Category Archives: Government Oppression

Hyderabad: After years of struggle, Telangana was bifurcated from Andhra Pradesh and finally came into existence as a new state of the Indian union on June 2, 2014. Though we remember the 2009 protests, led by chief minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao (KCR) and Prof. Kodandaram, and the year-long 1969 statehood movement.

However, Telangana was originally meant to be an independent state, and decades of struggle could have been perhaps avoided had the then Indian government had some foresight.

The States Reorganisation Commission, formed by the Indian government headed by Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1955 also recommended against the merger of the Telangana and Andhra regions as a unified Telugu state based on linguistic commonality. But the merger still happened and became a reality on November 1, 1956.

A historical glance of Telanganas socio-economic background will provide for a better understanding.

All of the Telugu speaking regions of Telangana, coastal Andhra and Rayalaseema were all under the Nizams (or Asaf Jahi), who came into power in 1724. However, only Telangana after the second monarch, Nizam Ali Khan (1762-1803) signed the Treaty of Subsidiary Alliance with the British in 1798, the rulers were soon under financial duress as the state had to pay the British East India Company lakhs of rupees a year to maintain the foreign troops.

The Nizams government kept borrowing money from a bank (Palmer and Co) in the first half of the 19th century, which it could not pay back. Instead, the EIC paid-off the bank, and in return took away the Andhra and Rayalaseema regions away from the Nizams.

This was what led to Telangana and Andhra diverging in terms of culture and language, as the formers Telugu was influenced due to its close proximity to Hyderabad and Urdu language (45.4% speakers in Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunder, as per the States Reorganisation Commission report, 1955).

The Andhra areas were merged with the British-administered Madras Presidency, with Chennai (then Madras) as its capital. Telangana, with its state-appointed landlords or Jagirdars under the Nizams, concentrated its wealth and capital in Hyderabad city, while the districts were fairly disadvantaged, even in the 20th century under the last Nizam Osman Ali Khan (1911-48).

However it may be noted that under Khan, Hyderabad witnessed acceleration in development in the nearly four decades he was the ruler. Fast forward to 1947. When the British formally left India, it however gave princely states and their monarchs the option to join India or Pakistan, or to stay independent.

Osman Ali Khan was one of the handful of kings, like Hari Singh of Jammu and Kashmir, who wanted to stay independent. After all, he was a king of the largest princely state, Hyderabad, which comprised 16 districts in 1948, of which 8 were in Telangana, 5 in Maharashtra and 3 in Karnataka.

A year before 1947, extreme feudal oppression also led to the Telangana Armed Struggle (1946-51). Vetti Chakiri (bonded labour) was also commonplace in rural Telangana, wherein lower-caste folks were forced to service the higher castes and the landowning class.

Bonded labour and forced collections are believed to be the main reasons behind the uprising, which began in 1946, and officially ended in 1951, till the communists decided to contest elections. Some of the tallest CPI leaders from Telangana then were Makhdoom Mohiuddin, Ravi Narayan Reddy, Arutla Kamala Devi, Ch. Rajeshwar Rao, etc.

While that was going on, negotiations between the Nizam and the Indian government continued for a year. However, the government finally sent the Indian army to annex the Hyderabad state, which took place on September 17, 1948, in a military offensive called Operation Polo. For 18 months after that, the state had a military governor, after which it went to polls.

In the 1951-52 (first) general elections, the Congress comfortably managed to win in the Hyderabad state (which had 175 seats), while the CPI, riding on its popularity from the Telangana Armed Struggle (which was called off on October 21, 1951). Burgula Ramakrishna Rao was the states first (and last) chief minister.

The government even back then continued to implement the Mulki Rule, which essentially made a provision for locals to have access to jobs first.

The Mulki Rule was first promulgated (based on job guarantee demands by native residents of Hyderabad) in 1919 by Osman Ali Khan as Nizam, which stipulated that a person has to be a Mulki (different criteria to be met, especially for non-Hyderabadis) to be considered for any government service.

This was applicable to Telangana, and parts of Maharashtra and Karnataka that were under the Hyderabad state. The states medium of instruction was initially Persian and later Urdu (during the time of Mulki rule). In the British administered presidencies, it was English. Post annexation of Hyderabad to India in 1948, these Mulki rules continued to exist even after the military governorship of Lt. Gen. JN Chaudhuri, who lead Operation Polo.

According to many old timers, especially those from the CPI who were part of the Telangana Armed Struggle, the Telugu speaking region was backward due to feudal oppression, and exploitation. Second, lack of (or much lower) education in English in the Hyderabad state meant that the government of India had to bring in officers from outside, especially from the Andhra region to work in the administration.

Locals from Hyderabad and Telangana felt outraged that jobs meant for them, under the Mulki rules, were given to non-state residents. This eventually led to the 1952 Mulki Rule agitation, wherein angry students even protested and reportedly damaged the official convoy of Burgula Ramakrishna Rao. In fact, his nephew and pro-Telangana votary from the CPI, B. Narsing Rao (passed away in January 2021), was one of the young leaders who participated in that movement.

That was in a way the first ever statehood movement, and it was over jobs. Aside from that, there were also feelings of being culturally othered among Urdu speaking people (especially Muslims) Hyderabad. For the people of Telangana, they complained that their Andhra counterparts looked down and lampooned their Telugu dialect.

On Urdu and fear of its marginalisation

This would also reflect in the States Reorganisation Commission report from 1955. This is what it said on Urdu: Three is one point which will have to be considered in consequence of a change in the present character of the State, namely, the position of the Urdu speaking people of the twin citys of Hyderabad and Secunderabad to constitute 45.4% of the population. They seem to entertain the fear that if Hyderabad became the capital of either Telangana or Visalandhra, they would stand to suffer culturally and economically. There is some justification for this fear.

It suggested measures that need to be adopted to give adequate protection to the linguistic ,cultural and other interests of the large Urdu speaking people in the twin cities.

By 1953, the Telugu speaking population from the Madras Presidency began demanding it own statehood, and on November 1, 1953, the Andhra state came into existence. However it had no built capital. Being part of the presidency, naturally its leaders wanted to share Madras with the Tamil speaking regions, but that demand was rejected.

Eventually, the idea of merging the Telugu speaking regions of Telangana and Andhra state was brought about. This was of course not going to go down well in Hyderabad, where there was already resentment against people of Andhra for taking up government jobs. In fact, what the States Reorganisation Commission said on this matter is very important to understand the imbalances that eventually came about after both the Telugu states were merged to create Andhra Pradesh on November 1, 1956.

While the Marathwada or Marathi and Kannada speaking (except Bidar) areas were to be merged with Maharashtra and Karnataka, the States Reorganisation Commission observations on Telangana are quite telling and interesting of how common languages does not work when there is socio-economic inequality.

After going through the merits and demerits of merging Andhra and Telangana, and stating that the case for Vishalandhra thus rests on arguments which are impressive, the report also noted: The considerations which have been urged in favour of a separate Telangana State, however, not such as may be lightly brushed aside.

It took of the fact that some leaders from Telangana seem to fear that the result of unification will be to exchange some settled sources of revenue, out of which development scheme may be financed, for financial uncertainty similar to that with which Andhra is now faced. Before the merger, and after 1953, Andhra, without a capital, had a lower per capita income than Telangana, which from an administrative point claimed to be progressive.

The Commission, while stating that there are benefits of bringing Telangana and Andhra regions for sharing the Krishna (over which both states are today vying for a higher share) and Godavari river basins, and suitability of Hyderabad as capital, was still not convinced about the merger. It also noted that Andhra leaders were also ready to provide adequate safeguards, like a pact for local job quotas, if both states merged.

The recommendation was against the merger and creation of AP

However, the States Reorganisation Commission noted that all the promises and pacts will however not prove workable or meet the requirements of Telangana during the period of transition. In its final conclusion, it said:

After taking all these factors into consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it will be in the interests of Andhra as well as Telangana, if for the present, the Telangana area is constituted into a separate state, which may be known as the Hyderabad state, with provision for unification with Andhra after the general elections likely to be held in or about 1961, if by a two-thirds majority the legislature of the residuary Hyderabad State expresses itself in favour of such unification.

It added that Telangana if public sentiment in Telangana crystallises against the unification, it will have to continue as a separate unit. So what does this mean? Perhaps Andhra would have built itself a new capital, and Telangana in turn would have functioned as it was with Hyderabad as its capital.

However, against this, the Indian government decided to go ahead with the merger in 1956 (many say due to political compulsions and compunctions), and the issues with regard to jobs and cultural oppression in Telangana continued, leading to the 1969 statehood movement first. Led by Marri Chenna Reddy, it would be compromised as he joined the Congress eventually.

However, it was revived once again by incumbent chief minister K. Chandrashekhar Rao in 2009, a after former CM of the joint Andhra Pradesh state YS Rajasekhara Reddy died in a helicopter crash the same year

Read more:

Why Telangana and Andhra were never meant to be merged in 1956 - The Siasat Daily

Oxford's LGBTQ+ changemakers are leading the way for the community. L-R Debbie Brixey, Hannah Massie, Chrissie Chevasutt and Alana Stewart. Picture: Ed Nix

AsPride Month is well underway, the Oxford Mail is showcasing the LGBTQ+ people leading the way in Oxford.

Pride Month is an annual celebration of the LGBTQ+ community, as well as an opportunity to raise awareness of the issues the community faces and tackle prejudice.

June marks Pride Month due to the fact the Stonewall Riots, a turning point in the fight for LGBTQ+ equality, occurred at the end of June in 1969.

READ MORE:The inside of Oxfords newest nightclub has been revealed

In Oxford, several people are working tirelessly to fight for LGBTQ+ rights, make the city a safer and a more inclusive place.

Oxford Mail: Chrissie Chevasutt. Picture: Ed Nix

Chrissie Chevasutt. Picture: Ed Nix

Chrissie, 63, is writer, advocate and outreach worker at St Columbas United Reformed Church on Alfred Street. She works with the transgender, intersex and non-binary communities in Oxford. It is believed this church is the first in the UK to appoint such a role.

What Pride Month means to Chrissie

Until LGBTQIA+ people enjoy equal rights throughout society with straight cis-gender folks then we need Pride Month as a reminder to society that inequality and oppression of LGBTQIA+ people is still a daily part of our all lives in the UK.

Not least, in the church which claims to represent Gods love but a large part of which still heaps shame, judgement and exclusion upon LGBTQIA+ people.

As a trans person, having watched the attempts of a small minority to cut us out of Pride and the LGBTQIA+ community, I love Pride because it demonstrates that we as trans are an integral part of the LGBTQIA+ community. That our gay, bi and lesbian friends stand shoulder to shoulder with us.

The trans community especially has been under a lot of hate and oppression, not least from this Tory government, so for me Pride is a chance to party and celebrate in the face of all this discrimination.

But, I would rather Pride threatened the patriarchy like the civil rights movement did, maybe we are not marching enough?

Story continues

Who are Chrissies heroes and heroines?

I have to put pioneers like April Ashley and Jan Morris at the top of my list, but my all-time heroine is Kristen Beck, former US Navy Seal who served in Afghanistan with distinction and is an incredible advocate for the trans community.

Oxford Mail:

How is Chrissie involved in the community in Oxford?

My main involvement in the LGBTQIA+ community is through my role as outreach and development worker with transgender, intersex and non-binary people for St Columbas URC. I work pastorally within the trans community, but also work in advocacy on a local and national level.

One of my roles is to represent the community within the church and speak in churches to raise awareness, educate and help transform some of the deep prejudices that exist in so many churches.

Chrissies proudest achievement since working with the community in Oxford

Im proud be a very small part of the process which enabled Oxford County Council to become a trans affirming and friendly council, helping to make the city and county a safer space for trans people, and we have just launched a National Transgender, Intersex and non-binary Theology Conference to be hosted in Oxford in September.

For me healthy theology is vital to the flourishing of the LGBTQIA+ community, so the conference is a major milestone for us.

Im proud to represent St Columbas URC as a fully affirming and inclusive church.

Oxford Mail: Debbie Brixey. Picture: Ed Nix

Debbie Brixey. Picture: Ed Nix

57-year old Debbie is specialist IT Trainer working with people with disabilities with a charity background including fundraising and social media. She is the chair of Oxford Pride and works with Pride groups across Oxfordshire to help put on events.

What Pride Month means to Debbie

Personally I feel that we should celebrate Pride all year around, not as events but in the things that we do and work together to be more inclusive and celebrate the diversity of people.

I do have to say that I love to see Pride on the streets and to see people getting together.

For me the driving factor in Pride is that there is always someone for whom it is their first Pride (and that can be any age!). It is really important people know that they are not alone and that there are people like them in all walks of life.

Who are Debbies heroes and heroines?

I would say Sue Sanders for her work with Schools Out, Marsha Levine for her work setting up InterPride, Lady Phyll for setting up UK Black Pride, Lisa Power for Stonewall.

There's a theme here I think ... women within the LGBT+ community who have got their voices heard - oh and I am lucky enough to know them all.

Oxford Mail:

How is Debbie involved in the community in Oxford?

I am the chair of Oxford Pride. I was chair in 2019 when the last in-person Pride was held before the pandemic.

I sat on the committee before that but first came to Oxford Pride in 2014 which is where I met my wife, also a former chair of Oxford Pride.

Debbies proudest achievement since working with the community in Oxford

I think watching the Pride Parade/March coming through Oxford and seeing everyone together and so many people all in one place.

I love the fact that we can use this visibility to illustrate that there are still many inequalities in this country and the World but also to celebrate what has been achieved so far.Standing together as a community is one of the most important things and I am proud of being even a tiny part of that.

Oxford Mail: Alana Stewart. Picture: Ed Nix

Alana Stewart. Picture: Ed Nix

Alana is a 22-year graduate student at Oxford University. They joined Oxford Pride in September 2021 as the communications officer and also co-founded Oxford Against Conversion Therapy. Alongside studying for a masters degree in Gender, Sexuality, and Culture they also work at the Jolly Farmers.

What Pride Month means to Alana

Pride has its roots in something deeply political. Pride Month is in June because it marks the anniversary of the Stonewall riots where queer activists fought back against the police.

Pride is still, or should still be, a protest against systems that oppress us. Sometimes Pride Month feels quite removed from that because it feels like an excuse for corporations to stick a rainbow up and take money from queer people. But, we unequivocally still need pride - and we will need it until there is liberation for all queers.

Homophobic hate crimes are on the rise in the UK, our Government is deeply transphobic and refuses to protect trans people against conversion therapies that are killing them, and recently the Home Office admitted that their abhorrent plan to send refugees to Rwanda will lead LGBTQ+ refugees to persecution.

So, pride month to me is about an ongoing fight.

Who are Alanas heroes and heroines?

I dont know about heroes, but theres a lot of queer people who have been incredibly influential to my life and my politics: Eileen Myles whos a poet, feminist, and non-binary lesbian; Jose Esteban Munoz who wrote an incredible book full of so much hope called Cruising Utopia; the absolute legend and musical pioneer who was SOPHIE, and, obviously, Tracy Chapman for writing Fast Car.

Oxford Mail:

How is Alana involved in the community in Oxford?

I studied at the University of Oxford and graduated in 2021. When I was doing my undergraduate degree prior to the pandemic I wasnt really involved in LGBT student groups. I co-founded Oxford Feminist Society and we were really big supporters of the protestsagainst Womens Place UK (amid allegations of transphobia which have previously been denied).Other than that, I didnt even really have the confidence to go to LGBT student drinks, and I never went to Pride.

Now Im actually on the pride committee as their communications officer, I work in the gay pub, and Im doing my MA in queer studies and gender studies.

I started working at the Jolly Farmers last spring and I met so many new people and I absolutely love it there. Its so good to feel part of a community and to feel accepted. Recently, I co-founded Oxford Against Conversion Therapy to address the governments lack of a full conversion therapy ban.

I wouldve been shocked if you told me that three years ago!

Alanas proudest achievement since working with the community in Oxford

Im proud of the work I did in setting up the protest and co-founding OxACT. Though, I cant really claim it as my work because I had an amazing team behind me who pulled so many strings to make it happen in the space of about ten days.

We had around 300 people turn up to Bonn Square, and we had so much incredible feedback from people who were taken aback to see Oxford unite for trans rights like that.

Oxford Mail: Hannah Massie. Picture: Ed Nix

Hannah Massie. Picture: Ed Nix

62-year old Hannah helps run TransOxford, a leading independent dedicated support group for transgender and gender non-conforming people in Oxfordshire.

What Pride Month means to Hannah

Diversity is the engine of evolution and without diversity we wouldnt exist. Every single one of us is unique, our own living example of diversity. Pride month is when we recognise and celebrate diversity in all its wonderful forms.

Although it has its roots in the LGBT+ communities Pride Month is for all. For me personally it is an opportunity reflect on how nature made me and the huge challenges that arose from this and to celebrate all I have achieved in dealing with this.

Who are Hannahs heroes and heroines?

Im not sure I have specific heroes as so many have gone before me who have stood up for who they were and played their part in the fight for understanding and acceptance.

However if I was to single anyone out it would probably be Julia Grant, who was the subject of the BBC documentary A Change of Sex broadcast in 1979.

I was 19 at the time and I was captivated. But I was also truly horrified at the appalling way she was treated. She had extraordinary courage and strength.

Oxford Mail:

How is Hannah involved in the community in Oxford?

I help run TransOxford, the Oxfordshire transgender support group. We provide advice and support to those who are transgender, especially those going through their journey of discovery, acceptance and dealing with it.

We support folks across the whole gender spectrum, with all degrees of dysphoria and the many different ways they deal with this. Everyone and their path is unique.

The group also forms a focus for the local trans community to connect and interact with other organisations and much of its work is involved in educating, working with and supporting other local groups and organisations.

Hannahs proudest achievement since working with the community in Oxford

Im not sure I have a proudest achievement. It was great to see four local Oxfordshire councils passing trans inclusion motions recently and to be able to support those involved in these.

I was proud to see our local politicians stand up to the sustained anti-trans hate campaign being orchestrated in this country by a small group of folks with extreme ideologies.

But what makes me happiest is to see those that come to us at the start of their journeys struggling both emotionally and in their lives and to see them gradually find and become true to themselves, as nature made them, and to move to being at peace within themselves and living, as my brother put it, as the person you were always supposed to be.

-

This story was written by Sophie Perry. She joined the team in 2021 as a digital reporter.

You can get in touch with her by emailing: sophie.perry@newsquest.co.uk

Follow her on Twitter @itssophieperry

Thank you for reading this story and supporting the Oxford Mail.

If you like what we do please consider getting a subscription for the Oxford Mailand in return well give you unrestricted access with less adverts across our website from the latest news, investigations, features, and sport.

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Tik Tok formore.

You can also join the conversation in our Facebook groups: stay ahead of traffic alerts here, keep up to date with the latest from court here, share your favourite memories of Oxford here, get your daily dose of celebrity news here and take some time out with news that will make you smile.

If youve got a story for our reporters, send us your news here. You can also list an event for free here.

More here:

The LGBTQ+ changemakers leading the way in Oxford - Yahoo News UK

I am writing this in COVID exile in Jaffa, Israel, on the edge of Tel Aviv, while waiting for a negative test in order to be allowed to fly back to the U.S. I am sure that below the surface of the everyday life I see here, the Israelis are dominating and discriminating against the Israeli Palestinian population here. But on a moment-to-moment basis, this wonderfully multicultural city is among the most inviting and enjoyable Ive ever spent any time in. It is filled with art galleries, museums, ethnic restaurants, funky flea and food markets, antique shops, furniture stores (vintage and designer), gelato on every block, and even a world-famous experimental theater; all of it ensconced inside a city bounded by a beautiful beachfront on the warm Mediterranean, and boasting centuries of history as a key trading port for many countries and civilizations. As with Tel Aviv, ultrareligious Jews who seek to shut down secular life in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country are here, somewhere, but almost invisible.

There are only two downsides I can discern as a visitor; the first is the price of real estate. As with Tel Aviv, Jaffa is at least as expensive as Manhattan and worse than hipster Brooklyn. The second is the invisible one: There is a brutal, dehumanizing occupation going on not far from here, being carried out by a country thatfor the most parteither pretends not to notice, or believes it is literally its God-given right to carry out.

Every day, the news from that occupationas well as of the treatment of the more than 20 percent of Israelis who are not Jews (and are often ignored in the American discourse)seems, somehow, to get worse. Just in the past few days, Ive come across stories describing:

While in Tel Aviv, I met with members of the American embassy and consular staffs (at their invitation), as well as many people from the Israeli peace movement. And while my admiration for the courage and tenacity of the latter group is boundless, I didnt hear anything while I was here that would lead me to question my overall pessimism that this situation can only get worse. Israels tenuously balanced government has less than no interest in any sort of concessions that could lead to serious peace negotiations, and the hard-line Islamicist Hamas is growing more and more popular among Palestinians, especially its young future leaders. Joe Biden is not about to invest any political capital in forcing Israel to change its ways, and its far from clear to me that it would help even if he did. The Israelis have always been able to outlast the Americans whenever a president has disapproved of anything their government has done.

The BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) movement, which dominates discussion on the American left on this topic, only makes matters worse. It is complete failure in every respect save for its (entirely) rhetorical victories. Yes, it helps perhaps in making the Palestinians feel they have not been entirely forgotten by the rest of the world, but beyond that, it amounts to little more than virtue signaling. As I keep saying, in the 18 years of its campaign, no major labor union, no government body, no major global corporation, not even any significant local government has endorsed BDS. Using a boycott against Jews was always a stupid idea, given the association that so many have of the tactic when it was used by the Nazis.

Read more Altercation

But there are costs as well. BDS has provided a ready-made excuse for the many conservative pro-Israel politicians and organizations who would like to shut down free speech about Israel to pass laws that do so. It has also made it even more difficult to discuss the issue on college campuses (to say nothing of social media). This is, of course, in addition to the problems it raises for those of us who believe in the importance of the free exchange of ideas, regardless of their origin. Yes, Ive said all that before, but this week, an important piece of new evidence arose: a brand-new Pew Research study that finds 5 percent of Americans say they support the BDS movement against Israel, and just 2 percent say they support it strongly, while 84 percent have no opinion or have never heard of it. The support figure is actually kind of high compared to its support in Congress by the way, where, according to my count, it has three supporters among 535 senators and representatives. People who support the right of Palestinians to live in peace and dignity, with the same rights as you or me (or Israeli Jews), need to face up to the undeniable failure of this strategy and think anew. The support of The Harvard Crimson, the Middle East Studies Association, and this or that student government does not a successful movement make.

One of the great strengths of the Zionist movement of the 1940s that led to the creation of the state of Israel was its ability to withstandeven encourageintense internal debate. There are good reasons why Palestinians feel they do not have this luxury. But notwithstanding those reasons, when Palestinians and their supporters demand fealty to a failed strategy, it does nothing for the people living under oppression.

One can sympathize with the fact that for the past hundred years, the Palestinians have only been offered unfair deals and asked to help solve a problemthat of approximately 250,000 Jewish refugees of Hitlers Holocaustthat they did nothing to cause. The 1947 U.N. Partition Plan that the Zionists (reluctantly) accepted, and the Palestinians refused even to discuss, choosing war instead, was markedly unfair to them, as has every offer been since that one. (The earlier ones were not so hot, either.) In 1947, the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine calculated its Jewish population to be 608,000, or slightly less than a third of its population. Under the U.N.s plan, however, the Jews were to be accorded 55 percent of the land, including the crucial seaport of Jaffa (where your loyal correspondent is writing this), with its Arab population of 70,000 as against just 10,000 Jews. Forty percent of Palestine was given to its Arabs, with the remaining 5 percent, which included Jerusalem and parts of the Negev desert, to remain under U.N. sovereignty until such time as everyone could agree on how it might be divided. (All this remained academic, however, once Israel declared itself a state on May 14, 1948, and five Arab armies immediately invaded.) Things have only gotten worse for the Palestinians over time, both in terms of the lives theyve been forced to live and the offers theyve received, leading up to the ridiculous Jared Kushner peace plan, which no one took seriously even as a propaganda exercise. In classic Trumpian style, the entire thrust of Kushners Middle East policy appears to have been to further line his own pockets with corrupt deals with his Saudi and Israeli co-conspirators.

To the question of What is to be done? I have no answer save a rethinking of the problem from the bottom up. My good optimistic friend Jill Jacobs, who heads up my favorite organization, Truah, thinks that the two-state solution lives on because the only problem is politics. Another optimistic friend, the scholar/activist Hillel Schenker, co-editor of the excellent Palestine-Israel Journal, reminds me of how close Israeli and Palestinian negotiators got to outlining a final peace agreement under the prime ministership of Ehud Olmert in 2008, before Olmert decided he preferred to go to war in Lebanon. (Olmert later ended up in jail, convicted for corruption.) But political problems are real problems and can be more difficult to solve than scientific or even existential ones. And with great regret to the people who consistently put themselves on the line trying to do so, as the liberal realist I have no idea how to solve this one. That said, I found this JPost editorial full of good sense and maybe even (the slightest) cause for optimism.

Sorry, both for this pessimistic report and for the lack of music this week. You can, if youve not had enough, however, listen to my Tel Aviv University talk, with comments from the estimable scholar and activist Yael Sternhell. It can be found here. (We begin at 6:30.) And the (really long) book that I am basing all of this on may be pre-ordered from Amazon here and lots of places, here.

Originally posted here:

Altercation: Israel and Palestine and the Absence of a Solution - The American Prospect

Pew Research Center conducted this study to better understand Americans views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For this analysis, we surveyed 10,441 U.S. adults from March 7 to 13, 2022. Everyone who took part in this survey is a member of the Centers American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses, which gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about theATPs methodology.

Here arethe questions usedfor this analysis, along with responses, and itsmethodology.

In recent years, U.S. public opinion has become modestly more positive toward both sides in the Israel-Palestinian conflict, according to a new Pew Research Center survey.

Overall, Americans continue to express more positive feelings toward the Israeli people than toward the Palestinian people and to rate the Israeli government more favorably than the Palestinian government.

But these gaps are much larger among older Americans than among younger ones. Indeed, U.S. adults under 30 view the Palestinian people at least as warmly (61% very or somewhat favorable) as the Israeli people (56%) and rate the Palestinian government as favorably (35%) as the Israeli government (34%).

The new survey, conducted March 7-13 among 10,441 U.S. adults, also shows that public opinion varies considerably on these questions by political party. Republicans and those who lean toward the Republican Party express much more positive views of the Israeli people (78% very or somewhat favorable) than of the Palestinian people (37%), and they view the Israeli government far more favorably (66%) than the Palestinian government (18%).

By contrast, Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents hold about equally positive views of the Israeli people and Palestinian people (60% and 64% favorable, respectively) and rate Israels government on par with the Palestinian government (34% vs. 37%).

Among both Republicans and Democrats, feelings toward the Israeli and Palestinian governments and the Palestinian people have warmed slightlysince 2019, while views of the Israeli people have held steady.

Nearly three-quarters of a century after the founding of the modern state of Israel, the survey finds no clear consensus among Americans about the best possible outcome of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.

About one-third of the public says splitting the land into two countries a version of the two-state solution long backed by U.S. diplomacy would be best (35%). But roughly a quarter (27%) would prefer to see a single state emerge, in most cases with a government comprised jointly of Israelis and Palestinians. And more than a third of U.S. adults (37%) say they are not sure what is the best outcome.

Age is a factor in these opinions: Older Americans are more inclined than younger ones to say that a two-state solution would be the best possible outcome of the conflict, while adults under 30 are more likely than their elders to say they arent sure whats best.

Religious affiliation also matters: White evangelical Protestants are much more likely than members of any other major Christian tradition to say the best outcome would be a single state with an Israeli government; 28% say this, compared with 6% each of Catholics, White non-evangelical Protestants and Black Protestants.

Perhaps relatedly, White evangelicals also are the group most likely to say God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people. Fully 70% of White evangelicals take that position, more than twice the share of U.S. Jews who answered a similar (but not identical) question in a2020 surveyby saying God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people (32%).

The new survey also asked the U.S. public about theboycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movementagainst Israel. Relatively few Americans know about this boycott effort; 84% say they have heard not much or nothing at all about it. Just 5% of U.S. adults have heard at least some about BDS and express support for it, including 2% who strongly support it.

The survey was conducted among Americans of all religious backgrounds, including Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and Hindus, but it did not obtain enough respondents from non-Christian religious groups to report separately on their responses. U.S. Jewsviews toward Israelwere explored in depth in Pew Research Centers report Jewish Americans in 2020 (though that survey did not include a question about the best possible outcome of the conflict).

Two-thirds of Americans express at least a somewhat favorable view of the Israeli people, including one-in-five who say they feelveryfavorably toward the Israelis. Opinion about the Palestinian people is somewhat cooler: 52% of the public has a favorable view, and one-in-ten U.S. adults have averyfavorable opinion of the Palestinians.

Republicans and those who lean to the GOP are much more likely to express a favorable view of the Israeli people (78%) than of the Palestinian people (37%). Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, on the other hand, similar shares express favorable views toward both groups (60% and 64%, respectively).

Compared with their elders, younger U.S. adults tend to express cooler views toward the Israeli people and warmer views toward the Palestinians. For example, 56% of adults under 30 say they feel favorably toward the Israeli people, compared with 78% among those ages 65 and older. And a solid majority of those ages 18 to 29 (61%) express favorable views toward the Palestinians, compared with 46% of those 50 and older.

Nearly nine-in-ten White evangelical Protestants have a favorable view of the Israeli people (86%), including 42% who say they have a very favorable view. But White evangelical Protestants are among theleastlikely subgroups to say they have a favorable view of the Palestinian people (37%). By contrast, religiously unaffiliated Americans adults who describe themselves, religiously, as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular express similarly positive views toward both the Israeli people and Palestinian people (58% and 59%).

Putting these two questions together, a plurality of U.S. adults (42%) view both the Israeli people and Palestinian people favorably, while 15% express unfavorable views of both groups. An additional quarter see the Israeli people favorably and the Palestinian people unfavorably, and one-in-ten view the Palestinian people favorably and the Israeli people unfavorably.

Roughly half of Democrats view both groups favorably, compared with 34% of Republicans. Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to view the Israeli people favorably and the Palestinian people unfavorably (44% vs. 12%). White evangelical Protestants, a heavily Republican group, are more likely to view the Israeli people favorably and the Palestinian people unfavorably than any other combination of responses.

Adults under 30 are more inclined than older Americans to view the Israeli people unfavorably but the Palestinians favorably.

When asked about their views of the Israeligovernment, about half of the U.S. public (48%) expresses a very or somewhat positive view, compared with 28% who view the Palestinian government favorably.

The survey did not define Palestinian government for respondents. Much of the West Bank continues to be administered by the Palestinian Authority, under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas, while Gaza has been governed by Hamas since 2007.

As with views toward the Israeli people, young adults are much less positive toward the Israeli government than are older Americans. But adults under 30 have somewhat more favorable views of the Palestinian government now than they did in 2019.

White evangelical Protestants are the religious group most likely to express a very or somewhat favorable view of the Israeli government (68%). Much lower shares of Catholics (50%), White Protestants who are not evangelical (51%), Black Protestants (43%), and religiously unaffiliated people, sometimes called nones, (31%) say the same. Atheists (a subgroup of the nones) are more likely to express a favorable view of the Palestinian government (39%) than of the Israeli government (20%).

A third of Americans have an unfavorable view of both the Israeli and Palestinian governments, while three-in-ten (29%) view the Israeli government favorably and the Palestinian government unfavorably.

About half of Republicans (51%) view the Israeli government favorably and the Palestinian government unfavorably, while roughly four-in-ten Democrats (41%) view both governments negatively.

Young adults are less inclined than their elders to view the Israeli government favorably and the Palestinian government unfavorably.Adults under 30 are also muchmorelikely than those ages 65 and older to view both governments unfavorably (43% vs. 18%).

For nearly three decades, successive U.S. administrations have backed, at least in principle, negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians toward atwo-state solutionalong the lines envisioned in the 1993 Oslo Accords. However, a long impasse has led some U.S. officials, as well as some Israelis and Palestinians, to warn that the vision of two independent states coexisting is indanger of collapse. For this reason, the survey included a new question asking Americans which of several broad alternatives they would consider to be the best outcome of the conflict.

About a third of U.S. adults (35%) say the best possible outcome would be that the land is split into two countries, one with an Israeli government and one with a Palestinian government. A similar share (37%) say they are unsure what the best outcome would be, while fully one-quarter say the best solution would be one country either governed jointly by Israelis and Palestinians (16%) or with an Israeli government (10%). Just 2% say the best outcome would be one country with a Palestinian government.

Roughly equal shares of Republicans and Democrats (including those who lean to each party) favor a two-state solution, saying the best solution is to split the land into two countries with separate governments (34% and 36%, respectively). But Republicans (18%) are far more likely than Democrats (3%) to say the best outcome would be one country with an Israeli government. And Democrats (19%) are slightly more likely than Republicans (13%) to favor an outcome in which a single country would be jointly governed by Israelis and Palestinians.

About four-in-ten Catholics (42%), atheists (43%) and agnostics (40%) say the best outcome is splitting the land into two countries, one with an Israeli government and one with a Palestinian government share this view.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, White evangelical Protestants are the most likely to say that the best possible outcome is one country (39%), including 28% who say that the best solution would be a single country with an Israeli government. By contrast, just 6% of other Protestants and Catholics take that position.

Some Americans views toward Israel may be tied to their religious beliefs. Indeed, 30% of all U.S. adults say God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people, similar to the share ofJewish Americanswho expressed this view in 2020. Others say that God did not give the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people (11%); that they do not believe in God (17%); or that they are not sure how to answer the question (41%).

Republicans are far more likely than Democrats to say that God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people (46% vs. 18%). (Previous surveys also have found thatDemocrats are less likely than Republicans to believe in God.)

White evangelical Protestants are the U.S. religious group most inclined to say God gave the land that is now Israel to the Jewish people. A solid majority of White evangelicals (70%) take this position, compared with a minority of Black Protestants (36%), White non-evangelical Protestants (31%) and Catholics (25%). Among White evangelicals, those ages 50 and older are especially likely to hold this view.

Among all survey respondents who believe God gave Israel to the Jewish people, a quarter (25%) say the best outcome of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would be a single country with an Israeli government well above the 10% of all U.S. adults who favor this outcome.

Relatively few Americans have heard a lot (3%) or some (12%) about the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. Three-in-ten say they have not heard much (31%) about it, and 53% have heard nothing at all about the movement. These patterns hold across political parties and religious groups, although U.S. Jews aremuch more familiarwith BDS.

The BDS movement, launched by Palestinian groups in 2005, alleges that Israel is occupying and colonizing Palestinian land, discriminating against Palestinian citizens of Israel and denying Palestinian refugees the right to return to their homes. Itdescribes its missionas working to end international support for Israels oppression of Palestinians and pressure Israel to comply with international law by calling for boycotts of Israeli companies and sporting, cultural and academic institutions. Critics of BDS, including theU.S. government under President Donald Trumpand theAnti-Defamation League, have called the movement antisemitic.

Respondents who said they have heard at least some about the BDS movement were asked a follow-up question about whether they support or oppose it. Overall, 5% of U.S. adults say they support BDS at least somewhat, including 2% who strongly support it. An additional 3% neither support nor oppose the movement, while 6% are opposed to it, including 5% who strongly oppose it. The vast majority of the public (84%) has not heard much, if anything, about BDS and, therefore, was not asked whether they support or oppose it.

Atheists are especially likely to say they support the BDS movement (13%, 2% oppose), although most atheists like Americans in general have not heard much, if anything, about it (79%). Conversely, about one-in-ten White evangelical Protestants (11%) and Republicans (12%) oppose the BDS movement against Israel, while no more than 2% of people in these groups support it.

BDS hasgained some attentionfor its activity on college campuses, and adults under 30 are slightly more likely than older Americans to say they support the movement though roughly eight-in-ten have not heard much about it.

Go here to see the original:

Modest Warming in U.S. Views on Israel and Palestinians - Pew Research Center

On April 25, news broke that Elon Musk and Twitter had reached a deal wherein Musk would buy Twitter for $44 billion. When and whether the deal will actually be finalized is up in the air, however. Musks recent tweet that the Twitter deal is on hold, combined with his call for the U.S. Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) to investigate the amount of spam and bot accounts on Twitter, has contributed to uncertainty among investors about the future of the deal. Twitter stock has dropped, and the departure of high-level staff at Twitter has also signaled that the future of Musks Twitter acquisition is murky.

Along with uncertainty over Musks Twitter acquisition, his provocative criticism of the platforms content moderation policiesconcerning disinformation, hate speech, and harassmenthas also sparked debate about the meaning and importance of free speech in digital spaces. As PEN America CEO Suzanne Nossel notes, its as if Musk has tried to take humans out of the loop of driving with his self-driving cars, but it is not so easy to take humans out of the loop when considering the impacts of disinformation or other speech considered harmful. As Nossel recently tweeted, Elon Musk will learn the same lesson about self-governing social media as he has about self-driving vehicles, which is that they unavoidably crash. As Ive discussed elsewhere, pioneering scholars, such as Sarah Roberts, have documented the important role of invisible workers along the global digital assembly line in untangling the complexities of content moderation.

More on:

Technology and Innovation

Much of the debate about the Musk acquisition fails to appreciate Twitters international reach and the applicability of international standards, including those governing speech. Twitter and other social media platforms operate in a number of countries whose governments have routinely restricted speechsometimes based on benign reasons (such as preventing violence), but other times to suppress political opponents and critics.

Women Around the World

Women Around the World examines the relationship between the advancement of women and U.S. foreign policy interests, including prosperity and stability.1-2 times weekly.

Analysis on the role of women in foreign policy and economic development from the Women and Foreign Policy program.Bimonthly.

A summary of global news developments with CFR analysis delivered to your inbox each morning.Most weekdays.

A weekly digest of the latestfrom CFR on the biggest foreign policy stories of the week, featuring briefs, opinions, and explainers. Every Friday.

Last month, I moderated a panel called Can You Hear Me? Speech and Power in the Global Digital Town Square, at the American Society of International Law (ASIL) Annual Meeting in Washington, DC. Panelists (in order of speaker) included:

The panelists discussed a number of timely topics related to free speech on social media platforms in our global marketplace of ideas. One of the main themes we discussed was the tension that exists between tech companies stated commitment to free speech on social media platforms and laws concerning free speech that differ from country to country. Mwangi noted that normally, when U.S.-based tech companies conduct their operations in other countries without setting up local offices, U.S. laws apply to the companies operations. According to Mwangi, the ability of U.S.-based tech companies to operate internationally without abiding by local laws has incited backlashincluding by powerful interestsleading to more countries, such as Russia, to establish local presence laws. The emergence of these laws, Llans explained, points to a growing trend in which tech companies are required to establish a local office in-country, and therefore be subject to the countrys laws. Depending on the country, establishing a local office could have significant implications for human rights, user privacy, and content moderation, Llans pointed out. She warned that governments may want to use local presence laws as a tool to censor free speech or sidestep companies privacy policies to access user data.

The adoption of local presence laws is but one example of how countries and tech companies sometimes clash over what legal norms should govern the digital space. Another instance that Llans raised is the Russian Smart Voting App, which was run by supporters of prominent opposition candidate Aleksei Navalny. The Russian government declared the app illegal, and authorities began pressuring tech companies to remove the app from their platforms, going so far as to threaten local staff with prosecution. Eventually, Apple and Google removed the app from their app stores several days before the 2021 elections due to concerns of the safety of local staff.

More on:

Technology and Innovation

Part of the problem, Perault said, is that there are not clear international norms guiding tech policies behavior when it comes to content moderation. While international human rights law permits and even encourages governments to ban hate speech, U.S. courts take a more lenient approach. For example, U.S. courts have ruled in favor of allowing Nazis to march in the predominantly Jewish neighborhood of Skokie, Illinois, and the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a law that would have prohibited burning a cross on a Black familys lawnin both instances, finding protected speech interests. Yet in other countries, such as Rwanda, where hateful, targeted messages on the radio facilitated the 1994 Rwandan genocide, application of international standards allowing for some restrictions on hate speech have been viewed as not appropriate, but necessary. Similarly, EU countries, such as Germany, take a more restrictive approach to harmful speech, for example, prohibiting Holocaust denial, due to the European experience with the atrocities of the Holocaust.

Suleman reminded us about the Myanmar governments use of Facebook to incite violence against Rohingya Muslims and the importance of platforms using content moderation where hateful speech can lead to violence, death, and even the mass slaughter of civilians. Facebook refused to release to the government of Gambia the data of government-controlled accounts in Myanmar that had violated Facebooks terms of service by engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior. Gambia had requested this data to support its case against Myanmar at the International Court of Justice. The government of Gambia then sued Facebook to release the records and received a fully favorable initial order from a magistrate judge to release both public and private content from the accounts. Facebook objected to part of the magistrate judges order that required the release of private messages in those government-controlled accounts, and a U.S. District Court judge sided with Facebook on that specific issue.

The lack of clarity surrounding international standards for tech companies content moderationand how these international norms interact with domestic approacheshas been magnified with Russias invasion of Ukraine. Without clear international norms, tech companies are individually left to question whether further engagement in Russia is more harmful than withdrawing their services entirely. Perault noted that while companies are clearly uncomfortable operating in Russia during the war, there is not a clear answer to this question. In the absence of specific international norms, tech companies are crafting their policies toward Russia on an ad hoc basis.

Emerging norms may establish clearer standards. Having reached a deal concerning the landmark Digital Services Act, the European Union (EU) will require companies to establish new policies and procedures to more forcefully police their platforms and remove suspect material, such as hate speech, terrorist propaganda, and other content defined as illegal by EU countries. As Llans indicated, the Digital Services Act will require companies to regulate their algorithms and create risk assessments, among other regulations. Notably, the law will enable regulators to impose heavy fines on tech companies who do not comply with the laws provisions. While the response from tech companies has been muted, it is possible that greater regulation of large tech companies may lead to a more coherent response to human rights abuses.

In sum, social media has been essential for movements ranging from the 2010-2011 Arab uprisings to #MeToo to #BlackLivesMatter, as discussed further in my recent post on hashtag activism. However, as Johnathan Haidt illustrates in his recent piece in the Atlantic, social media has not only brought people together, but it has also created divisions and even led to violence. The recent shooting in Buffalo demonstrates how violent extremists are influenced by online hate. Not only do hate groups creep from the hidden corners of bulletin boards to more mainstream websites, but hate and division are more likely to be amplified online.

A final dilemma was highlighted on our panel by Mwangi, who criticized the fact that the current discourse on speech and internet regulation tends to ignore parts of the world where the right to free speech is dependent on the whims of state power. Mwangi said that international law needs to address the prevalence of internet shutdowns and online censorship. Despite the threat of censorship and oppression, Mwangi highlighted the vibrancy of digital movements in Africa such as #EndSARS, #ZimbabweanLivesMatter, and #SomeoneTellCNN. While some governments have managed to successfully use social media platforms to cement their power, there are brave citizens who regularly speak out for their human rights, both online and offline. How tech companies decide to confront or acquiesce to state power remains to be seen.

You can watch the full panel here (scroll down to panel #15, April 8, 9:00am). Currently, only ASIL members have access, but the video will be made available to the public in a few weeks.

Go here to see the original:

Can You Hear Me? Speech and Power in the Global Digital Town Square - Council on Foreign Relations

There is a point in every conflict where time - the great leveller - drains and defeats combatants, more than any foe can.

It passes over their idealisms, their will, and - for those that survive - their bodies.

Because as fighters age, they inevitably tire of the blood and violence, and question the horrific methods they employed, which generally achieved nothing much beyond brutalising the very society they had hoped to change.

It is hardly a surprise, therefore, that Gustavo Petro, the current frontrunner for the Colombian Presidential election, and likely first leftist national leader in the countrys history, also happens to be an ex-paramilitary guerilla.

Polling in the high thirties just before the first electoral round on 29 May, Petros popularity and acceptance by those who would never have dared look favourably on such a figure in the past says much about the candidate himself - in particular his charisma and oratorial skills.

Much more significantly, however, it marks a point in time in the history of Colombia; a point in time in which a country which has lived so much horror is for the first time willing to dialogue with its violent past and specifically the voices and reasons which underscored the insurgency for half a century.

In naked faceless figures, this memory lists over 270,000 known killings and 7 million internally displaced persons since the 1960s. All this in a population which currently runs at 50 million. In other words, roughly 1 in every 7 people has been forced to leave their home, with 1 in 200 killed.

What all this adds up to, beyond the figures, is an unending collective memory of loss, pain - and enduring terror.

It is clear that Petro is not the only figure emerging from violence - the entire country is, or hoping to.

Further marking the stark landscape of the past which continues to permeate the present, Petros vice-presidential running mate Francia Mrquez is Afro-Colombian, from communities - working class, rural, black, female - which have historically been under the yolk of oppression and its quotidian terrors.

Mrquez, in fact, survived an assassination attempt only weeks before polling, and on being linked to violent groups by the ruling party, declared that what really makes the (current) president uncomfortable is that today, a woman who could have been the maid in his house, could now be his vice president.

This fundamental emergence into the mainstream political sphere of previously marginalised voices is having a highly visible effect on the pre-election landscape, in some predictable and a few not-so-predictable ways.

Among the most obvious: economists warn of an exodus of foreign investment; students, activists and progressives rejoice in the possible values-led reshaping of society; the right warn of the perils of the communist advance - and agrarian communities consider the possibility that their voices might actually be heard and considered.

This tectonic shift in control over affairs of the state, however, has also had some surprising repercussions.

In particular, as militants who controlled vast swathes of the country laid down their weapons and entered an imperfect peace process in 2016, a political and policing vacuum was generated in the areas they previously controlled.

As so often in Latin America, however, government infrastructure does not have the capacity, organisation or financing to step into these voids. The very same governments that were unable to militarily defeat the rebel FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) over half a century, even with vast military support from the USA, are patently unable to generate control and security in those same areas today.

Enter the third major force in the Colombian trinity of power: organised crime.

The truth is that organised crime never really went away, says Luis, a Human Rights Defender who has asked not be named for fear of repercussions.

It took a big hit and fragmented in the nineties after the killing of Pablo Escobar, but it was still there waiting for contexts to align, because the social conditions which predetermine young men entering organised crime - and the vested interests which drive that crime - never altered. And when the FARC realigned and started leaving their jungle and rural strongholds, in stepped a new generation of cartel - which have very specifically found space to breathe in the landscapes previously controlled by the guerillas.

Environmentally, what Luis says is most marked about these emergent groups is that they do not just deal in drugs, but are in fact multi-directional entities intent on generating vast profits by any means possible, which on unprotected land makes them the most focused on extraction of natural resources. In other words, logging, the illegal trade in exotic species, wildcat mining, and so on.

Its one of the reasons that killings of land rights defenders have recently gone through the roof in Colombia, because they are completely unprotected and isolated now, and organised crime has no interest in dialogue.

Earlier this year, Frontiers in Environmental Science published a seminal paper entitled What Peace Means for Deforestation: An Analysis of Local Deforestation Dynamics in Times of Conflict and Peace in Colombia. The conclusions of the study are clear, namely that while certain regions and municipalities were able to buck the trend, in many areas the peace agreement between the Government of Colombia and the FARC exacerbated deforestation.

Interestingly, the paper does not just argue for the importance of coherent peacebuilding in delivering forest conservation, but also realigns the arrow, pointing out the important role of forest conservation in delivering peace. In particular by supporting former fighters to remain in situ, and working on shared land titles and economic environmental protection incentives.

In a not insignificant irony, it is now in large part the old men of political violence who are to be charged with policing and demilitarising the new young men of criminal violence. And who are to be given the opportunity to establish a baseline for a Colombian future that gives the country, its people and its spectacular environment the chance of a new beginning.

Peace, real peace, a peace which involves - in the words of former President Juan Manuel Santos - all the victims of the conflict, may not be palatable to many. But as countries such as South Africa and Northern Ireland have demonstrated, it is the only slow and imperfect path out of the mess of history.

It is also the best avenue to safeguard Colombias environment, natural resources and biological wonders.

Peace, it seems, can be a many splendored thing.

Originally posted here:

Colombia's elections offer hope for peace and environmental protection - Euronews

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I I took the one less traveled by, And that has made all the difference. Robert Frost

At the end of this month, other things being equal, Nigerias major political parties, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), will select their presidential candidates for the February 2023 general election. By hook or by crook, one of these two candidates will emerge president next year.

It will be asking for too much to request Nigerias dominant political class to spare a thought for the nation. But we are duty-bound to make this plea, not because we think this class has the disposition or capacity to change anything but because the metaphorical Nigerian egg, according to Tim Akano, is about to crack. Enlightened self-interest demands that we do not force this crack from the outside.

Two tragic events, among many, in the last one monththe decapitation of a military couple and the immolation of Deborah Samueland the mute indifference of those whose constitutional duty it is to protect lives and property as well as maintain law and order and those who are lining up to replace them, is a cruel reminder that the best of 2023 cant and wont scratch the surface of the existential crisis facing Nigeria.

It is unfortunate that Nigerians have to endure these tragedies which have become common features of our national existence. Of course, nothing can justify the reprehensible practice of a nation preying on its citizens. When that happens, it calls to question the foundation and future of that nation; it shows us how flawed that nation is.

So, you wonder why the political class is fixated on 2023 and why those who are aspiring to lead the country are not taking a stand on this crucial question. It is a pointer to not only how unprepared they are, but also their lack of candour and the superficiality of their ideasno vision of the kind of country they want to lead and no faith in that country. Faith in Nigeriaeven though our motto is unity and faith, peace and progressis a scarce commodity among our political class.

Each time I discuss our pitfalls as a nation with younger compatriots, I like to reference a 2004 essay titled, The Path to Nigerias Greatness: Between Exceptionalism and Typicality by Prof Ali Mazrui, one of Africas foremost political scientists. In that essay, to mark the 90th anniversary of the amalgamation of Nigeria, Mazrui memorably observed, There are indeed certain attributes which make Nigeria strikingly unique in Africasetting it apart in configuration from all other African countries. In summary, these attributes include its size, the human and natural resources, and of course, what appears to be a balance of forces in the geo-political and religious configuration of the country. Nigeria is like no other country; no other country is like Nigeria.

So why has this propitious exceptionalism not worked for Nigeria? Perhaps, the answer lies in Nigerias typicality. Some particular ups and downs of the country may be typical of the entire continent, Mazrui wrote about Nigeria. To understand Nigeria is to comprehend this dialectic between the exceptionalism of Nigeria in the African configuration and the typicality of Nigeria as a mirror of the continentNigeria is typical of Africans also because of the swings between tyranny (too much government) and anarchy (too little government). When under military rule, Nigeria leans towards tyranny (too much government), when under civilian administration, Nigeria leans towards anarchy (too little government).

I will expand Mazruis thesis to say there is something sinister about Nigerias typicality, which undergirds the mutual fear and loathing and explains the current anarchy. The idea of Nigeria is premised on conquestconquest of people and resourcesand has been sustained by new forms of domination and oppression.

For far too long, we have refused to confront this menacing typicality. I do not know how much longer we can ignore it. We seem to have arrived at the crossroads of what political scientists refer to as anocracya state that is neither autocratic nor democratic. It is a dangerous place for a country to be. Each tragedy reinforces the need for us to step back and properly answer the fundamental question of nationhood that began more than six decades ago.

From terrorism to banditry to countless sub-national, ethnic, political, religious, cultural, and environmental skirmishes, we have arrived at the Door of No Return, that infamous point through which millions of Africans were forced onto slave ships headed for the New World. What do these social and political phenomena tell us about our country? They tell us that Nigeria is a cauldron of repressed rage fuelled by overt injustice, and to keep it together, we must heed the bellowing orchestra of minorities (whether ethnic, political, economic, religious, or social), to borrow the title of Chigozie Obiomas widely acclaimed novel.

Perhaps, 2023 offers us a rare chance to revisit the vexed questions of belongingness, inclusivity, equity, and justice, which to a large extent are driving discontent and disquiet across the country.

One of the most profound statements by a Nigerian politician in this regard is credited to the late Chief Bola Ige, Second Republic governor of Oyo State and Fourth Republic minister for power and later justice, who was assassinated (as a serving minister) on December 23, 2001. According to Ige, There are two basic questions that must be answered by all Nigerians. One, do we want to remain as one country? Two, if the answer is yes, under what conditions?

Simply put, we must renegotiate Nigeriathrough a new constitutionthat will recreate the country in the image of Nigerians of the 21st century. That process is not a silver bullet. In fact, it could lead to the dismantling of Nigeria as we currently know it. But, importantly, that unravelling will not come at the cost of the blood of millions of citizens. And if we get it right, it can lead to the glorious dawn of our exceptionalism. Nation building experiment is a tough but rewarding one; that is, for people who are genuinely committed to the process.

Whether it is power sharing, affirming secularity or religious plurality, protection of minorities, and everything in between, we must constantly defer to the default position that Nigeria is a country of diverse nationalities with religious and socio-cultural peculiarities negotiated as a federation at independence in 1960. Every decision we make must largely reflect this heterogeneity.

To do otherwise is to court disaster. The central question of the 1999 transition was to return to civilian rule. The central question in 2015, when the current monstrosity came to power, was the prospects of a party-to-party transition after 16 years of PDPs misgovernance. We seem to have come full circle. The central question in 2023 will be (re)negotiating Nigerias unity. Lets forget all the talk about fixing the economy, about GDP, and tackling insecurity. Without a country we cant do anything. Lets not repeat the errors of our tragic past.

We shouldnt wait to get to the precipice before we go to the negotiation table. So, when you hear our ruling class use such weasel words as the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable, it is important to ask them the nature and purpose of this unity. The unity of Nigeria is not a problem. The challenge is the nature and purpose of that unity. Is it a unity based on trust, equity, and respect or one conditioned by age-long cavalier beliefs of conquest and domination?

As 2023 approaches, the political class is running around like a headless chicken, claiming to have the magic wand to fix Nigeria. Their managerial philosophy and approach to the Nigerian crisis, which is foundational, tells you they are in it for what they can get.

My admonition is that as a nation we shouldnt be afraid to walk the road less travelled. To paraphrase the famous quote on fear from the first inauguration speech of Franklin D. Roosevelt, the 32nd president of the United States, the only thing we have to fear isfear itselfirrational and unjustified fear which paralyses sorely needed efforts to strengthen the unity of Nigeria.

Onumah is the author of We Are All Biafrans, among other books. He can be reached via Twitter @conumah

Go here to see the original:

Chido Onumah: 2023 elections and the road less travelled - Peoples Gazette

The Canadian working class is organized yet ideologically confused. A few weeks ago, in late April and early May, Rolling Thunder descended upon Ottawa. It was a protest event inspired by the Freedom Convoy in February

Neil Sheard, a key organizer, distanced himself from some of Rolling Thunders less palatable attendees: Chris Sky Saccoccia, a conspiracy theorist with a history of Holocaust denial, racism, and homophobia who once claimed on Facebook that Adolph Hitler was bang on, like he has a crystal ball into the future.

Sheard described the Rolling Thunder rally as a way for Canadian citizens to pay their respects to veterans. Organized through online Facebook groups and messaging channels on Slack and Discord, both the trucker and biker convoys have been some of the most publicized examples of working class organizing in a decade. But why have these movements materialized? What do they mean for Canadian politics? Are they a threat, a barrier, or a nuisance for working people?

In February, writing for The Brunswickan, UNBs student newspaper, I attended a Freedom Convoy rally in Fredericton. It was clear that while the convoy was made up of several disparate groups, everyone had similar working class backgrounds, and their fury was unmatched.

I approached one man, yelling uncoordinated chants out of sync with everyone else.

What do you think about incorporating other demands into the movement, I asked. Like raising wages and increasing rates of unionization?

Its not about that, he answered, his tone resolute and his eyes unflinching. They [politicians] are liars. They work for the corporate masters.

I was excited that he had identified the influence of corporate interests on electoral politics. I began to ask him about the c word, class.

Im not against corporatism, he answered, cutting me short. Im not against business. Id rather die on my feet than be a slave to a communist government.

Trudeau, thats a communist, he continued. His father was a communist. His father was Fidel Castro. And a lot of people dont know that, but hes got communist beliefs, and he wants to limit freedom of speech.

As the man spoke, he moved away from my question about class. His argument seemed fourfold. First, corporations run the system by controlling elected politicians. Second, corporations and businesses are forces for good. Third, politicians are all communists, which means communism is when corporations run the political show. Fourth, this means that labour and left reforms are also communism and not worth pursuing.

The argument is hard to follow and inherently contradictory.

Still, the mans fear of corporate power stems from a set of fundamental oppressions that working people face. Where his analysis falters is that it draws from a wide range of common-sense beliefs championed by the status quo: anti-leftism, corporatism, and culture war wedge issues brewed up by think tanks in the United States that divide rather than unite exploited political communities.

Later, I approached another attendee, this time a woman dancing and waving the Canadian flag.

Its just enough already, she said. I need a job. I dont need a vaccine.

I asked her to explain.

Its either you get a job, or you dont even get hired. You dont even get your foot in the door. Thats not right. Thats not Canadian. Thats not human rights. Thats extortion. And thats stealing my livelihood, and its preventing me from earning my fucking living wage, which they wont even provide.

Just give me a job, she ended, pleading.

I havent had any government assistance since the start of COVID two years ago. I cant get a job now because Im not vaccinated, but I can hold a sign and scream really loud.

Before I left, I approached another attendee: a veteran standing near a black pickup truck.

Oppression, its not a single thing, he said. Like its not Black. Its not White. Its not Asian. Its oppression to people.

In a place that we consider a first world democratic society, I believe that our minimum wage should be way higher, he continued. I live in Saint John, where we have the highest child poverty rate in Canada.

Still, a subtle form of classless and colour-blind nationalism underlined his thinking, I thought.

We [need to] start treating people with respect and dignity, he ended. We should be able to meet in the middle and say, I respect you because youre a Canadian. And thats what makes us, thats what separates us from every other culture in this world.

On balance, what both convoy protests show is that more Canadians than ever see the current economic and political systems as hopelessly stacked against them. Despite subtle changes in party and policy, life for most people has steadily deteriorated over the last half century. Political economists see this deterioration as a product of the 1970s and a turn toward neoliberalism, which began when Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard.

In Canada, the current neoliberal orderagreed upon by the Liberal, Conservative, New Democratic, and Green partiesis maintained with great effort. War memorials like the one in Ottawa play an important role in this process by helping to create a sense of national identity.

Sheard, a central organizer for Rolling Thunder, enlisted with the Canadian armed forces and served two tours in Iraq. He was discharged due to injuries. While Sheard and other organizers saw the first Freedom Convoy as a success, he also understood its political failings. For example, in February, the Freedom Convoy participants chose to desecrate Ottawas War Memorial. The act became a point of fissure and lightning rod for critique from the Liberal and Conservative centre.

On April 30, Rolling Thunder sought to make amends for the earlier desecration by laying a wreath atop the War Memorial and paying respect to their fallen comrades.

For Sheard and others, Rolling Thunder represented an opportunity for the anti-establishment fringe to preserve Canadas warlike and nationalistic sensibility.

In Canada, war memorials like the one in Ottawa serve a dual purpose. First, the creation of a national mythos tied to classless nationalism and warlike pacificism. This mythos bypasses critique of Canadas role in contemporary military engagements and genocidal campaignsPalestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Yemen, among others.

Second, by cloaking wars in a vague sense of remembrance and social responsibility, memorials commemorate past military operations in order to enable further military action abroad. Memorials present Canadian war efforts as historical and non-existent rather than as contemporary, every day, and on-going.

What to conclude?

The convoys and its participants were struggling with systemic and subtle oppressions at the very center of contemporary life: poverty, wage exploitation, and growing inequality between working people and the wealthy. Still, the convoy and its organizers lack a language and theory capable of explaining these oppressions.

With media monopolies having become so commonplace in both New Brunswick and North America more generally, more people than ever have come to adopt the common-sense values of the groups who govern them. The convoy and its proponents have fallen victim to a political sleight of hand. The economic and social grievances of the participants in the convoy are real and acute, and yet, organizers have rerouted these grievances to fit within conservative and pro-corporate narratives.

At the same time, there remains an unwillingness on the part of the Canadian left to offer an alternative politics capable of orienting these grievances toward solutions that benefit working people. Wider forms of cooperation, solidarity, and grassroots organizing have been abandoned in favour of privatization schemes that undermine necessary resources in healthcare and education. As a result, the lives of working Canadians have become more precarious and less conducive to direct action, taking potential activists away from the streets and back to the polling booths.

Harrison Dressler is a researcher and writer working out of the Human Environments Workshop (HEW) funded by RAVEN. He writes on New Brunswick and Canadian history, labour, politics, and environmental activism.Reporting and research contributions by Marlowe Evans, editor-in-chief for the Brunswickan, were indispensable during the writing of this article.

See the rest here:

What Rolling Thunder and the Freedom Convoy tell us about the Canadian working class - NB Media Co-op

Crypto has proven itself to be much more than just a hot investment. Indeed, some say its poised to play a critical role in the future of finance

Money, as we know it, has evolved from its earliest form of clay tablets and precious metals to coins and banknotes and most recently, digital bank balances. So, will crypto become the next progression in the history of money?

There are reasons to think it wont. Governments across the world have plenty of motives to want to defend the status quo, which ensures state-backed institutions have a complete monopoly on everything that makes the economy go round namely printing money. Yet, crypto has several characteristics that have so far prevented governments from keeping a lid on it.

Crypto promises to put economic control back into the hands of the masses because it is built on an open, global network that doesnt recognize any national borders. With crypto, people can transact on a shared network in the same way they can communicate with people anywhere in the world on the internet. Better still, these networks are beyond the control of national governments and have so far proven impossible to shut down. This principle was designed by Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto and is designed to create more open markets and promote financial freedom for all crypto users.

Prior to the invention of crypto, financial freedom was limited to the trust people have in their governments and respect for the rule of law. Crypto makes it possible for anyone to grow their wealth without worrying about the intervention and seizure of their assets by third parties such as a bank or the government.

Another benefit of crypto is smart contracts. Previously, contractual agreements were governed by laws, which meant people couldnt always be confident that the courts would enforce them. With smart contracts, agreements are no longer enforced by courts but by the blockchain.

Furthermore, crypto is anonymous. It doesnt matter if its Bitcoin or Ethereum or Fantom or Avalanche or some other network. Crypto doesnt give a damn whether youre white or Black, Hispanic or Asian. It doesnt care about your gender, your religion, or your political views. That compares to the existing financial system, which in some countries is inherently biased towards people of certain creeds and dispositions. With crypto, all anyone needs is a smartphone and an internet connection and they can download a mobile wallet and get paid in tokens, buy them and sell them, participate in decentralized finance, and more.

A final characteristic of crypto is its mobility, a key component of economic freedom. Users can send any amount of Bitcoin to anyone, anywhere in the world, and they can fly from San Francisco to Tel Aviv with millions of dollars worth of funds without having to inform anyone or declare anything. As a result, crypto significantly reduces the barriers to emigration, boosting economic freedom.

The economic freedom promoted by crypto has given cause for concern. In the wake of Russias invasion of Ukraine, some observers have suggested crypto could give Vladimir Putins government a way to mitigate international sanctions. Others have warned that criminals are undoubtedly using cryptocurrency to launder the proceeds of crime or fund terrorism around the world.

Those fears may be grounded in truth, however, it could be a price worth paying for the freedom from financial and political repression, surveillance, and deplatforming that crypto also enables.

The unique characteristics of crypto mean that it is, to all intents and purposes, resistant to censorship. That means the government cannot control or monitor peoples financial activity or prevent them from accessing their funds as they can in the traditional banking system.

A good example of this occurred in Nigeria in 2020, when protests erupted against the government in its largest city, Lagos. The population was protesting against the illegal actions of a police force known as the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (SARS), which became infamous for police brutality. The government attempted to clamp down on the protests by suspending the bank accounts of key leaders in the movement. However, they immediately turned to cryptocurrency, in particular Bitcoin, to raise funds to sustain their movement, which ultimately caused the government to disband SARS.

The event was no flash in the pan. Usage of Bitcoin in Nigeria and other African nations has grown rapidly as an alternative to the traditional day-to-day banking system. Thats because anyone can use Bitcoin, and its transaction fees are minimal compared to the charges people face for using traditional systems.

Nigerias Central Bank has been far from enthusiastic about the populations embrace of cryptocurrency and in early 2021 issued a ban on banks and financial institutions dealing with digital money. However, Nigerias young and tech-savvy quickly found a way around the ban, using peer-to-peer trading services to buy cryptocurrencies and cash out without using traditional banks. In May, Nigerias Securities and Exchange Commission did an about-turn, publishing a set of regulations around digital assets in an effort to find a middle ground between an outright ban and the unregulated use of crypto.

The experience of Nigeria is not unique. In Belarus for instance, President Alexander Lukashenko also tried to use the monetary and banking system to silence his critics following disputed elections in 2020. Protestors flooded the streets of Minsk and other cities following Lukashenkos apparent win, and leaders soon found their bank accounts were frozen. Yet they continued raising funds for their protests with crypto, with one fund called BYSOL reportedly netting over $2 million worth of donations in a month.

Crypto has value beyond funding protest movements though. It can also serve as a replacement for cash, which is seen as an essential ingredient of financial freedom because it allows for anonymous transactions away from state surveillance. Unfortunately, cash is in terminal decline in many parts of the world. In China, for example, the government has pressed its citizens to replace cash and use digital apps for their day-to-day payments instead. While such apps may offer more convenience, they also give the government much greater control over peoples finances, and the ability to cut off someones access to payments, credit, and savings for any reason.

In the world of decentralized finance, this kind of financial deplatforming of government critics becomes impossible. With new cryptocurrencies such as Verse, the utility token of the Bitcoin.com ecosystem, anyone can access a full ecosystem of decentralized finance services that are beyond the control of any government entity.

Bitcoin.com provides users with a non-custodial multi-coin wallet that only they can access, meaning no one can freeze or seize their crypto assets. Users of Bitcoin.coms ecosystem of products and services will not only earn Verse tokens for doing so but also unlock various rewards and DeFi services.

For example, holders of Verse can provide liquidity to the Verse DEX, a decentralized exchange, in return for earning a share of the trading fees on that platform. They can also stake Verse tokens for rewards, and access other services that allow them to lend and borrow cryptocurrency. In other words, Verse and Bitcoin.com provide access to a comprehensive, alternative banking system that no government can control.

Crypto ecosystems have already thrived where theres a need. Take Venezuela, where thousands of merchants began using the Dash cryptocurrency in the wake of hyperinflation that rendered the national currency, the Bolivar, virtually worthless. Its a similar story in Afghanistan today. Since the Taliban swept to power last year, the country has been almost completely cut off from the international banking system. As a result, many Afghans have turned to crypto to send and receive money from abroad and also for their everyday transactions.

The takeaway from all of this is that crypto can and will play a fundamental role in enabling greater economic freedom all over the world. With crypto, people have an alternative to the traditional banking system thats immune to political oppression. It has shown it can help to build better-functioning economies in countries with runaway inflation, making it easier for people to transact, protect their wealth and perhaps even emigrate to a better life.

Read more:

Crypto Is An Invaluable Tool In The Fight Against Financial Oppression - - FinanceFeeds

Altaf Hussain, the founder and leader of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), has asked Pakistan military Chief General Qamar Javed Bajwa to stop forthwith the ever escalating genocidal military oppression against Muhajir Nation and finish the barricade of MQM headquarters, 90. He said this in his exigent protest address to the people who had assembled at City's Press against enforced disappearances of men of Muhajirs.

The protest was meant to attract attention of international fraternity and lawmakers and rights organisations because the state oppression against Muhajirs is being continued since the creation of Pakistan and was beefed up in late 90s. To a rough estimate, the ghoulish military has so far executed 30, 000 youth of Muhajir Nation. It is pertinent to mention that Lahore High Court had at the behest of the Pakistani military establishment, imposed a 6-month ban on Altaf Hussain and through that ban, he was restricted to speak to his Muhajir Nation, carry political programmes and philanthropic activities for the indigent Muhajir families. The 6-monnth ban has now crossed 5 years and the judicial system of Pakistan can't do justice to MQM because it is grossly chained.

It was quite peaceful protest demonstration for the release of Muhajirs from unlawful custody at the city's press club where the feudal provincial government led by feudal Pakistan People's Party ordered Police to baton- charge protestors comprising senescent men and women. They were savagely manhandled, tortured and arrested. Hussain in his address reminded that Muhajir Nation remembers that PPP persecuted the Muhajirs in every era. The feudal PPP during its rule killed innumerable Muhajirs. Oppression and injustice against them were at its peak during the Bhutto era. Benazir Bhutto carried out genocide of Muhajirs through Police and distributed prizes among the killers. During the reign of Murad Ali Shah's father Abdullah Shah, thousands of MQM workers as well as Hussain's elder brother Nasir Hussain and nephew Arif Hussain were arrested and brutally martyred. Even today, atrocities are being inflicted on Muhajirs during the present feudal PPP regime.

Muhajirs are being arrested for protesting peacefully. Hussain strongly condemned the Pakistan People's Party led feudal Sindh provincial government and warned it to stop oppressing Muhajirs as time is never the same. Each of their oppressive and tyrant actions will be accounted for.

He said that religious fanatic Imran Khan and the people of PTI have openly been criticizing and even accusing the Pakistani military establishment and in recent days, a PTI MNA painted walls of Karachi with graffiti that mocked the Pakistani premier spy agency and the entire military establishment but no action was seen taken. Hussain asked the Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa to stop the state atrocities against Muhajirs as the general impression is that behind all this is the Pakistani military establishment. which is pinning Muhajir Nation, their leader Altaf Hussain and MQM to wall.

Therefore, the military establishment should end the unconstitutional and illegal ban on MQM, lift the siege grom Nine Zero and end the illegal ban on Altaf Hussain. Addressing the military establishment, he said that Altaf Hussain had a mechanism to save Pakistan from catastrophe.

Hussain said that his struggle was not for his personal gains but he wants to bring revolution in the country. He wants an end to the outdated and decayed feudal system in Pakistan. He said that he wanted the army to remain at the barracks and borders and focus on the defense of the country instead of interfering in the political affairs of the country. He demanded immediate release of all detainees and warned that the series of arrests should be stopped immediately. (ANI)

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)

Read the original here:

Pak Army Chief General Bajwa has to stop the oppression against Muhajirs: Altaf Hussain - Devdiscourse