Monthly Archives: May 2022

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go here to see the original:

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

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

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

More on:

Technology and Innovation

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

Women Around the World

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on:

Technology and Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go here to see the original:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The argument is hard to follow and inherently contradictory.

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

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

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

I asked her to explain.

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

Just give me a job, she ended, pleading.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What to conclude?

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

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

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

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

See the rest here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go here to see the original:

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