Category Archives: Abolition Of Work

Summary

In April 2014, the first EU-Africa Summit for several years was held in Brussels. It was attended by almost every European and African head of state or government except the then British prime minister, David Cameron. It seemed that neither the European Union nor Africa was that much of a priority for him at least, not more important than the Conservative Party constituency event in Wales that he attended instead. In this, Cameron might have been reflecting the views of the many British voters who had little interest in Africa or, at the time, the EU. Alternatively, he may simply have taken both for granted, thinking that they would always be there when he needed them.

Following Britains exit from the EU, the current prime minister pledged that Global Britain would engage more actively with the rest of the world. In the event, the governments February 2021 Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development, and Foreign Policy made few references to either the EU or Africa (beyond some modest platitudes about engagement with the latter to paper over the drastic cut in aid budgets it had recently announced). Clearly, neither were government priorities.

Yet Britain and Africa still have significant shared interests. The partnership between the two has great potential. But it will not fulfil that potential without some significant changes in Britains priorities and actions. And the effort will be all the more effective if Britain engages with Africa in cooperation with the rest of Europe. This paper explores how this could be achieved. It sets out the historical context of Britains relationship with Africa before and after independence. It explores the main economic, political, and social dynamics that underpin the existing relationship and what they mean for the future, as well as how this is affected by changes in Africa itself. Finally, it looks at the European dimension, and where closer collaboration rather than increased competition between Britain and Europe in Africa could have benefits for all parties.

The paper often uses the term Africa in reference to Britains diverse relations with individual African countries and with the African Union. This is convenient shorthand. It is not an attempt to treat Africa as a single country. Equally, the paper refers to Europe as including the United Kingdom and other non-EU states rather than just the EU.

For a people so proud of their traditions, the British sometimes have a remarkably selective memory of their countrys imperial history. Britains relationships with African countries as with Ireland, India, and even the United States (however special that may seem now) have deep and contested historical roots. Where the British side may see an empire to be proud of and even nostalgic about the other sees imperial exploitation and oppression that took all too long to banish. Until recently, British education tended to gloss over more than 200 years of brutal and profitable slave trade by concentrating on the more virtuous story of the abolition of that trade. Greater honesty about the past which is spreading increasingly into classrooms, national bodies, and corporate boardrooms can help build a more balanced and honest relationship between Britain and Africa.

But history still has consequences.

Language is one of them. Almost all Africans now live in countries where English, French, Arabic, or Portuguese is one of the official languages and is at the core of the national curriculum. This has enabled them to connect with and influence the wider world, but also receive information mediated through these global languages be it from the BBC, Agence France-Presse, Al Jazeera, or Xinhua. The fact that one-third of Africans speak and read English in some form is a major benefit for Britain as it seeks to engage with them.

Economics is another such area. It was trade and profit that first drew British merchants to Africa. And, while not every colony was strictly profitable in an accounting sense, they all sent raw materials to Britain and received its goods, financial services, and other forms of trade. That was a core purpose of the British Empire. So, British colonies became an integral part of a global network of business, trade, and finance that continued after independence. This network lingers on in companies and trading patterns that still link Africa to the UK.

Thirdly, while independence marked a rupture, it did not sever political ties between Britain and African countries. The Commonwealth was the mechanism by which Britain sought to convert an empire into an alliance that was sufficiently loose and non-committal for all to feel comfortable within it. It has even expanded from 17 former British territories in Africa (neither Zimbabwe nor South Sudan is currently a member) to include Rwanda and Mozambique. Commonwealth heads of state and government are due to meet in Kigali in June 2022, following a two-year delay caused by covid-19. Although the Queen remains the head of the Commonwealth, its members gather now less to meet with the British government than to meet with one another. It is an international network that cuts across regional groupings and imposes few constraints on its members. The Commonwealth has been useful in bringing its members together through a common language; a formal commitment to democratic values such as pluralism and human and civil rights (though this is often tested and has sometimes proven flexible); and its networks of expertise in common law and parliamentary and electoral practice.

Independence enabled African nations to join the panoply of global structures that make up the multilateral system, from the United Nations, the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the World Health Organization to the International Court of Justice, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Bank. African countries have also joined the political networks that emerged within these structures such as the G77 and the Non-Aligned Movement and their own regional organisations, ranging from the Organisation of African Unity (now the AU) to the Economic Community of West African States, the Southern African Development Community, the East African Community, and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development. While African leaders see some of these multilateral structures as part of a Western-dominated global system, the rebalancing of the global order in the past decade is beginning to change this perception. This matters for Britains relationship with Africa, because it is both mediated through and reflected in the multilateral system. Ultimately, as Britains permanent seat on the UN Security Council depends on its credibility as a global player, African states view of that credibility matters.

Since independence, Britain and much of Commonwealth Africa have maintained strong links with each other. However, the countrys connections with non-Commonwealth Africa have been weaker. Britain expanded its trade and tourism with Morocco and Egypt, while making big energy sector investments in Algeria and Angola. But, in Egypt particularly, Britains former role as an imperial power creates both an affinity and mistrust. History can be papered over, but it never goes away.

Paradoxically, it was to Britain that many Africans fled to escape post-independence political turmoil and conflict in the 1960s and the 1970s. Dissidents, refugees, and their families moved to the UK from Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda, Somalia, and several southern African countries. Life was not always easy; they faced widespread racism and prejudice. But survival was possible while it might not have been back home. This new diaspora followed the arrival in the UK of almost half a million people from the Caribbean in the 1940s and the 1950s.

Nevertheless, Britains post-independence relations with Africa were bedevilled by the slow process of decolonisation in southern Africa and the struggle against apartheid. Prime Minister Margaret Thatchers support for the South African government seriously strained Britains relations with a number of African governments and damaged the countrys reputation on the continent.

From the mid-1990s, however, the relationship took a new turn, especially under the Labour governments of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. Coinciding with the revival of African countries economic fortunes and the spread of democracy after 1990 (the African Renaissance, as some called it), this proved to be a heyday for British-African relations as reflected in the attention the UK paid to Africa at G8 summits, the Blair Commission for Africa, the creation of the Department for International Development (DFID), Britains increases in aid spending from 2.5 billion in 1997 to 8.5 billion in 2010, and British support for the New Partnership for Africas Development and other African initiatives.

After 2010, the relationship began to fade. Camerons coalition government stuck to the same rhetoric, encouraged investment, and introduced legislation that formalised Britains commitment to spend 0.7 per cent of GNI on foreign aid. But travel to Africa and meetings with African leaders were largely delegated to then-deputy prime minister Nick Clegg. And British ministers for Africa came and went with monotonous regularity, allowing none to establish sustained relations with African leaders. The neglect accelerated after the 2015 election and the overwhelming focus after 2016 on extricating Britain from the EU. The British political establishment and civil service had little bandwidth for other priorities. Theresa May, as prime minister, came as close as anyone to defining a more coherent strategy on Africa, as revealed in her speech on a brief tour of the continent in 2018, but never translated this into a formal document on her return. Britain slightly expanded its diplomatic presence in Africa, but any potential benefit to the relationship was blown away by her successors announcement of the abolition of DFID and deep cuts to UK aid in late 2020.

Brexit baffled leaders of Anglophone African countries who could not understand why Britain would throw away the power and influence that came with EU membership but generated hope among leaders of Francophone ones, who speculated that Britain would at last engage with them more closely. The Integrated Review, insofar as it was noticed at all on the continent, did not reassure the former or satisfy the latter, despite its pledge to maintain a raft of policies on Africa and prioritise relations with South Africa, Nigeria, Kenya, Ethiopia, and Ghana. Actions speak louder than words, and they told a different story.

Britains current engagement with Africa arguably falls under four broad headings: economic links, security cooperation, cultural and educational contacts (part of soft power), and people.

Britains trade with Africa has shrunk in absolute and relative terms. In 1960 the UK accounted for around 30 per cent of all African trade, but now accounts for barely 3 per cent. According to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Africas November 2020 report on UK-Africa Trade after Brexit and research by Carnegie, trade in goods and services grew from $15 billion in 2000 to $27 billion in 2008 and $43 billion in 2012, before falling back to $34 billion in 2019 and (partly due to covid-19) only $14 billion in 2020. By comparison, China accounted for $190 billion of Africas $1,300 billion in global trade in 2019. That year, more than 40 per cent of the UKs African trade was with South Africa and Nigeria. Pre-Brexit trade relations had been governed by the EUs Cotonou Agreement. This allowed for quota- and duty-free access to most African countries under the Everything but Arms agreement, with economic partnership agreements for others that allowed largely free access, albeit with the controversial requirement for the reciprocal liberalisation of African markets. Since Brexit, Britain has simply rolled over the same regime, signing new deals with 16 African countries that are almost identical to the old ones. So far, there is no sign that the UK is changing its trade regime to support the implementation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). And the media perception of doing business in Africa remains unduly negative.

Nevertheless, the UK has maintained a stronger position in investment in Africa. In 2019 the country held the second-largest stock of foreign direct investment in Africa (after China) at $66 billion 83 per cent of it invested in oil, gas, mining, and financial services. Annual investment grew rapidly after 2000, but plummeted after Brexit and recovered in 2018-2019, only to fall again during the covid-19 pandemic. African investment in the UK was around $3 billion in 2014, but the UK has found a niche in encouraging expanding African companies to list on the London Stock Exchange. By 2019, more than 110 African companies with a combined market capitalisation of $175 billion were listed on the London Stock Exchange more than on any other stock exchange outside Africa. The firms had been attracted by the liquidity of its market and relative ease of listing. London has also become the most popular foreign location for issuing African sovereign bonds, with $36 billion raised in total. This has partly compensated for the retreat of British banks from African markets: Standard Chartered remains, but Barclays has almost completely withdrawn and HSBC has only a limited presence. Arguably, the financial relationship between the UK and Africa is too close. There is abundant evidence that Londons openness to foreign wealth has facilitated the laundering of the corrupt gains of ruling elites from Africa and elsewhere, especially in the property market.

But financial flows go both ways. There is no precise figure for remittances from the UK to Africa, but a thorough study in 2017 estimated the flow to be $6.5 billion in 2015. Much of this money flows directly to households to fund education, construction, and small businesses. With remittances significantly exceeding the volume of aid spending to Africa, there was pressure on the government in 2020 to cut the transfer cost of remittances to support communities suffering the economic consequences of covid-19.

Since hosting the first UK-Africa Investment Summit in January 2020, the government in London has worked hard to promote British investment in the continent. A key role in this has been played by the CDC Group, now rebranded British International Investment. Having invested more than 7 billion in the past five years, the organisations new strategy for 2022-2026 pledges to allocate between 1.5 billion and 2 billion per annum to long-term investments in viable, job-creating enterprises particularly in renewable energy while withdrawing from the fossil fuel business. Much of this investment will be in Africa. This makes economic sense: Africa is home to several of the fastest-growing economies in the world; financial technology and telecoms are booming on the continent; African minerals are increasingly in demand; and Africa has great potential to improve its agricultural output.

This focus on investment has been accompanied by an abrupt and drastic cut in Britains aid budget, from 0.7 per cent of GNI to 0.5 per cent. Given that the country had multilateral commitments it could not abandon at short notice, this translated into a cut for most African bilateral programmes of more than 60 per cent from one year to the next. The announcement in November 2020 came hard on the heels of the governments decision five months earlier to merge DFID into a new Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office.

There was a perfectly good case for integrating DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office more closely, especially in overseas missions and, indeed, for reducing aid in favour of investment in Africa. But with a characteristically cavalier destructiveness, Prime Minister Boris Johnson threw away any potential benefit of defining a new strategy in favour of an arresting phrase and a cheap headline, using the occasion to throw some red meat to the diehard opponents of aid on his own backbenches and to appeal to the two-thirds of British voters who thought aid spending was too high. His references to the aid programme as a giant cashpoint in the sky and his view that Ukraine and the Western Balkans should receive more aid than Tanzania and Zambia seemed calculated to add insult to injury. In Africa, they went down like a lead balloon.

These decisions badly damaged African leaders trust in the British government as a reliable partner. The aid cut, the abolition of DFID, and the rebranding of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and CDC Group all signalled that British aid was now to be used in pursuit of Britains interests, not those of the poor or the recipient countries. As several observers have argued, the cuts are more a public signal of Britains international weakness than its commitment to a global role.

Since independence, Britain had sought to maintain good contacts with African military officers, mainly through their sponsored attendance at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst and the Royal College of Defence Studies. The closeness of these relationships has been limited by post-colonial and anti-apartheid sensitivities, the tendency of some African militaries to take a direct role in politics, and Britains reluctance to play as active a military role as France in Africa. The military intervention in Sierra Leone in 2000 was an exception. But, in a few African countries, Britain remains important militarily.

Britain has maintained an exceptionally close military relationship with Kenya since 1963 in the form of a regularly renewed defence treaty that allows up to 10,000 British troops to train in Kenya every year and to provide training support to the Kenyan military. In recent years, especially since al-Shabaab attacked the Westgate shopping mall in 2013, this support has particularly focused on counter-terrorism training with some success. Despite controversy over the behaviour of British soldiers training in Kenya, the relationship looks set to continue whoever wins the Kenyan presidential election this year.

Britain has also supported Nigeria in the fight against Boko Haram, but with rather less success. Following an agreement in 2018, this led to the first UK-Nigeria security and defence partnership meeting in London in February 2022. Future training will focus particularly on community policing, respect for human rights, and the role of women in the police force, as well as counter-terrorism cooperation.

Both Kenya and Nigeria border countries where terrorist activity poses a growing threat to political stability. In the Sahel, the UK has supported Frances Operation Barkhane since 2018 with the deployment of three Chinook helicopters, and the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA). London recently committed to provide political support to the multinational Takuba Task Force that was planned to replace Barkhane, and to deploy 250 reconnaissance troops alongside MINUSMA soldiers though it is still unclear how these activities will be affected by the coup in Mali earlier this year and the French withdrawal from the country. In the Horn of Africa, the UK has been one of the strongest advocates of EU support for the AU Mission to Somalia (AMISOM). As penholder for Somalia on the UN Security Council, the UK negotiated an extension of the mandate and continues to provide financial support to the country alongside the EU. But, without AMISOM, Somalia could quickly succumb to chronic instability and a resurgent al-Shabaab. And the decision on the missions future is now more in the hands of the AU and the EU than the UK.

The Integrated Review made much of Britains status as a soft power superpower, citing the influence of the BBC and the British Council (both of which are threatened by government cuts), as well as the royal family and Premier League football.

Britains cultural influence in Africa is indeed wide and deep, but that is not enough in itself to turn the soft into power. That requires a political gearing mechanism. And the relationship is more reciprocal than many realise: Africas cultural influence in the UK is growing faster than vice versa.

Millions of Africans watch Premier League matches every week, as much to follow the fortunes of African players as the teams themselves. The Ivorian ambassador to London used to point to a framed photo of footballer Didier Drogba on his mantelpiece, explaining: he is the real Ambassador of Cote dIvoire to this country. The most famous Egyptian in Britain is undoubtedly Mohamed Salah. And more Africans will have heard of footballer Harry Kane than Johnson. More still will have heard of the Queen, and there is an immense reservoir of affection for her and the (still widely trusted) BBC among Africans of an older generation. London, too, retains its powerful attraction as a place to visit, study, and work.

But none of this automatically translates into support for the British governments policies or votes at the UN. For that to happen, London would need to improve the political gearing mechanism and admit that the abolition of DFID, savage aid cuts, and apparent neglect of Africa have severely dented that so-called soft power.

Britains diplomatic network in Africa is extensive, with missions in all but 13 countries, and includes some excellent staff who maintain effective and influential contacts. But these can only be fully mobilised with visible political backing. Britains ever-changing cast of Africa ministers tour the continent assiduously, but remain junior and transient figures. The British royals are popular in Africa, but have no political power. Without the regular engagement of the foreign secretary and prime minister, the gearing will not be effective.

Nevertheless, one area remains of crucial importance to soft power: education. Britain continues to have a world-class higher education system, which many Anglophone African students aspire to attend. In 2020 around 25,000 students from Africa were studying in British higher education (75 per cent of them from Nigeria). And, over many years, this experience has had a lasting influence on the attitudes of African elites, who often go on to senior jobs at home or abroad. A few stay in British academic or private sector jobs, bringing skills and an African perspective to the country. The British governments policy is to encourage overseas students to attend educational institutions in the UK. Accordingly, in 2020, the Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office sponsored 401 Chevening scholars from sub-Saharan Africa to study in the UK. However, there remain two impediments to this effort: the high costs for overseas students with a relative lack of scholarships to fund poorer students and the persistent difficulty in obtaining a visa. Since the government cracked down on so-called visa factory language schools a decade ago, it has become harder to secure one, particularly for short-term academic study visits. This has stimulated a significant shift of African students towards the US (which is easier to access), China (which is cheaper), and even to Ukraine (where internationally recognised degree courses were both cheap and easy to access).

British universities are beginning to respond to this trend by directly building partnerships with African universities. Rather than create overseas branches as they do in the Middle East or Asia, they are increasing the capacity of partner universities in situ, to help strengthen African higher education in ways that are more accessible to most local students. As this approach is beneficial and sustainable for both parties, the British government should increase its support for such partnerships, especially by facilitating visits to and from Africa.

Soft power also works in the other direction. Africa has growing cultural influence in the UK in everything from music and literature to cinema and TV not just through the African diaspora but throughout British cultural industries and consumer choices. Events such as Film Africa and Africa Writes attract growing audiences, while UK concerts by leading African musicians sell out in hours.

This goes hand in hand with changes in political attitudes. The Black Lives Matter movement stimulated in 2020 a renewed interest in facing up to Britains own history, reflected in recent reports and investigations by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the National Trust, and private companies. The question of the restitution of cultural property, particularly of the Benin Bronzes, has also resurfaced. These demands for greater honesty and transparency about the past come from communities in the UK as much as from African countries themselves. And Britains reputation among Africans and those of African heritage everywhere will suffer if the government is unresponsive to such demands. An effort to ensure that Africa is accurately represented in the British school curriculum, as recently recommended by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Africa, would be a good place to start.

The most dynamic element of Britains evolving relationship with Africa has been the growing population of African origin in the country. In colonial times, the British migrated to Africa; in the post-colonial world, the flow has reversed. Recent estimates put the total African diaspora in the UK at more than 1.4 million. The 2011 National Census identified 3.3 per cent of the British population as being Black/African/Caribbean/Black British and another 1 per cent as mixed African/Caribbean/White heritage. As a share of Britains estimated 2021 population of 68.4 million, this equates to around three million people in Britain with some African heritage. The largest grouping of these people is in London, but there are also growing communities across the country, including in Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Cardiff, and Edinburgh. People of African heritage work in all sectors and make up around 2.5 per cent of the total NHS workforce accounting for a disproportionately large share of nurses. In practice, Africa like south Asia has become an integral part of what Britain is.

Many in the African diaspora in the UK maintain close and active links with the countries where they have family ties. Flights to and from west Africa are some of British Airways most lucrative routes. These connections are often commercial as much as familial, with organisations such as AFFORD encouraging the diaspora to support African development efforts. The British government, too, has been keen to create links with the diaspora as a way of connecting with the continent but, to be effective, this needs to involve more listening and less talking. Britains African diaspora is one of its major geopolitical and economic assets a fact that the government has taken too long to recognise.

One issue in particular dominates Africans views of Britain: visas. A 2019 report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Africa highlighted the visa problems that African visitors face in the UK. Its conclusions are borne out by conversations with Africans across the continent. No other topic creates more animosity towards the UK than the expensive, time-consuming, uncertain, and occasionally even humiliating experience of applying for a visa to visit the UK. The British authorities have made improvements in response to the report, while covid-19 travel restrictions temporarily eased the pressure on the visa system. But the issue has not gone away: it continues to have an outsized influence on perceptions of Britain across Africa.

Three factors will shape the trends discussed above: geopolitics; domestic politics (in both Africa and the UK); and global policy issues, particularly health, climate, conflict, and demographics. In many of them, Britains interests are mirrored by Europes.

Since independence, African nations have asserted their own agency in international affairs individually, as well as collectively through the AU and its predecessor. They are now considering how their interests are best served in a world that is becoming more multipolar. There is undoubtedly a struggle for influence on the continent, but it is a struggle that will be decided by Africans themselves. To be courted by world leaders be they from Washington, Beijing, Moscow, Istanbul, Berlin, or Brussels is to realise the power of choice. The recent round of summits with Africa have included, in 2019, Russias in Sochi and, in 2021, Frances in Montpelier, the Forum on China-Africa Cooperation in Senegal (the first away from Beijing), and Turkeys in Istanbul. With the AU-EU Summit also having taken place in Brussels in February 2022, can Britain compete?

It depends on what African leaders are looking for. Investment and trade: certainly. Respect: of course. Support on health and climate: obviously. Security: sometimes. Lectures: certainly not. European Council President Charles Michels proposal that the EU and Africa form a new alliance was not welcomed this was not what African leaders wanted. Though 28 African states voted for the recent UN General Assembly resolution demanding that Russia withdraw from Ukraine and only one (Eritrea) opposed it, 17 abstained and eight were absent, reluctant to vote against a nation with whom they had close links even if it was trampling on the sovereignty of an independent state and trying to reimpose imperial rule from Moscow. Even more abstained from voting on (23) or opposed (9) a resolution to remove Russia from the UN Human Rights Council. Contrast this with the unanimous African vote against the UK on the Chagos Islands resolution in 2019 (when only five countries in the world backed the British position ), and the overwhelming African support for the Indian rather than the British candidate for the International Court of Justice in 2017.

Real friends are there when you need them and that cuts both ways. African leaders may prefer a trip to London to one to Moscow, but the UN votes suggest that Russia carries more clout in Africa than the UK for all its aid, investment, and education. With UN Security Council reform again in the air, it is worth asking: if there was a straight vote between the UK and Russia for a seat on the Security Council, who would gather the most African votes?

Russias full-scale invasion of Ukraine has changed global politics. Alliances are becoming more important. And both Britain and the EU need to build robust partnerships in Africa if they are to demonstrate the value of, and thereby preserve, a multilateral system based on international law rather than the law of the strongest. Most African countries, with relatively small economies and limited military capabilities, have much to lose if the multilateral system that gives them a vote and a voice is replaced by a global system of patrons and clients. Africa did not fare well in the cold war which brought it conflict and corruption rather than growth or good governance. Africas growth story only began after the cold war ended.

But not all Africans see it that way. For many in the street, and some in government, the West has had its way in the world for too long: the global system is still stacked against Africa, Africans are still poor, Western countries failed them yet again in their response to covid-19, and a change is overdue. China and Russia provide some African leaders with what they want investment and security, with no questions asked. France is already facing a backlash in west Africa, where its counter-terrorism campaigns are widely accused of being more neo-colonial than supportive. And just when Africa needs extra support to deal with the impact of covid-19 and rising world food prices, the UK is reducing its aid budget. Therefore, domestic political pressure in a growing number of African countries may drive governments to reject old partners and seek new ones. There is a battle of narratives in Africa. Neither France, Britain, nor the rest of Europe can take African sympathy and support for granted.

British domestic politics could also drive it away from Africa. Opinion polls confirm that there is extensive public support for aid cuts and the closure of the border to foreigners, including refugees. And the Johnson government is likely to stick by these policies. There is currently no British minister willing to make the case in cabinet for prioritising closer links with Africa. The Conservative Friends of International Development were defeated in their efforts to push the government to return to a 0.7 per cent of GNI target for aid spending. Seen from Africa, there seems to be little chance that the British government will genuinely listen to Africans concerns and address their needs.

And yet, if some aspects of global and domestic politics risk pulling the UK and Africa apart, there are global and local crises in which African countries would look for support from Britain if it was willing to work hand in hand with the rest of Europe, as it has on Ukraine. This could create a basis for a new and lasting partnership.

The most urgent of these issues are health, climate, conflict, and demography.

The covid-19 pandemic revealed the desperate need to upgrade Africas health capabilities. Despite major investment in African healthcare in recent decades especially to combat AIDS, Ebola, malaria, malnutrition, and to improve maternity care the West is widely seen to have failed to deliver adequate vaccines in Africas hour of need. African countries are determined to develop their own pharmaceutical industries. And the EU and Britain should take the lead in supporting this, as British universities are in supporting African higher education. British-Swedish firm AstraZeneca, for example, has the potential to increase its investment in Africa, which would promote vaccine equity and reduce the risks that future outbreaks will develop into pandemics.

COP26 underlined the shared interests of African and European countries in tackling climate change. Africans are among the first to suffer the consequences of climate change, while Europeans want to accelerate action to mitigate these effects. COP27 in Egypt provides an opportunity to reinforce the unity of purpose with unity of action. Thanks to the widely respected work of COP26 President Alok Sharma, Britain had a leading role in Glasgow. To carry weight in Sharm-el-Sheikh, it will need to act in concert with the EU. Africas and Europes green agendas are not identical but, as the AU-EU Summit declaration demonstrated, they have common ground. And the EU can back up its climate goals with far greater investment than Britain alone can mobilise. On the other side, Africas ability to influence both China and India is critical to limiting the speed of climate change. Sharma would be well-placed to organise a partnership along these lines with both Africa and the EU, if the government gave him the support to do so.

Nevertheless, adapting to climate change requires a degree of stability and government effectiveness that, in parts of Africa, appears to be under strain not least from the impact of climate change itself. Across both the Sahel and the Horn of Africa, intensifying pressure on resources appears to be exacerbating jihadism, banditry, political instability, and a wider decay in governmental capacity to maintain law and order. These trends could lead to greater disorder and displacement which, in turn, would put further pressure on established governments and accelerate what is in some places already becoming a process of state disintegration. Political disagreements risk degenerating into uncontrollable conflict, precipitating ever larger movements of people that destabilise neighbouring countries. Britain could certainly play a constructive role in working with African institutions to reduce these risks and build on the successful growth story elsewhere on the continent. But, by acting alone, it lacks critical mass. Britain can only provide support and apply pressure that will make a difference by working with the EU and the AU.

Africas remarkable demographic growth underpins all three challenges. Unlike most other continents, Africa will continue to experience a rapid increase in its population. This is thanks to the revolution in healthcare since the 1960s. Africans median age of 19.7 means that there will be an expanding labour force for many decades to come. The key question concerns what they will do. Population growth can stimulate economic activity, but only if it is accompanied by the mobilisation of physical resources (such as land, water, and energy) and investment (in infrastructure, transport, manufacturing) to create jobs and other economic opportunities. If young Africans cannot find a livelihood where they are, they will move to a place where they can. That is the history of human society. It will not stop because of the relatively recent invention of national borders.

All this has a direct impact on the EU and Britain. Both have a choice between supporting more rapid economic growth in Africa or preparing to welcome more African migrants. As all have learnt in different ways from the covid-19 and Ukraine crises, it is impossible to insulate one region from events in another, however far away it may feel. To address these problems, the UK needs to work closely with other European countries as well as with the US, the AU, and the UN to support political stabilisation in these regions. This should involve more effective international coordination to prevent external powers, including Gulf states, from exacerbating local conflicts a problem that has plagued peace efforts in Libya and the Horn of Africa.

It is already clear that it is hard to separate British policy on Africa from that of the rest of Europe. Of course, seen from Downing Street, Britain is competing for business and influence with its European rivals. But, frankly, there are bigger games in play and Britain risks losing out if it chooses to go it alone (as the recent ECFR report Beyond Global Britain makes clear).

As an EU member, the UK was considered a heavyweight on African affairs with considerable influence on EU policy, alongside France and Germany (which, under former chancellor Angela Merkel, also prioritised Africa). Since Brexit, EU Africa policy has become decidedly more French and Mediterranean. This is not necessarily to Britains or Africas advantage.

The European Economic Community, the EUs predecessor, inherited strong links with Africa from member states that formerly held African colonies, but without some of the historical baggage. It initially focused on aid and trade, through the Lom and then Cotonou conventions the latter seeking to strengthen the link between economic development and good governance. From the first EU-Africa Summit held in Cairo in 2000, the formation of the AU in 2003, and the agreement on a Joint Africa-EU Strategy in 2007, the relationship aspired to become an equal partnership. This partnership was reaffirmed at a successful summit in Brussels in 2014, but then tested by the migration crisis in 2015. The latter culminated in the Valletta Summit on migration in November 2015, which set out the five pillars of policy that both sides endorsed and established a trust fund to help finance the resulting initiatives.

The most recent AU-EU Summit, attended by 40 African and almost all EU heads of state or government, reaffirmed the partnership and set out a joint vision for 2030. It was a substantive affair. And its timing, just ahead of Russias invasion of Ukraine, was fortuitous. There were intense negotiations over the wording of commitments on migration and intellectual property rights for pharmaceutical products. This is because what was said mattered.

The relationship now revolves around six key issues, including those identified above:

On many of these issues, the UK and EU are almost entirely aligned and would strengthen each other by working together. The British governments apparent belief that it will carry more weight by approaching African countries independently of the EU is not borne out in practice. Of course, British diplomats can join forces with their EU colleagues on an ad hoc basis, but this would be less effective. The government currently discourages participation in EU coordination meetings, an approach that makes no sense in a world where influence matters more than posturing. Common UK-EU positions would demonstrate to Britains African interlocutors that it still had influence within the EU, thereby enhancing the countrys capacity to achieve its objectives in Africa.

The consequences of Britains refusal to reach a formal post-Brexit foreign policy coordination mechanism with the EU are now apparent. Without institutional mechanisms to support this process, such coordination is ad hoc and rushed. Bilateral engagement with individual member states is a time-consuming and clumsy alternative to such mechanisms.

Britain could easily begin to address this issue in Africa by allowing its ambassadors and high commissioners to liaise with their EU counterparts on a more regular basis. More efficient still would be to create a formal coordination mechanism in Brussels that would bring the UK into the room when it mattered most. Despite the bad blood created by Brexit, most European countries would welcome this.

Britain retains great assets in Africa and in its African diaspora. But, having neglected both, the country is now paying the price in diminished influence and reduced business. It needs to change policies and priorities if it is to reverse that trend. The key to this is for the government to listen to what Africans are saying including those who are now an integral part of British society and to address their concerns, not merely seek to impose its own policies on them. This is now a matter of domestic and international politics. Listening and responding is very much in Britains national interest if only the government would admit it.

Britains position in the world depends on real power, hard security, and economic benefits not on wishful thinking. Waffle in Whitehall and Westminster has no clout in Africa. And Britains global influence depends as much if not more on African and South Asian opinion as on the views of China, with whom it is currently engaged in a stand-off, and the US, which too often takes Britain for granted. Having friends still matters in global politics. It is essential for Britain to build fruitful partnerships with African countries domestically and internationally. This is obviously true of Nigeria, South Africa, and Kenya, which are courted by all major players and can pick and choose their partners. Therefore, Britain should make a particular effort to court Francophone and smaller Anglophone countries that global powers regularly ignore Malawi, Botswana, Zambia, Gambia, Uganda, Somalia, South Sudan, Cte dIvoire, Senegal, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A real commitment to Africas interests and progress would produce big political dividends.

The transformation of the international order caused by Russias war on Ukraine makes Africas role in the world more important than ever. Some African countries will be tempted to equivocate or play one great power off against the others. This is a dangerous and potentially damaging game, as Russias involvement in Syria has demonstrated. It is fundamentally in the interests of Africas democracies, Africas development, and arguably all African people to enhance global stability rather than encourage or tolerate continued conflict.

This is profoundly in the self-interest of both Britain and the EU. By acting separately, they weaken their ability to support Africas development. The case for democracy, liberal values, and an open economy needs to be argued, demonstrated, and won in public debate. By allowing its influence in Africa to fade, and by distancing itself from the European mainstream, Britain has limited its ability to affect the outcome of that debate in ways that have serious consequences for its role in the world.

Britains assets in soft power, security engagement, financial expertise, and political understanding could have far greater impact if they were linked to the EUs resources and economic clout. The longer Britain continues to separate itself from the EU by avoiding close coordination on policies that are in their mutual interest, the faster its influence in Africa will diminish. A dogmatic commitment to autonomy will only hasten its irrelevance. Some in government may find such advice unpalatable, but ignoring it will only hasten Britains decline. If Britain cannot work with its friends and neighbours, it will swiftly lose the respect of all.

Investing in Africa still makes economic sense, as the continents economies and populations are growing. And Africans will welcome it: faster economic growth is essential to manage the demographic shift, the impact of climate change, and the risk of conflict on the continent. These are important issues for all concerned.

Therefore, in practical terms, the key recommendations are:

Above all, both the UK and the EU need to make a greater political investment in Africas future starting right now, before it is too late.

The European Council on Foreign Relations does not take collective positions. ECFR publications only represent the views of its individual authors.

Read more from the original source:

Shared fortunes: Why Britain, the European Union and Africa need each other - European Council on Foreign Relations

By Chaz Muth

WASHINGTON (CNS) The devastating impact of the sin of slavery cannot be fixed with a simple apology and monetary restitution, Georgetown University officials acknowledge.

The work began nearly seven years ago to begin to make amends for the schools history of owning and selling enslaved people.

Sometimes people will (ask) when will we finish up the reconciliation initiatives? (The answer is) its ongoing. Its a permanent part of our process, said Joseph A. Ferrara, vice president and chief of staff to the president of Georgetown University, one of the most recognizable Catholic institutions in the U.S.

Its a shameful legacy the Jesuit-run university will bear for the foreseeable future and there is no magic remedy to right the wrong, but Ferrara said university leadership is committed to continuing reparations to the descendants of enslaved people once owned by the Jesuits and to ongoing programs designed to counter systemic racism.

The efforts of Georgetown and the Jesuits to atone for what they label as a sin has been widely applauded as an example of how to begin the process of racial healing in a country still struggling to come to grips with racism.

However, these efforts dont come without criticism from those who believe reparations send the wrong message and from some descendants of Georgetown slaves who say the committed restitution falls short of the damage that was inflicted.

The Jesuits opened Georgetown for classes in 1792, using profits from their slave-holding Maryland plantations to fund what is the oldest Catholic institution of higher learning in the U.S., said Adam Rothman, an associate professor of history at the university and author of Slave Country: American Expansion and the Origins of the Deep South.

Georgetowns history is a microcosm of the whole history of American slavery, Rothman told Catholic News Service in a March interview. The school was founded by a slave-holding Catholic elite. That group really stamped the school in its own image.

Georgetown catered to that social class, educated boys and young men from that class and indoctrinated them with the moral judgments of that class, Rothman said, noting that the Catholic gentry and the Jesuits found a morality in enslaving other humans.

Documents and research find that not only did the profits from slave-holding plantations subsidize Georgetown, but slaves also worked on campus, students brought their own personal slaves to campus, and the students and faculty defended the institution of slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War and fought abolition efforts, he said.

Georgetown as the flagship educational institution of the Jesuits, of Catholic America in the early 19th century was really a pillar of pro-slavery moral order, Rothman said.

With a mounting debt in the late 1830s, Georgetown was on the brink of financial ruin.

So, in 1838 the Jesuits sold 272 enslaved men, women and children to two plantations in Louisiana and used part of the profits from that sale to rescue the college.

The Jesuits and Georgetown officials continued racial segregation policies long after slavery was outlawed in the U.S. and well into the 20th century.

By the end of the 20thcentury, however, the faculty began to research and teach about Georgetowns role in slavery, Rothman said.

Students began to call on the university to address its racist past and by 2014 as the country began to experience protests for racial justice Georgetown officials knew it was time to act, Ferrara told CNS in a March interview.

All of this flows under a construct that has guided our work, he said, which I would put sort of in three words, all of which begin with an a. Acknowledgment, apology and action.

In 2015, Georgetown University President John DeGioia established the Working Group on Slavery, Memory and Reconciliation.

The working groups efforts led to a formal apology from the Jesuits and the creation of the Descendants Truth & Reconciliation Foundation, announced in 2021 as a partnership formed by the Jesuits and the GU272 Descendants Association.

The Jesuit order pledged to raise $100 million for the foundations work, which will support educational opportunities and scholarships from early childhood education to higher education for descendants of the 272 enslaved men, women and children.

The foundation also will support community-based, grassroots and national programs that advance racial healing and transformation throughout the U.S.

The university has pledged to create a smaller reconciliation fund to support community groups that benefit descendants, Ferrara said.

Georgetown University also established a new Racial Justice Institute in 2021, which school officials say will serve as a hub where current and future scholars, activists and thought leaders may work across the academic, policy and advocacy spaces to address the remnants of slavery.

Robin Lenhardt, who is a professor at Georgetown Law and one of the founding faculty of this new initiative, said the Racial Justice Institute will focus on research and societal solutions for racial inequities in economic stability, housing, health, policing, education and a host of other areas.

All these efforts come after scores of meetings many of them painful summits over several years between descendants of the oppressed and Georgetown and Jesuit officials to begin the healing process, Ferrara said.

We cant change the past, but we can change the future, he said. Thats what we want to try to do.

The efforts of Georgetown have not gone unnoticed, and it has been welcome news to Father Stephen Thorne, a Black priest who is chairman of the Archdiocese of Philadelphias Commission for Racial Healing.

Reparations is much more than writing a check to someone, Father Thorne told CNS in a February interview. It really is acknowledging what has happened and doing the work, the hard work, of calling out and making sure it doesnt repeat itself again.

Sister Marcia Hall, a Black nun with the Oblate Sisters of Providence in Baltimore, has been inspired by Georgetowns work and hopes other Catholic organizations take a similar path toward racial reconciliation.

Joseph M. Stewart, the acting president of the Descendants Truth & Reconciliation Foundation, stressed that addressing the U.S. history of slavery and its continuing implications must focus on looking ahead more than on continuing to deconstruct the past.

Stewart who is a descendant of Isaac Hawkins, whose name was at the top of the bill of sale for the 272 enslaved men, women and children sold by the Jesuits in 1838 made these comments during a 2021 online program hosted by Georgetowns Initiative on Catholic Social Thought and Public Life called, Owning Slavery, Pursuing Justice, Seeking Reconciliation.

Were not going to change and mitigate the impact of slavery until we start dealing with the hearts of men instead of the intellectualizing and legal approach, he said, while also giving credit to Georgetown for its outreach to the descendants of the 272 enslaved people and its ongoing research.

See the original post:

Georgetown Officials Say Amends for Slavery Past Are Ongoing and Long Term - The Tablet Catholic Newspaper

Animal Protection Nonprofit Spearheading Efforts to Enact Similar Legislation to End This Humane Practice throughout North America

ANNAPOLIS, Md., April 21, 2022 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- The Paw Project the leading animal protection nonprofit dedicated to educating the public about the inhumane and crippling effects of cat declawing and advocating for anti-declaw legislation proudly announces that the inhumane practice of declawing animals has been banned in a second U.S. State.

Today, Maryland Governor Larry Hogan enacted legislation prohibiting elective, non-therapeutic declawing, effective October 1, 2022. He signed the following bills into law: SB67, sponsored by Sen. Cheryl C. Kagan (D-17) and HB22, sponsored by Del. Lorig Charkoudian, Ph.D. (D-20).

The law does not into effect until October 1.

"I am so appreciative of Gov. Hogan and honored to work with Del. Charkoudian and Sen. Kagan, who are true champions for animals," said Jennifer Conrad, DVM, a veterinarian and the founder/director of the Paw Project. "Maryland can now consider itself one of the most humane states in the Union."

Declawing is a surgical procedure in which the animal's toes are amputated at the last joint. Part of the bone, not just the nail, is removed. It is analogous to cutting off the first knuckle on the human hand.

It is estimated that 23 million domestic cats (over 20 percent of all owned cats) are declawed in the United States. This highly invasive and painful surgery is performed primarily to protect furniture. It is widely recognized that declawing cats does not reduce health risks for humans with health issues. Recently published studies have shown that declawed cats are more likely to bite.

"Our beloved kitties, who cannot advocate for themselves, need us to protect them," said Sen. Kagan. "I am so proud that Maryland will become just the second state to ban the cruel practice of declawing our cats. Del. Charkoudian and I are grateful to the Paw Project, the many humane organizations and pet lovers from across Maryland who contacted their legislators and helped to get this bill passed."

Del. Charkoudian concurred, "I am thrilled that my colleagues have taken this important action to protect cats from this cruel and unnecessary practice. I am proud that Maryland is a leader in this effort and I hope all other states will follow."

Declawing is already prohibited in the New York state, 13 U.S. cities (including West Hollywood, Berkeley, Beverly Hills, Burbank, Culver City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Santa Monica), and in eight of the 10 Canadian provinces. Anti-declaw legislation is currently being considered in California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Connecticut.

The practice of declawing any cat already is illegal or considered unethical in most of the world, including the UK, Ireland, Switzerland, Germany, Austria, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand and Norway. Great Britain's Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons has declared declawing to be "unnecessary mutilation."

"We sincerely thank Gov. Hogan and the Maryland legislature for taking the momentous step to ban declawing," said Becky Robinson, president and founder of the Bethesda, Md.-based, Alley Cat Allies.

In addition to The Paw Project and Alley Cat Allies, the Humane Society of The United States, the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Association, Maryland Votes for Animals, and veterinarians all over the world oppose the procedure.

California previously passed legislation to prohibit declawing of captive and wild exotic cats due to the Paw Project's efforts. Veterinarians working with the nonprofit animal protection organization have developed and performed reparative surgery on lions, tigers, cougars, leopards, jaguars and domestic cats that had been maimed by declawing yielding dramatic results. Enjoying relief for the first time after years of suffering, cats that could only hobble a few agonizing steps before reconstructive surgery, now are able to leap, run and play as nature intended.

About The Paw Project

The Paw Project is a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization founded in 1999 by veterinarian Dr. Jennifer Conrad to educate the public about the painful and crippling effects of feline declawing, promote animal welfare through the abolition of the practice of declaw surgery, and rehabilitate cats that have been declawed through reparative surgery. As a result of its efforts, declawing has been banned in seven Canadian Provinces and nine cities in the United States to date. For more information, visit http://www.PawProject.org.

# # #

Media Contact

Amy Prenner, The Prenner Group, 1 3107091101, amy@theprennergroup.com

SOURCE The Paw Project

See original here:

Following Advocacy from The Paw Project, Maryland Becomes Second U.S. State That Bans Animal Declawing - 69News WFMZ-TV

What you need to know about cryptocurrency and filing your taxes

If you're thinking of investing in cryptocurrency, plan to pay taxes on what you earn. Here's how you'll be taxed and what you'll owe.

Andrea Kramar and Hye-Su Jun, USA TODAY

Tax season procrastinators had one more chance to sort out returns and pay any taxes owed.

April 18 is the deadline for most taxpayers across the U.S. to file their returns. Residents in Maine and Massachusetts have until April 19 because of Patriots' Day.

As of April 8, more than 103 million federal tax returns were filed. The IRS estimates it will receive more than 160 million returns this year.

For those taxpayers getting a refund, their deposit or check was likely larger than in 2021. IRS data shows refunds are averaging $3,175this season, nearly 10% higher than last year.

Below is a recap of all the information you need to know on the final day of the 2022 tax season.

TAX SEASON 2022: What to know about extensions, refunds and child tax credits.

WHEN ARE TAX RETURNS DUE?: These are the deadlines to file

Multiple Twitter users say they are having trouble logging into their accounts with the IRS. They are either stuck on a landing page that automatically refreshes or are directed to a new page with a notice that says increased traffic is impacting service. "Please consider returning later while we work to resolve this issue."

The IRS did not immediately respond to USA TODAYS inquiry regarding when it expects to resolve the problem and what last-minute filers should do if they cannot access key information on their accounts.

Its unclear if the issue is occurring nationwide or if it is isolated in certain geographic areas.

Elisabeth Buchwald

Tens of millions of tax returns will flood the Internal Revenue Service now that the April 18 filing deadline is here. But the headaches of the latest tax season and last year's leftover troubles will linger in the months ahead.

"The IRS has to get current with not only prior years but this year's tax returns before they move into the next filing season without this albatross around its neck," said Erin Collins, the national taxpayer advocate.

For the IRS, it has meant putting as many resources and people as possible toward clearing out the backlog that built up in 2021.

For taxpayers, it can mean repeated efforts to get an IRS employee on the phone to answer a question or help with a problem. It means anyone who has filed a paper return this year risks ridiculously long waits of possibly six months or even nine months to receive an income tax refund.

The IRS has historically been able to process a refund within two weeks for an electronically filed tax return and up to six weeks for a paper tax return.

Susan Tompor, Detroit Free Press

The number of people who reported cryptocurrency transactions in their 2020 tax return more than tripled compared with 2019, according to data from TurboTax. The tax software company expects even more people to report crypto transactions on their 2021 taxes.

TurboTax also found that 63% of people reporting crypto on their 2020 returns gained money compared with 45% of people on their 2019 returns.

Elisabeth Buchwald

Residents in states affected by a natural disaster could get more time to file returns and pay the IRS.

For example, Tennessee residents and businesses in 14 counties hit by disasters in the past year will get until May 16 to file returns and make payments.

Tennessee was hit by severe weather in December, including strong winds and storms in some areas of the state.

Residents in other states could see relief as well, including victims of wildfires in Colorado, and victims of severe storms and flooding in Puerto Rico.

Don't forget the Tax Day treats

Filing your taxes can be stressful. Fortunately, several businesses and restaurants are providing Tax Day freebies and perks. Among some of the food and services available:

As of April 8, the IRS received more than 103 million returns. Of those, the agency processed nearly 100 million returns. Thats 10% higher compared to the same time last year. However, the tax deadline was extended by a month.

Compared to the total number of returns received by the end of filing season 2019, we have received almost of all the returns we will receive by the filing deadline, said Anthony Burke, an IRS spokesperson.

So far the IRS issued more than $222 billion in refunds. The average refund is $3,175, nearly 10% higher than last year thanks to the enhanced Child Tax Credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, and the third round of stimulus checks which many taxpayers will be claiming as a refund.

Elisabeth Buchwald

The deadline to file taxes typically falls on April 15, but this year taxpayers get a couple of extra days to file thanks to a D.C. holiday.

The D.C. offices for the IRS were closed on April 15 to recognize Emancipation Day, which commemorates the abolition of slavery. Although Emancipation Day is April 16, it was observed by the government the Friday before.

This is not the first time in recent history taxpayers received extra time to file their taxes. Last year, the deadline was pushed to May 17 so taxpayers had more time to file. In 2020, the IRS extended the tax deadline to July 15 amid the COVID pandemic.

Filing taxes is never fun, but digital services which allow taxpayers to submit returns electronically have made the process smoother, especially for those waiting until the last minute.

So what's the best tax software? According to Reviewed, TurboTax is the top option because"It's intuitive, offers differently priced packages depending on your tax needs" and provides lots of support if you run into issues.

Another great choice is H&R Block, which Reviewed says is easy to navigate and includes unemployment income if you're using the free edition of its service.

Taxpayers who need more time to complete their return can file an extension, which gives them until Oct. 17to submit. However, you still have to pay the IRS any taxes owed by Monday.

Taxpayers can visit the IRS website's Free File option to receive the six-month extension for free. After picking a firm that participates in Free File, taxpayers fill out Form 4868 for the extension.

Taxpayers who do owe money will need to estimate the amount. According to H&R Block, taxpayers who don't pay at least 90% of that amount face a penalty.

If you are receiving a refund, there's no penalty, according to the IRS. But if you don't file a return within three years, you could lose the refund.

If you owe money to the IRS, you face two penalties. The first is for not filing on time, which the IRS says will cost"5% of the unpaid taxes for each month or part of a month that a tax return is late."

You can also receive a penalty for not paying your taxes on time, which amounts to0.5% of your unpaid taxes plus interest.

Want to make a cool interest rate of more than 8% on your tax refund cash?

Late filers who are due a federal income tax refund can use Form 8888 toimmediately invest up to $5,000 of that money in inflation-indexed savings bonds, or I Bonds.

The average interest rate is 8.36% over the 12 months for those who buy the I Bonds before late April.

Study the details of these bonds before signing up at TreasuryDirect.gov. For example, you do not have access to the money in I Bonds for 12 months.

Contributing: Elisabeth Buchwald, Susan Tompor, and The Associated Press

Follow Brett Molina on Twitter: @brettmolina23.

More:

Tax Day recap: What to know on the last day to file tax returns in 2022 - USA TODAY

The large budgets allotted for urban policing must be reconsidered so that communities can explore safer alternatives.

Defund should not be a dirty word.

In fact, defunding public police is a step towards choosing real safety for communities across Canada. Defunding means taking funds from police budgets, while shrinking the size and operations of police. At the same time, it means granting more power to community groups and dedicating more resources to community and social development. Defunding police is a necessary step toward social and economic justice.

Taking the time to cut through intimidating police rhetoric can help reveal ways police actually create harm.

Police rhetoric and intimidation push people away from thinking through the costs of policing. The rhetoric can be so overwhelming that it often prevents us from exploring alternative possibilities of non-punitive and community-led responses to transgression.

Ive recently helped to edit a collection of essays exploring the economic, political and social reasons for defunding, disarming and dismantling public police in Canada. After reflecting on the arguments, I am convinced that larger police budgets and greater police deployments will cause more harm than good.

One major reason to defund police is economic.

In some Canadian cities, public police budgets now account for more than 30 per cent of municipal budgets. The costs of policing are expected to surge even higher in the next decade.

These costs are creating structural deficits that municipalities will never escape from. On economic grounds alone, defunding police is an issue anybody interested in cities and public (and fiscal) policy should have at the front of mind. This money should be reinvested in social programs, community development, mental health, transportation and housing.

Still, its necessary to go beyond economic claims and look at the politics. The politics of police are another reason for defunding.

The politics of police forces are anti-democratic and contrary to social justice.

For example, this past February during the right-wing trucker protest, some police sided with the anti-vaccine convoy in cities like Ottawa, Winnipeg and Coutts, Alta.

Some officers used their cars as personal photo booths for the occupiers and acted as valet parking for the truckers, revealing differential treatment for mostly white settler protesters compared to, for example, Indigenous Wetsuweten land defenders and water protectors. Several officers across the country are under investigation for either donating to the trucker convoy or posting social media alerts cheering on the occupation of Canadian cities that were hurtful, disruptive and disrespectful to so many.

There are other examples of regressive police politics. Police have used public resources to support their own narrow, conservative political causes. In Edmonton and Lethbridge, Alta., police have been caught spying on their critics and circulating negative social media posts. In Toronto and Winnipeg, police unions have run attack ads against mayors when those politicians suggested police costs should be reined in.

Recently, Calgary police have indicated they will continue to wear thin blue line patches that have been called fascist and racist in the United States and in Canada too.

Some police like to suggest they are the thin blue line holding back forces of chaos in the world. This requires police to adopt an aggressive law-and-order ideology.

To mark their political stance and exceptional (some might call it extremist) posture, officers will adorn their uniforms with thin blue line patches or put blue line stickers on their cars.

These examples reinforce the idea that police are biased against left-wing political groups and embody a conservative political order.

In this conservative political police culture, critics must be neutralized. Police defunding becomes a dirty word.

A further reason to defund and abolish police is the violence they exact, especially on Black and Indigenous peoples.

Numerous studies and countless stories demonstrate the graphic violence police wantonly use against racialized people.

There are other groups suffering from police violence in ways that have become commonplace. People experiencing mental health crises are routinely shot to death by police instead of getting support.

Medical doctors and nurses in the U.S. and Canada tired of seeing the results of police violence on the bodies of their patients have formed groups calling for the defunding and abolition police.

Other groups are mobilizing for abolition and organizing workshops on alternatives to calling the police because they see police violence is causing tremendous harm.

That immediate violence is in addition to the slow violence that criminalizing people does to entire neighbourhoods. Every arrest by police can affect access to education and employment opportunities, and have a lasting impact on families. Imprisoning Communities by U.S. criminologist Todd Clear is a book everyone should read: it reveals how putting people in jail erodes social and familial bonds.

It might seem counter-intuitive, but criminalization undoes community and creates conditions for more transgression. The more police criminalize people, the less healthy our communities are. When you understand that, you start to see the harm that police do everywhere.

Do we want a society governed by a rock-em-sock-em mentality of reactive, violent responses to people in distress and need?

Or do we want to live in a generous society in which community development is the focus of government funding, and policing is no longer a major priority?

It is not a luxury to debate this for many people, especially Black, Indigenous and people of colour in Canada. Police abolition is a matter of survival.

For more discussions about defunding the police, check out the book Disarm, Defund, Dismantle: Police Abolition in Canada which confronts policing myths head on. The ideas in the book build on the work of many social movement groups calling for police defunding. The book examines the politics and economics of policing, the history of police violence, the colonial dimensions of Canada that public police continue to uphold, the police targeting of sex workers and migrants, and the need to put defunding on the agenda in every jurisdiction.

Reading these arguments may help communities envision alternatives to police while bolstering arguments to defund police and refund community.

We have decreased the power and scope or done away with harmful social institutions before. Continuing to accept the status quo by handing over massive budgets to public police institutions will not get us to a safe and healthy future. Bigger police budgets and greater police deployments are a recipe for more harm.

Kevin Walby does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Link:

Why is defunding the police important for community safety? - Vancouver Is Awesome

At the David and Lyn Silfen University Forum, Penn Interim President Wendell Pritchett hosted award-winning documentary filmmaker Ken Burns in a wide-ranging discussion about Burns new documentary on Benjamin Franklin, founding father and founder of the University of Pennsylvania.

The hour-and-a-half chat discussed everything from how Burns view of Franklin transformed during the making of the two-part documentary, to the idea of Franklin as the original social networker who never stopped reinventing himself, to how so much of Franklins work has relevance today. The discussion was intermingled with short clips from the four-hour documentary that premiered earlier this month on PBS.

John L. Jackson Jr., the Walter H. Annenberg Dean of the Annenberg School for Communication and Richard Perry University Professor, introduced Burns and Pritchett, and noted how at so many major events at Penn, Benjamin Franklin or one of his aphorisms are typically invoked in a quick and perfunctory gesture, even a ritualistic one, before moving on to the subject at hand.

Today, however, weve decided to pause on Franklin even more purposefully than usual by talking about the powerful filmic portrait of Franklins life offered up by Ken Burns, Jackson said. After having the chance to watch the documentary himself, Jackson was struck by how Burns managed to portray the larger-than-life Franklin as truly human in his faults and accomplishments.

This is a Franklin who isnt reducible to pithy renditions of his most storied accomplishments. It is a decidedly multidimensional Franklin, and one that this particular Quakermemet again for the first time with new eyes through the films powerful storytelling.

This is a Franklin who isnt reducible to pithy renditions of his most storied accomplishments. It is a decidedly multidimensional Franklin. Annenberg School of Communication dean John L. Jackson Jr.

Starting off the conversation, Pritchett noted that Burns has said in the past he doesnt choose his documentary topics, but rather, they choose him.

So how did Ben Franklin choose you? Pritchett asked.

Burns, who is also the 2022 Penn commencement speaker and recipient of an honorary doctor of arts degree, said hes drawn to topics with complicated stories and Benjamin Franklin represents exactly that.

Hes arguably the most important founder, and I think hes also the most interesting, he said, noting Franklin was a teenage runaway who achieved such remarkable success that his example would be handed down for generations as the embodiment of the American dream.

Franklin was a writer, a publisher, an inventor, a scientist, a civic leader who embraced the Enlightenment, but he also owned and enslaved human beings and benefited from the institution of slavery, Burns said.

He constantly remade himself from apprentice to printer to scientist to government official to revolutionary to abolitionist, Burns said. He never was finished with himself. He always thought that he was a work in progress.

Burns said he doesnt make films to highlight what he already knows but would rather share with you a process of discovery, and the discovery of Franklin has been as satisfying as anything weve done over nearly 50 years making films.

The talk then moved on to Franklins goals for establishing what would become the University of Pennsylvania, which was to create the first nonsectarian college in America, not beholden to any religious dogma.

He felt it in his bones that education, the thing that he couldnt have as a child, is central to everything he wants to create enlightened human beings who will go about the process of enlightening their community, Burns said. As we look at the mess that were in right now, we see the decline of public education. He knew at the start of his experiment how much that public education would be important and worthwhile and beneficial.

Pritchett also asked how actor Mandy Patinkin came to be the voice of Franklin in the film. Burns said Patinkin as Franklin came to him as he watched an episode of Homeland with his daughter, who he joked was likely too young to have been watching the show at all.

He makes Franklin accessible and thats a great gift, he said of Patinkin.

The talk turned to the issue of slavery several times over the afternoon, including when Pritchett asked how Franklins thinking on the topic evolved over time.

[Franklin] constantly remade himself from apprentice to printer to scientist to government official to revolutionary to abolitionist. Award-winning documentary filmmaker Ken Burns

Burns said the passing of the Constitution made the issue of slavery a huge topic because of the hypocrisy of all the Southern planters who owned hundreds of human beings articulating that all men are created equal and also using the language of slavery to describe what King George was doing to them. Either these rights are universal, or they werent.

One of the great things that that Franklin did was to liberate the slaves in his own very small household and refuse to run advertisements for the sale of human beings or the return of runaways, Burns said. Franklin eventually became president of the Abolition Society.

I dont think you get a pass for that, but you get higher marks than any of the other white men who created the country, Burns said.

The talk moved to audience questions, which addressed the craft of documentary filmmaking.

In the final question, one audience member asked Burns if he sees a connection between all his documentary subjects, from the Civil War to baseball, from jazz to Franklin.

Theyre all about us, he said. Theyre asking the same question: Who are we? Who are those strange and complicated people who like to call themselves Americans? What does an investigation of the past tell us about not only what weve been, but where we are and where we may be going?

Since 2009, the Silfen Forum has allowed for important conversation and debate in a public space. Late University Trustee David M. Silfen and his wife Lyn endowed the series, as well as funded two Penn Integrates Knowledge University professorships, the Silfen Student Study Center, a term professorship, and the David and Lyn Silfen Fund to support educational innovation in the School of Arts & Sciences. Previous forum topics have included political polarization and public debate, battling cancer, asylum and immigration, the opioid epidemic, and the future of higher education.

Video of the event is available on The Silfen Forum website.

View post:

Ben Franklin: A voice from the past that speaks to our time | Penn Today - Penn Today

Other suggestions proposed by about 300 pupils aged five to 13 as part of the project to address injustice, prejudice and racism were BAME Park, Multi-faith Park and Diversity Fields.

Rainbow Park, Freedom Peace and Harmony Park and the Peace Park of Equals were also put forward, along with Ramsey Park and MacDonald Park - an apparent deconstruction of Ramsey MacDonald, the former Labour leader, who had tenuous links to landmarks in the area.

Brent Borough Council said it is continuing its engagement work pending a formal decision on a new name, which it has been searching for since the eruption of Black Lives Matter protests in 2020.

At that time, Gladstone - widely considered to have been one of Britains greatest political leaders - was swept up in a local review of historical figures involved in the slave trade, over his push for slave owners like his father to be compensated following abolition.

Although he went on to call slavery the foulest crime in history, he was named in a council-commissioned dossier of historical figures whose views, in association with the slave trade, are inappropriate.

Go here to read the rest:

Park could be renamed after Diane Abbott in Labour council slavery review - The Telegraph

Had it been released five years ago, Ken Burnss recent documentary Benjamin Franklin would have seemed like just another iteration of the Burns formula: a stentorian yet intimate narrator, ponderous panning shots over still images, period music transporting us to a bygone time, experts bubbling over with enthusiasm, and a compelling human story to tie the package together. But in the fog of our current history wars 1619 vs. 1776, contested monuments, and the hyped-up furor over something called critical race theory the documentary has acquired a cultural weight Im sure Burns never intended or expected. Benjamin Franklin illustrates everything that is wrong with how most white Americans think about their nations founding.

Ken Burns is Americas historian. Since his start with The Brooklyn Bridge, in 1981, for which he earned his first Academy Award nomination, Burnss documentaries have regularly attracted NFL-size audiences. When The Civil War first aired, in 1990, it drew the largest audience of any PBS show, ever. Since then, Burns has directed dozens of films under a long-term PBS contract. Even professional historians have recognized him as the closest thing America has to a historian laureate: The American Historical Review, the flagship journal in the field, invited him to write an essay on the changing nature of historical truth for its centennial issue, in 1995. (Burns declined the invitation but agreed to an interview with the journal.)

Burnss chosen topics often appear likely to split audiences along culture-war cleavages: the Civil War, Jack Johnson, Vietnam, the Central Park Five, Muhammad Ali. Yet he has shown an uncanny ability to package even divisive topics in ways that ultimately reinforce a sense of patriotism and belonging.

This superpower has paid off in corporate support. General Motors sponsored Burnss productions for 22 years, until the company nearly went bankrupt in the crash of 2008. When Burnss World War II series debuted, Anheuser-Busch printed promotions on its beer cans and Bank of America flashed reminders on its ATMs to watch the show. The famously conservative billionaire David Koch underwrote Burnss series on Vietnam.

Burnss popularity is rooted in his folksy nationalism, a muted celebration of Americas rise that is tempered with nods to the regrettable. His films center on heroes because, as he explained in the 1995 interview with the American Historical Review, I believe that history ought to be sung, that Homer, the Homeric mode is an important one, that you need to sing the epic verses, and the way we do that is around this electronic campfire. This epic mode is marked by an emphasis on storytelling and a quiet refusal to take any particular point of view. Ahead of the release of The Vietnam War, Burns and his co-director, Lynn Novick, wrote, There is no simple or single truth to be extracted from the Vietnam War. The documentary was later criticized for precisely this attitude a strange ambivalence about American imperial overreach, as Alex Shephard wrote in The New Republic. And when the Congressional Hispanic Caucus criticized his World War II series for not representing the sacrifices of Latino soldiers, Burns responded by saying The War was a sort of epic poem and not a textbook.

In endeavoring to sing Benjamin Franklin, Burns cant avoid taking sides in a longstanding scholarly debate in which everyone begins by agreeing that Franklin is the prime exemplar and shaper of the thing we call the United States of America. Franklins life does indeed trace the full arc of the 18th century, and no founder had a better vantage point from which to make sense of it all. Franklin soaked up political debates as a printer, surveyed the full sweep and variety of the colonies as deputy postmaster to the Crown, attended the coronation of George III, represented the rebel Continental Congress in London, took part in a last-ditch negotiation on Staten Island to end hostilities with the British, charmed Louis XVIs court at Versailles to win the diplomatic war, drove a hard bargain with England to secure the peace, and played a pivotal role in the Constitutional Convention. He was the essential founder. The trailer for Benjamin Franklin intones, The American identity begins when Benjamin Franklin knit the American colonies together. He has become a metonym for America.

So, when assessing the meaning of Franklins life, the details matter. We can see him either as a flawed but evolving genius whose life mirrors and prefigures Americas halting progress toward equality, or as a man imbued with the typical biases of his time, whose overriding concern was the promotion of the well-being of people like himself, a people Franklin called lovely white. Franklin, like America, cant be both.

Burns is an unwavering believer in the idea that Franklin overcame his racial prejudices and atoned for his earlier, unthinking racism by the end of his long life. On the Today show the filmmaker made things simple: He enslaved human beings but at the end of his life was an abolitionist The thing about Franklin is that he is always improving, always trying to make himself better like the union.

It is true that Franklin accepted election as president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, and published a biting satire of the novel pro-slavery arguments its petitions provoked in Congress. But it is also true that Franklin, in his 80s and suffering from a growing list of maladies, wished to burnish his legacy and could see which side was the wrong side of history to be on. Early in Episode 1, the narrator observes that Franklin continuously and carefully crafted [his] public image. Somehow, Franklins gift for politics and self-fashioning in Episode 1 becomes, in Episode 2, his unimpeachable sincerity.

To frame Franklin as evolving is to see the United States as a nation stained by slavery but equipped with the radical principle of liberty that made its rehabilitation inevitable. This interpretation was pioneered by the Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn in 1956 amid a bare-knuckled ivory-tower fight with an older generation of progressive historians, who had painted the Constitution as a greedy power grab by enslavers, land speculators, and bankers.

Burns includes an interview with Bailyn in which the historian argues that the fledgling United States shouldnt be judged primarily for its reliance on slavery. It should be judged by its single greatest declaration: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights A ringing principle that, Bailyn argued, had changed the course of history.

Burns has never shied away from displaying the ugliness and contradictions of the past. His are not the historical documentaries of the 1950s and 1960s, which presented an American past whitewashed of any mention of slavery or settler colonialism. Benjamin Franklin notes that Franklin profited from printing advertisements for the sale of enslaved people in his newspaper, and that he bought and sold enslaved people himself. Quotes are read from Franklins cringe-inducing Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind (1751), in which he bemoaned the importation of enslaved Africans that had blackend half America and asked, Why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? As the historian Christopher Brown insightfully explains, Franklins racism and his opposition to the slave trade were hardly contradictory: Both attitudes meshed neatly with his conviction that the American colonies had, in Browns words, too many Black people. The narration also notes at several points that Franklins policies and actions dispossessed Native peoples of their lands.

By deftly assembling such vignettes, Burns creates for viewers the experience of an unvarnished story or, as Burns likes to say, history warts and all. But such warts as Burns chooses to expose are carefully curated and quickly and thoroughly drained of their subversive potential by earnest scholars explaining why what we just heard or saw is not as important as it seems or, worse, could not have been otherwise.

Late in the second episode, for example, the narrator describes how, at the Constitutional Convention, Franklin maneuvered a series of compromises on congressional apportionment that included the three-fifths clause, which effectively cemented the power of pro-slavery interests in the new government. This episode might lead viewers to wonder whether racism was not, in fact, baked into the republic. But these thoughts are immediately quashed as a platoon of historians marches onscreen, the first proclaiming that the union is only possible if it includes the South and therefore if you did the moral thing the Constitution would have never passed. Another famous scholar bemoans the tragic compromise, while a third looks gravely into the distance and proclaims it Americas original sin.

Burns then cuts to the historian Erica Armstrong Dunbar, who tells viewers how they should understand this jarring contradiction in their nations ideals: For Franklin, unity and compromise was the only thing that could make this new nation move forward. Without it, it would be a failed journey. American democracy would not develop without it. Who doesnt want the nation to move forward? Who wants a failed journey? No one asks, Whose journey is it?

The practice of sprinkling a fair number of disquieting facts into an argument in order to make it more persuasive was named by psychologists studying the dynamics of propaganda during the early Cold War. They called it attitudinal inoculation. The Yale University psychologist and War Department researcher Arthur A. Lumsdaine observed that two-sided propaganda, which exposed the listener to contrary information but ultimately arrived at its intended conclusion, was far more effective than propaganda that did not acknowledge counterarguments at all. This was because the listener had been given an advance basis for ignoring or discounting the opposing communication and, thus inoculated, he will tend to retain the positive communication.

But two-sided propaganda is still propaganda. Benjamin Franklin overlooks a number of facts that compromise its portrait of Franklin as evolving and the young nation as wrestling with its original sin of slavery. There is no mention of the fact that fears of Black rebellion animated patriot resistance at the critical juncture of 1775. No mention of the fact that some of the first patriot militias in the South were raised in response to suspected slave uprisings in support of Virginias governor, Lord Dunmore. No mention of Lord Dunmores offering freedom to enslaved persons in exchange for their service to the Crown.

Burns distorts the history of Washingtons army by saying only that it included Native Americans, free African Americans, and enslaved men, hoping to be freed when the war ended. In fact, Washington, who owned enslaved people from age 11 until his death, banned all Black men from his army for its first year. He grudgingly accepted Black soldiers only after the British began recruiting them, and opposed forming all-Black regiments. (The British did not: Members of one British Black regiment, formed early in the war, famously wore sashes emblazoned with the words Liberty to Slaves.) No mention is made of the fact that many of the enslaved men who fought for American independence did so not because they had been promised their freedom but because they were substituting for their enslavers, or serving them.

The narrative of Franklins evolution toward abolitionism also runs aground on the details of the peace treaty Franklin hammered out with the British. As Franklin and his fellow American negotiators met with their counterparts in Paris, they were all aware that the British were providing sanctuary to thousands of fugitives from slavery on Manhattan and Long Island. Franklin pushed for Article 7, which bound the Brits to withdraw without carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants. In other words, Franklin was quite comfortable condemning thousands of free Blacks to be returned to the mercies of their former enslavers. In the end, the British general Guy Carleton brushed aside the patriots insistence that the thousands of fugitives under his protection be immediately returned, and sailed away with them when he evacuated to Canada.

None of this, not a hint of it, appears in Benjamin Franklin. It is equally absent from the best-selling biography of Franklin written by Walter Isaacson, the documentarys senior creative consultant and the on-air talking head with the most face time.

There is a deeper problem at work in Burnss portrait of Franklin, a problem that emanates from the same qualities that make his work so popular. Throughout, Franklin and America are viewed through what the sociologist Joe Feagin has called a white racial frame. In such a perspective the interests, problems, and fortunes of white Americans are prioritized, while those of nonwhite others are discounted, viewed as lesser and available for sacrifice. White framing silently assumes that the us and the we in thinking about America are white people.

That framing is evident throughout Benjamin Franklin. For example, when the documentary discusses the Junto, a club for fellow young artisans organized in Philadelphia by Franklin, Isaacson comments, Franklin believed that the virtues and values of a working middle class were going to be the backbone of American society. The artisans, the shopkeepers, the people who put on leather aprons early in the morning to help serve the public. Of course, in Franklins time, only white artisans, white shopkeepers, and leather-apron-clad white people were eligible for membership in mutual-aid clubs like the Junto. The white part doesnt have to be said out loud: The volunteer fire departments, lending libraries, and free colleges that Franklin helped organize, except for the specifically named Negro school, were for whites only.

White framing is also evident in Burnss segregation of commentary. Most of the expert comments dealing with race, racism, or slavery come from the only two scholars of color among the dozen or so historians featured in Benjamin Franklin: Christopher Brown and Erica Armstrong Dunbar. Conversely, while Brown and Dunbar are deeply learned scholars with much to say about the world of the 18th century in general, they are rarely asked to discuss topics beyond slavery or racism. Indeed, the stories of people of color are generally sequestered as the possession of Black historians, a special interest.

Back in the 1970s, when Burns was just starting out, a new generation of historians was emphasizing not only that those left out of earlier narratives women, Natives, people of color had stories worth telling but that their stories drastically altered the longstanding consensus history of America, which highlighted the gradual perfection of the Enlightenment principles of liberty and equality. Edmund Morgans 1975 book American Slavery, American Freedom upended the consensus theory, arguing that the spread of democratic practices in the United States in fact depended on enslaving one-fifth of its population. Since then, researchers have focused on writing the stories of the dispossessed, despised, overlooked, and forgotten not out of some sense of fairness or balancing the scales, but because their dissent shaped, and pushed forward, this bulky thing we call a nation. Most historians have since come to appreciate that it is precisely the succession of clashing aspirations, not some core agreement over shared ideals, that has made America.

Like much of Burnss oeuvre, Benjamin Franklin hews to the old consensus narrative, swaddling conflicts in the comforting blanket of necessity. Pitching the project on the Today show in March 2020, Burns was asked about the Constitutions strengthening of slavery. He said of Franklin, He is one of the architects of those terrible compromises, but theres no United States without those terrible compromises. Just a few months later, Sen. Tom Cotton was swiftly condemned for describing slavery as a necessary evil upon which the union was built. Burnss documentary makes the same argument without eliciting a peep of protest.

Back in his 1995 interview with the American Historical Review, Burns boasted that there is more unum than pluribus in my work. Burns may have believed that e pluribus unum referred to making one nation out of the many colonies. In fact, as the committee charged with designing a seal for the new United States reported to Congress in 1776, pluribus referred to the many countries from which the States have been peopled. The committee, on which Franklin served, planned to represent these countries figuratively in the form of a shield depicting a rose for England, a thistle for Scotland, a harp for Ireland, a flower de luce for France, an eagle for Germany, and a lion for Holland. The one-fifth of the population who hailed from Africa, and all those native to this land, were absent.

Continue reading here:

The Unbearable Whiteness of Ken Burns - The Chronicle of Higher Education

ILO/TEMPO GENEVA (ILO News) The Governing Body of the International Labour Organization (ILO) has taken an important step towards the possible inclusion of occupational safety and health as a fundamental principle and right at work.

It agreed that the matter will be further discussed at the 110th International Labour Conference, in June 2022.

If adopted, the proposed amendment would indicate that all ILO Member States would have an obligation to respect and promote safe and healthy working conditions in the same manner and with the same level of commitment as the four principles currently covered by the ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work.

These existing categories are freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining, the elimination of forced or compulsory labour, the abolition of child labour, and the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation.

Adopted in 1998, the ILO Declaration commits Member States to respect and promote these fundamental principles and rights at work whether or not they have ratified the relevant Conventions.

The decision of the Governing Body is in line with the commitments made in the ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work, adopted in 2019 to promote a human-centred approach to the future of work.

Excerpt from:

ILO Governing Body agrees on key occupational safety and health discussion at International Labour Conference 2022 - ILO

We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun, it is necessary to take up the gun.

That is not a summary of popular attitudes to war in Ukraine. It is a quotation from Mao Tse Tungs Problems of War and Strategy, published in 1938.

While few would state it as baldly as Mao Tse Tung, the vicious attacks on Ukraine have made many believe he may not be wrong.

Putin will understand nothing except greater force, the argument runs. If he is not defeated by military force, he may become embroiled in a war of attrition that he cannot win, an ongoing insurgency like the one that eventually forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan in 1989.

Either way, in the short or long term, meeting violence with violence is perceived as the only possible solution. That may or may not be correct in the case of Ukraine but we should at least be open to the possibility that non-violent resistance is not unrealistic, naive or useless.

Erica Chenoweth, now a Harvard professor, was sceptical about non-violence, too. In the early 2000s, her research had been on terrorism. Her belief was that only violent force achieved major political or social change.

At an academic workshop organised by the International Center of Nonviolent Conflict (ICNC) she encountered many case studies of successful non-violent protest, including people power in the Philippines, which ended Ferdinand Marcos 20-year dictatorship.

A researcher at ICNC, Maria Stephan, challenged Chenoweth to work with her on systematically analysing the data on non-violent resistance, in order to move beyond just anecdotal evidence.

For two years, the women collected data on both violent and non-violent strategies, eventually settling on 323 examples from 1900 to 2006.

Counter-intuitively, their research showed that in the aggregate, non-violent campaigns were twice as successful, with 53 per cent of non-violent movements succeeding in their aims versus 26 per cent of violent campaigns. These campaigns also did far less damage to society.

Their 2008 book, now considered a classic, Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, also explains that non-violent resistance is not a panacea and is not without cost. Nonetheless, further research shows that even after apparent failure, countries with non-violent campaigns were about 10 times more likely to transition to democracies within a five-year period than countries in which there were violent campaigns. This may be because non-violent campaigns attract, on average, four times as many participants.

Chenoweths later research shows that it takes about 3.5 per cent of the population to participate actively in campaigns to ensure serious change. In 2015, 25 per cent of Ukrainians favoured non-violent resistance, compared with 26 per cent who favoured violence.

Every major world religion has a strand within its tradition of non-violence. Mohandas Gandhi lived Hindu principles such as ahimsa, that is, not causing harm to living beings.

Gandhi, in turn, greatly influenced Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, the Baptist minister who took seriously Jesuss injunction to bring peace, not a sword. Dorothy Day lived her Catholic faith in a radical fashion, jailed time and time again for resistance to the Vietnam War.

These are what might be called principled activists, people who operate out of an ethical framework that also includes making your enemy better through forgiveness and dialogue. But, as Sharon Erickson Nepstad points out in her book, Non-Violent Struggle Theories, Strategies and Dynamics, the majority of those who embrace non-violent struggle are not so much principled as pragmatic; they do it because it works.

Academic Gene Sharpe, whose pragmatism has led him to be dubbed everything from the Machiavelli of non-violence to the Clausewitz of unarmed revolution, shares this view. Unlike Gandhi, King and Day, Sharpe does not believe you need to reform or love your enemies. You just have to force them to stop doing evil things. He catalogued 198 ways to achieve this.

Think of Denmark, where almost none of the countrys 8,000 Jews were apprehended by Nazis due to non-violent organising, or the 10,000 Norwegian teachers supported by 100,000 parents who prevented the Nazification of Norways schools.

People have been loud in their praise, not just of president Zelenskiy, but of ordinary Ukrainian citizens arming themselves and taking to the streets to defend themselves.

There is a right to defend oneself against unjust aggression. The Ukrainians have shown extraordinary bravery. The media, however, do not celebrate or highlight to the same degree the non-violent actions of so many Ukrainians such as standing in the path of tanks, with no weapon except courage.

Mao Tse Tung missed something vital when he said that power came from the barrel of a gun. It also comes from ordinary people banding together to resist evil, even at great cost to themselves.

That is why those of us who propose non-military solutions should be willing to shoulder some of the biting pain, including real financial hardship as fuel and commodity prices soar. Otherwise, we can have no credibility regarding our claims to care what happens in Ukraine.

Go here to read the rest:

Non-violence is not naive, unrealistic or useless - The Irish Times