World news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Calls mount for Biden to track US healthcare worker deaths

      by

      Calls are mounting for the Biden administration to set up a national tracking system of Covid-19 deaths among frontline healthcare workers to honor the thousands of nurses, doctors and support staff who have died and ensure that future generations are not forced to make the same ultimate – and in many cases needless – sacrifice.Health policy experts and union leaders are pressing the White House to move quickly to fill the gaping hole left by the Trump administration through its failure to create an accurate count of Covid deaths among frontline staff. The absence of reliable federal data exacerbated critical problems such as shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE) that left many workers exposed, with fatal results.In the absence of federal action, Lost on the Frontline, a joint project between the Guardian and Kaiser Health News (KHN), has compiled the most comprehensive account of healthcare worker deaths in the nation. It has recorded 3,607 lost lives in the first year of the pandemic, with nurses, healthcare support staff and doctors, as well as workers under 60 and people of color affected in tragically high numbers.The Guardian/KHN investigation, which involved more than 100 reporters, is drawing to a close this week. Pressure is now growing for the federal government to step into the breach.Harvey Fineberg, a leading health policy expert who approved a recent National Academy of Sciences report that recommended the formation of a new national tracking system run by the federal government, backed the calls for change. He said his ideal solution would be a nationwide record that both looked back on the heavy human price paid in the pandemic so far and looked ahead to coming challenges.“There would be a combination of a selective look backward to gain more accurate tabulations of the past burden, and a system of data gathering looking forward to ensure more complete counts in future,” he said.Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, a president of National Nurses United, the largest body of registered nurses in the US, said it was unconscionable how many healthcare workers have died from Covid. The KHN/Guardian interactive found that almost third of those who died were nurses – the largest single occupation followed by support staff (20%) and physicians (17%).Triunfo-Cortez said the death toll was an unacceptable tragedy aggravated by the lack of federal data which made identifying problem areas more difficult. “We as nurses do not deserve this – we signed up to take care of patients, we did not sign up to die,” she said.Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, also sees a role for federal agencies in tracking mortality among frontline healthcare workers. In an interview with the Guardian, he expressed a desire for a definitive picture of the human toll.“We certainly want to find an accurate count of the people who died. That’s something that I think would fall under the auspices of the federal government, likely Health and Human Services (HHS).”The lack of federal intelligence on deaths among frontline healthcare workers was one of the running failures of the Trump administration’s botched response to the crisis. The main health protection agency, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, does curate some information but has itself acknowledged that its own record of 1,527 health worker fatalities – more than 2,000 fewer than the joint Guardian / KHN tally – is an undercount based on limitations in its data collection.Overall, healthcare workers were revealed to be singularly at risk from the pandemic. Some studies have shown that they were more than three times as likely to contract Covid as the general population.To date there is no sign of the Biden administration taking active steps to set up a comprehensive data system. An HHS spokesperson said they currently have no plans to launch a comprehensive count. However, Triunfo-Cortez said there is a new willingness on the part of the White House and key federal agencies to listen and engage.“We have been working with the Biden administration and they have been receptive to the changes we are proposing. We are hopeful that they will start to mandate the reporting of deaths because if we don’t have that data how can we know how effective we are being in stopping the pandemic?”The responsiveness of the new administration is likely to be heightened by the fact that Biden’s chief of staff, Ron Klain, has a track record in fighting infectious disease outbreaks. In 2014 Barack Obama appointed him “Ebola tsar”.In an article in the Guardian last August, Klain drew on the findings of Lost on the Frontline to decry the ultimate price paid by healthcare workers. “Although America has applauded health workers, banged pots in their honor and offered grateful video tributes, we have consistently failed them where it mattered most.”David Blumenthal, the national coordinator for health information technology under Obama, said a national tracking system is an important step in healing the wounds of the pandemic inflicted on frontline staff. “So many healthcare workers feel as though their devotion and sacrifice weren’t valued. We must combat the widespread fatigue and disappointment.”Christina Jewett of KHN contributed reporting to this article More

    • 163 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Biden urges Republicans to back $2tn infrastructure plan: ‘Inaction is not an option’

      by

      Joe Biden has made a heartfelt plea for Republicans to work with him on a $2tn infrastructure plan, casting it as essential to preserving America’s superpower status and warning: “Inaction simply is not an option.”The US president signalled that he is open to negotiating his proposed corporate tax rate of 28% to fund the package. It represents a sharp increase from the 21% levy set by his predecessor Donald Trump’s tax bill in 2017, though is lower than the 35% rate under Barack Obama.But Biden also became fiery as he sounded the alarm about a nation in decline, investing less in infrastructure now than it did 25 years ago and in danger of losing an existential struggle with China.Biden’s promise as a candidate to seek bipartisanship has run into a wall of Republican opposition so far, first to his $1.9tn coronavirus relief package and now to his $2tn infrastructure investment – though opinion polls suggest both are popular with Republican voters.On Wednesday, with Kamala Harris, the vice-president, at his side at the Eisenhower Office Building in Washington, he continued to walk the line of trying to appeal across the aisle while bluntly making clear that he will push ahead if necessary.Promising that he and Harris will meet both Democrats and Republicans in the next few weeks, Biden said: “Debate is welcome. Compromise is inevitable. Changes are certain … We’ll be listening. We’ll be open to good ideas and good faith negotiations but here’s what we won’t be open to. We will not be open to doing nothing. Inaction simply is not an option.”Republican opposition to the American Jobs Plan has focused on the tax hikes and what they contend is an overly broad definition of infrastructure. The president sought to neutralise that argument.“Two hundred years ago, trains weren’t traditional infrastructure either, until America made a choice to lay down tracks across the country,” he said. “Highways weren’t traditional infrastructure until we allowed ourselves to imagine that roads could connect our nation across state lines.“The idea of infrastructure has always evolved to meet the aspirations of the American people and their needs, and it’s evolving again today. We need to start seeing infrastructure through its effect on the lives of working people in America.”High-speed internet, an electric grid that will not collapse in a winter storm, investing in “Made in America” goods from every community, pipes that provide clean drinking water, clean energy and facilities for military veterans are all part of the foundation of 21st-century living, Biden continued.The job creation potential is immense, he said, including for a people without a college degree – a demographic that has backed Donald Trump in presidential elections. “This is a blue-collar blueprint for increasing opportunity for the American people.”Biden attempted to draw a line from the personal – “How many of you know when you send your child to school the fountain they’re drinking out of is not fed by lead pipe?” – to the geopolitical, suggesting that in coming months much will be written about how China and the rest of the world is racing ahead of the US in investing in the future.“It used to be we invested almost 2.7% of our GDP in infrastructure. Now it’s about 0.7%. When we were investing it, we were the leader in the world. I don’t know why we don’t get this. One of the few major economies in the world whose public investment in research and development has declined as a percentage of GDP over the last 25 years.”These aren’t Republican bridges, Democratic airports, Republican hospitals or a Democratic power gridVisibly angry, he boomed: “Declined! The United States of America, that led the world!”As in previous speeches, Biden framed the imperative as in the context of competition with China and a fundamental battle for the future between democracies and autocracies.Beijing is not waiting to invest in digital infrastructure, research and development, he said. “But they’re counting on American democracy to be too slow, too limited and too divided to keep pace.“We have to show the world and, much more important, we have to show ourselves that democracy works, that we can come together on the big things. It’s the United States of America, for God’s sake.”Partisan divisions should not stop America doing the right thing for the future, Biden added. “These aren’t Republican bridges, Democratic airports, Republican hospitals or a Democratic power grid … We’re at an inflection point in American democracy. This is a moment where we prove whether or not democracy can deliver.”Biden insisted he is open to ideas on how to pay for the plan but again ruled out tax increases on people making less than $400,000 a year. The corporate tax rate used to be 35%, he noted, but Trump reduced it to 21%. “What I’m proposing is we meet in the middle: 28%.”Later, questioned by reporters, he said he might accept a rate below 28% so long as the projects are financed. “I’m willing to listen to that. I’m wide open, but we gotta pay for this. We gotta pay for this.“There’s many other ways we can do it. But I am willing to negotiate that. I’ve come forward with the best, most rational way, in my view the fairest way, to pay for it, but there are many other ways as well. And I’m open.”But a Twitter exchange on Wednesday made clear the steep climb Biden faces to work with Republicans, many of whom remain in thrall to Trump.Kirsten Gillibrand, a Democratic senator, tweeted: “Paid leave is infrastructure. Child care is infrastructure. Caregiving is infrastructure.”Kristi Noem, the Republican governor of South Dakota, replied: “So what ISN’T infrastructure?” More

    • 88 Shares129 Views

      in World Politics

      Science’s Problem With Money, Media and Politics

      by

      In a fascinating interview with The Guardian’s Andrew Anthony, media-friendly physicist Michio Kaku reveals more than he may have intended about both science and politics when he explains how political funding of the science of fundamental research takes place today. The champion of string theory complains about the difficulty scientists have as they set out to solve the biggest theoretical questions about the origin and structure of the universe due to the incomprehension of prominent politicians. He describes the fate of a plan 30 years ago to build an installation even “bigger than the Large Hadron Collider,” currently the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, which the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) launched in 2008.

      The Loneliness of Matt Gaetz

      READ MORE

      Kaku recounts what he refers to as “a big shock in the 1990s when we physicists proposed the super collider.” The scientists saw it as a chance for the United States to take a commanding lead in the realm of experimental particle physics. With the Cold War over, astute politicians might have viewed it as an important element of what Joseph Nye calls “soft power,” an essential element of diplomacy and influence for any nation intending to exercise global leadership. The richest country in the history of the world, with no ideological or economic rival to challenge its hegemony, could certainly have afforded to support the advance of theoretical physics.

      The collider project was planned to be built in Dallas, Texas. All it required was funding by the federal government. Kaku explained how the scientists’ hopes were dashed: “What went wrong? On one of the last day[s] of hearings, a congressman asked: ‘Will we find God with your machine? If so I will vote for it.’ The poor physicist who had to answer that question didn’t know what to say.” Congress rejected the project, opening the opportunity for Europe to assume leadership in the exploration of particle physics.

      Kaku regrets that glorious period called the Cold War, when scientists had a simple solution to obtain funding for any project requiring extravagant spending. “During the 60s, all we had to do was go to Congress and say one word: Russia. Then Congress would say two words: How much? Those days are gone.”

      Today’s Daily Devil’s Dictionary definition:

      How much?

      A common question relating to the evaluation of quantity that our modern capitalist society tends to apply exclusively to amounts of money

      Contextual Note

      The usual answer to the question, “How much?” is now expressed as an amount of money. Money has also become the unique measure of quality. We live in a “how much” world. Everything has a price, which we need to know because price is the sole indicator of worth.

      Finding God is one of the rare activities that the congressman in question apparently deemed worthy of being thought of as “priceless.” After finding the Americas, Europeans eventually put the resources of an entire continent in their hands to exploit in any way they deemed profitable, from extracting gold and silver to founding the Federal Reserve and launching McDonald’s.

      Embed from Getty Images

      If today’s Americans financed a collider capable of finding God, that would eventually put the divinity in their hands. At the very least, it would help to validate the claim — repeated by American schoolchildren every day as they  recite the pledge of allegiance — that the US is “one nation under God.” In the event that the projected super collider did find the Godhead, Congress might once again revise the wording of the pledge, this time to one nation alongside God.

      Kaku sums up the lamentable plight of the entire scientific community. “We have to sing for our supper,” he says. And as the well-known proverb explains, “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” Kaku had a symphony in mind when his colleagues sought funding for the super collider in Dallas. Politicians will always prefer something with a lilt, like “Home on the Range.” Science is justified when it creates economic activity resulting in the production of both merchandise and jobs. It has no (monetary) value when it simply seeks to reveal the mysteries of the universe.

      Kaku imagines how scientists schooled in rhetoric could have responded to the congressman who was ready to fund a glimpse into the face of God: “We should have said, this is a Genesis machine that will create the conditions of the greatest invention of all time — the universe. Unfortunately, we said Higgs boson. And people said, $10bn for another subatomic particle?” No shopping mall in the 1990s — not even Amazon today — can foresee making a profit from selling Higgs bosons. However, if a boson could be presented as a non-fungible token (NFT), that might be worth considering.

      What does this tell us about the status of science in the post-industrial society? If scientists spend their time singing for their supper, much of the science that emerges may reflect the taste of those who call the tune. Even theoretical scientists may allow themselves to be distracted by the interests of those who pay for their research and their meals. 

      Kaku cites the important role played by politicians, who — as everyone knows — spend 50% of their time, if not more, fundraising, soliciting cash from people with serious economic interests that may be threatened by certain scientific truths. Add the two sources of pressure together and there may be cause for concern about the fate of scientific truth in our popular culture.

      But it doesn’t stop there. There is a third factor of distortion: the media. Scientific stories concerning everything from dietary advice to solving the climate crisis or understanding what preceded the Big Bang make for popular reading and viewing. Commercial media pursue anything that draws people’s attention, including crackpot scientific theories or sensationalistic interpretations of authentic scientific discoveries.

      A breaking story originating with the highly suspect Daily Mail but dutifully relayed by the supposedly “respectable” web portal and news aggregator MSN is a case in point. It informs its readers about former CIA Director James Woolsey’s “‘openness’ to the possibility of alien life.” The story is related to the promotion of Woolsey’s new book in which the head of an agency dedicated — as everyone should know by now — to lying makes the oh-so-credible claim that “Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK on the orders of the Kremlin.”

      .custom-post-from {float:right; margin: 0 10px 10px; max-width: 50%; width: 100%; text-align: center; background: #000000; color: #ffffff; padding: 15px 0 30px; }
      .custom-post-from img { max-width: 85% !important; margin: 15px auto; filter: brightness(0) invert(1); }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h4 { font-size: 18px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-h5 { font-size: 14px; letter-spacing: 1px; line-height: 22px; margin-bottom: 15px; }
      .custom-post-from input[type=”email”] { font-size: 14px; color: #000 !important; width: 240px; margin: auto; height: 30px; box-shadow:none; border: none; padding: 0 10px; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-pen-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: center right 14px; background-size:14px;}
      .custom-post-from input[type=”submit”] { font-weight: normal; margin: 15px auto; height: 30px; box-shadow: none; border: none; padding: 0 10px 0 35px; background-color: #1878f3; color: #ffffff; border-radius: 4px; display: inline-block; background-image: url(“https://www.fairobserver.com/wp-content/plugins/moosend_form/cpf-email-icon.svg”); background-repeat: no-repeat; background-position: 14px center; background-size: 14px; }

      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox { width: 90%; margin: auto; position: relative; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label { text-align: left; display: block; padding-left: 32px; margin-bottom: 0; cursor: pointer; font-size: 11px; line-height: 18px;
      -webkit-user-select: none;
      -moz-user-select: none;
      -ms-user-select: none;
      user-select: none;
      order: 1;
      color: #ffffff;
      font-weight: normal;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox label a { color: #ffffff; text-decoration: underline; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input { position: absolute; opacity: 0; cursor: pointer; height: 100%; width: 24%; left: 0;
      right: 0; margin: 0; z-index: 3; order: 2;}
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:before { content: “f0c8”; font-family: Font Awesome 5 Free; color: #eee; font-size: 24px; position: absolute; left: 0; top: 0; line-height: 28px; color: #ffffff; width: 20px; height: 20px; margin-top: 5px; z-index: 2; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:before { content: “f14a”; font-weight: 600; color: #2196F3; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input:checked ~ label:after { content: “”; }
      .custom-post-from .cpf-checkbox input ~ label:after { position: absolute; left: 2px; width: 18px; height: 18px; margin-top: 10px; background: #ffffff; top: 10px; margin: auto; z-index: 1; }
      .custom-post-from .error{ display: block; color: #ff6461; order: 3 !important;}

      The Daily Mail, MSN and Woolsey himself have collaborated to offer this wonderful insight into the connection between politics and cosmology. It’s the kind of “science” the public loves to access. They have also collaborated to make sure that Russia is part of the story.

      In the interview with The Guardian, Kaku evokes both the problem related to popularizing science, with the risk of being misunderstood, and his own “openness” to the existence of alien life, which is based on his understanding of the scope and complexity of the universe and his knowledge of the laws of physics rather than the anecdotal reports of strange phenomena cited by Woolsey. Kaku knows that, as a public figure present in the media, his discourse consists of playing a delicate game in an economic and political system whose rules he understands, but which he must not violate.

      Historical Note

      All this highlights the fact that US political culture has created a curious relationship in its dominant ideology between science, God and a nation deemed “exceptional.” It is a relationship that, as Michio Kaku reminds us, somehow depended on the perception of a threat called Russia to bring things comfortably together. He evokes the magical period where the universally imposed paranoia of communist Russia (the Soviet Union) made it possible for all Americans to agree on sharing a common religion defined in opposition to Marxist atheism. All that was required was to feel that we were all “under God.” This idea suggested to school children reciting the pledge that the American God would look after all of them.

      The problem with this new theology is that the idea of God in his heaven hovering over the territory of the United States depended for its coherence on the existence in people’s minds of a hell represented by Russia. With the end of the Cold War in 1991, Russia was no longer the enemy. Liberated from communism, it had become a laboratory for American free market ideology. That was until Satan reappeared in the person of Vladimir Putin and Russiagate emerged to restore order.

      *[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

    • 113 Shares179 Views

      in World Politics

      Remember, Remember: Guy Fawkes’ Co-opting by the Far Right

      by

      The far right have a habit of co-opting symbols and visual iconography originally used by other movements, oftentimes those holding opposing ideologies. For example, during the rally-turned-siege in Washington on January 6, protesters chanted, “Whose house? Our house!” This was a likely nod to, “Whose streets? Our streets!” shouted by attendees of the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia.

      Prior to the Unite the Right rally, however, the phrase was commonly used by groups protesting oppression. The “Whose streets? Our streets!” chant has, since the 1990s, been used by “LGBTQ activists, immigration activists, and most pertinently, Black activists at intense junctions of racial tension.” While their collective belief system was built upon a deeply flawed foundation of disinformation and conspiracy, the rioters on Capitol Hill were also combating a sense of perceived oppression. As a result, they felt justified in weaponizing their victimhood.

      The Complex Role of Racism Within the Radical Right

      READ MORE

      The mob that stormed the Capitol Building in Washington, DC, was a smorgasbord of white supremacists, militia members and conspiratorial adherents, mobilized by former US President Donald Trump to attempt a coup on his behalf. Kathleen Belew’s description of the ideological composition of the Capitol insurrectionists is apt. The mob featured “ardent partisans of President Trump. … people recently radicalized by fantastic QAnon conspiracy theories” and “participants in the organized white power movement.” The mob’s spectrum of beliefs was also seen in the variety of iconography present. As observed in videos from the Capitol Hill riot, a noteworthy staple of this far-right iconography is the infamous Guy Fawkes mask — in this case, worn by a man with a Trump/Pence 2020 campaign flag draped over his shoulders.

      Stop the Steal… of Other Movements’ Symbols

      In addition to adopting iconography and slogans from movements ideologically oftentimes at odds with their own, the far right have also co-opted historical, cultural and even religious symbols and trends. For example, Britain First, an Islamophobic anti-immigrant group, has co-opted Christian symbolism and rhetoric, including carrying white crosses and handing out Bibles at public demonstrations. In that same vein, Stormfront posters drew ties between “The Lord of the Rings” and white nationalism to bolster recruitment. More recently, the Betsy Ross flag, various Norse imagery and Pepe the Frog were displayed during the Capitol attack.

      Such figures and images are now incongruously tied together by a shared adoption by the far right as part of their iconographical repertoire. These symbols have thereby lost their previously benign respective meanings as they have become aligned with armed groups, militias and other hateful and potentially violent belief systems.

      A Staple of Anti-Authoritarian Protest

      Despite its use at the Capitol riot, the Guy Fawkes mask has historically been an element of anti-authoritarian activist iconography, representing the struggle against those in power perceived to be treading on civil liberties. It entered the mainstream in the 1980s upon the creation of the comic “V for Vendetta,” set in a fascist, dystopian version of future England. In it, the protagonist V is an anti-fascist battling an authoritarian police state, donning the mask to obscure his identity.

      Embed from Getty Images

      Since then, the evocation of Guy Fawkes at contemporary political events has become a tradition. First used by the Anonymous group circa 2008 in protests against the Church of Scientology, it has since been worn in the organization’s protests against the CIA, the Ku Klux Klan, Visa and PayPal. The disguise-turned-symbol was subsequently used by Occupy and other anti-establishment, generally left-leaning movements.  

      The Fawkes mask has since been donned by protesters around the world. In 2011, it was seen at Arab Spring protests, eventually assuming such a high profile that both the Saudi and Bahraini governments banned its import and sale. The Saudi government explained the ban by stating that the mask “instills a culture of violence and extremism.” Later that year, Thai protesters wore it as they demonstrated against their government, which at the time was widely believed to be secretly controlled by the exiled former prime minister, Thaksin Shinawatra.

      As Sarah Barrett of The New York Times wrote of the Fawkes mask, “it is now the face of protest, largely anti-government but not exclusively. It’s a face that demands attention, an unsettling visage floating in the sea of yellow vests, umbrellas and black hoods.” Indeed, the illustrator of “V for Vendetta,” David Lloyd, said in a 2011 interview with The Times that the Fawkes-inspired masquerade has become “a great symbol of protest for anyone who sees tyranny.”

      Guy Fawkes’ Adoption by the Right

      Enter the Capitol insurrectionists, whose members cried tyranny over the certification of electoral votes to secure now-President Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Like the Capitol rioters, Guy Fawkes and his co-conspirators had a vision of how their respective government should be run — and who should be running it. Guy Fawkes’ gunpowder plot envisaged three goals: blow up the House of Lords in London, assassinate King James I and install a Catholic sovereign. The plot was planned to unfold on November 5, 1605, and, similar to the Capitol siege, was meant to occur during a ceremonial government event; Fawkes’ barrels of gunpowder were supposed to explode during the state opening of Parliament.

      Fawkes and several of his co-conspirators were found guilty of treason, and some have argued that the Capitol attackers are guilty of the same. An additional similarity between the two sets of plotters is the planned use of explosives; both Molotov cocktails and pipe bombs were found near Capitol Hill.

      Prior to the Capitol insurrection, the American far right had embraced the Fawkes mask and its interpreted meaning at other demonstrations, notably seen on members of Proud Boys, among others, at anti-lockdown protests throughout 2020. Moreover, in far-right Telegram channels, Guy Fawkes’ name and associated message have been sources of inspiration. The repeated use of the mask by those who identify with or support the far right may fulfill two objectives.

      First, and perhaps most obviously, it hides the identity of the protester in question. Second, it enables the wearer to construct their own identity as a patriotic hero standing up to perceived tyrannical government action. The mask is used to convey a specific image, depending on the observing audience. For some far-right individuals and groups, the mask acts as a dog whistle. For those outside of the movement, it provides the wearer with plausible deniability. According to Matthew Gabriele of Virginia Tech: “They’re hoping that either other observers will get it and they’ll agree. Or if they don’t agree and if there’s consequences, they can just shrug it off like, ‘Oh, I’m just referencing history’ or something like that.”

      Many facets of the American far right will likely remain steadfast in their belief that a Trump-esque figurehead (or Trump himself) should assume his rightful place in the Oval Office. Online chatter and offline manifestations of violence indicate that some individuals view this as a cause worth fighting, dying and killing for — after all, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. The use of the Guy Fawkes mask at the Capitol siege indicates how the insurrectionists saw themselves: as the latter.

      *[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 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US in ‘close consultations’ with allies on possible action over Beijing Olympics

      by

      The US state department said on Tuesday the Biden administration is consulting with allies about a joint approach to China and its human rights record, including how to handle the upcoming Beijing Winter Olympics.The department initially suggested that an Olympic boycott to protest China’s human rights abuses was among the possibilities, but a senior official said later that a boycott has not yet been discussed.The official said the US position on the 2022 Games had not changed but that the administration is in frequent contact with allies and partners about their common concerns about China. Department spokesman Ned Price said earlier the consultations were being held in order to present a united front.“Part of our review of those Olympics and our thinking will involve close consultations with partners and allies around the world,” Price told reporters.Human rights groups are protesting China’s hosting of the Games, which are set to start in February 2022. They have urged a diplomatic or straight-up boycott of the event to call attention to alleged Chinese abuses against Uyghurs, Tibetans and residents of Hong Kong.Price declined to say when a decision on the Olympics would be made but noted there is still almost a year until the Games are set to begin.“These Games remain some time away. I wouldn’t want to put a timeframe on it, but these discussions are underway,” he said. “It is something that we certainly wish to discuss and it is certainly something that we understand that a coordinated approach will be not only in our interest, but also in the interest of our allies and partners. So this is one of the issues that is on the agenda, both now and going forward.”The Beijing Winter Olympics open on 4 February 2022, and China has denied all charges of human rights abuses. It says “political motives” underlie the boycott effort.Rights groups have met with the International Olympic Committee and have been told the Olympic body must stay politically “neutral.” They have been told by the IOC that China has given “assurances’’ about human rights conditions.Both the IOC and the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee have said in the past they oppose boycotts.In March, IOC president Thomas Bach said history shows that boycotts never achieve anything. “It also has no logic,” he said. “Why would you punish the athletes from your own country if you have a dispute with a government from another country? This just makes no real sense.”The USOPC has questioned the effectiveness of boycotts. “We oppose Games boycotts because they have been shown to negatively impact athletes while not effectively addressing global issues,” it said. “We believe the more effective course of action is for the governments of the world and China to engage directly on human rights and geopolitical issues.” More

    • 200 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘A system of global apartheid’: author Harsha Walia on why the border crisis is a myth

      by

      The rising number of migrant children and families seeking to cross the US border with Mexico is emerging as one of the most serious political challenges for Joe Biden’s new administration.
      That’s exactly what Donald Trump wants: he and other Republicans believe that Americans’ concerns about a supposed “border crisis” will help Republicans win back political power.

      But Harsha Walia, the author of two books about border politics, argues that there is no “border crisis,” in the United States or anywhere else. Instead, there are the “actual crises” that drive mass migration – such as capitalism, war and the climate emergency – and “imagined crises” at political borders, which are used to justify further border securitization and violence.
      Walia, a Canadian organizer who helped found No One Is Illegal, which advocates for migrants, refugees and undocumented people, talked to the Guardian about Border and Rule, her new book on global migration, border politics and the rise of what she calls “racist nationalism.” The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
      Last month, a young white gunman was charged with murdering eight people, most of them Asian women, at several spas around Atlanta, Georgia. Around the same time, there was increasing political attention to the higher numbers of migrants and refugees showing up at the US-Mexico border. Do you see any connection between these different events?
      I think they are deeply connected. The newest invocation of a “border surge” and a “border crisis” is again creating the spectre of immigrants and refugees “taking over.” This seemingly race neutral language – we are told there’s nothing inherently racist about saying “border surge”– is actually deeply racially coded. It invokes a flood of black and brown people taking over a so-called white man’s country. That is the basis of historic immigrant exclusion, both anti-Asian exclusion in the 19th century, which very explicitly excluded Chinese laborers and especially Chinese women presumed to be sex workers, and anti-Latinx exclusion. If we were to think about one situation as anti-Asian racism and one as anti-Latinx racism, they might seem disconnected. But both forms of racism are fundamentally anti-immigrant. Racial violence is connected to the idea of who belongs and who doesn’t. Whose humanity is questioned in a moment of crisis. Who is scapegoated in a moment of crisis.
      How do you understand the rise of white supremacist violence, particularly anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim violence, that we are seeing around the world?
      The rise in white supremacy is a feedback loop between individual rightwing vigilantes and state rhetoric and state policy. When it comes to the Georgia shootings, we can’t ignore the fact that the criminalization of sex work makes sex workers targets. It’s not sex work itself, it’s the social condition of criminalization that creates that vulnerability. It’s similar to the ways in which border vigilantes have targeted immigrants: the Minutemen who show up at the border and harass migrants, or the kidnapping of migrants by the United Constitutional Patriots at gunpoint. We can’t dissociate that kind of violence from state policies that vilify migrants and refugees, or newspapers that continue to use the word “illegal alien”. More

    • 113 Shares199 Views

      in World Politics

      What Lies Behind Turkey’s Withdrawal From the Istanbul Convention?

      by

      Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan issued a decree in the early hours of March 20 withdrawing Turkey from the Council of Europe treaty — dubbed the Istanbul Convention — on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. The convention sets comprehensive standards for protecting women against all forms of violence.

      The withdrawal prompted widespread protests from women’s groups and an uproar on social media, criticizing that it signals a huge setback for women’s rights in a country with high rates of gender-based violence and femicides. Just in 2020, at least 300 women were murdered in Turkey.

      Turkey Doubles Down on Hard Power

      READ MORE

      Following the public outrage over the withdrawal, government representatives unconvincingly responded that women’s rights are guaranteed in national laws and that there is no need for international laws. The Directorate of Communications defended the decision with the claim that the convention was “hijacked by a group of people attempting to normalize homosexuality,” and that this is incompatible with the country’s social and family values.

      Turkey was the first state to ratify the Istanbul Convention and became the first to pull out. What lies behind the withdrawal?

      Erdogan’s Rationale: To Remain in Power at All Costs

      In August 2020, officials in the Justice and Development Party (AKP) signaled that Turkey was considering withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention after religious conservatives began an intense lobbying effort against the convention, lambasting it for damaging “traditional Turkish family values.” Although they claimed that the treaty destroys families and promotes homosexuality, conservative women’s groups supporting the AKP defended it. The row even reached Erdogan’s own family, with two of his children becoming involved in groups on either side of the debate. Due to these internal tensions within the AKP and the symbolic achievement with the reconversion of the Hagia Sophia into a mosque in 2020, the debate was postponed.

      Although opinion polls had shown that 84% of Turks opposed withdrawing from the Istanbul Convention and a majority of conservative women were in favor of it, Erdogan decided to pull out of the treaty, thereby disregarding not only the international law anchored in the constitution, but also the legislative power of parliament. This move comes amid significantly eroding support for the president and his informal alliance with the ultra-nationalist Nationalist Action Party (MHP). The withdrawal from the convention gives Erdogan three political advantages that will help him retain power.

      Embed from Getty Images

      First, Erdogan and his AKP aim to reenergize their conservative voter base, which has been dissatisfied with the economic downturn — a reality that has only been exacerbated by the coronavirus pandemic. The ruling AKP government cannot curb the high level of inflation, and unemployment and poverty rates remain high. Leaving the convention is a symbolic gesture to his base, but it will bring short-term relief, as did the reconversion of the Hagia Sophia.

      Second, with a potential electoral defeat in mind, Erdogan is looking for new allies. He thus made an overture in January to the Islamist Felicity Party (SP), which is in an oppositional alliance with secularist, nationalist and conservative parties. With its 2.5% of the vote in the 2018 parliamentary elections, the SP shares the same Islamist roots as the AKP and is popular among ultraconservative voters, who enthusiastically back the withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention.

      In his meeting with the SP, Erdogan used the withdrawal as a bargaining chip for a possible electoral alliance in the future. He is not only aiming to strengthen his own voting bloc, but also to break the oppositional alliance, which has increasingly gained confidence since its success in the 2019 local elections and been effective in challenging Erdogan’s increasingly authoritarian rule.

      Third, to bolster his image as a willful leader, the Turkish president has intensified the level of repression by suppressing democratic civil society organizations that dare to challenge his rule. This time, he has targeted women’s rights advocates, who frequently criticize the government for not strictly implementing the protective measures of the Istanbul Convention.

      Political Conditionality as a Necessary European Reaction

      While increasing the level of repression in domestic politics, Turkey intensified its diplomatic charm offensive to reset Turkish relations with the European Union. Against this background, Brussels should not only condemn the decision, but also revise its EU-Turkey agenda by imposing political conditions regarding human rights and the rule of law, which have once again been breached with Ankara’s withdrawal from the convention.

      This approach is necessary for two reasons. First, the EU can send a motivating message to democratic segments of civil society and the opposition by underlining that the Istanbul Convention is an issue of human rights and that its sole purpose is protecting women from violence rather than undermining Turkey’s national values and traditions. Second, calling Ankara out is also in Europe’s own interest. The withdrawal can have spillover effects on other member states of the Council of Europe.

      Considering the latest attempts by the Polish government to replace the Istanbul Convention with an alternative “family-based” treaty that also finds support in other Central European governments, the backlash against women’s rights in Europe is not a myth, but rather a reality.

      *[This article 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 Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More