now undergoing perhaps its deepest historical and cultural psychodrama since the Civil War. The reality of a crisis of “food security” reflects more than just the disastrous material effects of growing inequality. It highlights an extraordinary conflict capable of undermining traditional cultural assumptions. History has repeatedly shown that there is no cure for cultural chaos.

    *[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 Fair Observer.]

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

  • 250 Shares179 Views

    in US Politics

    US gun violence: too many people have died in 2020 – and COVID played a larger part than you think

    Recent reports here and elsewhere in the media have focused on gun violence in the US, reporting a dramatic rise in mass shootings in 2020 – despite the pandemic – which by November had overtaken the total for 2019. The term mass shooting conjures up images of Columbine and Parkland, but the story for 2020 is more complex.
    How many mass shootings there have been in 2020 depends on how we define what a mass shooting is. Gun Violence Archive (GVA), the source of recent media reporting about rising levels of mass shootings, includes any event where four or more victims are shot (as opposed to four or more killed, the more traditional FBI definition). This includes domestic shootings, gang, drug, and organised crime-related shootings typically excluded from other mass shooting figures (for example, in our database). GVA reports 582 mass shootings in 2020 alone.
    There are benefits to this more inclusive approach. First, it rightly acknowledges that all shootings are tragedies and all victims deserve to be counted. But the downside to this overly broad definition is that it implies there have been 500+ “Columbine-type” public mass shootings in 2020 alone.
    We took a closer look at these 582 mass shootings and found that in the majority (51%), no one was killed. Drive-by shootings, gang-related incidents or fights where the perpetrator and victims had a prior relationship accounted for 95% of instances. These cases were clustered in America’s large urban centres and the victims tended to be people of colour. Such shootings skyrocketed in June and remained high over the summer. Cities across the country are experiencing record-breaking surges in gun homicides in 2020.

    The COVID-19 pandemic likely plays a major role here, exacerbating risk factors for violence, including a lack of jobs and education opportunities, increased stress and mental health concerns, and limited access to healthcare. Gun sales are also up, which is related to the other explanation – recent unrest over racial injustice and questions about police legitimacy in the wake of controversial killings of Black Americans by the police has resulted in communities policing themselves.
    Lock, stock and barrel: sales of guns went up at the start of the coronavirus pandemic. sirtravelalot via Shutterstock
    By contrast, only 18 of the 582 mass shootings reached the more standard definition of four or more people killed. The majority of these cases were domestic murder-suicides, 72% of which occurred in private homes. The pandemic plays a role here too – increasing stress and depression while fewer resources are available to women and families at risk, quarantined in their homes. There is global concern about the rising rates of domestic violence during the pandemic, and domestic violence calls to police and crisis lines have spiked in 2020.
    How COVID broke the cycle
    Excluding domestic violence and felony homicides, there have been only two mass public shootings in 2020 – down from eight or nine, respectively, in the preceding three years. Until this year, shootings at churches, workplaces and the like were becoming more frequent and deadly, driven by hate and fame-seeking motivations. The two shootings in 2020 were in February and March, then the public mass shootings stopped.
    Again, the COVID pandemic likely explains this sudden decrease. You can’t have a public shooting when public spaces like schools and shopping malls are closed and people are social-distancing at home. Mass shootings are also socially contagious and tend to occur in clusters – extensive media coverage of perpetrators becomes a draw for additional shooters. COVID broke the endless news cycle of mass shootings by giving us something else to worry about, putting a lid on contagious violence.
    So in 2020, domestic mass shootings and felony-related mass shootings have increased. Public mass shootings with unknown victims where four or more people are killed are dramatically down. Each of these various forms of gun violence is a unique tragedy.
    Perpetrators of public mass shootings, domestic mass shootings, and felony-related or retaliatory urban violence have different profiles and motivations, methods and motives. Their pathways to violence are different, thus the opportunities for prevention and intervention are different too. We need data-driven public policy solutions to all forms of mass shootings in America. More

  • 100 Shares169 Views

    in World Politics

    Qatar Is Set for Its First National Elections

    President-elect Joe Biden’s foreign policy will be anchored in the traditional pursuit of America’s international role and interests. Biden has had a lengthy career in the Senate, where he served as the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He also served as vice president under Barack Obama for eight years. Biden’s many speeches and comments …
    Continue Reading “Qatar Is Set for Its First National Elections”
    The post Qatar Is Set for Its First National Elections appeared first on Fair Observer. More

  • 113 Shares109 Views

    in World Politics

    Can America Come Together to Fulfil Its Failed Promise?

    With America in the grips of a ravaging pandemic, a corrupt loser narcissist still at the helm and unmasked “freedom” fighters meandering among us, there is so much to do and so much opposition to doing it. It remains utterly inexplicable how uncoordinated and erratic the national response continues to be to the spectacle of …
    Continue Reading “Can America Come Together to Fulfil Its Failed Promise?”
    The post Can America Come Together to Fulfil Its Failed Promise? appeared first on Fair Observer. More