Kishore Mahbubani delights in provocation. Read no further than the title of his books Can Asians Think?, Has the West Lost it? or Has China Won? for blood pressures to rise and sputtering to commence. Yet there is no mistaking the former Singaporean diplomats smarts. He is thoughtful, well informed and well traveled; even if you disagree with him and there is lots to dispute reading his work is well worth the time.

Mahbubani begins his newest book Has China Won? with a hypothetical Memo to Xi Jinping on preparing for the Great Struggle with America. In it, he identifies five strategic advantages that the United States enjoys in any superpower competition with China. They are: a sense of individual empowerment, access to the worlds best and brightest through liberal immigration policies, strong institutions and the rule of law, the best universities (which attract the best talent), and being part of the rich tradition of Western civilization. Note that he doesnt list the formidable U.S. military, or any of the countrys other material advantages. Mahbubani most values the intangibles.

Some call this soft power the ability of the U.S. to lead by the persuasive power of the values it espouses. It elicits the image of the U.S. as a Shining City on the Hill, an example for other nations and a notion honored increasingly often in the breach.

The gap between those ideals and the grim reality of life in the U.S. has been made plain by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) protests that have convulsed the U.S. and sparked similar demonstrations around the world. Millions of Americans have taken to the streets to rally against systemic racism that manifests all too frequently in violence against people of color. A simple demand for equality has been overshadowed by the growing division in the U.S. or, if polls are to be believed, a split between the Trump administration and a growing majority of citizens over the propriety and legitimacy of the response to those protests.

The juxtaposition of national government sentiment and that of U.S. civil society is likely to be the defining element of this moment in history. Its also what makes this so important for the rest of the world.

The BLM protests have inspired similar demonstrations in cities throughout the world. There have been marches, candlelight vigils and vandalism, the tearing down and removal of statues that commemorate figures tied to slavery and racism. The death of George Floyd, which set off these protests, has become a symbol of racism, oppression and violence against minorities. Even in Japan, several thousand people have raised their voices to support BLM and oppose racism. That call resonates: During a walk in rural Yamanashi Prefecture a few weeks ago, I came across a political poster that highlighted the BLM movement.

Why? Some of the protests target the U.S. itself. Those demonstrators are anti-American and they are venting deeply felt anger, disdain and resentment toward U.S. power and its influence over their lives. They harbor longstanding antipathy toward the U.S. and even moderates have been dismayed by the administration of President Donald Trump.

Opinion polls around the world show declining levels of confidence in and support for the U.S. since Trump took office. A Gallup survey of opinion in 135 countries that was released last week showed that the median approval rating for U.S. leadership was just 33 percent in 2019, 1 percentage point lower than the previous low recorded under former President George W. Bush in 2008. (Gallup noted that this most recent result was a slight improvement over the 30 percent approval rating of Trumps first year in office.)

In Japan, data from the Pew Research Center shows a deterioration of views of the U.S. In 2016, 72 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the U.S., while 23 percent did not; last year, the numbers had dropped to 68 percent favorable views and 30 percent unfavorable. More marked was the drop in the assessment of the U.S. president. In 2016, 78 percent had confidence in the president while 17 percent did not. Last year, confidence had plunged, with only 36 percent expressing support for Trump and more than three times as many people (61percent) saying that they had no confidence in him.

This distinction between the government and the country is key to understanding foreign reaction to the BLM protests. Protestors may be angry about U.S. hypocrisy but many if not most demonstrators are expressing support for the ideals that animate the BLM movement and its supporters.

Wolfgang Ischinger, former German ambassador to Washington, articulated that sympathy when he told The Washington Post, People all over the world understand that their own fights for human rights, for equality and fairness, will become so much more difficult to win if we are going to lose America as the place where I have a dream is a real and universal political program. A Mexican activist, Barbara Arredondo, expressed the same view in a New York Times survey of global opinion: U.S. protestors, she said, are role models for social transformation."

Of course, the U.S. isnt the only country to inspire such moments. The self-immolation of a Tunisian fruit vender in 2010 set North Africa and the Middle East ablaze, yielding the Arab Spring.

But U.S. power assumes special significance in a world of sharpening competition between the U.S. and China. Robert Daly, a former U.S. diplomat and director of the Wilson Centers Kissinger Institute on China and the United States, explained in a recent article how supporters of Black Lives Matter identify with the hopes of the American people. They have been inspired by a human spectacle of the kind only the U.S. can provide. This, says Daly, is recharging the reservoir of American soft power even as American leaders make the world wonder whether the U.S. will keep faith with or even understands its own values.

The world may be increasingly disillusioned with the U.S. government, and its appeal may now compete with that in Beijing, but it is increasingly clear that the real source of U.S. influence and inspiration is its civil society. That is a sharp contrast with China, where spontaneous demonstrations are illegal. Marches make Beijing nervous.

Moreover, as Daly explains, China cant catch up. The BLM movement is based on universal principles: freedom of expression, equal treatment under law, rule of law, and protection from tyranny and arbitrary use of power. But, Daly argues, China focuses on the Chinese story: It is concerned primarily with the Chinese not the human condition. It is a morality tale about the nations long struggles and ultimate victory that is intended to command global respect."

He points to the 2013 Chinese Communist Party document, Communique on the Current State of the Ideological Sphere, which calls universal values a false ideological trend and bans it from discussion. For the CCP, core socialist values derived from Chinas unique historical experience are what matter and only Chinese, and members of the CCP, can comment upon them. That exclusiveness denies China the inspirational quality that U.S. civil society radiates.

And provides a strategic advantage that even Mahbubani concedes is almost impossible to match.

Brad Glosserman is deputy director of and visiting professor at the Center for Rule Making Strategies at Tama University as well as senior advisor (nonresident) at Pacific Forum. He is the author of "Peak Japan: The End of Great Ambitions."

See the rest here:

Look to the American people, not their government, for inspiration - The Japan Times

Staffers adjust U.S. and Chinese flags before the opening session of trade negotiations in Beijing, China, February 14, 2019.(Mark Schiefelbein/Pool via Reuters)Too many freedom-loving nations fear economic retaliation.

As the Chinese Communist Party continues the process of enforcing its restrictive security law, barring pro-democracy candidates in Hong Kong from participating in the September legislative election and arresting protesters, dissenting academics, social-media influencers, and even a 15-year-old banner-waving schoolgirl, it would appear quite challenging to speak in an equivocating, wishy-washy manner about the evils this government is perpetrating. Still, some manage. Several weeks ago, German chancellor Angela Merkel the most powerful figure in Western Europe promised that she would continue to seek dialogue and conversation with the Chinese government. Andreas Fulda, a senior fellow at the Asia Research Institute at the University of Nottingham, offers a theory behind the chancellors words: Angela Merkel is not able, in my view, to understand the gravity of the challenge of continued one-party rule, whether its COVID-19 or the treatment of minorities or the suppression of Hong Kong or the military threats against Taiwan. ... If the German Government doest take the threat of the CCP seriously then, by extension, the EU will not be able to make progress in terms of developing a more coherent China policy.

That Merkel is simply misguided on the threat China poses, as Fulda believes, is certainly possible. However, given the political climate, there is likely a graver impulse behind Merkels placating remarks: fear of retribution. After all, Merkel is far from the only prominent politician to skirt the issue of the CCPs atrocious human-rights record far from the only politician to pretend that the Chinese government is a fair party on which one can count to honor its agreements and to act with benevolence.

Last month, representatives of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Croatia, Poland, and the Czech Republic on the U.N. Human Rights Council, among others, refused to condemn China for its encroachment on Hong Kongs autonomy a serious blow to a unified Western countermovement against the CCPs actions. In all, just 27 governments expressed criticism of Chinas oppression law, with 53 in favor and the rest staying silent. Just as it is hard to believe that Angela Merkel is oblivious to the crimes China is committing, it is hard to believe that only 27 governments actually found fault with an effective ban on free expression and self-determination for Hong Kongers. (Granted, fewer governments around the world are democratic than one accustomed to Western laws might believe.) Rather, history has likely taught many nations that it is more expedient to keep their mouth shut than to take a firm stance on the global superpower with the worlds second-largest economy.

Consider Spain, one of the countries that remained silent throughout the U.N.s vote. In 2013, a Spanish court issued arrest warrants for a former Chinese president, a former Chinese prime minister, and other important Chinese Communist officials for allegedly bringing about genocide in Tibet. Just days later, a Chinese spokesperson was expressing Beijings dissatisfaction with the warrants, warning the Spanish not [to] do things that harm the Chinese side and the relationship between China and Spain. Fearing harsh retaliation from a country holding a fifth of Spanish bonds and consuming many Spanish exports, Spains government quickly passed a reform limiting the use of universal jurisdiction.

Though the motive behind this reform was relatively open, it would not be shocking if much other action and rhetoric surrounding China from freedom-loving nations were similarly induced by a fear of economic retaliation. This may help explain why Canada refused to request an independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19 in May. Or why New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern, unlikely not to share President Trumps personal outrage at Chinas activity, nevertheless is reportedly seeking to be less confrontational than the Trump administration with regard to the CCP. Even U.K. prime minister Boris Johnson, who has taken very strong action against China by offering a path to citizenship for Hong Kong natives, suspending the U.K.s extradition treaty with Hong Kong (so as not to be obliged to send back Hong Kongers at Beijings whim), and extending the U.K.s arms embargo on China to Hong Kong, nevertheless has felt the need to send something of a mixed message in assuring that his government is going to be tough on some things but also going to continue to engage with China. One imagines Boris Johnson putting China in a timeout for bad behavior but giving it a pat on the head and a cookie to munch on.

This sort of diplomatic behavior is understandable. It is difficult to summon the moral courage to openly condemn a global superpower such as China, especially when large GDP growth and stable diplomatic relations are on the line. In any case, it would appear that the United States, in enacting sanctions against Chinese officials for abusing Uighur Muslims, terminating trade benefits for now-CCP-controlled Hong Kong, closing the Chinese consulate in Houston, and imposing export controls on corporations enabling Chinas activity, stands virtually alone on China.

To be sure, there is an occasional discontinuity between the Trump administrations official policy and the presidents rhetoric. As Trump himself has admitted, he had little desire to press China on its treatment of Uighur Muslims in the middle of trade negotiations with the nation in late 2018, even though top White House officials were already viewing the situation with concern. And as late as February 29, weeks after the CIA had already warned that China had vastly underreported its coronavirus infections and that its information was unreliable, Trump stated in a COVID-19 briefing: China seems to be making tremendous progress. Their numbers are way down. ... I think our relationship with China is very good. We just did a big trade deal. Were starting on another trade deal with China a very big one. And weve been working very closely. Theyve been talking to our people, weve been talking to their people, having to do with the virus. But despite occasional confusion, the commitment to a solidly anti-Beijing foreign policy has been perhaps clearer in the Trump administration than in the government of any other country besides India and Taiwan. This is reflected not only in the U.S.s recent policies but in Secretary of State Mike Pompeos denunciation of Xi, last week, as a true believer in a bankrupt, totalitarian ideology and in his insistence that the United States induce China to change lest Communist China surely change us.

Of course, even within the United States, there is not a unanimous consensus that China constitutes a major threat. As National Reviews Zachary Evans reports, Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein of California had some flattering things to say about China yesterday. Speaking in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, she remarked: We hold China as a potential trading partner, as a country that has pulled tens of millions of people out of poverty in a short period of time, and as a country growing into a respectable nation amongst other nations. Senator Feinsteins statement came in the context of a debate over whether U.S. citizens should be allowed to sue the Chinese government for damages caused by the coronavirus an idea that Feinstein argued could launch a series of unknown events that could be very, very dangerous. . . . A huge mistake.

Encouragingly, however, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives passed a bipartisan bill in late June condemning Chinas oppression law; Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spoke eloquently of the bill as an urgently needed response to the cowardly Chinese governments passage of its so-called national security law, which threatens the end of the one country, two systems promised exactly 23 years ago today. Moreover, Pew Research reports that sentiment against the Chinese government is at an all-time high since U.S. adults have been polled: Sixty-six percent say they view the government unfavorably.

In all, it would appear that, barring a massive change in European attitudes and in the fragile economic positions of nations such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the United States will not have many reliable allies in the fight against Chinas most egregious abuses. The courageous pro-democracy residents of Hong Kong, as well as a few nations including Taiwan, India, and Israel, are notable but rare exceptions.

Visit link:

In Pushing Back against China, U.S. Finds Few Allies - National Review

The Georgian parliament has adopted constitutional changes that have been applauded by their international partners. As a result, the Georgian Dream government might struggle with an even more alienated opposition.

July 31, 2020 - Archil Sikharulidze- Articles and Commentary

Parliament of Georgia. Photo: DDohler flickr.com

On June 29th 2020 the Georgian parliament finally adopted constitutional amendments that have been praised by an absolute majority of local and international actors as historic. The new electoral system, which introduces a mixed model consisting of 120 members of Parliament proportionally elected and 30 majoritarian MPs, is seen as an opportunity for Georgian democracy to build a culture of collaboration and coalition governments. And while this statement maybe seriously challenged, there are issues that are more relevant and important in Georgian society.

Particularly, members of the political opposition, Irakli Okruashvili and Gigi Ugulava, had been previously pardoned by president Salome Zurabishvili. These individuals, arguably perceived as criminals by the majority of Georgians, were released as a result of international pressure from some representatives of European Parliament and American Congress. Local oppositional parties praised the decision, calling it a step towards less political turbulence; more justice and peace is expected in buildup to the upcoming parliamentary elections set for October 2020.

Meanwhile, the majority of the electorate of Georgian Dream is most likely shocked and astonished asthey simply cannot understand how former members of the ruling government who directly participated in building a semi-authoritarian regime while oppressing media and human rights can be protected and lobbied by the states strategic partners in the EU and USA. This is especially relevant as it relieson judgements by the ECHR and International arbitrage in The Hague. Moreover, there is an apparentembarrassment due to the behavior of Georgias allies who directly intervened in internal affairs and pressured the government, or even threatened it.

Terrorists or freedom fighters

It goes without saying that the biggest issue here is an alleged existence of political prisoners in Georgia. Some members of European Parliament as well as American Senators and Congressmen are extremely keen to refer to almost all the members of political opposition who went to jail as political prisoners. Of courselocal judiciary and prosecutor offices are far from Western standards and need to be further strengthened and distanced from the states grip. At the same time, all statistical data shows that these institutions are freer and more independent than ever before. Thus, Georgians can be sure that their rights will be better protected than in the past. This fact issometimes even challenged despite clear evidence.

Secondly,it is up to local and international legal institutions to give final judgement on whether a person has been persecuted due to political views and activities or not. But what bothers regular citizens of Georgia is that there are activeattempts by some Western officials to whitewash members of Saakashvilis government; although it is a government prominent for its brutal dispersal of peaceful protests, massive oppression of political opponents, seizure of oppositional media outlets and total disregardof human rights. And these outcomes frequently comethrough direct misrepresentation of data and even ECHR judgements. For example, Magorzata Maria Gosiewska, Deputy Marshal of the Sejm of the Republic of Poland, represented former Minister of Internal Affairs Ivane Merabishvili as a political prisoner and citedan ECHR judgement as a legal document. Ms. Gosiewska blatantly misled listeners as the court ruled that the state hadnt violated Mr. Merabishvilis right to a fair and public trial and his sentence was given in accordance to international practice. Generally speaking, there are serious hesitations and doubts about fairness of conclusions made by some politicians, especially Europeans. This is especially relevant in wake of a call by Marketa Gregorova, Czech activist, member of the Czech Pirate Party, and elected MEP, to investigate dispersal of a questionably peaceful political protest on June 20th 2019. If this issue is so urgent and relevant for some members of EU parliament then why do they continue to whitewash Ivane Merabishvili, who brutally stamped out dozens of peaceful protests which resulted in hundreds, if not thousands, of people being injured and three people being killed?!

Generally, an extremely large gap in perceptions exists between regular Georgian citizens on the one hand and some political actors on the ground and abroad on the other hand. This challenge can described within the framework given by a character from the movie Die Another Day, in which he stated one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. For the larger Georgian society, Gigi Ugulava and other former top officials arecriminals mentioned in judgements by the ECHR in cases such as Sulkhan Molashvili v. Georgia (political persecution and torture), Enukidze and Gvirgvliani v. Georgia (torture of civilian and concealment of evidences), Batiashvili v. Georgia (intentional fabrication of evidences), Rustavi 2 Broadcasting Company Ltd and Others v. Georgia (unlawful expropriation of private media property) and so on.

Politics above the law

The lions share of allegations against Georgian Dreamfrom its American allies is arguably mostly politically motivated. At the very least, the allegations made by American Senators and Congressmen are definitely political rather than legal. Arguably the best example of this is the claimed oppression of American business, as in the Frontera Resources case. This Texas company has operated in Georgia since 1997 and continues promising to find natural resources, such as gas and oil. The Georgian Dream government argued that the company violated an agreement, resulting in approximately one hundred Georgian citizens not being paid salaries for more than year. The company, however, was and still is arguing that it has found the largest oil and gas deposits, which have been false claims for the last two decades. Therefore, the government of Georgia decided to break the contract. This situation was addressed by American Republican Congressman Pete Olson, who directly called Bidzina Ivanishvili and the current government pro-Russian puppets; additionally, Mr. Olson argued that Frontera Resources has been pushed away in order to give Georgian gas to the president of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin, and the Kremlin in general. This narrative was picked up by members of the political opposition despite the fact that one of its own leaders from the United National Movement, MP Roman Gotsiridze, was personally calling Frontera Resources a charlatan company and urging the government to defend Georgian citizens. These allegations did not disappear even after a judgement by an international arbitrage, located in The Hague, ruled in favor of the Georgian government and gave the state permission to break cooperation with the American company due to a breach of contract. But what is especially disturbing is that some representatives of leading international and local NGOs, such as Transparency International, including Georgias Executive Director Eka Gigauri, are still using this case to express concerns and contribute to the legally false claims of Congressman Olson and the local political opposition.

It seems that these organisations, at least some of their members, have their own ideological and political rivalry or confrontation with the ruling Georgian Dream, which pushes them to turn a blind eye to the legal aspects and focus more on a political agenda. The same scenario happened during the private Rustavi 2 channel dispute when NGOs argued that Bidzina Ivanishvili and Georgian Dream controlled local courts, pushing the institution to transfer property rights to pro-governmental businessman Kibar Khalvashi. This narrative is still proliferated by these same organisations and people despite an ECHR judgement that ruled in favor of the decision made previously by a Georgian court. Moreover, none of the claims made by NGO representatives had been publicly shared. By the end of this ruling. members of the political opposition called the judgement pro-Russian and claimed the ECHR was bribed by Bidzina Ivanishvili and influenced by the Kremlin.

Behind the back politics

The biggest concerns among regular citizens are raised most often due to political negotiations and agreements facilitated by European and American diplomats between the Georgian Dream government and political opposition. The most important achievement of this process was the]March 8th agreement that, in theory, should have depolarised the environment in the country and ensured more transparent and democratic parliamentary elections, which are set for October 2020. But as soon as the ruling party and political opposition started disputing the agreement itself, Georgian citizens realised that they had no clue what was happening at all. It took place behind closed doors and agreements were made in secret. Thus far, local voters are in a frustrating situation as political actors are representing things in a completely contradictory manner while European and American diplomats keep silent. Georgias strategic partners have often negotiated democracy with local political elites behind the back of Georgian society. Thus, the above concerns are obviously not baseless. In a country where shadow politics is taking place on a regular basis, it is highly questionable whether yet another example of international shadow politics can strengthen democracy or increase trust in the political process. Moreover, this can easily be perceived as aintervention into domestic affairs and an attempt to defend interests of political elites on the one hand and national (political, geopolitical and economic) interests of the EU and USA on the other hand, without asking for an opinion from Georgian voters.

By and large, the substantial astonishment among a significant portion of Georgian society, namely those who sent Mikhail Saakashvilis government to the political bench, stems from them simply being unable to understand how the former officials, involved in corruption and other legal cases, can be lobbied by the West and even called freedom fighters?! Furthermore, why do some European and American officials think that Georgian democracy will be strengthened by keeping these perceivably corrupt individuals active in politics and even appointing them to high political positions again?! The usual pro-Western actors in the country, as well as their allies abroad, should be ready for increased anti-Western criticism and skepticism among regular citizens of Georgia who see lobbyist attempts as a glaring intervention in domestic affairs and a politically-motivated liberation of alleged criminals. Most importantly, however, are the concerns raised about whether the European and American actors involved in the process promote principles of equality before the law or an old quote known as all are equal but some are more equal. And it seems that in this case Gigi Ugulava and Irakli Okruashvili fall into the second basket, because there is no doubt that no one can be bothered to save individuals who lack political labels and/or political protection.

Archil Sikharulidzeis a PhD candidate in Social Sciences at the Georgian Institute of Public Affairs and the founder of SIKHA Foundation Initiative.

Dear Readers -New Eastern Europe is a not-for-profit publication that has been publishing online and in print since 2011. Our mission is to shape the debate, enhance understanding, and further the dialogue surrounding issues facing the states that were once a part of the Soviet Union or under its influence.But we can only achieve this mission with the support of our donors.If you appreciate our work please consider making a donation.

democracy, Georgia, Georgian election

Read more:

On the West we rely - New Eastern Europe

By LAURA HOLLIS

I watched director Agnieszka Hollands award-winning film Mr. Jones this week. Its truly outstanding, a quiet masterpiece about the young Welsh journalist Gareth Jones who risked his life to expose what is now called the Holomodor, the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine caused by the collectivist policies of Soviet dictator Josef Stalin.

Aware of troubling rumors, Jones used his political connections as foreign policy advisor to English Prime Minister Lloyd George to get a visa into the Soviet Union very difficult to do at the time and, from Moscow, finagled his way onto a train into Ukraine, where he slipped past his handlers and spent two or three weeks traipsing from village to village. What he saw there seared his soul, and he recorded his observations in diaries that survived his untimely death (Jones was murdered in China on the eve of his 30th birthday).

Stalins collectivization of farming and food production in Ukraine the Soviet Unions breadbasket resulted in widespread famine and deaths of anywhere from 4 to 10 million people from starvation. Many of the villages Jones came across were devoid of people; most of the livestock were dead; frozen corpses lay in the streets or uncollected in their homes. Hollow-eyed children begged for food. People told Jones stories of those who had gone mad from hunger and resorted to cannibalism (one of the starkest scenes in the film).

Jones was arrested and deported, and the Soviet government threatened retribution if any word of the troubles in Ukraine got out. In the film, Jones is asked before he leaves Moscow to clearly repeat the propaganda There is no famine in Ukraine.

But Jones refused to be silenced. Upon his return to Europe, he wrote and spoke out about what he had seen and the disastrous policies of the communists in the Soviet Union.

As it turned out, Jones most powerful adversaries were not members of the Soviet government but of the European and American press corps, led by The New York Times man in Moscow, Walter Duranty. Duranty was the pride of the press corps and the toast of Moscow. He had won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting which, it turned out, largely consisted of pro-Soviet propaganda, per an agreement between the Soviet government and The New York Times. In exchange, Duranty enjoyed a life of relative luxury (and decadent excess) and access to the highest men in government, including Stalin himself.

Eager to promote the U.S. governments official recognition of the communist regime, Duranty and the rest of the press corps denounced Jones writing as false, hysterical and exaggerated.

The scenes where Jones confronts pro-Bolshevik westerners, including Duranty and fledgling writer Eric Blair (later better known as George Orwell) are some of the most powerful in the film. Duranty is blase and nonchalant about the excesses of the communist regime. (He said, infamously, To put it brutally, you cant make an omelet without breaking eggs.) But Blairs/Orwells disappointment is palpable. If the Soviet experiment is a failure, he asks Jones, then there is no hope?

In that comment, one can see the next 100 years of wishful thinking and deplorable denial by socialists and communist sympathizers across the globe.

Ignorance in the 1930s was perhaps understandable. But ignorance in the 21st century is unfathomable. It isnt just the scale of suffering, privation and death from the Holomodor and events like it (Cambodias Year Zero, Maos Great Leap Forward) that staggers the imagination; it is the pitiless promotion of these Marxist, dictatorial regimes by western intellectuals, including and especially academics and the American press.

The New York Times is among the worst. Duranty was the apologist for Marxism in the 1930s. In the 1970s, Times writer Sydney Schanberg vocally supported the Khmer Rouge communist revolutionaries in Cambodia at least until Phnom Penh fell and yet another communist genocide took place. In 2009, New York Times writer Thomas Friedman described Chinas communist government as reasonably enlightened and praised its efficiency and effectiveness relative to the clumsy efforts of Americas representative republic. (No doubt the Muslim Uighur population in China understands Chinese efficiency all too well.) In 2017, The Times published Red Century, an embarrassingly sycophantic series of glowing paeans to global communism since the 1917 communist revolution in Russia.

How much suffering do we need to see to understand the utter failure of these philosophies? I wonder whether we have become inured to wholesale slaughter of millions of innocent people by governments that promise utopia. (As the quote attributed to Stalin himself goes, The death of one man is a tragedy; the death of millions is a statistic.) In addition to the Soviet Union, Cambodia and China, the world has witnessed appalling oppression, imprisonment, starvation, torture and death in the former East Germany, Cuba, Vietnam, North Korea, Angola, Nicaragua and Peru. We have watched as socialist policies in Venezuela have destroyed what was once the most prosperous country in South America, reducing it to abject poverty before our very eyes.

And still the levers of the left sing collectivisms praises. With 100 million corpses in its wake, support for Marxism is no longer understandable and claims of ignorance no longer credible. It is inexcusable. And those of us who oppose Marxism in any form do so not because we do not support equality, freedom and a chance at prosperity for all but because we do.

It is past time for the American press to end its love affair with Marxism. Equality of poverty, equality of misery and equality of oppression are not progress.

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

Excerpt from:

End the Marxism love affair | News, Sports, Jobs - Gloversville Leader-Herald

Dalits are those communities that have been oppressed, and marginalised in the worst forms for millenniums in the name of caste, the major practice of social stratification in the Hindu society in South Asia. Also termed Achhoots (meaning untouchables) by the radical enforcers of the extremely rigid caste system, the Dalits are not included even in the traditional four Varnas and are referred to as Panchamas.

Dalits in South Asia

In an orientalist historical explanations, untouchability originated when Indo-Aryan community migrated to the Indian subcontinent in around 1,500 BCE and deemed the indigenous community inferior in terms of cultural and racial aspects. Manusmriti, an ancient Hindu legal text written around 1,250-1,000 BCE, incorporated the caste system as the basis of order and regularity to preserve the purity of race and blood, ostracising the indigenous community into Achhoots.

IndiasBR Ambedkar, however, declines to accept this multiracial notion of Aryans and non-Aryans and the purity. He defines caste as an artificial stratification of people into fixed and definite units. He presents the caste system not as a racial division but as a social division of people of the same race.

Dalits in Nepal

In Nepal, the earliest caste system is said to have come to practice in Khas Rajya (modern-day western Nepal) in the 12th century when Brahmins from the then independent states in India came to the Sinja valley. Dor Bahadur Bistas Fatalism and Development details how the caste system was introduced in Khas Rajya during the early medieval period. Likewise, the caste system was introduced in Kathmandu Valley by King Jayasthiti Malla with the assistance of his five pandits in the 14th century by introducing four Varnas and 64 Jaats.

In modern times, Prithvi Narayan Shah declared his unified territory as the country of four Varnas and 36 Jaats. Jung Bahadur Rana legitimised the caste system through the countrys first documented law, Muluki Ain (Civil Code) 1854, and also included non-Hindu groups in the caste system. The legal code documented the castes into four types:

The word Dalit

The root of the word Dalit is Dalan, which translates to oppression in Sanskrit, Nepali and Hindi languages. Hence, Dalit means oppressed. Perhaps, the word was first used by the Indian reformer Jyotirao Phule. Although Mahatma Gandhi proposed and used the term Harijan or children of god in 1932, Ambedkar used and popularized the word Dalit as a quasi-class term, referring to a class of people at the rock-bottom of the Hindu caste hierarchy.

Social history of Dalits in Nepal

Whether one believes the colonial orientalist view or the countering view of Ambedkar, it is undeniable that the Dalits have been ostracised and oppressed for more than three millenniums since the Vedic age. When the caste system was introduced in Khas Rajya, it created a hierarchical and social difference among the people of the state. Similarly, while many historians see the division of the caste system based on peoples occupation as a reform, it also led to segregation and oppression. For example, people from the lowest caste in the Kathmandu valley in the medieval period were not allowed to have tiles on their roofs and had to show respect to the people of the higher caste.

Practising the caste system inflicted discrimination so much so that it would deny even the basic rights to the people from the lowest castes. Jung Bahadur Rana encouraged discrimination based on castes through the Muluki Ain, which was already in practice in the Nepali society. The punishments were set based on caste as the Brahmins were not given capital punishments while the people from the lowest castes would get severe ones. Similarly, marriage was made endogamic, i.e., within the same caste for the sake of purity.

The people labelled as impure were denied even the basic social, economic, cultural, intellectual, and political rights. They were not allowed to touch tap water used by people of a higher caste, could not enter temples, would be punished if they married from a higher caste. They had no participation in politics and education and were even prohibited to touch people and their belongings.

Dalit movements in Nepal

The history of Dalit movements in Nepal can be traced parallel to the countrys political history.

The first wave of Dalit assertion in Nepal began in 1947 in a village called Thadaswara in Baglung district when Sarvajit Bishwakarma established an organisation called Vishwa Sarvajan Sangh to challenge the existing caste system and wore a janai (the sacred thread) against the oppression. In the Kathmandu valley, the successful movement of the Pashupati Temple Entrance Campaign in 1954 is considered one of the first movements.

Many other organisations such as Tailors Union (1947), Nepal Samaj Sudhar Sangh (2947), Nepal Harijan Sangh (1947) were established before the democratic struggle against the Rana regime in 1951, while many other organisations were established for Dalit movements and upliftment during Nepals first tenure of democracy in 1950-60.

The Interim Government of Nepal Act (1951) was the first legal document to recognise people, including Dalits, as citizens with civil and political rights. The autocratic Panchayat regime formulated the New Muluki Ain in 1963 and tried to abolish untouchability in the legal and social systems. During the Panchayat era, nine more organisations were established for the upliftment of Dalits.

As the country adopted the free market policy after the restoration of democracy in 1990, it also sought to provide welfare through private development partners such as national and international non-government organisations (I/NGOs). Many organisations emerged with slogans of Dalit emancipation. As the Dalit movement rose, the government formed the Dalit Commission in 2002 and brought many programmes such as scholarships and reservations. And, although such steps were not adequate to abolish caste-based discrimination, it certainly boosted the morale of Dalit rights activism. Dalits had an important role during the decade-long Maoist Insurgency (1996-2006) as thousands of Dalit men and women participated in the armed conflict while around 200 were killed.

The country headed to a more participatory federal system post the second Peoples Movement in 2006. The issues of Dalits have been covered on the national agenda and the Dalit movement has gradually progressed although it is yet to be institutionalised.

The major achievement during the last decade has been the criminalisation of caste-based discrimination through the Caste-based Discrimination and Untouchability Crime Elimination and Punishment Act in 2011, and the Constitution of Nepal (2015) endorsing the rights and opportunities for the Dalits for their upliftment. Moreover, the constitution recognised the National Dalit Commission as a constitutional body, and the National Dalit Commission Act 2017 was enacted to ensure opportunities for Dalits.

Similarly, the Nepali Parliament has reserved certain seats for Dalits and other excluded communities in the proportional representation system to ensure participation in the political spheres. As per the election laws, 13.8% of the PR seats in the House of Representatives, as well as the provincial assemblies, are allocated for Dalits while the seven provinces must select at least one Dalit representative each among eight seats allocated to them for the National Assembly. Moreover, at least one woman between two women members in each ward of a local government must be from the Dalit community to ensure participation.

The discrimination against Dalits is still a prevailing issue in Nepal as reports of discrimination, prejudice and even hate crimes emerge from time to time. In recent times, the news broke out about the killing of six people from the Dalit community in Rukum (West) as one of the victim tried to elope with a girl from a higher caste. The devastating news did not only shake the nation but brought out again the discourse on discrimination and oppression on the Dalits.

Published on August 1st, Saturday, 2020 4:19 AM

Download Onlinekhabar App. Android click here & IOS click here . Keep in touch with us on Facebook, Twitter & YouTube.

Read more:

History of Dalit movements in Nepal: Much has been achieved, but discrimination still exists - Online Khabar (English)

Sign in the window of a Manchester, CT hair salon.

As the coronavirus spreads around the globe, the United States continues to report by far the largest number of cases and deaths. As of July 27, the figures show nearly 4.5 million cases in this country and over 150,000 deaths. That comes to 454 deaths per million people.

By contrast, China has had 3 deaths per million, even though it was the first country to discover the virus and had to start from scratch in figuring out how to deal with the epidemic. Vietnam has had no deaths. Cuba has had 8 deaths per million.

Weve made this point before, but with each passing day the contrast between the two social systems capitalism and socialism becomes more glaring.

Even the U.S. government admits that poverty and racism are factors determining who in this capitalist country gets the disease and who dies from it. The CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on July 24 released an updated version of the report, Health Equity Considerations and Racial and Ethnic Minority Groups. It shows that racial discrimination by itself is a risk factor, in addition to its damaging effects on health care access and utilization.

People targeted by racism are more likely to work in areas of the economy most exposed to the virus. They suffer from subpar education, low income and wealth gaps, as well as less access to housing, all of which make them more vulnerable in the pandemic.

The spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has shone a glaring light on the great social inequalities here. At the same time, many people are literally risking their lives to go to work and to take part in demonstrations against the system.

The risk comes not only from being exposed to the virus in a crowd. One marcher, Garrett Foster, was shot and killed by a right-winger on July 25 while at a Black Lives Matter protest against police brutality in Austin, Texas. Foster was white; his fiancee is Black and a quadruple amputee.

Hatred the opposite of solidarity is what drives the far right.

The anthem of the labor movement in the 1930s was Solidarity Forever. Today we see courageous people in the streets demonstrating against racism and oppression of all kinds who are reviving the meaning of solidarity.

And solidarity is what is needed to get through this crisis. Solidarity is how China, Cuba and Vietnam have stamped out the virus before it could spread. It takes the active trust of the population in the government and in your fellow workers, neighbors and acquaintances to carry out an effective campaign against this disease.

On a governmental level in the U.S., there is certainly no solidarity. It is a snake pit of rivalry, backstabbing, lying, cheating and accusations. All of it is driven by the viciously competitive character of capitalism. The victor takes the spoils. Whoever takes over the levers of political power Republican or Democrat gets to distribute the lucrative government contracts.

But the struggle against this rotten, racist system is building solidarity in the grassroots. We are seeing it in the streets of Portland, Ore., and in all the places where workers come together and risk their lives each day.

(Kitty Stapp)

(Kitty Stapp)

View original post here:

Solidarity, the best antitoxin - Workers World

The winds of change have, unlike ever before, cast reservations over the international order of reverence. As each nation scrambles to keep its citizens out of harms way, multilateralism, or in simpler terms, unity of nations is neglected. Nations, in such times of uncertainty, must unite. Unite, not for personal enrichment but global welfare. The beacon of hope and the long-standing guardian of united world order, the United Nations must, as it has in the past, act to unite. In this regard, history postures itself as a potent catalyst illustrating the virtues of multilateralism. 1960, like 2020 was marred with political turmoil, unprecedented world events, and an increasingly divided society. On the 3rd day of February in 1960, Prime Minister Harold Macmillans, an evangelist in hopes of reviving multilateralism, addressed the Parliament of South Africa in Cape Town. His speech was titled, the Winds of Change and coincided with the British empires decline in comparison to the rise of independence movements within the British colonies.

Before addressing the Parliament, the British Prime Minister traveled around the Union and found a deep preoccupation with what was happening in the rest of the African continent. He said, I understand and sympathize with your interests in these events and your anxiety about them. Ever since the breakup of the Roman Empire, one of the constant facts of political life in Europe has been the emergence of independent nations. They have come into existence over the centuries in different forms and kinds of Governments. But all have been inspired by a deep keen feeling of nationalism. In the 20th Century and especially since the end of the wars, the processes which gave birth to the nation-states of Europe have been repeated all over the world.

We have seen the awakening of national consciousness in peoples who have, for centuries, lived in dependence upon some other power. Fifteen years ago this movement (de-colonisation) spread through Asia. Many countries, of different races and civilizations, pressed their claim to an independent nation. Today, the same is happening in Africa. The wind of change is blowing through this continent and whether we like it or not this the growth of national consciousness is a political fact. We must all accept it as fact and our national policies must take account of it. I sincerely believe that if we cannot do so, we may peril the precarious balance between East and West on which the peace of the world depends. The struggle is joined and it is a struggle for the minds of men. This is much more than our military strength or our diplomatic and administrative skill. It is, of our way of life at the same time we must recognize that in this shrinking world in which we live today, the internal policies of one nation may have effects outside it. So we may sometimes be tempted to say mind your own business. These days, I would expand the old saying so that it says, mind your own business but mind how it affects my business too.

The population of America like Africas is a blend of many different strains. Over the years most of those whove gone to North America have gone there to escape conditions in Europe. The Pilgrim Fathers were escaping from persecution, as Puritans were escaping the Marylanders. Roman Catholics, throughout the 19th century witnessed a stream of immigrants across the Atlantic from the Old World to the New to escape. From the poverty in their homelands and now in the 20th Century, the United States have provided asylum for the victims of political oppression in Europe. Thus, for the majority, America has been a place of refuge. Therefore, for many years the main objective of American statesmen, supported by the American public, was to isolate themselves from Europe. Americans, with their great material strength and the vast resources which were open to them saw this as an attractive and practicable course. Nevertheless, twice in my lifetime in the two Great Wars of these 50 years, they have been unable to stand aside. Twice, their manpower and arms have streamed back across the Atlantic to shed its blood in those European struggles from which their ancestors thought they could escape by immigrating to the New World. When the Second War was over, they were forced to recognize that in the small world of today, isolationism is out of date and more than that, it offers no assurance of security. The fact is that, in this modern world no country, not even the greatest can live for itself alone.

What Dr. John Donne said of individual men 300 years ago is true today of my country, of your country, and all the countries, any mans death diminishes me because I am involved in mankind and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls it tolls for thee. All nations are now interdependent. Yet, they are, one upon another, and this is generally realized throughout the Western world. Russia has been isolationist in her time and still has tendencies that way but the fact remains that we must live in the same world. With Russia, we must find a way of doing. Similarly, the independent members of the Commonwealth do not always agree on every subject. It is not a condition of their association that they should do so.

On the contrary, the strength of our Commonwealth lies largely on the fact that it is a free association. Free, independent and responsible for ordering its affairs. But, bearing in mind that, cooperation, in the pursuit of common aims and purposes in world affairs. Moreover, these differences may be transitory in time. They may be resolved. We must see them in this perspective, in a perspective against the background of our long association. If this, at any rate, I am certain those of us, who by the grace or favor of the electors are temporarily in charge of affairs in your country and mine, we, fleeting transient phantoms of the great stage of history have no right to sweep aside on this account the friendship that exists between our countries. That is the legacy of history. It is not ours alone to deal with. To adapt to a famous phrase, it belongs to those who are living, it belongs to those who are dead, and to those who are unborn. We must face the differences but let us try to see a little beyond them. Down the long Vista of the future but as time passes and as one generation yields to another, human problems change and fade. Let us, therefore, resolve to build and not to destroy. Let us also remember, weakness comes from division and in words, familiar to you, strength from unity.

As pervasive viruses infiltrate lives on racial, health, gender and sexual orientations. The virus of stigmatization and isolationism personifies the 21st Century and the myriad of global complications. Life, as it was known, is on trial. The inequalities have perpetuated and have fundamentally shifted the world in a stagnant state of paralysis. But, it is worth remembering that only after the Dark Ages was there an Age of Renaissance and only after a crisis would one value the values it espoused. As the turbulent winds of change are blowing throughout the world and the global human consciousness must rise. Otherwise, the ultimate tragedy of humanity will prevail. Thus, to survive, we must unite and hope we can live to fight another day.

Related

See more here:

Pandemic as the Learning Lab and Government Reloaded - Modern Diplomacy

By Jok Madut Jok*

I have twice accidentally driven into driveways that no man in his right mind would. One was the main entrance to State House in Nairobi and the other was near the back fence of State House on Nakesero Hill in Kampala, Uganda and nearly got shot on both occasions.

Luckily, I was able to persuade the guards to allow me to reverse and be on my way. Dont ever make that mistake in Juba. It would not end well for you. South Sudans State House, known locally as J1, is a rather intriguing place, just as it is unnecessarily unfriendly.

Over the years, it has puzzled many curious citizens who want to know what lies inside this tightly guarded compound. After all, anyone passing by it, walking right in front of it or behind it or on the side road next to it, will not fail to notice the tight security, a plethora of armed men congregating at the entrance, supposedly watching out for anyone with ill intentions for the hatted man seated inside.

And yet, as the passers by also see a traffic of pedestrians entering and exiting, some in uniform, some in suits, some women in flip-flops and others in rags or clutching children in their arms and seeking to enter the coveted J1, they may be fooled to think that they too have their citizenship right to enter. Some of them, mostly women, congregate across the road, hoping to see one of the gatekeepers to power. But through all the beehive of people, someone could get attacked, injured or killed for seeking access.

POWER IS CRUELPower is a cruel thing. A man can mingle, eat with and laugh with every mortal when seeking power but quickly isolates himself the moment that ultimate goal is achieved.

No citizen is too nave to realize that this is the republican palace, the symbol of power hierarchy, of male power, the pinnacle of class structure, the abode of those who eat on our behalf.

As such, for those wanting to look inside J1 or those seeking financial assistance in times of distress such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, as millions of citizens down on their luck are wont to do, looking around J1 or hanging out near it is tantamount to asking for a bloody nose.

But that is us, South Sudanese. We are new to the fault lines that divide wealth, power, big man syndrome, stars on the shoulders and class snobbery from poverty, from our carefree attitude, our natural born conviction that anyone of us can be president. For were we not just on the same level as recent as 15 years ago when we were all faced with the realities of liberation? And so, J1 and any other temple to the god of power, are not out of reach for any mortal.

Many of these mortals wish to know if the place is open and accessible to ordinary citizens and what it takes for such access to be attained. Some wonder if this is the place where all their wants and needs would be answered if they got an opportunity to set foot inside.

Some wish to see the inside just so they can find out what the place that they think consumes all their money looks like on the inside. Others wonder if the President sleeps in J1, how his children and his entire family live. Are they modest, lavish, hardworking or spoon-fed?

In any case, the amount of curiosity on the outside of the J1 fence is limitless. In this war-torn, impoverished, politically in disarray, ethnically divided and supposedly oil rich country, how can we not be curious to look?

People want to know what has become of the country that was born of war, made possible by the death of 2.5 million people and which was celebrated by the whole world when it finally became independent.

Before it became South Sudan, it was one of the most oppressed and destroyed territories on earth, perhaps only second to Europe during the Nazi onslaught.

Before it became a country, this territory had gone through a long history of slavery, Arab racism, Islamist oppression and suffered homegrown and in-ward violence, triggered by competition between liberators, over power they did not yet have. Some liberators attacked their own and then ran to Khartoum, into the arms of the government they had fought to replace.

FEUDSMore violence was brought on by feuds over resources along ethnic lines and some was brought on by the stresses of life under oppression. Some was brought on by militarist ethos of liberation of the past 40 years, where women were expected to contribute to the liberation, if not by combat then by their wombs, to birth the nation that was being decimated by the liberation effort.

But compelling women to be revolutionaries through reproduction became a licence for violence against them. Such prolonged violence leaves a taxing legacy that is not easy to shake off.

It is this history of violence that had deprived so many of resources, of decent living, such that when a new dawn, independence, was only just on the horizon, the politically and militarily powerful but weak at heart trembled at the sight of the plum.

The State was automatically up for grabs and its public resources viewed by the unscrupulous as private.

Such were the makings of the mess that is now South Sudan, and the private citizen has her eyes fixed on State House, for where else is the conductor of this train wreck seated?

One person asked me once if I knew whether the man with the black cowboy hat, gifted to him by President George W Bush of the United States, ever takes a moment to look outside his fortress. Just to remind himself what it was that took him to war all the years of his youth, the idea that he was liberating masses of oppressed South Sudanese, liberating them from entrenched slavery and systemic racism by northern Sudanese, impact of colonialism, from hunger, disease and lack of education.

It would seem that the man with the black cowboy hat would be very keen and interested to know how the people he helped liberate were now living, what his soldiers now ate, how their kids were fairing in terms of nutrition, vaccination, education, how the ordinary men and women who essentially paid the cost of liberation war were now enjoying the independent status of their country.

SIGNIFICANT DAYIt is July 30, 2020 as I write, a very significant day in South Sudans struggles to be free. It is the day the founding leader of the liberation movement, John Garang de Mabior, died in plane crash exactly 30 days after he had just started to implement the peace agreement that brought the freedom war to a close.

It is exactly 15 years ago to date when he died in mysterious circumstances that have left the South Sudanese mourning and with no answers as to what took their beloved leader.

It is now the day all the martyrs are remembered. But the children, the widows of these martyrs can only look with longing eyes into J1 from outside its fence.The seat of power seems to have forgotten them entirely.

Now, the current leadership of South Sudan avoids to face the millions of families that offered their young recruits, offered their resources to feed fighters, sacrificed their own well-being just so that South Sudan is realized. But to what end?

*The author is a professor of anthropology at Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

This opinion was first published by the Nairobi-based Daily Nation on July 31, 2020.

Here is the original post:

The Lies That Bind South Sudanese - gurtong

This summer, as millions of Americans marched and put their lives on the line for racial justice and an end to police brutality, too many wealthy Americans have done nothing more than offer their solidarity and moral support. Our countrys most fortunate have gotten rich thanks to a system that has for centuries excluded fellow Americans from the nations prosperity. They can, and should, go beyond statements in support of racial justice and Black Lives Matter and put their money where their mouth is.

If Americas millionaires tried even one-tenth as hard to end police brutality as theyve tried to cut their own taxes, we would be looking at a completely different world.

Larry Fink, the CEO of BlackRock, one of the largest financial management firms in the world and my former employer, is a perfect example of the problem with the way rich people approach these issues.

Mr Fink has voiced a commitment to racial equity and said all the right things in the last few weeks, but he has not actually done what he professes to believe in. As a firm committed to racial equality, we must also consider where racial disparity exists in our own organizations and not tolerate our shortcomings, he said, in a statement published on 30 May.

Yet, at the same time as Mr Fink is sympathizing with a movement against anti-Blackness, he has remained a donor to the New York Police Foundation (NYPF), which pays for equipment and training and provides incentives for anonymous tips that lead to arrests. For the last three years, Mr Fink has served as co-chair of the NYPFs annual gala.

Funding and publicly supporting the NYPF means that despite his stated commitment to racial equity, Mr Fink has chosen to stand with a group of people who have murdered some of our fellow citizens. The police are clients of BlackRock, but Mr Fink can take a powerful stand for racial justice by making sure his personal contributions reflect his stated commitments. His dollars dont have to reflect BlackRocks client list.

Of course, Mr Fink might see no problem with his financial support of the New York Police Foundation because he, like me and other wealthy, white men, has had generally positive interactions with police. But part of committing to racial justice is understanding the world outside your own narrow scope and its impossible to ignore the damage that the NYPD has done to Black communities and other communities of color in our city.

We know what it looks like when rich people in America really want the government to do something: they spend money to make sure it gets done. From financially supporting public advocacy efforts to hiring lobbyists to contributing to sympathetic elected officials, when rich people in America want something passed, they do a lot more than releasing a statement.

We are in yet another crisis moment. Many wealthy people give generously to philanthropic causes, but most of their giving tends to be aligned with their own vision of how the world should work. This cannot continue. The rich and powerful need to step back and recognize the role we play in systems of oppression even when were not actively contributing to them, and then use our wealth and our power to fix whats broken.

I will even make Mr Fink a deal. If he drops his support of the New York Police Foundation as the racial justice organization Color Of Change has called for and skips the annual police foundation gala, I will go 50-50 on donations to racial justice and workers rights organizations.

If Mr Fink and other wealthy people are going to decry racial inequality, then the least they can do is use their dollars to disrupt the status quo, rather than support an organization that continuously harms low-income and marginalized communities in New York City.

Morris Pearl is chair of Patriotic Millionaires, which focuses on promoting public policy solutions that encourage political equality, guarantee a sustaining wage for working Americans, and ensure that wealthy individuals and corporations pay their fair share of taxes. He previously was a managing director at BlackRock, one of the worlds largest investment firms

Read more here:

Dear Larry Fink: it's time to stop lavishing your wealth on the police - The Guardian

The movement for Palestinian rights continues to grow across the world. (Alisdare Hickson/Flickr)

July marked the 15th anniversary of the launch of the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

Much has happened over those years. Here are 15 lessons Ive learned on the journey to dismantle Israeli apartheid.

Anyone who adheres to the BDS principles can join the movement. This empowers and enables everyone to effect extraordinary changes.

The BDS movement speaks directly to people of conscience who understand that by not acting they are allowing states, companies, artists, institutions, universities and businesses to remain complicit and fuel Israeli apartheid.

Joining and taking action allows each one of us to take responsibility and make sure we are at the very least not contributing to harming the Palestinian people. It allows us to speak out and mobilize others to take action too.

The power of the equality that grassroots mobilization brings to politics and the community is instrumental in making every single member give their best and take ownership. No single person in the movement is more important than anyone else. This powers collective leadership.

Unfortunately there are still those who stand up for freedom for the Palestinian people but do not care about the rights and dignity of other discriminated and oppressed groups.

Our deep commitment to anti-racism and intersectionality means we do not liaise with just anyone who agrees on Palestinian rights unless they also respect and support rights and dignity for all. We cannot build and fight for a new world while agreeing to oppress others.

Every little success matters. Small victories can help in reaching a much larger aim.

Getting a small pension fund to divest from the weapons firm Elbit Systems can contribute to discussion of the need for a military embargo against Israel. This small pension fund can encourage others to follow suit.

As we tackle local issues, we must remember the global picture and how being part of a global movement means that what happens somewhere can affect the movement as a whole, positively and negatively.

The BDS movement has already contributed to mainstreaming awareness of the fact that Israel is an apartheid regime.

Why is this so important? In a world with such biased media and even schoolbooks that are still deeply embedded in a colonial narrative, it is essential we take time to clarify reality.

When calling for a boycott or organizing a campaign, we must always remember how doing so helps to clearly explain what Palestinians are facing and how injustice is taking place. Even campaigns that may not reach their objective can contribute to explaining what is happening on the ground and what the Palestinian people are calling for, and to raising awareness about Israels regime of disposession and colonization.

The fact that we support Palestinian rights does not mean that we know best what Palestinians should do, and it does not give us a free pass to say whatever we want. Moreover, when facing attacks, we must defend our right to freedom of expression in a manner that centers Palestinians and keeps the focus on the crimes perpetrated by Israel against them.

We must remember that, by defending the right to freedom of expression, we are defending the right of Palestinians to make their experience and views heard directly or through us by the public and decision makers in our country.

Earlier this month, Rafeef Ziadah and Riya Alsanah wrote how it is worth reflecting on why Palestinians are treated as mere spectators in debates concerning our daily lives.

While the BDS movement calls on allies around the world to take action, Palestinians have a clear, pivotal role. When this isnt happening, it means we are doing something wrong.

We must keep on decolonizing our actions and make sure Palestinians are being heard and that we take guidance from them while organizing in the BDS movement.

Our oppressors are more connected than ever.

At a time when the right and the far-right are gaining power in many institutions worldwide, the left and progressive groups and movements have the opportunity and duty to rethink themselves and to create stronger, more solid and inclusive movements. We must make sure Palestine is a part of that.

We also must be more connected than ever.

We have often been surprised to find allies where we wouldnt expect them. We usually have more allies than we think.

To connect to them we must consider different approaches, language and context-sensitivity. We must ask ourselves, are we helping the movement grow? Are we empowering others to join?

The BDS movement has shown itself to be highly adept at pivoting to new strategies and building influential alliances. There continue to be numerous arenas in which it faces little effective resistance. These are the words of Asher Fredman, who used to work with Israels strategic affairs ministry.

We must learn from other liberation struggles, while bearing in mind that times and political relations change.

While the BDS movement is highly inspired by the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, the world is very different from how it looked 30 years ago.

We should not look for patterns to copy, but politically analyze the present and adapt to new times. This means continuing to learn, grow and use the best opportunities in a changing context.

Like all social movements, the BDS movement is facing severe and sustained attacks. Israels government and its lobby groups are regularly attacking and smearing us in an attempt to delegitimize our struggle.

We must not let their attacks shape our plans; strategizing and sticking to our anti-discrimination principles and our proactive and effective campaigning are what protect us the most.

While they seek to distract us from our target, the most powerful thing we can do is to keep on working for Palestinian rights. The best way to defend our right to boycott is to keep on boycotting while mobilizing mass support for our right to freedom of expression.

Solidarity is not unidirectional. At all times we must take responsibility and reject any form of racism, sexism, LGTB-phobia, and any other form of discrimination or bigotry within the movement.

While we call on others to support Palestinian rights, we must show support for other struggles too. Palestine is an Indigenous, anti-racist, feminist, LGTBQAI+, anti-fascist and climate justice issue, and this makes all these struggles crucial to ensuring Palestinian self-determination.

The Israeli government and its supporters spend hundreds of millions of dollars on criminalizing and persecuting the BDS movement and groups in solidarity with Palestine.

But this cannot be understood as something unique or isolated. Social movements have always been repressed by those seeking to maintain injustice and oppression.

Activists everywhere have been imprisoned for criticizing governments, and many calls for justice are being repressed in the streets and online. Let us not forget that those most oppressed by the Israeli government are always the Palestinians.

Using different tactics helps us reach a broader audience. As racism, sexism and disaster capitalism adapt and reconfigure, finding different ways to keep on oppressing, we must also keep on finding creative new ways to engage with others and accomplish our goals.

Political resistance can be beautiful too.

Holding events, lectures, protests and public activities are crucial to show and visualize support for Palestinian rights. But talking to people, organizing, doing research, building alliances and strengthening relations all happen behind closed doors and are what enable us to then go public.

We should never forget how important it is to plan, foster relationships and carefully organize to then build our campaigns.

It is incredible how many cities and cultural spaces have declared themselves apartheid free zones, how many companies have divested from Israeli apartheid, how many artists have decided not to play in Israel and how many academics have ended relationships with Israeli institutions as a result of BDS campaigns.

Yet it is often difficult to keep our hopes up while knowing that Israeli apartheid is the cruelest it has ever been, knowing ongoing Palestinian pain and suffering, and seeing Israel maintain its impunity despite its televised crimes. But we keep on struggling and growing because we know that justice can and will prevail.

Fifteen years on, and during a time of global uprising against an entire system of racist exploitation and oppression, the BDS movement continues learning, adapting and growing, making connections, and exposing and challenging Israeli apartheid.

Alys Samson Estap is the Europe campaigns coordinator of the Palestinian BDS National Committee

Go here to see the original:

15 lessons from 15 years of BDS - The Electronic Intifada