HUAC RED SCARE 2.0

US House panel probes BlackRock, MSCI on China investment flow

By AFP
Published August 1, 2023

US lawmakers are probing BlackRock and MSCI over the flow of American funds to sanctioned Chinese companies 

US lawmakers are probing American investment flows facilitated by BlackRock and MSCI to Chinese companies that Washington has sanctioned, a congressional panel announced Tuesday.

The investigation followed a discovery that asset manager BlackRock and investment index provider MSCI “invest or enable the investment of Americans’ savings into dozens of blacklisted Chinese companies,” the bipartisan House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) said on its website.

These firms are targeted over what Washington says is their threat to US national security or support of the CCP’s human rights abuses.

Letters from the committee’s chairman Mike Gallagher, a Wisconsin Republican, and ranking member Raja Krishnamoorthi, an Illinois Democrat, to the firms seek details about BlackRock and MSCI’s facilitation of investments to Chinese firms.

They also ask for an explanation of the due diligence on prospective investments, as well as details on the transparency of investments to investors and the public.

The letters, dated Monday, do not assert that BlackRock or MSCI violated US sanctions.

But the committee seeks a “prompt reply” from both parties to inform the panel’s understanding of the CCP’s “economic, technology and security progress and its competition with the United States,” said the letters.

BlackRock “has invested more than $429 million in PRC companies that pose national security risks to and act against the interests of the United States,” according to the committee, using the official acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

With over $13 trillion benchmarked against MSCI products, the inclusion of sanctioned Chinese firms means that millions of Americans’ savings “are now unwittingly funding PRC companies that develop and build weapons for the People’s Liberation Army,” the committee noted.

BlackRock said it will “continue engaging” with the House panel on the issues raised, a spokesperson said.

“Like many global asset managers, BlackRock offers our clients a number of strategies to invest in or exclude China from their portfolios,” the company said, adding that the majority of investments are through US index funds.

“With all investments in China and markets around the world, BlackRock complies with all applicable US government laws,” BlackRock said.

MSCI said it was reviewing the request from the committee.

“MSCI indexes measure the performance of equity markets available to international investors, and comply with all applicable US laws,” the firm said. “MSCI does not manage or recommend or facilitate investments in any country.”

Read more: https://www.digitaljournal.com/business/us-house-panel-probes-blackrock-msci-on-china-investment-flow/article#ixzz89fxR3zDx

Scots train ancient dog breed to deter eagle attacks

By AFP
Published August 5, 2023

A young Maremma sheep dog stands by a sheep as it is trained to protect livestock from the threat of Sea Eagles

 - Copyright Philippine Coast Guard (PCG)/AFP Handout

Stuart GRAHAM

Dotted among a small flock of sheep in a field in the Scottish Highlands, Luigi and Peaches, two young working dogs with thick white coats, are busy being trained to keep watch on the skies above.

The pair, who descend from the Roman-era Maremma breed reared by shepherds to protect their livestock from wolves, are learning to guard against Scotland’s resurgent sea eagles, formally known as white-tailed eagles.

Once driven to extinction across the British Isles, they have been successfully reintroduced in recent decades but are increasingly blamed for ravaging lambs left to roam the countryside.

The loss of the valuable livestock is sparking tensions with some farmers, devastated by the financial fallout and demanding the government issue licences to shoot the birds.

The worsening situation prompted Jonny and Daisy Ames to create the dog training programme at their falconry near Aviemore, in the hope it will allow farmers and eagles to better coexist.

“The last thing that we want is to see eagles being shot, for licences to be issued and to end up back at square one,” Daisy Ames told AFP.

“There needs to be a solution that works for both sides.”

Sea eagles were once a common sight across Scotland but were hunted to extinction throughout the 19th century, with the last bird shot in 1918.

A re-introduction programme in 1975 brought chicks from Norway to the island of Rum, one of Scotland’s wildest places.

More were reintroduced in Wester Ross between 1993 and 1998 and on the east coast in 2007 and 2012.

– Drones and cheetahs –

The birds, an endangered species with only around 10,000 pairs across the globe, have since established a breeding population on Scotland’s west coast and are now thriving — but at a cost to some farmers.

Searching for a solution, Jonny Ames tapped into his experiences working with the Cheetah Conservation Project in Namibia, where Maremmas were trained to keep the big cats away from livestock.

To teach his latest canine recruits, he attaches a lure designed to resemble an eagle to a drone and hovers it over the dogs in a sheep field.

“The drone has a big eagle hanging on the bottom of it and it kind of dive bombs the dogs a little bit,” he told AFP.

“If you can imagine an eagle in the wild, if it’s coming in to a kill and there’s a wolf there, it isn’t going to land.”

He and Daisy also allow a sea eagle kept at the falconry to feed from a carcass in front of the dogs in a controlled environment.

“They can’t reach each other but we want to try and show the dogs that the eagle is a predator and if there is one near the lambs then you want to scare it off,” Jonny explained.

One of the benefits of the dogs is that they are “completely soft” when it comes to humans, he noted.

“They don’t make good guard dogs for people and the worst they are going to do is lick them to death.”

– Devastating effect –

Jenny Love, a sheep farmer on Scotland’s west coast, said the eagles have had a devastating effect, adding she frequently hears complaints from local farmers.

But she is sympathetic to Britain’s biggest bird of prey, with a majestic wingspan stretching over two metres (six feet seven inches).

“Eagles are not the bad guys here,” Love told AFP. “There is nothing else for these birds to eat, so they are eating lambs which are easy prey for them.

“But this is taking an enormous toll on farmers. Their livelihood is being taken away from them. The public perception is that farmers are the bad guys.”

Farmers are eligible for a maximum annual payout of £5,000 ($6,383) for livestock killed, through the Sea Eagle Management Scheme.

However, the process is costly and arduous and only partially recoups the losses, according to Love, who argues compensation levels should be increased and application requirements simplified.

One farmer had lost £30,000 worth of lambs in a season, she said.

“I’ve had big tough guys breaking down in tears in front of me because they don’t know what to do,” she added.

Love is sceptical about the Maremmas, which she argues are trained to work in fields where the sheep are close together.

Thousands of dogs would be needed to guard sheep across the mountains, where nearly all the lambs are lost to the birds, Love lamented.

Tunisian brand turns sea plastic into green couture

By AFP
Published August 6, 2023

Recycled marine plastic from Tunisia's Kerkennah islands was used to make these fabrics shown off at the launch of eco-friendly haute couture line Outa last month - Copyright AFP FETHI BELAID

Francoise Kadri

The two men in bright overalls rooting for plastic on a Tunisian beach do so to make a living, but also in the knowledge that they are helping the environment.

What they do not know is that the waste will become part of a synthetic plastic fibre used to make blue denim cloth to create a dress for the eco-friendly fashion label Outa.

The pair are among around 15 “barbeshas”, or informal rubbish collectors, taking part in the Kerkennah Plastic Free programme, backed by the European Union.

This aims to recover the 7,000 tonnes of plastic waste each year that end up littering beaches on the Kerkennah Islands 20 kilometres (12 miles) off the port city of Sfax.

Jean-Paul Pelissier, of the International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies (CIHEAM), is coordinating the EU-funded project.

He told AFP that on the archipelago, “we have an exciting environment in terms of nature and tranquillity. It’s ideal for green tourism”.

Pelissier said the islands were a passage point for migratory birds, and that its waters were abundant in Posidonia oceanica seagrass, or Neptune grass.

“But there’s one thing you never see in the pictures — the plastic,” he said. Marine currents carry the waste from Europe into the Gulf of Gabes, and there it washes up to be collected by the barbeshas.

They take their daily harvest to a sorter which passes it on to a collection company and then it is fed into a crusher to be baled.

A partnership has been established with Seaqual Initiative, an international consortium which buys the marine plastic “at a remunerative and stable price all year round”, Pelissier said.

– New opportunities –

The initiative’s website says it “works with ocean clean-ups around the world to bring value to the waste that they recover”.

Omar Kcharem is the boss of Kerkennah Plast, which compacts and crushes plastic, and he said working with Seaqual has created new opportunities, since marine plastic “does not have much value and does not bring in any money”.

The plastic granules recovered after grinding the waste are transformed into “Seaqual Yarn” nylon fibre in Portugal, in one of just four factories in the world equipped with the technology.

“This is innovative,” said Pelissier. “Four or five years ago, you couldn’t recycle marine plastic because of its lengthy exposure to salt water and the sun.”

He said Seaqual Yarn comprises around 10 percent of recycled marine plastic, but the aim is to increase this.

Apart from the Portugal side of the operation, the rest is definitely “Made in Tunisia”.

In the coastal town of Ksar Hellal southeast of Monastir, a huge machine in the ultra-modern Sitex plant makes an infernal racket as it transforms the Seaqual Yarn into denim.

Sitex is a denim specialist that has supplied brands such as Hugo Boss, Zara and Diesel. Now Anis Montacer, founder of the Tunisian fabric and fashion brand Outa, has entered into a partnership with it.

He chose Sitex “for its sensitivity to the environment, because in 2022, 70 percent of their manufacturing was based on recycled fibres”.

“We worked together to determine the proper yarn strength and the right indigo dye,” he told AFP, adding that their collaboration will continue to expand Outa’s colour range to include natural dyes.

– Higher costs –

“The entire process takes place in Tunisia, from the denim transformed in Ksar Hellal to the Tunisian seamstresses who work on the tailoring” for Outa, Montacer said.

Production costs are 20 percent higher, though, than for denim without the marine plastic content.

Despite this, Montacer believes he can “bring together other entrepreneurs and inspire designers to produce eco-responsible collections”.

He called on renowned French designer Maud Beneteau, formerly of Hedi Slimane, to design Outa’s first haute couture collection.

“We chose a high value collection because the production cost is higher than with normal thread to create denim fabric,” Montacer said.

Outa creations first graced the catwalk during Tunis Fashion Week in June.

Beneteau saw the first Outa collection as “a challenge, a human dimension in this wonderful project that aligns with the idea of saving the planet”.

She does say there were some difficulties working with a fabric that was “a little thick and stiff, originally designed for sportswear and ready-to-wear, rather than haute couture”.

More used to fine silks, linen and cotton, she admits having some qualms working with the new fibre, even though like her peers in the fashion industry she tries to recycle and buy back unsold stocks in the fight against overconsumption.

But “when you think that this is recycled and ecological, that jobs have been created, people who pick up the plastic… it’s a whole interesting chain,” Beneteau said.

It’s also a great yarn. Plastic fantastic: from sea waste to see waist, you might say…

Ukraine War: A Turning Point for Globalization?

on August 4, 2023
By Sarah Neumann


Globalization is a multifaceted phenomenon that refers to the increasing interconnectedness and integration of different regions and peoples across various dimensions, such as trade, investment, migration, culture, technology, and information. Globalization has been a dominant trend in the world economy since the end of the Second World War, but it has also faced many challenges and disruptions along the way.

The recent war in Ukraine is one of those disruptions that has profound implications for globalization and its future trajectory. The war has not only caused human suffering and economic damage in Ukraine and its neighboring countries, but also triggered wider geopolitical tensions and conflicts that have undermined global cooperation and trust. Moreover, the war has exposed the vulnerability and fragility of global supply chains that rely on foreign inputs, markets, and transport networks.

How will the war in Ukraine affect globalization in the medium to long run? Will it lead to a reversal or a reshaping of global integration? What are the consequences for development and cooperation? These are difficult questions to answer, as they depend on many factors and uncertainties. However, some possible scenarios can be sketched out based on current trends and evidence.

One scenario is that the war in Ukraine will accelerate de-globalization, or a decline in global integration. This scenario is based on the assumption that geopolitical risks will outweigh economic benefits as drivers of globalization. Under this scenario, countries will prioritize their national security interests over their trade interests, leading to a fragmentation of global markets along political lines. Trade barriers will increase as countries impose sanctions, tariffs, quotas, or other restrictions on their rivals or potential threats. Global supply chains will be disrupted or reconfigured to reduce dependence on foreign sources or markets. Countries will also seek to diversify their trade partners or develop their domestic capabilities to enhance their self-reliance.

This scenario would have negative consequences for development and cooperation. De-globalization would reduce global efficiency gains from specialization and comparative advantage. It would also reduce global welfare gains from lower prices, higher quality, and greater variety of goods and services. De-globalization would hurt developing countries more than developed countries, as they rely more on trade for their growth, employment, income, and poverty reduction. De-globalization would also undermine global institutions and norms that facilitate cooperation on common challenges such as climate change, public health, human rights, or peace.

Another scenario is that the war in Ukraine will reshape globalization rather than reverse it. This scenario is based on the assumption that economic benefits will still matter as drivers of globalization despite geopolitical risks. Under this scenario, countries will adapt to changing circumstances by adjusting their trade strategies and policies. Trade barriers will not increase significantly, but trade patterns will change as countries seek new opportunities or niches. Global supply chains will not be disrupted, but diversified or optimized to balance efficiency and security. Countries will also pursue regional or plurilateral integration agreements that are more flexible and inclusive than global ones.

This scenario would have mixed consequences for development and cooperation. Reshaping globalization would preserve some of the benefits of global integration, but also create some challenges and trade-offs. It would allow countries to exploit their comparative advantages and access new markets, but also expose them to more competition and volatility. It would enable countries to diversify their trade partners and sources, but also increase their complexity and coordination costs. It would foster regional or plurilateral cooperation on some issues, but also create fragmentation or exclusion on others.

The war in Ukraine has also revealed the vulnerability and complexity of global trade. The war in Ukraine has disrupted global supply chains and markets, especially for commodities such as food and energy. For example, Russia is one of the largest exporters of wheat and natural gas in the world, and its exports have been affected by Western sanctions and transport bottlenecks. This has created shortages and price spikes in some regions, such as Europe and Asia. Moreover, the war in Ukraine has increased global uncertainty and volatility, which have negative impacts on investment, consumption, and growth.

The war in Ukraine has also raised questions about the relationship between globalization and security. Liberalism is a theory of international relations that argues that globalization promotes peace and security by increasing interdependence, cooperation, and democracy among countries. However, this theory has been challenged by recent events that show that globalization can also create conflicts and threats. For example, Mark Galeotti argues in his book that globalization has enabled countries to use their economic, technological, or informational advantages as weapons against their rivals or adversaries. He calls this phenomenon “weaponized interdependence” and suggests that it leads to more frequent and protracted wars.

The war in Ukraine does not necessarily mean the end of globalization or the return of a Cold War scenario. Rather, it means that globalization is changing and evolving in response to new challenges and opportunities. Globalization is not a uniform or linear process, but a diverse and dynamic one that varies across different dimensions, regions, sectors, and actors. Some aspects of globalization may decline or stagnate, such as trade in goods or multilateral agreements. But other aspects of globalization may continue or increase, such as trade in services or digital flows. Moreover, some regions may pursue deeper integration or cooperation within their own blocs or groups, such as the European Union or the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership.

The war in Ukraine is a critical juncture for globalization, but its outcome and impact are not predetermined. They depend on how countries adapt to changing circumstances and what policies they adopt to manage their trade relations. The challenge for policymakers is to find ways to harness the benefits of globalization while minimizing its risks. This requires balancing efficiency and security, openness and sovereignty, cooperation and competition in a changing global environment.”

Sarah Neumann is a political scientist and freelance writer who specializes in international relations, security studies, and Middle East politics. She holds a PhD in Political Science from Humboldt University of Berlin, where she wrote her dissertation on the role of regional powers in the Syrian conflict. She is a regular contributor to various media outlets like Eurasia Review. She also teaches courses on international relations and Middle East politics at Humboldt University of Berlin and other academic institutions.

A CANADIAN BOURGEOIS VIEW

Why is half of the world always so wrong?

 August 7, 2023
By Naseem Javed

Without a doubt, unlike ever before, the global populace has advanced in general global knowledge and improved understanding in far too many ways to create better performance than whatever was previously perceived. Thanks to the gift of the Internet to the world by the USA. Nevertheless, Artificial Intelligence, like a python of smart wickedness entirely dependent on human-made programming, will strike very soon to strangle humankind.

Digital progress is instant global progress, unlike the pre-technology days when the world changed over decades; now, it is about changing within days. Minds have limits; sometimes, very extreme chains of traditions; hence, they are far too slow to change. The crisis will become the ever-powerful force stretching humankind’s mind to cope with the super-sonic speed of the digital age.

Choose your half carefully, as half of the world is always so often ever so wrong.

When 50% of the global workforce will work remotely, and 50% will report to worksites, this trend will empty 50% of downtowns, making them too expensive to fill up and may become low-cost real estate. When 50% of leadership is already busy branding the climate change issues, 50% of programs go nowhere, the economic models and carbon tax programs rejected by 50% will divide 50% of nations. As 50% of the world is moving towards boiling points temperature, the other 50% is headed toward frozen economies.

If 50% of the world is now a circus, so the 50% of leaders being visible are now acceptable clowns, when 50% of the messages coming from national leadership are either gibberish, Babel and mumbo-jumbo, as undecipherable rhetoric. At the same time, 50% of social media is splintered into a borderline war of words games. When 50% of the economies producing no results, so the other 50% shows results, are they accurate? When 50% of the world is chasing peace via wars, the 50% of restless populations in protest are fighting riot-geared forces. The 50% confused only entertained by the 50% mesmerized and amused.

In this regard, the arrival of a “Global Age of Competency” may be AI’s most significant gift as a percentage would be forced to uplift mental performance.

At the same time, digitized squeezing of conflicting opinions, like writing on birthday cakes, celebrating every million negative messages, juxtaposed to the perpetual birth of billion hate signals for all to enjoy as a wicked carnival already festive on the fall of humankind.

Is 50% of the future is safe?

A deep study will show how the world is divided, all on the mental side, and how that divide is managed by particular narratives that further divide and bifurcate into conflicting ideas. This well-organized jigsaw puzzle demands dialogues and debates as fighting just the war of words is spinning into hate groups of choice. Economic issues are abandoned, out of control, debt-based thinking, and the absence of entrepreneurialism; subsequently, nothing in the numbering games of economics.

Why is the economy a broom? The first step is to focus on creating real value-based real success and forget about the economy, as the economy is a broom that sweeps the floor and collects the dust and debris from the tactical entrepreneurial battlefields. In the course of human endeavor, whenever or where ever, entrepreneurs during their wild goose chase in sandboxes only create footprints and dust storms, where crazy innovative ideas tossed around like bone-china porcelain flying get smashed and create debris; later, all that dust gets swept by economic brooms and carefully labeled and jarred as relics for latter day prophesies.

The Solutions: Expothon Worldwide has been sharing information weekly with some 2000 senior officials at the Cabinet level in around 100 countries for the last 50 -100 weeks. Mastery of new entrepreneurial economic thinking is a new revolution in SME Mobilization. In the coming months, a global high-level, virtual event series will advance the agenda, debate, and clarify and table turnkey mobilization options. Study more, Monstrous Global Trends: 2030

The world is being divided into The Master of Robots, the intelligent unlearners, and the Slaves of Robots, who would remain deniers of change. Today, global adjustments of world-class skills will crush current educational bureaucracies. First-world countries cannot afford third-world performance levels in an age where third-world countries are already approaching first-world performance levels.

As a result, the bureaucracies need deep immersion in re-orientations as the 1st world supremacy is now a dream. The 2nd and 3rd world is advancing by the hour. In a hyper-accelerated world, understanding the incompetency range of the working masses is a new art; identifying this critical void is a new science; mobilizing the citizenry to regain new skills is new courage, and open debates to face these challenges is new global-age style economic leadership. Silence a slow death. Study deeply, and act wisely.

Henceforth, AI will address the outcry of the restless citizenry of the free economies, will compress time and performance issues concerning the government’s undertaking or spending costs, and create instant and refined arguments to destroy the problems on hands, impacting every single business, persons involved, and the country, anywhere worldwide.

Like a tube of toothpaste, it will squeeze out competency levels like slithering paste wobbling on a toothbrush, stripped naked and openly tested on quality. Technology is already exposing individuals, organizations, and governments regarding their performance quality, incompetence, and mismanagement; AI will take this as a global fanfare show of gross incompetency. It will place incompetency on pole dance and do a strip show on stage with precise details and complete profiles of the players exposed.

We have already entered the era where AI will steal 50% of all human tasks of all sizes and stages worldwide. For humankind to stay in the race, AI will create open and visible challenges for human workforces to compete with superior ‘mental performance’ levels. As we enter the AI future, competency can be proven instantly as digital controls are like on-and-off switches to see an individual in bright light or total darkness.

Across the free world, bureaucratic management trapped in outdated thinking, costing trillions of dollars wasted in expired performances and procedures, critically damaging national productivity, performance, and profitability, may be forced to crawl out of the dark hole slowly.

National mobilizations of entrepreneurialism is a scary thought for bureaucratic management; balancing the mindsets between job seekers and job creators is beyond their league, and if ever it was understood correctly, there would be no need to point to such a crisis. Nevertheless, such revolutionary ideas will automatically improve by 50% competency by having matching mindsets with matching tasks.

Open challenges and open debates; unless bureaucratic management is ready to articulate such topics with analysis and make the right or wrong fixes to the tactical landscapes in search for extra productivity and propose specific learning and unlearning agendas, the nations will have a severe economic performance shakedown

The significant errors and the critical solutions: Inability to look at any small business, but still needs to see it grow as potentially a national or a global operation. Inability to understand, the differences between job seeker mindsets and job creator mindsets showing lack of understanding on how to create combined growth. Inability to measure the fundamental disconnect between education and the real-value creation economies and still unable to replace pragmatic up-skilling and re-skilling as alternate solutions. Inability to correctly find the prime reasons economic development is becoming economic destruction.

The Warnings: The inability to articulate new narratives on the new economic thinking on the national mobilization of entrepreneurialism will drown the teams in dysfunctional economic development.
Inexperienced to fathom how within ten days, under guidance, a proper master digitalization strategy can be formed to digitize 10% to 50% of high-potential major Small and Medium Enterprise sectors; in 100 days, they could be nationally mobilized on digital platforms, and within 365 days, with 10% to 50% of growth they could increase their productivity, performance, and profitability to immediately become the most prominent economic activity for the nation directly. More on Global Divides & Mindset Crises

Discover, the last couple of decades, the economic performances of the free economies, at best, were flat downwards, and if anything, upwards is only debt loads described as an illusionary successes. Study more on Google, the rest is easy.

Naseem Javed a Canadian, born in a printing publishing family of small merchants, settled over two centuries surrounding the Red Fort in Chandni Chowk Delhi, India. Educated and raised in Karachi, Pakistan, and arrived in Canada fifty years ago. He spent years at the 1976 Montreal Summer Olympics and learned how to create and develop global-stature organizations and events. Acquired global experiences, serviced dozens of Fortune 500 companies as a senior advisor over 25 years, and learned how to commercialize, monetize and popularize complex ideas globally. Later in 2000, Naseem took a sabbatical when he noticed markets lost the art of value creation and adopted value manipulation when one million dollar turnover factories traded as 100 million dollar operations in stock exchanges. He took all his high-value knowledge and experiences, placed them in a shoe box, and made them available almost free for the world's 100 million Small and Medium Enterprises. He developed The National Mobilization of Entrepreneurialism Protocols. The rest is history. Now, Chair of Expothon Worldwide highlighted and recognized authority on new economic thinking, where small and medium business entrepreneurialism is tabled as the savior of the already struggling economies. He is a world-class speaker, author, and gaining global attention. https://expothon.com

Westerners’ 

AMERICAN HEGONOMIC thoughts and values don’t suit the rest!

August 4, 2023
By Mohammed Nosseir

Trends in Western nations are frequently the source of global discourse. A topic suddenly appears and occupies the world’s minds for a few months. Then the world realizes that what they had been engaged with was irrelevant, irrational, or immoral, at least to non-westerners, such as the Affirmative Action, U.S. debt ceiling, Trump’s indictment, or the ongoing contest between conservatives and liberals. These trends crowd out other issues that could be more significant to humanity, such as democracy and poverty.

The vocabulary of this discourse—hero, betrayer, ally, or adversary—used to designate the rest of the world is quite evocative. Consequently, the West inflates the hero’s role, ensuring that allies are united. Adversaries are isolated through character assassination that is applied only to a few dictators who are the West’s key rivals, such as Russia’s Putin and China’s Xi. Meanwhile, the world has 52 authoritarian regimes, some of which are good Western allies.

This Western scheme complicates world dynamics by framing their relations with these adversaries as a battle between heroes and villains, locking in policies and preventing political compromise. Whereas, reality tells us, there are no permanent allies; common interest is the only factor that separates friends from foes. However, Westerners’ dilemma lies in their strict shortsightedness and interest in best serving the incumbent ruler.

While the Western viewpoint fails to digest the diversity of the rest of the world, whose real life is progressing differently. Human beings naturally value freedom, justice, and equality, for example; however, the importance attributed to these values differs from culture to culture based on their thoughts, emotions, and spirituality, which can easily be manipulated by their autocratic ruling regimes.

For example, rulers’ sentiments could play an essential role in calling for a war; religion is more important to freedom in a given culture; some nations are individually driven and others are community-oriented; contesting is essential in a society; and recklessness could be a common behavior in other humanities. In short, Western civilization’s evolution isn’t always valued by the rest of the world but is habitually imposed on them.

“It’s the economy, stupid” is only applicable for advanced rational nations, while citizens of other nations may offer their votes for a party’s membership or for a charismatic leader in a time when their economies are declining. Western citizens, at large, have a structured mind that is driven by cause and consequence, while most of the non-western nations are casually oriented. Nevertheless, an advanced society isn’t necessarily a sensible one, especially when it comes to a different culture.

Whereas the intelligence that Western nations possess for the rest of the world is comprehensive but fragmented and deserted by being processed by Westerners’ lenses and minds. For instance, polling operations that western intelligence rely on are a completely misguided method in which people tend to offer their aspirations instead of being authentic, and in a despotism-driven nation, they offer a view that could keep them away from prison.

Moreover, ideas, the core essence of innovations, emerge by drifting outward from knowledgeable minds. However, in the world of politics, ideas are exclusively developed, circulated, and endorsed by Western influential. For example, Western technology that is universally acknowledged is a clear proof of its nobility, while Western foreign policies’ accumulating failures should call into question their meritocracy.

Eventually, Western policymakers articulate their own thoughts by being exposed to intensive data that is naturally influenced by their personal views while complying with their respective affiliations’ missions—a group of collective minds who produce economic and political models, which eventually became their manifesto that requires them to blindly defend, preventing any outlier idea from emerging. Whereas less powerful nations are often obliged to reshape their thoughts to suit the West’s predetermined minds.

These western-framed “beliefs” are meant to serve their respective authorities’ static missions without questioning their significance to the rest of the world, which is obliged to live by them. The stronger the bond that politicians or scholars abide by this platform, the better they personally progress. Whereas the narrow specialization structure of Western scholars, on which their policymakers rely, creates plenty of information silos without a true synergy to better digest the world’s progress.

While mainstream Western media that should broaden citizens’ horizons tend to sustain this political dilemma by offering “space of minds” to their elites exclusively, barely presenting the adversary’s view of the rest of the world, meanwhile, the media of autocratic regimes work to misinform Western nations with false narratives, which are implicitly accepted as long as they are part of the Western alliance. In fact, we are all living in an ill-informed society that varies in shape.

Debate is a Western invention that is meant to solve conflicts; it is a process that engages quarreling parties in dialogue that requires more of their arguable talents and fewer credentials. Actually, dialogue with dictators who don’t represent their people instantly disqualifies this mechanism. Ultimately, arguing parties reach a compromise that naturally favors powerful democratic nations at the expense of misrepresentative ones.

Meanwhile, Western supremacy and unification are over empowering its policymakers, who are comfortable dealing with each other but whose egos prevent them from attending to non-western’s perspectives. Westerners’ democracy and claimed superior values are completely irrelevant to the rest of the world as long as they aren’t applied to their foreign affairs. In fact, western democracy could be easily manipulated by its rulers, which may lead us to believe that supreme nations aren’t always correct by default and that mediocre nations shouldn’t follow supremacy blindly.

Western nations’ leaders believe that peace and prosperity will make this world a better place, best reached by applying capitalism and democracy; they have managed to universally apply the former at the expense of the latter. Meanwhile, Western nations’ foreign military interference in Iraq, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, and Syria, for example, was led by fairly elected western politicians that served their narrow interests and weren’t avoided by their nations’ “checks and balances.”

Deficiency in leadership has been a Western excuse for their failure, which may prompt us to say that today’s world crises, such as Western democratic decay, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and the pandemic, are beyond the current western leadership’s capacity to address those who tend to bully at the cost of diplomacy, giving the rest a valid reason to unfollow them. In fact, Western politicians’ success should be measured by their policies’ results, not by their rhetoric – Western’s failure to prevent Russia’s invasion of a sovereign nation is a defeat per se for the West.

There is a huge difference between democracy as a mechanism that can easily be manipulated by politicians and values that are more of a personal motivation that might contradict one’s interest. Believing that Western nations interests and values are harmonized is a ridiculous argument. Western politicians are often willing to give up their values if authoritarian regimes open their markets to Western nations’ products that boost their economies.

A large number of non-Western citizens believe that the United States formulates the world’s geopolitical rollercoaster simply to serve its interests. Certainly, the U.S. isn’t capable of doing so and is even getting weaker at handling the world’s challenges while its credibility is declining. Whereas, Western politicians who manipulate foreign affairs have been working to maintain this status quo and tend to justify their misconduct, knowing how to avoid their internal democratic accountability.

Overpowered Western nations have taken the world for granted; however, absolute power has a backlash visible in the falling out of favor of Western perspectives. Meanwhile, any offensive approach by a powerful nation leaves the world with a broadly irrecoverable negative mark. Western democracy, for example, should not be sufficient to empower a single person, the ruler, to initiate a war, and equally, it shouldn’t undermine the relative power of autocratic nations.

Different forms of disobedience have been the solution for the universally marginalized citizens whose attempt to superior China or Russia, is meant to get even with the west, not because of being a preferred ruling model. In democratic nations, citizens punish their leaders by refraining from voting or giving their votes to an unestablished candidate, such as Donald Trump. Less fortunate and illiterate citizens who are ruled under autocratic regimes whose votes never count have one option for expressing their frustrations: violence, which sadly claims the lives of many innocent people.

The West doesn’t see eye-to-eye with the rest of the world. The latter aren’t against the west per se, but against their narrow-minded approach, egoism, and double standards. The true success of western nations should be measured by their ability to maneuver the rollercoaster of world events in a direction that makes this world peaceful and prosperous, which entails aligning outraged nations, not isolating them. This could happen by fading out western hegemony and having a cross-cultural dialogue among universal citizens on how the world should function.


Mohammed Nosseir is an Egyptian liberal politician, living in Cairo and advocating for political participation, liberal values and economic freedom. He tweets @MohammedNosseir

The Aftermath of Article 370 in Jammu and Kashmir

#KASHMIR IS #INDIA'S #GAZA

 August 6, 2023
By Nimra Javed

Friday prayers in Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir. © John Isaac

Article 370 of the Indian Constitution grants Jammu and Kashmir a unique status as the only state that can define its own accession term and receive this treatment. In order to legislate and establish other contacts with the Indian Union, the state assembly and government were granted this unique status under the constitution. Article 370 was included in the Indian constitution following discussions between Kashmiri and Indian government officials. This unique status was, however, eroded over time by a number of Draconian measures. To draft its own constitution and approve applicable sections of the Indian Constitution, the IIOJK Constituent Assembly was founded in 1950. Importantly, Article 35A was included to ensure the continuation of the Maharaja’s state subject rule by giving the state government the authority to establish its own definition of permanent residents and place limits on the ability of non-residents to purchase property in the state.

Despite being subjected to Indian aggression, brutality, and tyranny, the people of Jammu and Kashmir were able to maintain their unique culture and identity because of Article 370. It gave the state legislature the power to make laws for Jammu and Kashmir, with the exclusion of the military, the media, and international relations. Article 370’s third clause stated that the J&K constitutional assembly’s approval was needed to alter or repeal the article. Since the legislature was dissolved on January 26, 1957, however, it is impossible to constitutionally revoke the special status. The BJP government unilaterally repealed this law, turning the state into a de facto prison, despite the fact that it had a permanent status. While New Delhi promised that this change would bring prosperity to the state, the reality shows otherwise. Significant shifts and difficulties have resulted from the repeal. Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh are now two independent union regions after the removal of Article 370 on August 5, 2019. With this change, the territory was no longer granted any kind of special status and instead fell under the direct control of the Indian federal government.

Concerns were voiced regarding how the elimination of Article 370 would affect the demographic make-up of the area. Mass migration and settlement by a certain group can shift the demographic balance, as was the case with Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, which drew criticism from many. The repeal was interpreted as an effort to domesticize the international debate over Kashmir within India. As a result, the unlawful union territory authority in Jammu and Kashmir issued up to 3.5 million bogus residence certificates to foreigners.People who had previously worked for 10 years in various capacities in the territory, such as at colleges, banks, or other jobs, were now able to claim domicile under the new rules for claiming domicile in J&K. Domicile eligibility was extended to include offspring of J&K service personnel and those who had completed high school (grades 11 and 12). Some people aren’t happy with all the domiciles being given out, especially to former soldiers known as Sainiks. This has prompted concerns among locals about a possible effort to manipulate the area’s population composition and threatens their safety.

Some people are worried that the ruling party, the BJP, is trying to control the region’s majority Muslim population by settling extremist Hindus in the valley, which could lead to ethnic cleansing and the emergence of new conflicts. As a precautionary step following the revocation, some Jammu and Kashmir political figures were detained or placed under house arrest. Syed Ali Gillani, Yasin Malik, Omar Abdullah, and Mehbooba Mufti are just some of the prominent regional party leaders that were threatened with detention. The goal of this action was to silence the Kashmiri government. While visiting New York, Indian author Arundhati Roy declared, “The biggest myth of all times is that India is a democracy.” Actually, it’s not the case. Several Indian states are dangerously close to civil conflict. The number of reported rapes has been steadily rising since article 370 was repealed. IIOJK is notorious for its use of torture, sexual assault, kidnapping, nighttime raids, disappearances, and mass graves. Human rights abuses have been systematic and pervasive in J&K for at least 40 years, according to UNHCR findings from 2018 and 2019. Khurram Parvez, three of his accomplices, and Parveena Ahanger were among the prominent human rights activists whose homes and offices were raided by the NIA on various occasions in 2020. Ajay Kumar Mishra, minister of state for the home, said in the Rajya Sabha, “the cost of pursuing journalism in Jammu & Kashmir is huge.”

The executive editor of The Kashmir Times, Anuradha Bhasin, told the wire that they are under constant observation and that government policies have all but muzzled the media. Journalists in Kashmir are often subjected to ‘police verification’ requests, which can take the form of either a verbal’ summons’ and questioning, or a physical raid. She writes about the persecution of Kashmiri journalists in her book, “A Dismantled State” (The Untold Story of Kashmir after Article 379), which was written after Article 370 was revoked. This book details the ‘Orwellian policy’ of punishing, jailing, and otherwise intimidating journalists into silence, and the damage done to the fourth pillar of democracy as a result. It’s now difficult for journalists to operate without interference.There has been a surge in the number of extrajudicial executions committed by armed organizations in the region. The Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCC) has reported that since August 5th of this year, 165 people have been killed in Indian-led search and cordon operations. The economy and job market in the area have also been significantly impacted by the repeal of Article 370. The Centre for Monitoring Indian Economy (CMIE) reports that the jobless rate has risen to 16.2 percent, which is more than twice as high as the 6.7 percent unemployment rate in the Indian Union. The withdrawal of special status has had severe economic ramifications for the people of Jammu & Kashmir, with an estimated 500,000 people losing their jobs. Kashmir’s business community, according to the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce and Industries (KCCI), lost almost 40,000 crore rupees due to the current adverse environment. The Indian government has claimed that Article 370 is to blame for the state’s lack of economic progress, although the truth appears to be more nuanced and complex. Significant difficulties have arisen as a result of the abrogation, which has had an effect on the economy and other facets of regional life.

The Indian government opted to hold online auctions for mineral extraction bids during the communication shutdown in Kashmir. This, however, prevented Kashmiris from applying, therefore almost all of the permits went to Indians rather than Kashmiris. Sand, boulders, gravel, and other riverbed materials were made available for mining in over 200 mineral blocks along the Jhelum River and its tributaries, spread over all 10 districts of the region. In an interview with Anadolu Agency, local contractor Abdul Ahad voiced his concerns, saying, “It is not injustice but murder with us and our families.” Because of this, a record-breaking 70% of all mining contracts went to Native Americans. There are still many unknowns and unanswered questions concerning the future of the region as a result of these shifts. The situation in Kashmir requires our care and attention. Only sincere diplomatic efforts, with human rights and the aspirations of the people as their top priorities, will bring peace and stability to the region. As global citizens, we have a responsibility to keep an eye on the situation in Kashmir and work toward a peaceful resolution that protects the region’s distinct culture and the future of its people. True peace and reconciliation in Kashmir can only be achieved in a world where ideals of justice and fairness reign supreme and no one’s suffering goes ignored or neglected.


Nimra Javed is Researcher at CISS AJK and working on Nuclear Politics & Disarmament, Emerging Technologies and New Trends in Warfare. Writer can be reached at: @NimrahJaved_

Saudi soccer: A game of geopolitics and religion, not just sports

August 6, 2023
By Dr. James M. Dorsey




Saudi Arabia’s soccer player buying spree is about more than sports and the diversification of the kingdom’s economy.

It’s also about geopolitics and religion for Saudi Arabia and, at least, some of the world’s top players moving to the kingdom.

Recent high-profile transfers include Real Madrid’s Karim Benzema, Chelsea’s N’Golo Kante and Kalidou Koulibaly, Lens’ Seko Fofana, Lyon’s Moussa Dembele, and Manchester City’s Riyad Mahrez.

To be sure, mouthwatering transfer fees and salaries are a major driver.

But for Muslims, so is a religious affinity with Saudi Arabia, the custodian of Islam’s two holiest cities, Mecca and Medina.

As are European culture wars that fuel anti-migrant, anti-Muslim, and anti-black sentiment for Muslim and non-Muslim players of colour.

In addition, European clubs have a mixed record of accommodating Muslim players’ religious needs, such as fasting during Ramadan and daily prayer times.

The exodus of pious Muslim and non-Muslim players amounts to a backlash against a Western push for LGBTQ rights, privately rejected by some as contradicting their faith.

Mr. Benzama said he had decided to move to Saudi Arabia’s Al Ittihad “because I am Muslim and it’s a Muslim country. I’ve always wanted to live there… Most importantly, it’s a Muslim country, it’s beloved, and it’s beautiful.”

On the website of Saudi Arabia’s Al Arabiya television network, Bahraini analyst Omar Al-Ubaydli asserted that “any practicing Muslim or non-White person living in Europe will immediately understand that it’s probably not just about money.”

Mr. Al-Ubaydli said: “To be clear, the millions of dollars on offer are certainly a major factor. However, a mixture of arrogance and ignorance is making the secular white Westerners who dominate European football – including its media – underestimate Saudi Arabia’s attractiveness.”

Mr. Al-Ubaydli concedes, “That’s not to say Saudi Arabia is free from racism. However, a quick look at the national team – and a quick stroll through the grand mosque in Mecca – suggests that black people are unlikely to be subjected to the sort of vitriolic hatred that is becoming increasingly frequent in Europe.”

Mr. Al-Ubaydli may have a point despite critics wondering why players did not seek more harmonious, culturally more accommodating pastures earlier, even if employment packages were less attractive in the past.

The answer is likely severalfold.

Saudi Arabia is a different place since Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman introduced far-reaching social reforms that have significantly enhanced women’s professional and social opportunities, rolled back gender segregation, and introduced a Western-style entertainment industry.

Moreover, Mr. Bin Salman’s sports ambitions, part of the crown prince’s economic diversification plans designed to reduce the kingdom’s dependency on oil exports, make Saudi Arabia an exciting place to play soccer.

If Mr. Bin Salman succeeds in turning the Saudi Professional League into one of the world’s top five leagues, soccer will strengthen the crown prince’s positioning of the kingdom as a major power in a new multipolar world order in which middle powers have greater strategic autonomy.

With big-name Muslim players populating successful Saudi clubs, it would also boost the kingdom’s positioning in a competition for religious soft power in the Muslim world. Moreover, it would strengthen Saudi Arabia’s bid to define what Islam stands for in the 21st century.

Mr. Bin Salman’s sports push suggests that the crown is confident that the dark side of his reforms, brutal repression of human and political rights, ensures that soccer will not emerge as a vehicle for dissent and protest.

Soccer has taken the Middle East and North Africa by storm since Britain and France introduced it in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The region’s most popular sport has since played a key role in anti-colonial struggles and post-colonial anti-government protests.

Saudi Arabia initially sought to reduce soccer’s profile in response to the 2011 popular Arab revolts. Militant soccer fans played a vital role in the revolts that toppled Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen’s leaders.

Spanish consultants, hired before Mr. Bin Salman’s rise to power, were instructed to develop Saudi Arabia’s first-ever national sports strategy, emphasizing individual rather than team sports.

De-emphasising team sports was intended to limit soccer’s potential as a venue for anti-government protests.

A Facebook page entitled Nasrawi Revolution demanded in 2013 the resignation as head of Al Nassr FC of Faisal bin Turki, a burly nephew of the late King Abdullah. A YouTube video captured Mr. Bin Turki running off the soccer pitch after rudely shoving a security official aside.

The campaign against Mr. Bin Turki followed the unprecedented resignation in 2012 of Nawaf bin Feisal, another member of the kingdom’s ruling Al-Saud family, as head of the Saudi Football Federation (SFF), the first royal to be forced by public pressure to step down.

Mr. Bin Feisal’s resignation led to the election of a commoner, storied former player Ahmed Eid Alharbi, in a country that has no elections. Alharbi was widely viewed as a reformer and proponent of women’s soccer.

Mr. Bin Salman’s social reforms, enhanced confidence, and unbridled ambition improved his chances of sports success compared to a 1978 Saudi attempt to buy some of the world’s top players from Brazil.

Roberto Rivelino, like Cristiano Ronaldo, the first soccer superstars to move to Saudi Arabia this year,, was accorded a hero’s welcome when landed in the kingdom on a Concorde to play for Al-Hilal 45 years ago.

Mr. Rivelino was greeted at the airport by thousands of fans waving flags. He was whisked away in a Rolls Royce to one of the most luxurious royal residences and honored with a lavish multi-course banquet attended by Saudi ruling family members.

Saudi Arabia’s rulers, then, like now, hoped soccer would strengthen Saudis’ national identity.

Geopolitical rivalry lurked in the background then too. Even though the Shah still ruled Iran, Saudi rulers could not accept that its rival was the only Middle Eastern state to qualify for the 1978 World Cup.

The Saudis have since come a long way, qualifying for several World Cups, and beating Argentina last December during the Qatar tournament.

Contrary to 1978, Saudi Arabia today is not pursuing soccer ambitions in isolation. Its acquisition spree is part of a broad country overhaul. That enhances the kingdom’s chances of soccer success but makes it dependent on Mr. Bin Salman’s ability to implement his broader economic reforms successfully. The jury is still out on that.


Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa, co-authored with Dr. Teresita Cruz-Del Rosario and three forthcoming books, Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africaas well as Creating Frankenstein: The Saudi Export of Ultra-conservatism and China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom.

Hiroshima, ‘Oppenheimer’ and the New Age of Nuclear Terror

North Korea is testing more missiles, Iran is rushing for a bomb, India and Pakistan are renewing the arms race — things are getting as scary as the Cold War.

 

N KOREA DO NOT HAVE NUKES

Falling out.Source: Pictorial Parade/Getty Images

By Max Hastings
August 5, 2023 

Suddenly, on this 78th anniversary of the dropping of “Little Boy” on Hiroshima by Colonel Paul Tibbets’ Enola Gay, we are again being forced to think about The Bomb. Millions of people are flocking to see Christopher Nolan’s new biopic Oppenheimer, which concludes with its protagonist’s gloomy assertion to Albert Einstein that, through the creation of atomic weapons, mankind signed its own death warrant.

Meanwhile, North Korea last month tested a new ballistic missile. Iran seems set on a course that is almost certain to end in its possession of nuclear arms. Russian President Vladimir Putin routinely rattles his nuclear saber, most recently over redeploying some of his nation’s many missiles to neighboring ally Belarus.

Less noticed by the world, in Asia three nuclear powers — China, India and Pakistan — are committing serious resources to strengthening their capabilities. Ashley Tellis’s authoritative 2022 book Striking Asymmetries explains that until recently, the Asian nations were content with a posture of minimal deterrence — holding limited stocks of weapons underground.

These suffice to ensure a devastating second-strike capability against an aggressor, without requiring a huge investment in early-warning systems for rapid response, such as Russia and America possess. The Asian states’ nuclear arsenals have in the past served political purposes more than military ones.

Today, however, that is changing. China is dramatically enlarging its missile and warhead inventory. Pakistan, albeit on a much lesser scale, is doing likewise, chiefly because in a war with the hated Indians its conventional forces could not hope to prevail. India feels unable to remain passive when its two potential adversaries escalate.

Given the unyielding tensions in the region, especially between India and Pakistan, the danger of nuclear conflict is arguably greater in Asia than in the West.

Most of us live out our lives baffled by the enormity of the nuclear menace. We take refuge in not thinking too much about it. We also tell ourselves that no rational national leader would unleash such weapons, at the risk of precipitating mankind’s total destruction.

Robert Oppenheimer thought something of this sort, before Hiroshima. When the brilliant physicist Leo Szilard lobbied him unsuccessfully to oppose the use of his terrible creation and recorded the strange, enigmatic remarks made by the director of the Los Alamos laboratory. “Oppie” told Szilard: “The atomic bomb is shit.”

“What do you mean by that?” questioned Szilard.

Oppenheimer replied: “Well this is a weapon which has no military significance. It will make a big bang — a very big bang — but it is not a weapon which is useful in war.”

When Oppenheimer said that, he was almost certainly mindful of the looming prospect of his terrible progeny being unleashed on Japan, which was incapable of any response. He then assumed, however, that if a future enemy possessed the capability to retaliate in kind, no national leader would seek to use an atomic bomb in pursuit of battlefield advantage.

Oppenheimer wrote in 1948:

[T]he weapons tested in New Mexico and used against Hiroshima and Nagasaki served to demonstrate that with the release of atomic energy quite revolutionary changes had occurred in the techniques of warfare. It was clear that with nations committed to atomic armament, weapons even more terrifying, and perhaps vastly more terrifying, than those already delivered would be developed; and … that nations so committed to atomic armament could accumulate these weapons in truly terrifying numbers … The atomic bomb must show that war itself is obsolete.

In one of his most memorable phrases, the scientist likened the US and Soviet Union to “two scorpions trapped in a bottle”: If they come to blows, both must perish. Today, almost eight decades on, Oppenheimer’s judgement about that looks rational, but oversanguine. Whatever the existential awareness of prudent national leaders, the peril persists that an aberrational figure — an Iranian ayatollah, North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, an impassioned Pakistani, even a Donald Trump — might not accept Oppenheimer’s verdict, reprised by many authoritative voices since, that there can be no possible “winner” from a nuclear exchange.

I am nagged by consciousness that two years ago, I was among many students of strategy and international affairs who never contemplated the prospect of Putin launching a war to conquer Ukraine, because the cost to his own country must be so appalling. Yet he did so. His logic proved to be different from our logic. How much different, and whether also extending to nuclear weapons, remains uncertain.

In Oppenheimer, General Leslie Groves asks the scientist what are the chances that a nuclear explosion will destroy the world. Almost zero, says Oppenheimer, to which the general responds laconically: “I would have preferred zero.” Mankind will never again enjoy the luxury of zero.

Nolan’s movie captures the equivocations, the ambiguities, that overhung Oppenheimer’s career after August 1945, as he wrestled with the stupendous dilemmas and forces unleashed by his achievement at Los Alamos. His McCarthyite accusers at the hearings of 1954, seeing these as evidence of disloyalty to his country, pounced on his prewar political equivocations, notably including support for Spain’s republicans and communists in their 1936-39 civil war.


Yet the American right ignored the fact that most decent people in the democracies deplored the triumph of General Francisco Franco’s fascists — and the fact that American businesses had made millions out of backing them. Before World War II, Oppenheimer was politically no further to the left than were many educated Americans, disgusted by the social failures within their own country and the brutality of 1930s capitalism.

For better or worse, from 1941-45 the Soviet Union had been the foremost ally of the US against Germany. In the eyes of most biographers and historians, Oppenheimer was always an American patriot. He was simply a scientific genius who tried also to think beyond national frontiers.

He opposed the creation of the H-Bomb, because it posed an even more devastating threat to the planet that did the A-Bomb. Yet he became an advocate of developing lower-yield tactical weapons, in hopes — which most strategists have since deemed vain — that it might be possible to limit the scope of a nuclear exchange.

He pursued the dream of international control of atomic arms, writing, again in 1948: “We would desire … a situation in which our pacific intent was recognized and in which the nations of the world would gladly see us the sole possessors of atomic weapons. As a corollary, we are reluctant to see any of the knowledge on which our present mastery of atomic energy rests, revealed to potential enemies … The security of all peoples needs new systems of openness and cooperation.”

Perhaps surprisingly, Henry Stimson, who as secretary of war was among the leading sponsors of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, wrote likewise shortly before his death in 1950: “The riven atom, uncontrolled, can be only a growing menace to us all … Lasting peace and freedom cannot be achieved until the world finds a way toward the necessary government of the whole.”

Such words showed that he, like Oppenheimer, had come to believe that only international cooperation on an unprecedented scale could make the planet secure. Yet if Stimson were alive today, he might feel obliged to acknowledge that a world which cannot cooperate effectively to overcome climate change is even less likely to work together to save itself from the nuclear menace.

We may cherish hopes that nuclear arms limitation, as practiced by American and Russian leaders — between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, between Barack Obama and Putin — may again return to fashion. But no power that considers itself threatened by mortal foes, as are all the current nuclear weapons holders, is ever likely to renounce a second-strike capability, or to agree to place its weapons under the control of any international body.

A significant portion of the British people, myself among them, sometimes toy with the idea of giving up our submarine-based nuclear weapons. These are hugely expensive for a nation much less prosperous than the US. Most strategy gurus have long dismissed them as ridiculous: They depend on American technology, and it is impossible to imagine a British government using them if our country was abandoned by the US.

Yet today, it has become almost unthinkable that in a world in which Putin routinely threatens Europe, Britain will renounce its deterrent. Moreover, the danger appears real that a future US president might reduce, or even withdraw, military support for the continent, including the American nuclear umbrella.

Another issue to which Oppenheimer returned again and again in public debate before his death in 1967 was that of the need for honesty by politicians about nuclear issues. He argued that many Washington warlords hide inconvenient truths behind the fig leaf excuse of national security.

He wrote in 1953:

[T]here are and always will be, as long as we live in danger of war, secrets that it is important to keep secret … some of these, and important ones, are in the field of atomic energy. But knowledge of the characteristics and probable effects of our atomic weapons, of — in rough terms — the numbers available, and of the changes that are likely to occur within the next years, this is not among the things to be kept secret. Nor is our general estimate of where the enemy stands.

If Oppenheimer had lived to hear Reagan announce his Strategic Defense Initiative to the American people in a nationwide broadcast in March 1983, he would have perceived this as a classic example of a leader, apparently deluded about nuclear realities, offering a fantasy that his countrymen yearned to embrace.

The day after the president spoke, I had a chance conversation with Britain’s chief of defense staff, General Sir Edwin Bramall. He said despairingly: “Our scientists say it’s time for the funny farm” — for Reagan, the general meant. Only a small faction of mavericks on either side of the Atlantic believed that it might be feasible to create a national missile-defense system such as Reagan proposed. And had the Americans done so, it would have inflicted a deadly blow on Cold War stability — the balance of terror. As it was, billions of dollars were wasted chasing an illusion.

When I was three days old, in December 1945, my father, a journalist like myself and who had spent the previous six years as a war correspondent, composed a letter about the circumstances of himself and Western society as he then saw it, which he gave me on my 21st birthday. He wrote: “You’ve come into the world at one of the strangest and most dangerous hours in human history. Europe … is back in the Dark Ages. The development of the atom bomb has introduced a new and haunting fear. As I write, nothing is easier than to believe that Russia and America will be at war in the Far East before you read these words.”

Robert Oppenheimer wrote in 1953: “It is possible that in the large light of history, if indeed there is to be history, the atomic bomb will appear not very different than [it did] in the bright light of the first atomic explosion. Partly because of the mood of the time, partly because of a very clear prevision of what the technical developments would be, we had the impression that this might mark, not merely the end of a great and terrible war, but the end of such wars for mankind.”

Oppenheimer was half right: Though there have been many wars in the world since 1953, none of them has been an existential contest between great powers, such as was World War II, and many of us believe this to be, in large measure, a consequence of the balance of nuclear terror. Moreover, contrary to my father’s fears, my own life and that of most of my generation has been amazingly unclouded by the monstrous new reality created by Robert Oppenheimer.

Stanley Kubrick aimed to be ironic when he subtitled his classic nuclear horror story Dr. Strangelove: “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.” Few of us have got quite that far. But, on this tragic anniversary of Hiroshima, we should surely seek to offer a message of hope to our children and grandchildren, such as every generation must pass to the next: “Look at us — we made it, against the odds and Oppenheimer’s fears. So can you.”

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Max Hastings at mhastings32@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net

Max Hastings is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. A former editor in chief of the Daily Telegraph and the London Evening Standard

'Happy Mothers': S. Korean Couple Beat Same-sex Barriers To Parenthood

---

By Claire LEE

August 3, 2023

When Kim Kyu-jin (R) and her wife Kim Sae-yeon decided they were ready to have a baby, their domestic options were limited

Jung Yeon-je

 With pictures by Jung Yeon-je and video by Yelim Lee

South Korea has spent billions of dollars on policies to boost its birth rate. But when Kim Kyu-jin and her wife wanted to have a baby, they had to fly to Belgium.

Legally, South Korea considers Kim single, despite her 2019 wedding -- ceremony in Seoul, legal registration in New York City -- because the country does not recognise same-sex unions. Seoul city authorities declined to register her marriage.

So when the happy couple decided they were ready to have a baby, their domestic options were limited: single people are typically deemed ineligible to adopt and sperm banks are designed for heterosexual married couples with fertility issues.

But Kim Kyu-jin and her wife Kim Sae-yeon -- they share the same last name by coincidence -- decided to try anyway and, thanks to IVF using donor sperm in Belgium, Kyu-jin is now eight months pregnant.

The couple plan to have the baby in their home country, at the hospital where Sae-yeon is a doctor and have decided to speak publicly to raise awareness of same-sex parenthood in South Korea.

Many Koreans believe they should "end unhappiness in our generation by not having children", Kyu-jin said.

She did not think she would have children herself, especially because growing up gay in socially conservative South Korea "wasn't easy".

But now Kyu-jin and her wife feel they could do a good job as parents, even though in South Korea there is no legal route for them to become mothers together.

"This child will grow up with happy mothers. We believe there is a high probability that the child will be happy as well," Sae-yeon said.

South Korea's birthrate -- 0.78 percent per woman -- is among the lowest in the world. Seoul has poured billions of dollars into encouraging its citizens to have more babies but to no avail.

Policies include subsidised fertility treatments, cash bonuses and free childcare, but the government is only targeting heterosexual, married couples.

The couple decided to speak publicly to raise awareness of same-sex parenthood in South Korea

Jung Yeon-je

That means many would-be parents who are unmarried or in same-sex relationships are ignored.

The official approach reflects deep-seated stigmas against single parenthood, experts say, pointing to the fact that just 2.5 percent of all South Korean babies in 2020 were born out of wedlock.

The OECD average is around 40 percent.

In South Korea, people who try to parent "outside the conventional system" come in for a lot of hurtful criticism, Sae-yeon said.

"People are criticising and saying some people just shouldn't have children," she said.

There are also major practical hurdles.

Sae-yeon will have no legal parental rights to her child, she is ineligible for parental leave and will not be able to serve as the child's legal guardian in cases such as medical emergencies.

The only way to change this would be for her to legally adopt her own child, itself tricky due to official reluctance to allow unmarried people to adopt.

The idea that she could have a baby only struck Kyu-jin after she spent time working in France. Her French boss, on learning she was a lesbian and married, asked if she was planning to start a family.

"I was taken aback since it was such a personal question. And I thought (lesbians having children) must be common here, if people would ask about it when meeting someone for the first time."

A nationwide sperm shortage means long delays for IVF treatments in France, so the couple went to Belgium, where they received an anonymous donation.

The couple have been called "selfish" for having a child who could face discrimination due to their parents' sexuality.

Kyu-jin and Sae-yeon said they might even consider emigrating if it proves too hard to raise their baby in South Korea.

"There are many warm-hearted people who worry about our child, who are concerned how much (emotional) hurt the child will experience," Kyu-jin told AFP.

'This child will grow up with happy mothers,' says Kim Sae-yeon (R)

Jung Yeon-je

"But if these kind-hearted individuals can help make our society a little more inclusive for our child, there will eventually be no need for such concerns."

Even the baby's grandparents may not meet the new arrival at first -- Sae-yeon does not currently have a full relationship with her parents, who did not come to the couple's 2019 wedding.

"We all tried really hard, but (in the end), it just didn't work out," she said.

She hopes they will eventually accept her relationship with Kyu-jin and meet their grandchild.

"I don't know how much time will have passed by then. But I think we'll feel regretful for having missed so many fun and happy moments along the way."

The Barron's news department was not involved in the creation of the content above. This story was produced by AFP. For more information go to AFP.com.