Opinion: Erdogan fears Generation Z

Protests at Istanbul’s Bosphorus University against an Erdogan-appointed rector have led to harsh crackdowns. The president fears a second Gezi Park movement, says Banu Güven.



Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan fears the protests that have erupted at Istanbul's Bosphorus University (Eds. note: Also known as Bogazici University) against his totalitarian rule. He has retaliated with an iron-fisted approach.

In the 1990s, I studied at Bosphorus University, which is situated on the European side of the city and offers English-language teaching. During this time, I worked as an assistant to professor Ustun Erguder, the institution's rector at the time.
A bastion of liberalism

Bosphorus University is one of Turkey's few remaining bastions of democratic and liberal thought. Its resilient faculty and critically minded students are a thorn in Erdogan's side; they are the sort of forces he wishes to purge from Turkey. The university is a safe haven for liberals, anarchists, feminists, LGBTQI+ activists, Kurds, the left, atheists and even — to Erdogan's horror — pious Muslims, who fear no-once except Allah.

They study and teach side-by-side at this university, on this beautiful campus, near River Bosphorus. And they reject the new Erdogan-appointed rector, Melih Bulu, arguing he committed plagiarism, which disqualifies anyone from leading one of Turkey's top universities. It has also emerged that he used to be an active member of Erdogan's ruling AKP party and in 2009 considered running as mayor. It is evident that President Erdogan wishes to install Bulu to control this elite institution. But that won't work.

For weeks, lecturers and students have been staging midday protests, lining up outside with their backs to the rector's office. These days, Bulu must be the loneliest rector in the entire world.

Hundreds of arrests

President Erdogan is angered by such resistance. And by staging creative protests and posting online videos, the students are attracting ever more public attention. Students at other universities have already expressed solidary with them. Erdogan, in turn, has brought in the police to crush such protests. Hundreds of students were temporarily arrested; four remain in custody.

Erdogan and Devlet Bahceli, who heads Turkey's nationalist MHP junior coalition partner, lash out against the students almost daily, branding them "terrorists." In an effort to further delegitimize the protests. Erdogan has even resorted to stoking homophobia, claiming "there is no such thing as LGBT." AKP Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu, meanwhile, called the movement "revolting."
First-time voters threat to AKP power

Erdogan is resorting to violence because he fears a movement akin to the 2013 Gezi park protests. He is desperately trying to delegitimize the students as he worries they could vote him out in the 2023 election. He is on to something: in two years time, 5 million young Turks will have reached voting age, comprising about 12% of the total electorate. Only a small faction would cast their ballot for the president — that much is clear from the thousands of dislikes and negative comments Erdogan's 2020 YouTube live stream attracted.

This is how President Erdogan presented himself to the young generation on social media in June 2020

Various surveys show that Turkey's Generation Z has little sympathy for Erdogan and his ideas. According to one poll by the Gezici Arastırma Merkezi institute conducted last year, 76.4% of respondents said they regard the rule of law and democracy as top priorities for Turkey. A mere 15.7% of Generation Z voters say they regularly pray — bad news for President Erdogan, who aims to make Turkey more pious. On top of it all, a MetroPoll poll found that 55% of AKP supporters favored university rectors to be democratically elected, rather than appointed by the president.

How much more brutal will Erdogan get?

Bosphorus University rector Bulu insists he will not resign — which he cannot anyway, unless President Erdogan replaces him with someone else. So Bulu hopes the protests will slowly dissipate.

Erdogan's brutal police crackdown will prevent a second Gezi park uprising. But this violence will not change the minds of Turkey's young. The more force the president marshals, the sooner his downfall will come. The question is: how much more violent can Erdogan become in years to come?

Watch video 02:49 Turkish students march in rare defiance of Erdogan

Turkish journalist Banu Güven received an award for her work on press freedom in Turkey in 2017

Banu Güven is a Turkish journalists and television presenter. She writes for various German and Turkish media outlets. She has been living and working in Germany since 2018.

Ankara calls student protesters 'LGBT perverts' amid artwork controversy

Clashes between students from Bogazici University and Turkish police show no sign of abating. Many students have been arrested, while the interior minister has lashed out with homophobic hate speech over an artwork. 

Students at Bogazici University in Istanbul have been protesting for 

weeks about a controversial appointment

Turkish police have responded to protests by students at Istanbul's Bogazici University with an iron fist. On Monday alone, they arrested 159 students — 61 of them remain in custody, according to the Turkish news agency Anadolu.  Since early January, there have been regular police raids or arbitrary arrests of students who have been protesting against the appointment of Professor Melih Bulu, a supporter of Erdogan, as the rector of the prestigious university. 

Over the last four weeks, there have been numerous clashes around the Bogazici University campus. But one incident has proved particularly polarizing in Turkey.

On Saturday the students organized an art exhibition on the campus. One work showed the Kaaba, considered one of the most sacred sites in Islam, alongside the rainbow flag, the symbol of the LGBTQI+ movements. The Istanbul prosecutor's office has launched an investigation, and four students were arrested, with two of them still in detention.

Police have used extreme force against demonstrators

Interior Minister Soylu: 'Four LGBT perverts'

Afterward, Turkey's interior minister, Suleyman Soylu, condemned the students in a tweet: "Four LGBT perverts who denigrated the Kaaba at Bogazici University have been arrested." On Tuesday, the social media platform Twitter put a disclaimer on the post for inciting hatred.

Ali Erbas, Turkey's most senior cleric and the president of the top religious body, Diyanet, also used Twitter to censure the artwork, posting: "I condemn the attack on the Muslim's holy site, the Kaaba and on our Islamic values." He said that he would take legal measures against the people responsible.

His critics, however, see the state as the aggressor. "Interior Minister Soylu's statements are an example of hate speech," according to constitutional law expert Serkan Koybasi. He accused Erbas of violating the principle of secularism long enshrined in Turkey's constitution — a religion and its values, he said, could not be defended by court actions.

Sule Ozsoy Boyunsuz, a constitutional law expert at Galatasaray University, also sharply criticized the interior minister's statements. She said his comments were polarizing in a way that senior politicians with a lot of responsibility should avoid. She also sees the controversial comments as a violation of the personal rights of gay, lesbian, transgender and queer people. 

University teachers have been turning their backs on the rectory in protest at the appointment

Many legal experts and lawyers have also criticized the actions of the Istanbul police. Law professor Sule Ozsoy Boyunsuz said that the European Convention on Human Rights defended the freedom of artistic expression to a considerable degree: "The two students were arrested for 'incitement of hatred and ill will' and for 'insulting religious values.' But I do not see any criminal offense such as the incitement of hatred and ill will."

The students and many professors see the choice of Melih Bulu as university rector as interference with academic freedoms and a violation of the democratic values of the university. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan ordered the appointment of the 51-year-old by personal decree.

Bulu is a founding member of the AKP party in Istanbul's Sariyer district. He wanted to stand for the governing AKP in the 2015 parliamentary elections but was not nominated. Some students and university lecturers think that the professor, with his conservative background, is not a good fit for Bogazici University, which is seen one of the country's most eminent bastion of liberalism.

Circumventing censorship

The demonstrators are also mobilizing support via social media platforms, as is now often the case. #AsagiBakmayacagiz (English: We won't keep our heads down) has gone viral on Twitter. The hashtag was sparked by an online video which showed police officers calling on protesting students to do just that.

The police later tried to frame the officers' words as an anti-coronavirus measure. Numerous videos are now circulating under the hashtag that reveal the police's tough actions against protesters — images that are rarely being shown by pro-government newspapers and TV stations.

The demonstrators are also trying to circumvent strict press censorship with the new Clubhouse app. Some 5,000 students, journalists and politicians have exchanged views using the tool. Their conclusion is that the Turkish government is trying to use the incident with the rainbow flag to portray the demonstrators as sinful blasphemers and criminalize their protests.

This article has been adapted from German.

Watch video 04:21 Students in Istanbul clash with police – Julia Hahn reportsMuch-criticized appointment

 

Middle East: Are people losing their religion?

Recent surveys indicate strongly that across the Middle East and Iran, almost half the population is loosening their ties to Islam. Governments have reacted differently to calls for reforms of institutional religion.

    

In a survey, 58% of Iranians said they do not believe in the hijab altogether

 — while around 72% opposed the compulsory hijab

Few topics are as delicate as religion — especially in the Middle East.

Officially, Arab states have major Muslim populations, varying from around 60% in Lebanon to almost 100% in Jordan or Saudi Arabia. Since the countries' religious establishments also serve as governmental bodies, governments play a significant role in religious life, as they often control prayers, media or school curriculums.

However, several recently conducted and very comprehensive surveys in the Middle East and Iran, have come to similar conclusions: They all show an increase in secularization and growing calls for reforms in religious political institutions. 

Lebanon losing the religion

The conclusion after 25,000 interviews in Lebanon, by one of the largest pollsters in the region, the Arab Barometer, a research network at Princeton University and the University of Michigan, is "Personal piety has declined some 43% over the past decade, indicating less than a quarter of the population now define themselves as religious." 

One Lebanese woman told DW of her experience growing up in a conservative household. "I come from a very religious family, my parents forced me to wear the veil when I was only 12 years old," said the 27-year-old, who does not want her name published out of fear of reprisal. "They constantly threatened me that if I remove my veil, I will burn in hell."

Only years later, at university, she met a group of friends who were atheists. "I gradually became convinced of their beliefs, so one day before going to uni, I decided to remove my veil and leave the house," she said.

"The hardest part was facing my family, deep down, I was ashamed that I put my parents down." 

However, in Lebanon, it is almost impossible to not be officially linked to religion, as the civil registry includes the sectarian identity of every Lebanese citizen. Among the 18 options, "non-religious" is not listed. 

The survey included 40,000 literate interviewees above 19 years in Iran, with an astonishing 47% reported to have gone from religious to non-religious

Iranians quest for religious change

A recent surveyamong 40,000 interviewees by the Group for Analysing and Measuring Attitudes in Iran (GAMAAN), which researched Iranians' attitudes toward religion, found that no less than 47% reported "having transitioned from being religious to non-religious"

Pooyan Tamimi Arab, assistant professor of Religious Studies at Utrecht University and co-author of the survey, sees this transition, as well as the quest for religious change, as a logical consequence of Iran's secularization. "The Iranian society has undergone huge transformations, such as the literacy rate has gone up spectacularly, the country has experienced massive urbanization, economic changes have affected traditional family structures, the internet penetration rate grew to be comparable with the European Union and fertility rates dropped," Tamimi Arab told DW.

Compared with Iran’s 99.5% Shiite census figure, GAMAAN found that 78% of the participants believed in God — but only 32% identified themselves as Shiite Muslims. Figures show that 9% identified as atheist, 8% as Zoroastrian, 7% as spiritual, 6% as agnostic, and 5% as Sunni Muslim. Around 22% identified with none of these religions.

Tehran's Hasan Abad, the only neighborhood in the region 

that brings together followers of four religions

"We see an increase in secularization and a diversity of faiths and beliefs," Tamimi Arab told DW. From his point of view, however, the most decisive factor is "the entanglement of state and religion, which has caused the population to resent institutional religion even as the overwhelming majority still believes in God."

A woman in Kuwait, who requested DW not publish her name due to safety concerns, also strictly differentiates between Islam as a religion and Islam as a system. "As a teenager, I didn’t find any proof of the government's claimed regulations in the Quran."

She recalls how, around 20 years ago, such thoughts had been mainly resented — but today the difference in the people’s attitude toward Islam can be felt everywhere. "Rejecting the submission to Islam as a system doesn’t mean rejecting Islam as a religion," she explained. 

The rise of the 'nones'

The sociologist Ronald Inglehart, Lowenstein Professor of Political Science emeritus at the University of Michigan and author of the book Religious Sudden Decline, has analyzed surveys of more than 100 countries, carried out from 1981-2020. Inglehart has observed that rapid secularization is not unique to a single country in the Middle East. "The rise of the so-called 'nones,' who do not identify with a particular faith, has been noted in Muslim majority countries as different as Iraq, Tunisia, and Morocco," Tamimi Arab added.

Saudi Arabia has re-assessed anti-religious thoughts as terrorism

The threat of changing attitudes

The more people differentiate between religion as a faith and religion as a system, the louder the calls for reforms. "The trend puts a dent in the efforts of Iran as well as its rivals, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, that are competing for religious soft power and leadership of the Muslim world," said James Dorsey, senior fellow at Nanyang Technological University's S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

Dorsey, an expert on the region, highlights two contrasting examples. While the United Arab Emirates has lifted the bans on alcohol consumption and unmarried couples living together, Saudi Arabia has labeled having atheist thoughts as a form of terrorism.

As an example, Dorsey references Saudi dissident and activist Raif Badawi, who was convicted of apostasy, or insulting Islam. Badawi was sentenced to 10 years in prison and 1,000 lashes for questioning why Saudis are obliged to adhere to Islam — and asserting that religion did not have the answers to all of life's questions.

Razan Salman contributed to this article from Beirut.

Watch video 42:36 Quadriga - Beyond Belief - How Religion Fuels Conflict

 

Opinion: 'Vaccine privilege' could haunt the West

The early development of COVID-19 vaccines should have helped Western nations gain more influence over Africa. But from an ethical and organizational standpoint, they have blown it spectacularly, writes DW's Cai Nebe.

   

Africa has been largely left to scramble for COVID-19 vaccines

BioNTech-Pfizer, Moderna, Janssen, Oxford-AstraZeneca, CureVac — a formidable combination of vaccines developed in the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States in record time to save the world from the coronavirus pandemic. That is, as long as the West can stop squabbling in the first place.

Developing the coronavirus vaccines in under a year and making them available is, without doubt, an incredible achievement. However, it brings with it a certain "vaccine privilege." The EU, for example, has outstripped Africa in buying up coronavirus vaccines, despite being home to a small fraction compared to Africa's population

The West, specifically Europe and the United States, is not exactly new to being privileged compared to developing countries in Africa and elsewhere. For decades, the West has had the upper hand in trade, political power and military might.

West no longer the best

But this COVID-19 pandemic is different for two reasons.

For the first time in living memory, the West is facing a health crisis on par with, and in some cases worse than, what has been experienced on multiple occasions across the African continent.

Vaccines from Russia and China are competing strongly with Western 

developed vaccines in Africa

The reaction in Europe, at least outwardly, has been to pull up the drawbridge and "secure the fortress," even to the disadvantage of EU members. Remember the scramble for personal protective equipment (PPE) in 2020? Travel bans where EU members abruptly closed internal Schengen borders — one of the bloc's cherished accomplishments? The naming of the "South African variant," the "Brazilian variant," and the "UK variant"? — Former US President Trump was criticized for referring to the SARS-CoV-2 virus as the "China virus."

Secondly, for the first time since the fall of the Berlin Wall, the West is in competition with other powers for dictating the world's political and economic trajectory. While some may argue China, Russia and India have not suffered as much, these countries' attitude has been markedly different. It speaks volumes that China has offered to make its SinoVac vaccine available to African countries. Guinea, Argentina, and Chile are already using Russia's Sputnik V vaccine. And while only a fool would believe Russia and China's intentions are completely magnanimous in sharing their vaccine privilege with developing countries, actions are speaking louder than words.

Tough timing and the 'me first' syndrome

Perhaps the vaccine rollout came at a bad time: the United States faced an insurrection at its own Capitol; the EU and the UK were embroiled in a bitter Brexit divorce. Maybe China — with its low infection rate — had a head start allowing it the flexibility to offer vaccines abroad.

But there is never a perfect time to have a global pandemic, something sub-Saharan African countries are all too aware of.  For many, COVID-19 joins a bunch of pre-existing maladies like poor public health infrastructure, chronic unemployment, and wilting economies.  Tanzanian President John Magufuli went as far as to say his country doesn't plan to order vaccines — an extreme and likely misguided directive, but popular in the East African nation.

Medical assistance in Africa normally entails begging the West for help and entering into a relationship of dependence. A Rwandan former health minister, Agnes Binagwaho, best summed it up when referring to the EU: "Be frank and say, 'My people first.' Don't lie to me and say we'll be equal."

Kenyan Health Minister Mutahi Kagwe added it would be "foolish" to depend on Western nations.

Kenya's Health Minister Mutahi Kagwe has been critical of the West's 

hoarding of coronavirus vaccines

More divisions, no equality

Those hoping the COVID-19 pandemic would be a great leveler between the rich and emerging countries have been sorely disappointed.

If ever there was a moment revealing the EU especially had washed its hands of leading the charge against COVID-19, it was the embarrassing wrangling between the bloc and vaccine producer AstraZeneca. Countries not even getting a sniff at vaccinations watched in utter bemusement as wealthy European countries squabbled over access to millions of vaccines. The back-and-forth threatened to descend into childish mudslinging matches.

The vaccine rollout should have been and could have been the best of a unified West reclaiming lost global clout. But instead, the rollout has been divisive, nationalistic, despite the EU's efforts to show unity by ordering vaccines as a bloc.

Debates will rage about whether the vaccine rollout in the West and EU countries was successful or if Western nations could have done more to share their vaccine privilege. Those arguing it is not the West's job to save the world from a public health disaster should take note of China's actions: while not accepting responsibility for causing the pandemic, or in some cases denying the virus originated there, China is doing a much better job of appearing to solve the pandemic.

It seems the West has treated vaccination as a right for itself and a privilege for the rest. This is a mistake. After this debacle, it's difficult to imagine African countries turning to, or trusting, the West in public health matters again. 

Learning to live with 'el lobo:' Mexican wolves make a comeback

The Mexican wolf was hunted to the brink of extinction. But as it is reintroduced, conservationists hope to quell the old enmity between 'el lobo' and the farmer.

The Mexican wolf once roamed from southwest Arizona through western Texas, southern New Mexico and down into Mexico. The smallest of the Americas' five wolf species, farmers and ranchers nonetheless saw it as a threat, and hunted it to the brink of extinction.

Since 2011, there have been efforts to reverse its decline, with dozens of wolves reintroduced to the wilds of Mexico. Today, the United States and Mexico are working together to protect Mexican wildlife — and that means continuing to support the return of this important predator.

Mexican wolves help balance the entire ecosystem. They keep populations of both its prey and competitors — like pumas and coyotes — in check. And the remains of the animals they feed on in turn nourish scavengers, microorganisms and plants.

But the old enmity between "el lobo'' and the farmer hasn't gone away — particularly as wolves circle villages, venturing within a kilometer (0.6 miles) of human homes. Which is why the initiative is working to educate people about the benefits their canine neighbors bring, and encourage cattle breeders in particular to welcome them back. 

Project goal: Establish resilient, genetically diverse Mexican wolf populations within their original range.

Project scope: Since the initiative began, 46 wolves have been released in Mexico, with 35 animals currently living in the wild. Their numbers are expected rise in the coming years.

Project partners: United Nations Development Program Mexico, the Mexican National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP), the Mexican Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), The Autonomous University of Querétaro, Itzeni AC.

Project duration: The first wolves were released in the US in 1998 and on the Mexican side of the border in 2011. The initiative is expected to run until the wolves have established stable breeding populations.

A film by Anna Marie Goretzki and Pablo García Saldaña 

Watch video 07:23 Mexico: The return of ‘los lobos’

Greta Thunberg under fire for tweeting about Indian farmers' 'toolkit'

Indian police have filed a complaint in connection with a "toolkit" posted by world-famous activist Greta Thunberg. The document shows ways to extend support to the on-going farmers' protests.



Police in New Delhi on Thursday registered a case against the creators of a "toolkit" that was previously shared online by climate activist Greta Thunberg. The Swedish environmental crusader responded to the backlash by the police saying that despite the "hate", she still supports the widespread farmers' protest in India. She tweeted:

"No amount of hate, threats or violations of human rights will ever change that."

The "toolkit" document shared by Thunberg encourages people to sign a petition which condemns the "state violence" against the protesters. It also urges the Indian government to listen to the protestors rather than mock them. The toolkit also mentions different hashtags to use on Twitter to support the farmers' protests. Additionally, it asks for people worldwide to organize protests near Indian embassies or local government offices on the 13th and 14th February.

The Delhi police perceived the toolkit as a propaganda tool created by an Indian separatist movement. A local police officer said it has apparently been created by the "Poetic Justice Foundation" which allegedly supports a movement to create an independent state in Sikh-dominated regions of India, according to India Today.

Modi's government lashes out at celebrities

Indian news channels initially reported that a police case has been filed against Greta Thunberg. News channel reported that the police complaint included charges of sedition, an overseas "conspiracy" and an attempt to "promote enmity between groups." However, the police was later quoted as saying that its case does not name the climate activist. 

INTERNATIONAL CELEBRITIES SHOW SUPPORT FOR INDIA'S PROTESTING FARMERS

India slams international celebrities

Celebrities including singer Rihanna, climate change activist Greta Thunberg, US lawyer and activist Meena Harris — the niece of Vice President Kamala Harris — and lawmakers in the UK and the US have backed the protesting farmers in posts on social media. The Indian government slammed them for endorsing the huge farmers' protests against new agricultural laws. PHOTOS 1234567891011

Greta Thunberg, US pop star Rihanna and other celebrities were already lambasted by the Indian government for extending their support to the farmers who have been protesting against new agriculture reforms. Their online support was deemed "sensationalist" and "irresponsible" by the Indian foreign ministry.

Tens of thousands of farmers have been protesting near the Indian capital over new laws that they argue will leave them at the mercy of large companies. Demonstrations began in August of last year, and have been marred by bouts of violence

Watch video 01:49 Fresh protests in India against new farm laws

Friedrich Ebert at 150: Germany's pioneer of democracy

He was a man of new beginnings. Friedrich Ebert led Germany through difficult times after it lost the First World War. Both admired and controversial, he was also the victim of a smear campaign by far-right forces.

WHY FRIEDRICH EBERT IS STILL RELEVANT TODAY
The Mustache of the Nation
The distinctive mustache, the short, arched eyebrows and the stern look: This is the Friedrich Ebert most German schoolchildren know. The social democrat was the first president of Germany's fledgling democratic republic in 1919, and this bust in the Weimar City Museum captures his statesman-like bearing at a critical juncture of German history.
PHOTOS 1234567


At the end of 1918, Germany was at a crossroads. Its defeat in World War I had been sealed. Kaiser Wilhelm II fled into exile in the Netherlands in the course of the November Revolution, which began with a sailors' uprising. Countless people were starving. Traumatized, war-disabled soldiers came back from the front, desperately looking for their place in a shattered world.

In this time of confusion and upheaval, the son of a tailor played a decisive role in shaping political fate: Friedrich Ebert, born on February 4, 1871, in Heidelberg, the seventh of nine children.

Ebert's life represented the dream of social advancement: A trained saddlery journeyman who traveled for years after completing his apprenticeship and had a stint as a pub owner, his diligence, organizational talent and a sense of duty finally brought him to the top of the political establishment as chair of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD).

 Video 03:05 End of World War I and its aftermath in Europe

The suppressed World War I defeat

Starting in November 1918, he served as a leading member of what was then termed Germany's "revolution government," a coalition of the SPD with the more radical Independent Social Democrats (USPD). The Great War had taken a heavy toll on Ebert personally: Two of his five children had died. Unaffiliated with any religion, he supported a fundamental move to change the direction of the country: to shift from Prussia's authoritarian monarchy to a modern democratic republic.

Democratic elections had yet to be introduced. In addition, the "revolution government" faced the difficult challenge of building up a country that was economically in tatters. Even amid the devastation, the majority of the German population could not accept the war defeat and clung to the idea of the bygone German Empire. The Germany of 1918 was a society that faced the painful challenge of needing to reinvent itself in order to have a future.

The first German National Assembly gathered in Weimar in February 1919

Ebert was the right man, in the right place, at the right time. "Today he is rightly regarded as a pioneer of democracy, who took on responsibility in one of the most complex and problematic periods in German history," says historian Peter Beule of the Friedrich Ebert Foundation. Thanks to his ability to compromise, Ebert managed to navigate the political chaos of the postwar period.

"That was something new in German politics," says Walter Mühlhausen, who runs the Reichspräsident Friedrich Ebert Memorial in Heidelberg. At that time, political parties were relatively new — and it was Ebert "who always insisted that one had to come to an agreement in the service of the cause."

But Ebert made himself an enemy of the far left. Because he worked with the old elites of the military and bureaucracy to establish democracy, leftist figures accused him of betraying the all-important labor movement at a key time. The situation escalated. Radical communists, socialists and the Marxist Spartakusbund mobilized on January 5, 1919, in Berlin to overthrow the government. Their aim: to block the path to parliamentary democracy, despite the will of the majority of Germans. The threat of civil war loomed, just a few days before Germany's first democratic election was due to take place.

German Communist Party founders Karl Liebknecht and

 Rosa Luxemburg were killed after the January Uprising of 1919

Ebert had the January Uprising, as it came to be known, put down. There was a week of bloody conflict in the streets. Government-appointed volunteer corps of former frontline soldiers and volunteers killed and tortured revolutionaries.

THE FREI CORPS WHICH THEN EVOLVED INTO THE BASE FOR THE NAZI PARTY Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg, the two founders of the German Communist Party, were murdered shortly after the uprising was quashed. They have become iconic figures in German history.

Germany's women get the vote

But on January 19, 1919, parliamentary elections took place. Millions of women were allowed to vote for the first time; there was freedom of expression and freedom of the press. A few weeks later, while opening the National Assembly at Weimar, Ebert declared: "The German people are free, will remain free and will rule themselves in the future. This freedom is the only consolation that has remained for the German people, the only support they can use to work their way out of the bloodshed of war and defeat." Five days later, he was elected the first president of the Reich — the head of state under the Weimar constitution.

Ebert saw himself as a servant of all Germans and steered the young Weimar Republic through a variety of crises with his consensus-oriented politics. The reparations payments after World War I, which were stipulated in the Treaty of Versailles by the Allied victors, put further strain on the German economy, and coup attempts by the radical right and left followed. A smear and slander campaign by right-wing nationalists targeted Ebert as the representative of a republic they rejected.

In 1919, women in Germany lined up in droves to vote for the first time

Head of state or enemy of the state?

The vilification of Ebert was a strange twist in a burgeoning democracy. "For a society that still mourned the empire, a social democrat in the state leadership — a saddler-journeyman, a tailor's son from Heidelberg — it was an absurdity. A saddler who somehow strayed onto the throne; that's how he was depicted," Ebert biographer Mühlhausen tells DW. The president defended himself by legal means, fighting more than 200 lawsuits.

Despite all the hostility he faced, Ebert remained the republic's anchor of stability, a guarantee of security, freedom and order. In his six years as president of the Reich, nine chancellors and twelve Cabinets came and went. And through it all, his focus remained on the well-being of workers and the socially disadvantaged. As a social democrat, he linked the idea of ​​democracy and the rule of law with the idea of ​​social emancipation, says historian Beule. "That also meant that democracy must create the material and practical conditions so that all people, regardless of their social situation, can represent their interests and participate in political life."

Ebert managed the postwar chaos when the Versailles Treaty 

forced a defeated Germany to pay heavy war reparations, 

angering many of its citizens

Ebert, who hailed from the humblest of backgrounds, had to laboriously develop the educational foundations for his political ambitions himself. And so he suggested the establishment of a foundation to enable children from the working class to gain social advancement through education. "Fair access to educational opportunities as a prerequisite for equal opportunities in society is associated in a very special way with the name Friedrich Ebert," says Beule.

Ebert died on February 28, 1925, at the age of 54. His early demise ended the phase of relative stability. The slow death of the Weimar democracy began. In 1933, Adolf Hitler came to power, destroying Ebert's life's work and ushering in the darkest chapter of German history.

Today, 150 years after Ebert's birth, Germany has been a solid democracy for decades. Nevertheless, the foundations of democracy must not be taken for granted. The far-right populist Alternative for Germany (AfD) regularly tests the limits of what can be said. And a tiny minority of conspiracy theorists incites more and more people on social networks.
The vulnerability of democracy

Ebert's biographer Walter Mühlhausen warns that people must learn from the past. "I think recent times have shown us once again that democracy is something vulnerable, that democracy is not something that has eternal character."

The history of the Weimar era has shown that democracy must be experienced, lived and defended on a daily basis — by all those who enjoy it, Mühlhausen says. Everyone who believes in democracy "has to defend this system — now, today and in the future." Because if a democracy has too few democrats, "it runs the risk of being consigned to the dustbin of history."

This article was translated from German.

Denmark to construct artificial island as a wind energy hub

The construction project, believed to be the biggest in Danish history, will link hundreds of wind turbines to deliver enough electricity for millions of households.



Offshore wind turbines like these off Copenhagen already provide over 40% of Denmark's electricity

Denmark approved plans on Thursday to construct an artificial island in the North Sea and use it as clean energy hub.

When built, the island will supply both clean power to homes and green hydrogen for use in shipping, aviation, industry and heavy transport.

The decision came as the EU unveiled plans to transform the bloc's electricity supply. The bloc aims to rely mostly on renewable energy within a decade while increasing offshore wind energy capacity roughly 25-fold by mid-century.
Tapping into 'enormous potential' of wind power

The planned island, which will be located 80 kilometers off Denmark's west coast, will initially be 120,000 square meters in size, bigger than 18 standard football fields.

"The energy hub in the North Sea will be the largest construction project in Danish history'', Climate Minister Dan Joergensen told a press briefing.

"It will make a big contribution to the realization of the enormous potential for European offshore wind,'' he continued.

Authorities hope to have the hub operable by 2033. The first phase of the project is expected to cost around 210 billion Danish crowns ($33.87 billion, €28.28 billion).

Denmark's has been constructing turbines in its North Sea waters

Big step for global green transition

The surrounding wind turbines will have a capacity of at least 3 gigawatts, ramping up to 10 gigawatts over time.

"This is truly a great moment for Denmark and for the global green transition," continued Jorgensen.

The energy island is an important part of country's legally binding target to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70% of the 1990 levels by 2030.

"Only by inspiring others and developing new green solutions they also want to use, can we really do something to combat climate change,'' Joergensen added.

Denmark is home to some of the largest producers of wind turbines and offshore wind energy farms

Decades of wind poe

The Nordic country, with its favorable wind speeds, was a pioneer in both onshore and offshore wind, building the world's first offshore wind farm almost 30 years ago.

Bloomberg Green reports Denmark gets 40% of its electricity from wind power. The nation is also home to the world's largest wind turbine producer, Vesta Wind Systems and the world's top developer of offshore wind, Orsted AS.

In December, the government decided to halt the search for oil and gas in the Danish part of the North Sea.

No date has yet been set to begin construction of the island, which will be controlled by the Danish government.

The state also has plans for a second energy island in the Baltic Sea.

mb/dj (AP, Reuters)

A global nuclear phaseout or renaissance?

Germany's nuclear phaseout will be completed by the end of 2022. Safe final repositories for nuclear waste still haven't been found, but some countries are still building new reactors. 

Does nuclear power have a future?

China'a new nuclear power plant Hualong One
China is the world leader in the construction of new nuclear power plants, such as here in Fujian Province

There are currently 413 nuclear reactors in operation in 32 countries around the globe. According to the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report (WNISR), nuclear power accounted for about 10% of global electricity demand in 2019, the highest share being 17.5% in 1996.

Most reactors were built between 1968 and 1986, mainly in Europe, the United States, the former Soviet Union and Japan. The global average age of these reactors is 31 years.



Infographic showing nuclear reactors in selected countries
Europe, the US and China dominate the world in terms of numbers of reactors

US: Future of nuclear power uncertain

The US currently has 94 nuclear reactors — more than any other country in the world. In 2019, they met 20% of the country's electricity demand. The US also has the oldest reactors in the world, with an average age of 40 years.

Most reactors went into operation by 1985; only one started up within the last 20 years. Construction of two new reactors began in 2013. These are expected to begin working in the next few years.

The future of nuclear power in the US is uncertain. Although there are concepts for a new generation of reactors, it is questionable whether they can one day generate electricity as cheaply as the renewable energy sector.

There is no final repository for highly radioactive waste in the US. It is stored on-site at the power plants.

Russia wants to export nuclear power

Russia currently operates 38 nuclear reactors. In 2019, they covered about 20% of electricity demand. Ten new reactors have come online over the past decade. Two nuclear power plants have been under construction and are expected to start up in the next few years. The average age of Russian reactors is 28 years.

As Russia no longer wants to subsidize the construction of nuclear power plants in its own country, new domestic construction projects are uncertain. Instead, the state corporation Rosatom wants to focus on building reactors abroad in the future. According to WNISR, 10 Russian reactors are currently under construction abroad, two each in Bangladesh, India, Turkey and Slovakia, and one each in Iran and Belarus.

Russia does not have a final storage facility for its highly radioactive nuclear waste. Critics have complained about the lack of transparency in the handling of nuclear waste.

Infographic comparing energy costs of different energy sources
Nuclear remains an expensive energy option

Nuclear power too expensive in India

India currently has 21 nuclear reactors. In 2019, the share of nuclear power in the grid was 3%. Three reactors went online over the last 10 years, and six power plants are under construction. The average age of reactors is 23 years.

However, the expansion of nuclear power in India has been plagued by delays and mounting costs.

In 2012, the Planning Commission of India projected that the total capacity of all reactors would increase from just under 5 gigawatts (GW) to as much as 30 GW by 2027.

Today, reactors with a capacity of less than 7 GW are connected to the grid. The reactors under construction have a total capacity of 4 GW. Since the construction time of reactors in India is more than 10 years, a maximum of 11 GW will be on the grid in 2027, almost three times less than originally planned

India does not have a final storage facility for highly radioactive nuclear waste.

Watch video 00:58 German Constitutional Court rules in Vattenfall nuclear phaseout case

China: More renewables instead of nuclear power

China is the world leader in the construction of new nuclear power plants. In the last 10 years, 37 reactors have come online. According to WNISR, 49 reactors were generating electricity at the beginning of 2021 and 17 more reactors are under construction. The share of nuclear power in the country's electricity mix was 5% in 2019.

But China also built significantly fewer reactors than originally planned in the country's five-year plan. At the same time, the expansion of renewable energies is eclipsing nuclear.

According to the National Energy Administration, 72 GW of wind power, 48 GW of photovoltaics and 13 GW of hydropower were connected to the grid in 2020. Nuclear power plants contributed only 2 GW of new capacity in the same year.

China does not have a repository for highly radioactive waste, but it is exploring one in the Gobi Desert. Its nuclear waste is currently stored at various reactor sites.


View of the construction site of the nuclear reactor in Flamanville, France
​​​​The nuclear reactor in Flamanville, France, was supposed to be ready by 2012

France: Nuclear industry with huge losses

France has relied on nuclear power like no other country in the world in recent decades. In 2019, almost 71% of electricity demand was covered by nuclear power. Currently, 56 power plants are still in operation and one is under construction. The power plants have an average age of 36 years, and the last reactor went online in 1999.

The world's largest nuclear energy supplier and state-owned group EDF, which operates the French reactors, is indebted to the tune of €42 billion ($50.3 billion) and will have to invest an estimated €100 billion by 2030 to keep the old reactors in operation.

It is still unclear whether new reactors for nuclear power will be built in France. The decision has been postponed and is to be taken by the new French government after the next election in 2022.

There is no final repository for highly radioactive waste in France.

Poland: No investor for nuclear power

Poland has been planning to go nuclear since 1980 and started building two reactors, but stopped construction after the Chernobyl reactor disaster of 1986.

After that, there were repeated and ultimately unsuccessful attempts to restart construction. In 2014, the government adopted a plan to build six new reactors, with the first unit coming online in 2024. However, little has happened since then because it remains unclear how this costly program is to be financed.

This article has been adapted from German by Neil King.

VIDEOS

A global nuclear phaseout or renaissance? | Environment| All topics from climate change to conservation | DW | 04.02.2021

Opinion: QAnon, conspiracy theories are no joke

More and more people seem ready to believe theories that not so long ago would have been dismissed as sheer nonsense. This isn't just a strange, laughable phenomenon — it's dangerous for democracy, says Martin Muno.


The storming of the US Capitol in January was partly fueled by QAnon conspiracy theories

If, just a few years ago, someone had stated in public that a global elite was kidnapping children and torturing them to harvest their blood to make an elixir of youth, they would have been directed to the nearest psychiatric ward. Yet according to a British poll, some 10% of US citizens say they believe in at least some elements of this absurd theory known as QAnon.

The conspiracy theory has also been doing the rounds in Germany and, according to the Amadeu Antonio Foundation, which sets out to combat far-right ideologies and racism, it has already attracted some 150,000 supporters. This makes the German QAnon community the largest outside of the English-speaking realm.

A Konrad Adenauer Foundation study conducted from October 2019 to February 2020 found that around a third of Germans were open to conspiracy theories. Not counting children under 14, that's 24 million people. Other polls support this figure, and have found many links between QAnon supporters, COVID-19 deniers and right-wing extremists.
At the click of a mouse

How can such blatant nonsense resonate in an enlightened world? After all, this is the 21st century, not the Middle Ages. The answer is: It's just all a mouse click away. Social networks are the perfect breeding ground for fake news and conspiracy theories.

How dangerous are conspiracy theories?

A study conducted in Germany by Correctiv, which describes itself as a nonprofit investigative newsroom, concluded that Facebook and YouTube were the platforms on which the most false information was spread, with messaging services such as Telegram and WhatsApp not far behind. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology found that it took six times longer to reach 1,500 people with real news than with fake news.
Wake-up call for social media platforms

Social media platforms are in a predicament. On the one hand, they have tended to defend a very broad concept of free speech and tolerate content that amounts to fake news, profanity and insults. It was only in October 2020 that Facebook agreed to take down "content that denies or distorts the Holocaust." Holocaust denial has long been considered a crime in many countries.

On the other hand, these platforms are beginning to admit that the rapid spread of fake news and hatred facilitated by their platforms poses a danger — as shown by the storming of the US Capitol last month.

In response to this wake-up call, some platforms are beginning to hold users to account and have blocked the accounts of prominent and less prominent people. Some also now flag fake news with a warning.

Hold social platforms to account

But this isn't enough. Facebook and the rest must also be made liable for content such as fake news and hate speech posted on their platforms. The European Commission has tried to address this with its Digital Services Act but faces the difficulty of navigating the thin line between curbing the spread of fake news and censorship.

Not only that — media competence must also be taught more in schools. Young people are more likely to gain their information from social media than traditional news outlets, which need to develop formats better suited to reaching the "YouTube generation."

These are urgent, crucial changes. Conspiracy theories must be resisted because they harbor the potential to destroy democracies, as witnessed not so long ago in Washington.

Last week, in her speech to the German Bundestag on International Holocaust Day, the activist and politician Marina Weisband made it clear: "Being Jewish in Germany means understanding that [the Holocaust] did happen, and that it could happen again. It means that anti-Semitism doesn't start when somebody shoots at a synagogue. That the Shoah did not begin with the gas chambers. It starts with conspiracy narratives."

This article has been adapted from German