The UAE and Israel’s Pathway to Peace

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1814- August- 21/08/2020

€ „ … „ † ‡ ­ ‡ ˆ „ ‡ ˆ ‰ ˆ ‰

Kamala Harris: The Attorney General Vying to Become the First Female and Black Vice President www.majalla.com

� € ‚ ƒ ƒ

www.majalla.com

 � � � �  ­

Editorial

A Weekly Political News Magazine

Ever since Israel was founded in 1948, it and the Arab states have had a hostile relationship. Throughout the 20th century there have been four major wars between Israel and the Arab states, each war costing the lives of thousands of individuals from both sides. The path to reconciliation hasn’t been easy, as up until recently only two Arab states had signed peace treaties with Israel. Last week, the United Arab Emirates and Israel announced a normalisation of relations as both sides seek to enhance their co-operative efforts in technology, medicine and diplomacy. This week’s cover story by Yasmine El-Geressi focuses on the events that led to peace between Israel and the UAE and which countries in the region might follow the UAE’s example.

This week the UN Security Council rejected a resolution to prolong the arms embargo on Iran, in response the US stated that it could trigger snapback sanctions, which would be the ultimate demise of the JCPOA. Joseph Braude writes on what these sanctions would entail for Iran and how some countries such as Russia are trying to diffuse the situation and delay any further sanctions.

The Beirut explosion has caused Hezbollah to lose what legitimacy it had left in Lebanon. During the anti-government protests following the blast, people were symbolically hanging cardboard cut outs of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Hanin Ghaddar writes on how the explosion has impacted Hezbollah and how its actions prior to the explosion has made it an unpopular entity among the Lebanese masses.

This week British Johnson government has decided to reverse its decision regarding GCSE results. This has marked the eighth U-turn the government has done in eight months, as it previously reversed several decisions such as its deal with Huawei and the provision of free school lunches throughout the summer for children of poorer families. Ali El Shamy writes on these Uturns and why they might instil uncertainty among his voter base.

2

21/08/20

www.majalla.com/eng

Editor-in-Chief

Ghassan Charbel Editorial secretary Mostafa El-Dessouki HH Saudi Research and Marketing (UK) Ltd 10th Floor Building 7 Chiswick Business Park 566 Chiswick High Road London W4 5YG Tel : +44 207 831 8181 Fax: +44 207 831 2310

‫الوكيل اإلعالني‬ ،www.alkhaleejiah.com :‫موقع إلكتروني‬ hq@alkhaleejiah.com :‫بريد إلكتروني‬ + 9714 3 914440 :‫ دبي‬،920 000 417 : ‫من داخل اململكة‬ +44 207 404 6950 :‫ لندن‬+00764 537 331 :‫باريس‬ +966 11 441 1444 : ‫ومن مختلف الدول‬

- ‫ طريق مكة‬- ‫ حي املؤتمرات‬- ‫مرخص لها الرياض‬ ‫تقاطع التخصصى‬ +44 207 831 8181 :‫ لندن‬- 4419933 ‫ هاتف‬:‫الرياض‬

A Weekly Political News Magazine

36 Civil Rights International

Issue 1814- August- 21/08/2020

16 Beirut Explosion: A Crossroad for Hezbollah

28 There Is No Russian Plot Against America

Corrupt Political Class That 24 The Broke Lebanon

48 One Country, Two Systems, No Future

46 The Power of Protein

42 Hollywood Is Running Out of Villains 3

21/08/20

S

napshot

A brown bear cools off in a pool at a bear sanctuary which is closed to visitors as part of safety measures to curb the spread of COVID-19 in Marmor, Kosovo. - Getty

4

21/08/20

5

21/08/20

S

napshot

6

21/08/20

Artist and musician Raymond Essayan plays a piano he partly sculpted into the shape of a grand piano from the rubble in a destroyed building while shooting a music video for the piece he wrote to be released in dedication to Beirut after the past week›s explosion on August 14, 2020 in Beirut, Lebanon. - Getty

7

21/08/20

W

eekly news

other men charged as accomplices in the Feb. 14, 2005 bombing, also alleged members of the Shi’ite Muslim group, and they were acquitted.

Pompeo Says He’ll Go to UN “Soon” to Push for Snapback Sanctions on Iran Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Wednesday that he would be going to the United Nations “soon” to begin the process of triggering snapback sanctions on Iran, setting up a likely clash with other members of the UN Security Council. The US wants to reimpose sanctions

Democrats Nominate Joe Biden for President, Vowing to End Trump

to kill former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik alHariri in a 2005 bombing that set the stage for years of confrontation between Lebanon’s political forces. Hariri, a Sunni Muslim billionaire, Democrats formally nominated Joe Biden for had close ties with the West and Sunni Gulf president on Tuesday, vowing his election Arab allies, and was seen as a threat to Iranian would repair a pandemic-battered America and and Syrian influence in Lebanon. He led efforts put an end to the chaos that has defined Repubto rebuild Beirut following the 1975-1990 civil lican President Donald Trump’s administration. war. While the court found no evidence of diThe second night of the party’s four-night narect involvement by the leadership of Hezboltional convention, under the theme “Leadership lah, which is backed by Iran, or the Syrian govMatters,” featured elder statesmen like former ernment, the judges said the killing was clearly presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, rising a politically motivated act of terrorism. Deliverstars of the Democratic Party as well as promiing their verdict over several hours, they found nent Republicans, who made the case that Biden main defendant Salim Jamil Ayyash guilty on would return integrity to the White House and all counts and said prosecutors had established normalcy to American lives. Biden’s wife, Jill, his affiliation with Hezbollah. The judges said an educator, delivered the headline speech from there was insufficient evidence against three a Delaware high school where she once taught, offering a deeply personal account of how their love helped him heal after his first wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident.

Throughout the evening, Democratic leaders contrasted Biden’s long experience with what they described as Trump’s deadly mishandling of the coronavirus outbreak and his willingness to corrupt democratic institutions.

related to the Iran nuclear deal after suffering an embarrassing loss Friday in the Security Council trying to extend an arms embargo on Tehran that expires in October. The process is expected to be messy, as China and Russia openly oppose the effort to snap back sanctions, and other parties to the deal -- Germany, the UK, France -- are also against the move. All of them question the legality of the US trying to reimpose sanctions under the 2015 nuclear pact, which the Trump administration announced it was leaving in May 2018.

“This will be a fully valid, enforceable UN Security Council resolution,” said Pompeo at a joint press with Iraqi Foreign Minister Fuad Hussein. Pompeo did not provide the precise legal justification for how the US plans to trigger snapback sanctions.

U.N. Tribunal Convicts Hezbollah Defendant in Hariri Assassination Case

Belarusian Protesters Defy Lukashenko, EU Announces Sanctions

A U.N.-backed court on Tuesday convicted a member of the Hezbollah group of conspiring

Hundreds of Belarusian protesters gathered in Minsk on Wednesday evening, defying a new

8

21/08/20

order from President Alexander Lukashenko to his police to clear the streets of the capital after a week and a half of rallies against his rule.

Holding an emergency summit on the crisis, the European Union rejected Lukashenko’s reelection in a disputed vote on Aug. 9 and announced financial sanctions against officials the bloc blames for election fraud and the abuse of protesters. “This is about the Belarusian people and their legitimate right to determine the future path of their country,” said the head of the EU’s executive Commission, Ursula von der Leyen. Her comment was echoed by Democrat presidential candidate Joe Biden. “The brave citizens of Belarus are showing their voices will not be silenced by terror or torture,” he tweeted, adding that Russia, Belarus’s giant neighbour, should not interfere.

Japanese Ship Involved in Mauritius Oil Spill Breaks Apart A Japanese bulk carrier that ran aground on a reef in Mauritius last month threatening a marine ecological disaster around the Indian Ocean island has broken apart, authorities said on Sat-

urday. The condition of the MV Wakashio was worsening early on Saturday and it split by the afternoon, the Mauritius National Crisis Committee said. The vessel struck a coral reef on July 25, spilling about 1,000 tons of the roughly 4,000 tons on the ship spilled into the Indian Ocean, endangering corals, fish and other marine life in what some scientists have called the country’s worst ecological disaster. The rest was removed before the ship split in two over the weekend, except for 90 tons still on the ship.

The captain of the ship was arrested, both police and the captain’s lawyer said on Tuesday.

Israel Bombs Gaza After Warning Hamas it Risks War

and fire balloon attacks from Gaza and nightly Israeli reprisals. “Earlier tonight, a rocket was fired and during the day, explosive and arson balloons were launched from the Gaza Strip into Israeli territory,” said a military statement released shortly before midnight. In response, “fighter jets and (other) aircraft struck additional Hamas military targets in the Gaza Strip.”

Iran Says it Detained a UAE Ship and its Crew on Monday

Israeli warplanes bombed the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip overnight after Palestinians fired a rocket into southern Israel, the army said on Thursday. The latest exchange came as Israel warned Hamas it was risking “war” by failing to stop fire balloons being launched across the border. Egyptian security officials shuttled between the two sides in a bid to end the flareup, which has seen more than a week of rocket Iran seized a United Arab Emirates-registered ship violating its territorial waters this week, Iran’s Foreign Ministry said on Thursday, adding that UAE coastguards killed two Iranian fishermen on the same day. Iranian state television quoted a ministry statement as saying that the Emirati ship was seized

by Iran’s coastguards and its crew were detained due to illegal traffic in Iranian waters.

It added that on the same day, UAE guards shot dead two Iranian fishermen and seized a boat. It said the UAE has apologised for the incident. The Iranian boat and its crew have been released, the statement said, while the legal process of transferring the bodies of the dead is underway.

9

21/08/20

C

over story

The UAE and Israel’s Pathway to Peace

Normalisation of Relations May Pave the Way for Similar Agreements with Other Gulf Countries, Spelling Trouble in Iran

by Yasmine El-Geressi On August 13, the governments of Israel and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) announced that they had agreed to bilateral relations – including investment, tourism, direct flights, security, telecommunications, technology, energy, healthcare, culture, the environment, and, in time, full diplo-

matic ties at the ambassadorial level - in exchange for Israel suspending announced plans to annex large areas of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank. The timeline for this process is not yet clear, with UAE officials stating that “talks will start” in the coming weeks to implement normalisation.

Dubbed the “Abraham Accords,” the US-sponsored agree-

10

21/08/20

ment, which carries some historical significance, as the UAE is only the third Arab country to normalise relations with Israel since its founding over 70 years ago, stands to prevent, at least temporarily, Israeli-Palestinian and even broader regional deterioration that could have ensued in the wake of Israeli unilateral annexation. The Trump administration has trumpeted the economic and security benefits of the agreement, and it hopes that the expected accords will be a step toward further normalisation and regional peace.

?WHAT LED TO THE AGREEMENT Israel and Gulf monarchies – the UAE and Bahrain in particular - have been increasing their bilateral relations for years. Despite focusing mostly on intelligence sharing, they have extended their cooperation into a number of other areas, participating in joint military exercises, diplomatic initiatives, research and development, and investment.

Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi, arrives to meet with German President FrankWalter Steinmeier at Schloss Bellevue on June 2019 ,11 in Berlin, Germany. (Getty)

A breakthrough came in 2015 when Israel opened a diplomatic office in the Emirati capital of Abu Dhabi tied to the International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA), its first openly established representative office in the United Arab Emirates. At the time, Foreign Ministry spokesman Emmanuel Nahshon said that this would be the first Israeli mission located in a country with which Israel has no diplomatic ties, and the first time current Israeli citizens live in the UAE. Israeli government ministers previously attended IRENA conferences in Abu Dhabi in 2010 and 2014, and the idea of establishing a permanent Israeli mission at IRENA was announced following the 2014 visit.

Since then, senior Israeli officials have visited Abu Dhabi.

In 2018, Miri Regev, who was serving as Israel’s minister of culture and sport, became the first Israeli to visit the Gulf country in an unprecedented official state visit to the capital and where she witnessed for the first time the Israeli national anthem being played at a judo tournament which Israeli athletes participated in, and went on a public tour of the Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque.

The following year Israeli Communications Minister, Ayoub Kara travelled to the UAE, as well as Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz who made an unannounced visit to Abu Dhabi, where he discussed the Iranian threat with high-level Emirati officials. “I will continue to work with the prime minister to push for the policy of normalisation that we’re leading based on Israel’s capabilities in the issues of security, intelligence and different civil opportunities,” Katz said at the time of his visit in July 2019.

Israel is also set to participate in Dubai’s World Expo 2020, which is now scheduled to open in October 2021 due to the coronavirus pandemic.

11

21/08/20

Deeper cooperation between the Jewish state, with its formidable intelligence capabilities, and Gulf states is seen by many in Tehran as a threat to Iran’s interests and regional ambitions.

The coronavirus pandemic has opened further opportunities for UAE-Israeli cooperation. In June, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel will join forces with the UAE on medical projects, including the fight against the pandemic. Addressing a military ceremony in southern Israel, Netanyahu said the effort stemmed from intensive contacts with the UAE in recent months. Under the agreement, two state-owned Israeli defence contractors partnered with Abu Dhabi-based technology company Group 42 to develop technologies that will accelerate knowledge of the virus with high precision.

There is also scope for further technological and scientific cooperation. Israel is the most technologically advanced country in the Middle East, and the UAE has ambitions globally, and beyond, having just become the first Arab country to send a mission to Mars.

Significant momentum for an agreement began when Israel did not begin the process of annexing West Bank territory on July 1 as Netanyahu had indicated. The Emiratis reportedly took the opportunity to promise full normalisation of relations if annexation was taken off the table. This was the subtext of an op-ed that the Emirati ambassador to the United Sates published in Israel’s largest daily newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, in June.

The UAE Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, Anwar Gargash, said the UAE’s recognition of Israel was “a very bold step” to stop the “ticking time bomb” of Israel’s annexation of the West Bank. He said the UAE saw this as “a stoppage of the annexation, not a suspension”.

The UAE and Israel will also join the US to launch a “Strategic Agenda for the Middle East”, with the three leaders noting that they “share a similar outlook regarding the threats and opportunities in the region, as well as a shared commitment to promoting stability through diplomatic engagement, increased economic integration, and

C

over story

closer security co-ordination”.

THE IRAN FACTOR Gargash said that United Arab Emirates’ agreement to normalise ties with Israel is a “sovereign decision” that was not directed at Iran, but common regional concerns about their heavily-armed neighbour across the water have certainly helped to overcome one of the most stubborn diplomatic divisions.

Shared antipathy towards Iran and the JCPOA nuclear agreement between world powers and Tehran which has caused disquiet in Israel and Sunni Arab states alike, has been a major driver bringing the Israelis and Emiratis together has been their shared distrust of Iran, which they view as a major destabilising force in the region. The Gulf nations are concerned about its growing military capabilities and rapidly advancing presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, despite crippling sanctions. Israel shares this concern, especially when it comes to Iran’s nuclear programme.

Tehran has already responded predictably to the announcement to normalise relations, a decision it considers to be a provocation, with scalding rhetoric. The Islamic Republic issued an explicit threat on Saturday to launch an attack against the UAE over the agreement. President Hassan Rouhani said the Gulf state had made a “huge mistake” and condemned what he called a betrayal. The Iranian hard-line daily Kayhan, whose editor in chief is appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, went further. “The UAE’s great

The coronavirus pandemic has opened further opportunities for UAE-Israeli cooperation. In June, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel will join forces with the UAE on medical projects, including the fight against the pandemic.

betrayal of the Palestinian people … will turn this small, rich country, which is heavily dependent on security, into a legitimate and easy target,” it said in a front-page editorial.

Deeper cooperation between the Jewish state, with its formidable intelligence capabilities, and Gulf states is seen by many in Tehran as a threat to Iran’s interests and regional ambitions. Tehran is already under heightened pressure due to crippling U.S. economic sanctions and one of the worst outbreaks of the coronavirus in the Middle East, which has killed nearly 20,000 Iranians and infected more than 340,000, according to official figures. The Islamic republic is also in the throes of popular unrest over the country’s economic grievance which prompted widespread protests since late 2017.

But so far, the bark appears to be worse than the bite. Clerical rulers decided to refrain from taking an aggressive approach to the region’s changing geopolitics. With business ties to Iran stretching back over a century, the emirate of Dubai, 150 km (100 miles) across the Gulf, has long been one of Iran’s main links to the outside world. Analysts said Tehran cannot afford to lose Dubai as a trade route, particularly since heavy U.S. sanctions have drastically reduced its

12

21/08/20

The city hall in the Israeli coastal city of Tel Aviv is lit up in the colours of the United Arab Emirates national flag on August ,13 2020. (Getty)

Shared antipathy towards Iran and the JCPOA nuclear agreement between world powers and Tehran which has caused disquiet in Israel and Sunni Arab states alike, has been a major driver bringing the Israelis and Emiratis together has been their shared distrust of Iran, which they view as a major destabilising force in the region. country. Additionally, the Israeli foreign minister has met with his Bahraini counterpart and that official’s predecessor.

oil exports and made doing international business increasingly complicated. Mobilising proxies also will impose huge financial and political costs on Iran, where many Iranians already resent the establishment’s regional ambitions.

Iran also fears that the move could increase region pressure amid suggestions by U.S. and Israeli officials that other Persian Gulf states could follow suit.

ISRAEL’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ARAB WORLD The deal between Israel and the UAE may now open the door for other Gulf monarchies to follow suit, with Bahrain, which congratulated the U.A.E. for “taking steps to enhance the chances for Middle East peace,” being the most likely to normalise ties. King Hamad has overseen steps toward normalisation, including allowing Israeli officials to attend a regional security meeting in the country in 2019 as well as a U.S-led conference on boosting the Palestinian economy as part U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace initiative during which Bahrain’s foreign minister gave an unprecedented interview to an Israeli television channel calling for “peace” with Israel and urging “better relations” with the

13

21/08/20

Oman is another possible candidate for normalisation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his wife, Sara, visited Oman’s late Sultan Qaboos bin Said in a very public meeting that was broadcast across the country in 2018. However, some experts say that Sultan Haitham bin Tariq, who came to power in January 2020 following Qaboos’ death, could act more cautiously regarding relations with Israel.

As for Saudi Arabia, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Israel is preparing for direct flights, over Saudi Arabia, to the United Arab Emirates as part of its normalisation deal with the UAE. Saudi Arabia does not recognise Israel and its air space is closed to Israeli airliners.

But in what was seen in Israel as an indication of warmer relations with Riyadh, Air India was allowed in 2018 to begin flying over Saudi territory on its New Delhi-Tel Aviv route.

Israeli Intelligence Minister Eli Cohen, said on Sunday that Muslim countries in Africa could also be on the agenda for additional agreements. “I think that Bahrain and Oman are definitely on the agenda. In addition, in my assessment, there is a chance that already in the coming year there will be a peace deal with additional countries in Africa, chief among them, Sudan,” he told Army Radio.

In February 2000, Netanyahu met in Uganda with Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, the head of Sudan’s Sovereign Council. Since then, other senior Sudanese officials have made positive statements on Israel.

P

olitics

The Coming Security Council Showdown Snapback Sanctions are Coming — and, With Them, the Untimely Demise of the JCPOA

by Joseph Braude On August 14, the UN Security Council rejected a resolution that would have prolonged the UN arms

embargo on Iran for the foreseeable future, amid reservations from Washington’s European partners that an indefinite extension would incur vetoes from Russia and China. This seems likely to force

14

21/08/20

Washington’s hand to trigger the snapback sanctions that may prove to be the ultimate undoing of the JCPOA.

A FAILURE TO ACT Secretary Pompeo issued a stinging rebuke of the Security Council for its ”failure to act decisively in defense of international peace and security,” labelling it “inexcusable.” Pompeo also noted the Arab-Israeli diplomatic convergence on the matter: “Arab nations and Israel strongly supported extending the embargo. Last weekend, the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council came together to ask the Security Council to extend the embargo. Israel also asked the Council to do the same to prevent Iran from expanding and modernizing its arsenal. These countries know Iran will spread even greater chaos and destruction if the embargo expires, but the Security Council chose to ignore them.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin swiftly moved to re-assert Moscow’s preferences and forestall the potentially imminent American move to triggering the snapback sanctions. On August 14, he called for a video summit of world leaders, consisting of Security Council member states in addition to the leaders of Germany and Iran, aimed at preventing “confrontation and escalation of the situation in the Security Council,” and asserting that “no one should resort to blackmail or dictate in this region.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani speaks during a press conference in New York on September 2018 ,26, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. (Getty)

Such moves are unlikely to sway Washington, however. As a result of the Council’s inability to extend the arms embargo, Washington is now preparing to trigger snapback sanctions. Secretary Pompeo has said for months that, while Washington would prefer consensus, “in the event it doesn’t happen, we remind the world that the Obama administration’s officials said very clearly that the United States has the unilateral ability to snap back sanctions into place.” This now appears to be a virtual certainty.

A BYZANTINE PROCESS BUT A NEAR-CERTAIN OUTCOME The process of triggering snapback sanctions is unusually circuitous. The UNSCR 2231, which serves as the UN’s de facto seal of approval of the JCPOA, defines several countries, including the United States, as “JCPOA participants” and accords them the right to initiate the beginning of the snapback process

15

21/08/20

Supporters of the JCPOA have mounted a last-ditch defense of the agreement, arguing that the U.S. no longer qualifies as a “participant state” given the Trump administration’s decision in May 2018 to withdraw from the agreement. should Iran enter into material breach of its nuclear commitments. A complex series of counter-resolutions and votes would then ensue, after which any vetowielding member of the Security Council could, in effect, trigger the snapback process.

Supporters of the JCPOA have mounted a last-ditch defense of the agreement, arguing that the U.S. no longer qualifies as a “participant state” given the Trump administration’s decision in May 2018 to withdraw from the agreement. Russian ambassador Sergey Lavrov labeled the American move “ridiculous and irresponsible.” Alas, for Lavrov, the text of UNSCR 2231 leaves little room for maneuver, unambiguously identifying the U.S. as a “participant state” regardless of the duration of that participation.

Once the procedural issues are dealt with, all that snapback requires is proof that Iran is in breach of its nuclear commitments. Tehran has done its part in this regard. The International Atomic Energy Agency has reported that Iran has enriched uranium to a purity greater than 3.67 percent, increased its low-enriched uranium stockpile beyond the JCPOA-mandated limit of 300 kilogram, stored excess amounts of heavy water, tested advanced centrifuges, and restarted enrichment at the Fordow enrichment plant. All of these actions contravene specific commitments located within the JCPOA. In addition, the IAEA has publicized that Iran is refusing to allow international inspectors access to suspected nuclear sites and may well be concealing undeclared nuclear materials and activities.

With this in hand, the outcome seems assured.

Whether it takes weeks or months, snapback sanctions are coming — and, with them, the untimely demise of the JCPOA.

P

olitics

Beirut Explosion: A Crossroad for Hezbollah

No matter in Which Direction it Moves, the Iranian-backed Shiite Militia Will Lose Significantly 16

21/08/20

by Hanin Ghaddar In a matter of two weeks, Hezbollah and its Lebanese allies have lost more than they could fathom. In two weeks, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah had to watch life-size cardboards cutout of him and his allies – symbolically hanged in downtown Beirut, and he could not do anything to stop it. He couldn’t even send his thugs to stop the humiliation, a he usually does when he’s the target of criticism.

On the fourth of August, the explosion at the Beirut post has damaged more than the eye can see, and has put Lebanon on a new crossroad, economically and politically. The immediate urgency of the humanitarian disaster did not distract the Lebanese and the world from the significant moment that could change the political scene of Lebanon in the months to come.

And whether Hezbollah admits it or not, they have lost much of their power in Lebanon, even if they still control state institutions.

Hezbollah is today at a crossroad where, no matter in which direction they decide to move, something has to be sacrificed.

WHAT HEZBOLLAH LOST

A man poses for a picture with a cardboard cut-out of Hassan Nasrallah (L), the head of Lebanon›s Shiite Muslim movement Hezbollah, and former Foreign Minister Gibran Bassil hung by Lebanese protesters in downtown Beirut on August ,8 2020. (Getty)

The Beirut blast took place as Lebanon was collapsing, and it felt like the final nail in the coffin.

However, it had also laid the coffin for the ruling elites and Hezbollah. social ailments, and people’s sufferings.

Hezbollah – as it has been going through its own financial crisis due to US sanctions on Iran – could not provide an economic solution for Lebanon. Instead, it continued using state institutions and whatever is left of Lebanon’s hard currency, to help Iran with its financial problems, by increasing its smuggling operations, such as those of fuel and drugs, across the Lebanese-Syrian borders.

Today, Hezbollah has lost its legitimacy as the protector of Lebanon. Not only has it failed to offer a solution to the Lebanese daily challenges, the party has protected a system of corruption and nepotism that has led to Lebanon’s collapse. The Lebanese people, including many Shia who are suffering from the same economic challenges, have lost their trust in Hezbollah and see them as part of a system that is not only failing but also responsible for the death of many Lebanese and the destruction of half of Beirut.

The port explosion did not occur in a vacuum and it was certainly not a separate accident. The explosion happened as Lebanon was facing the worst economic crisis in its lifetime – one that had put half of the Lebanese under poverty lines and caused severe inflation and shortages of fuel, wheat, food and medical supplies. Lebanese had lost access to their bank accounts When Hassan Diab’s government resigned after the and protests have filled the streets, until COVID-19 Beirut explosion, Hezbollah felt that it had lost its own government, but they thought that they needed to hit Lebanon. make a sacrifice – a scape goat – in order to preserve The Beirut blast took place as Lebanon was collaps- the real power and the real authority behind a system ing, and it felt like the final nail in the coffin. How- they have worked so hard to design and preserve. But ever, it had also laid the coffin for the ruling elites and this strategy doesn’t seem to be working. Right after the explosion, both the French president Emmanuel Hezbollah.

Macron and US Undersecretary of State David Hale When Hezbollah and its allies won the parliamentary for Political Affairs came to Lebanon and expressed elections in 2018, they formed their own government serious concerns regarding the ruling elite that Hezand managed to bring their own president, but they bollah is striving to protect. The solution – according also became the authority. And when Hariri’s gov- to the Lebanese people and the international commuernment resigned after the protests of October 2019, nity – is an independent government that will oversee Hezbollah still formed a government that suits its in- serious reforms and a real transformation in the polititerests and Iran’s agenda in Lebanon. That also meant cal scene; otherwise, international assistance will not that they have become in charge, not only of war and come to Lebanon. peace decisions, but also of the financial challenges,

17

21/08/20

P

olitics

While the Lebanese were still trying to recover their loved ones from under the rubble, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon issued its final verdict on August 18.

Although the tribunal could not directly accuse Hezbollah – or the Syrian regime – of murdering Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005, Salim Jamil Ayyash, one of four Hezbollah members charged with belonging to a cell that committed the attack, was found guilty on all the counts of involvement with which he was charged, including committing an act of terrorism and homicide.

Hezbollah’s media and circles of supporters celebrated the verdict as it failed to directly accuse Hezbollah or its leadership; however, in the midst of these celebrations, everyone knows that Ayyash cannot act on his own and without a political decision, especially when the assassination is that complicated and significant. Hezbollah, and all its support base, know that Hezbollah had lost its credibility when years after Hassan Nasrallah accused Israel of killing Hariri, it turned out that a Hezbollah member did it.

WHAT AOUN/BASSIL LOST What makes things worse for Hezbollah is that its main and most loyal ally has also lost significantly.

Former minister Gebran Bassil – the president’s sonin-law and the head of the Free Patriotic Movement – is facing multiple challenges today. In addition to being the most hated politician in Lebanon today – due to his corruption and alliance with Hezbollah – Bassil

Hezbollah’s allies lost and became both irrelevant and tarnished.

Hezbollah’s old games of hiding behind alleged bureaucrats, Christian allies, or a PM like Saad Hariri are no longer viable.

has lost the trust of both France and the United States.

His alliance with Hezbollah has cost him much, and if anything, it is lessons learnt for anyone who would sell his soul to Iran’s most notorious terrorist group in the region.

President Michel Aoun and his son-in-law decided to sign a memorandum of understanding with Hezbollah in 2006, which has today cost many Lebanese Christians, who mostly reside in the areas of Achrafieh which were destroyed. Today, the price of such an alliance is coming to the surface and the Christian community is waking up from the explosion to realize that Hezbollah cannot protect the Christians. If anything, they are responsible for their losses.

18

21/08/20

A man reacts at the scene of an explosion at the port in Lebanon›s capital Beirut on August 2020 ,4. (Getty)

For the FPM leadership, much was lost on August the fourth. Their support base, for one, cannot trust them, but more importantly, Bassil’s presidential dreams disappeared that day, now that he can no longer receive any European or American approval. In addition, he could be designated by the US any day now and his assets would be sanctioned.

REPERCUSSIONS

Hezbollah lost legitimacy, the political game, its finances, and the opportunity to stay relevant within the political scene. Hezbollah’s allies lost and became both irrelevant and tarnished. Hezbollah’s old games of hiding behind alleged bureaucrats, Christian allies, or a PM like Saad Hariri are no longer Not only did he fail to meet with Hale during his re- viable. cent visit to Lebanon, he was also ignored by Iranian foreign minister Javad Zarif. For the Iranians, Bassil Hezbollah will have to find a new path: let someone was significant when his political power was strong else take charge and help Lebanon get back on its feet, and useful. Today, Bassil will be discarded by the Ira- or stay defiant and face the responsibility of the total nians if he can’t prove his political relevance. Alas, collapse. In both cases, Hezbollah would lose signifithat is going to be prove difficult. cantly.

19

21/08/20

P

olitics

Johnson’s Constant U-turns Leave Voters Frustrated The Year 2020 Might Be Marked by Johnson’s Record of Reverse Decisions

by Ali El Shamy Last year’s December election gave the Conservatives an 80-seat majority, which has effectively gave them the ability to pass legislation with little to no op-

position. Critically, the election served as a massive stamp of approval from the British (or the very least English) electorate to Boris Johnson signalling that he no longer had to appease every person within society and that he could finally implement what he and his

20

21/08/20

The government would begin an initial phase of welcoming back year one and year six students, but the government would eventually scrap the plan all together in June. within the voter base, and Johnson’s branding of no nonsense policy making might be dwindling with every reversal his government makes.

REOPENING SCHOOLS BEFORE SUMMER HOLIDAYS

Prime Minister Boris Johnson meets veterans following a national service of remembrance marking the 75th Anniversary of VJ Day at The National Memorial Arboretum on August 2020 ,15 in Alrewas, Staffordshire, England. (Getty)

government felt was right for the country. Going into the New Year, Johnson marketed his new victory as a new era in British politics and branded himself as a no nonsense leader who would bulldoze his new laws without listening to any pesky detractors. His own campaign slogan “Get Brexit Done” was a reflection of this straightforward no turning back decisionmaking. Johnson’s government would go into 2020 pushing through the new rules of conduct of Brexit Britain. However, unfortunately for the government, the UK and the rest of the world would be ravaged by the coronavirus, which would force the Tories to temporarily shelf plans for Brexit and instead focus all their efforts on containing the pandemic. During these past eight months, the government has made a number of controversial decisions, which due to either logistics or unpopularity they have had to turn their backs on. While some of the U-turns were ultimately the right things to do, the amount this government has made might instil a lack of confidence

21

21/08/20

Last spring was a tough mountain to climb for the British people and the government. The country was faced with an invisible menace that caused the worst crisis since the Second World War. Thousands around the country contracted the virus and 40,000 people sadly lost their lives to the disease.

Even Boris Johnson himself came down with a bad case of COVID-19, showing us that even politicians aren’t immune to the virus. But in true British fashion, the country pulled together in times of crisis and every person took it upon him or herself to protect themselves, their families and their wider community. When in April, Johnson announced that the country was past the peak of the virus’s spread he also stated that his government would publish a steady road to recovery that would help get the UK’s feet back on the ground. Among the steps towards recovery was the controversial decision to reopen primary schools before the summer holidays. Many members of teacher’s unions, parents and even politicians voiced concerns over hastily opening schools again. The government would begin an initial phase of welcoming back year one and year six students, but the government would eventually scrap the plan all together in June. Secretary of State for Education, Gavin Williamson, would go on to say that reopening schools in June was an “ambition” rather than the plan. Instead the government opted to reopen schools at the beginning of the new school year in September. This wouldn’t be the last school related issue that the government would change its mind on.

P

olitics

FREE SCHOOL MEALS

Many families around the country cannot afford three square meals a day, and the situation is much more dire when families that have children have to rely on institutions such as food banks to get by every day.

Many children from poorer families also heavily rely on free school meals to get the daily nutrition they need. To insult to injury, the pandemic had taken a heavy toll on thousands of workers in the country as many had either been laid off, or furloughed. As a result of these circumstances, many politicians, including Kier Starmer, and campaigners had called on the government to continue the free school meal schemes during the summer to help children of poorer families. The government had been hesitant on making such concessions, but a social media campaign from famous Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford ultimately persuaded the government to reverse the decision and children who rely on school meals to get by would get their daily lunch throughout the summer.

THE TRACK AND TRACE APP Many governments throughout Asia fought against the pandemic through a track and trace programme that aimed at isolating individuals who either display symptoms of the virus, or come into contact with someone who has displayed symptoms of the virus.

The British government decided to build its own

Instead of relying on big tech companies to manufacture the app, the government decided to rely on the services of the NHSX department, which had only been founded in July of last year, and had no prior experience in making a large track and trace app.

track and trace app, which was on trial in the Isle of Wight. The government had stated that the app would be available to download throughout the country in the coming weeks, but various glitches in the app and privacy concerns forced the government postpone the app’s release. Instead of relying on big tech companies to manufacture the app, the government decided to rely on the services of the NHSX department, which had only been founded in July of last year, and had no prior experience in making a large track and trace app. As such, the government decided to reverse its decision of not relying on big tech companies, and instead went to Google and Apple to build the app.

Speaking of big tech companies.

5G HUAWEI AND Boris Johnson’s ascension to 10 Downing Street last year seemed to single a rekindling of the “special relationship” between the UK and the US, as both Johnson and Trump campaigned on populist plat-

22

21/08/20

Laura Nicholson and Omolade Agbedi open their results as pupils receive their GCSE results at Copley Academy on August ,20 2020 in Stalybridge, England. (Getty)

The government had decided to calculate final results through a statistical model that took into account the historical performance of the school. That meant that students that were in schools that historically produced students with low GCSE marks, were at a disadvantage.

U-turn, pressure from Washington, pressure from anti-Beijing Tory backbenchers called the “Chinese Research Group” and Beijing’s crackdown on protestors in Hong Kong, which used to be a British colony twenty-three years ago.

EXAM RESULTS

forms such as lowering immigration rates. There seemed to be an initial honeymoon period during the first few months of Johnson’s premiership, but one issue caused a big strain between both parties, the UK’s contract with Chinese communications company Huawei to help build the country’s 5G network.

As the Trump administration was and still is in the midst of a trade war with Beijing, it had hoped that one of, if not its closest, allies to scrap its agreement with one of China’s biggest tech companies. Washington had argued that Huawei was one of the Chinese Communist Party’s largest supporters and that Beijing would use technology produced by Huawei to spy on people living in the West. To appease both sides, Johnson decided to compromise by allowing the Chinese telecoms firm to sell a limited amount of equipment for parts of the U.K.›s 5G network, a move that Washington was not thrilled about. In July, the Johnson government changed its mind and decided to ban Huawei’s 5G gear and kits in the country. It is speculated that three main factors led to this

23

21/08/20

The latest in government U-turns once again involved the education sector. Because of the pandemic, school students could not sit through GCSE exams this year. As a result, the government had decided to calculate final results through a statistical model that took into account the historical performance of the school. That meant that students that were in schools that historically produced students with low GCSE marks, were at a disadvantage.

Moreover, private schools, which tend to perform better than state schools, were also at an advantage.

The devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland decided to opt out of this method, but Westminster stuck to it. Once again, pressure from politicians and even cabinet members persuaded Johnson’s government to scrap the model and instead rely on teachers’ assessed grades to use as final GCSE results.

While it is commendable that the Johnson government is willing to take into account the concerns of peers, pressure groups and the people when making decisions, the number U-turns taken in such a small time window might make some of his supporters weary. Nevertheless, when Johnson finally delivers Brexit at the end of the year, he will conformably hold on to those who had wholeheartedly gave him his support to get Brexit done.

P

olitics

The Corrupt Political Class That Broke Lebanon A Decaying Sectarian System Kindled Beirut’s Port Blast

by Mohamad Bazzi The massive explosion that tore through the port of Beirut on the evening of August 4 left more than 200 people dead, 6,000 injured, and a quarter of a million homeless. In the frenzied hours afterward, as residents of Lebanon’s capital tended to the injured and combed the rubble for survivors, many

initially believed the blast to have been an act of war or terrorism. It was a natural assumption: most Lebanese have far more experience with air strikes and car bombings than with industrial disasters. The consensus that the explosion was, in fact, an accident-likely caused by a fire that ignited 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate warehoused at the port since 2013-has come as a shock to many. Customs officials, judicial authori-

24

21/08/20

ties, and security forces had bickered and traded blame for years about what to do with the dangerous material. But though the blast may not, technically, have been deliberate, its deeper causes have everything to do with Lebanon’s history of conflict, with the aging former warlords who still hold power in the country, and with its dysfunctional sectarian political system.

BLAME GAME In response to the tragedy, Lebanese leaders are resorting to a strategy they have honed over decades: blame other politicians and factions, a corrupt system outside their control, and, if all else fails, outside forces and agitators. “I am not responsible,” Lebanese President Michel Aoun declared days after the explosion. “I have no authority to deal directly with the port,” Aoun continued, before suggesting that the disaster was caused by “foreign interference.”

Karlen cries during the funeral procession of her husband Charbel Karam, brother Najib Hitti, and cousin Charbel Hitti in their hometown of Qartaba, north of the Lebanese capital Beirut, on August 2020 ,17.

(Getty)

Bahaa Hariri, a Sunni leader and son of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, blamed Hezbollah, the Shiite militia and political party, claiming that “nothing goes in and out of the port or the airport without them knowing.” Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, sharply rejected the accusation in a televised address, warning his adversaries against trying to “start a battle” with the group based on the disaster. As other politicians followed suit, denying responsibility, pointing fingers, and issuing flimsy platitudes, Lebanese grew more furious at their political class-and at the fact that in the early days after the explosion, none of their leaders ventured into the devastated neighborhoods where grieving families were burying their dead and trying to salvage belongings from their destroyed homes.

One important political leader did visit, and did not try to pass the blame, but he happened to be the president of France. Two days after the explosion, while Lebanese politicians remained out of view in their fortified palaces, French President Emmanuel Macron surveyed the damaged port and comforted residents of ruined neighborhoods. Macron’s populist style (at one point, he jostled a bodyguard so he could hug a crying woman) and his implied criticism of Lebanon’s ruling elite were not lost on Beirut residents. By the time Macron returned to Paris, more than 50,000 people had signed an online petition urging him to “place Lebanon under French mandate for the next 10 years.”

The call for France to reimpose colonial subjugation over Lebanon misses an important historical irony: the post-World War I French Mandate saddled Lebanon with its sectarian political system, which was originally intended to protect the country’s Christians. Lebanese elites preserved the complicated powersharing arrangement when the country gained independence in 1943, agreeing always to select a Maronite president, a

25

21/08/20

Reconstructing the areas damaged by the blast could cost up to 15$ billion and is likely to accelerate an economic collapse in Lebanon that coincided with last year’s protests.

Sunni prime minister, and a Shiite Speaker of the parliament.

Seats in the parliament were initially divided on a six-to-five ratio of Christians to Muslims, then further partitioned among 18 officially recognized sects. The system became one of the root causes of the civil war, which lasted from 1975 to 1990, and a way for sectarian leaders to divide and share spoils. (At the end of the war, parliament was expanded and seats were divided equally between Muslims and Christians.)

Thanks to the confessional system, Lebanese political institutions were stymied and the country remained dependent on a handful of sectarian leaders who usually inherited rule from their fathers. After the civil war, former militia leaders took control of various government ministries and public institutions and extended their patronage networks into the bowels of the state. Government jobs, contracts, and other resources are still allocated by sect-a process known in Arabic as muhasasa.

Since the political system is based on consensus, no decisions can be made without the consent of all. (The standard Lebanese political mantra is that there can be “no victor and no vanquished.”) The result is permanent gridlock, punctuated by periodic acts of violence. Decisions can’t be made in the arena of politics, and so they are sometimes fought out on the streets. That encourages parties and factions-especially leaders of the three major sects: Sunni, Shiite, and Maronite-to enlist the help of external patrons in order to vanquish their rivals, a dynamic that has kept Lebanon weak and dependent on foreign powers. Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United States, and France have all vied for influence in Lebanon since the civil war ended in 1990. And despite their rhetoric to the contrary, these countries have resisted any large-scale change to the system that would leave them with less leverage. For their part, the Lebanese elite are too invested in the system to change it.

A DESTRUCTIVE SYSTEM If ever there was a moment to upend Lebanon’s sectarian system and entrenched rulers, this is it. As the scope of the

P

olitics

devastation-and the degree of official negligence that allowed the explosion to occur-became clearer, tens of thousands gathered on Martyrs’ Square in downtown Beirut on August 8, cheering and taking selfies as cardboard effigies of Lebanon’s president, prime minister, and Speaker of the parliament were hanged on a makeshift gallows.

Anger over the explosion could revive a popular uprising that began in October 2019, after the Lebanese government announced a series of austerity measures. Without a single strongman or ruling family to focus their anger on, Lebanese protesters adopted the slogan “All of them means all of them.”

These dozen or so civil war-era leaders have been unwilling to step aside and hand authority to a new generation. Instead, they concentrate power among cronies, plunder the country’s resources, pass on seats in the parliament to their children, and continue to appeal to sectarian identity. When they fail to carry out reforms or provide basic government services, these sectarian leaders blame outside actors and regional powers and claim to be true champions of change who are tragically being thwarted by a corrupt structure. In this circular system that allows every leader and faction to pass the blame, there is no accountability, even when the country suffers a tragedy on the scale of the port explosion.

Reconstructing the areas damaged by the blast could cost up to $15 billion and is likely to accelerate an economic collapse in Lebanon that coincided with last year’s protests.

Since October, the Lebanese pound, which had been pegged to the dollar since 1997, has lost 80 percent of its value on the black market. The currency collapse, along with a lack of dollars, has led to soaring food prices and shortages of imported goods. The government is struggling to pay its debts and has failed to provide basic services such as electricity, water, and

The tragedy in Beirut-the result of decades of systemic negligence and lack of accountability-made clear that a new government, parliamentary elections, and new political parties will not be enough to save Lebanon.

garbage collection. Lebanon’s public debt stands at $92 billion, or more than 160 percent of gross domestic product.

There’s little hope of a foreign bailout, as Lebanon’s traditional supporters, including the European Union and Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, are shying away from providing more aid. Foreign backers are finally demanding that Lebanese leaders begin making reforms that would ultimately weaken their grip on power and undermine the sectarian system: reducing the bloated public payroll and combating corruption. In May, the Lebanese government requested a $10 billion loan from the International Monetary Fund, but negotiations have stalled because of infighting between government officials and the country’s central bank over reforms and IMF demands for a forensic audit of the bank’s accounts.

With their intransigence, Lebanon’s sectarian leaders have made it clear that they don’t care if the economy collapses and the country is destroyed. Their highest priority is protecting themselves and their cronies. Is there an alternative to the sectarian oligarchs? Though the protest movement that emerged last year has built cross-sectarian alliances, it is largely leaderless. It is also far from building the organizational structure and get-out-the-vote apparatuses of the established, sect-based groups including Hezbollah; the Future Movement, a Sunni party led by Saad Hariri, a former prime

26

21/08/20

A member of France’s Marine Nationale stands in front of French Red Cross humanitarian aid at the port of Beirut near the site of August 4 explosion that ripped through the Lebanese capital, on August ,17 2020. (Getty)

The call for France to reimpose colonial subjugation over Lebanon misses an important historical irony: the postWorld War I French Mandate saddled Lebanon with its sectarian political system, which was originally intended to protect the country’s Christians.

minister and another son of Rafiq Hariri, the ex-premier who was assassinated in 2005; and the Free Patriotic Movement, a largely Maronite party founded by Aoun, the president, and now led by his son-in-law Gebran Bassil.

Moreover, the sectarian parties have an inherent advantage over nascent nonsectarian movements because the country’s political system hinges on creating clientelist networks and distributing resources, especially to meet government shortfalls. Lebanese are dependent on their sectarian leaders and parties not just for jobs but also for social services, such as health care, schooling, and food aid. The parties fill the gap left by a weak central government that is corrupt and inefficient at providing basic services.

The port explosion and ensuing backlash toppled the government of Prime Minister Hassan Diab, which took office in January after popular protests forced Hariri, the country’s top Sunni politician, to resign. Diab announced his resignation on August 10, and his cabinet will continue in a caretaker capacity until a new government is formed, which could take months. The fall of Diab’s cabinet will not change Lebanon’s trajectory-it will lead to a game of shifting blame and musical chairs, as the sectarian leaders and parties that have dominated Lebanese politics for decades appoint yet another government. Days before he resigned, Diab suggested that

27

21/08/20

he would ask parliament to shorten its term and call early elections. That would meet a central demand of last year’s protests, which also called for Aoun to resign as president and for Shiite politician Nabih Berri to step down as the longtime Speaker of the parliament. (Both men were major figures in the civil war: Aoun was commander of the Lebanese army, while Berri was leader of a Shiite militia.) This might have hastened Diab’s fall: the Lebanese press reported that Berri was outraged by the premier’s call for an early vote and put pressure on ministers to resign to hasten the cabinet’s collapse. Lebanon’s sectarian leaders are not going to reform themselves out of power. They will hang on by whatever means necessary, as they did during the civil war.

Many of the established sectarian parties, including Hezbollah and its allies, opposed the call for an early vote. The last election was held in May 2018, and the parliament is supposed to serve until 2022. But even if the protesters can force an early election, it’s not clear that would produce a significantly different 128-member legislature. The sectarian leaders and parties excel at using Lebanon’s byzantine election laws to their advantage. In the last election, politicians claimed that a new system of proportional representation-in place of a winner-take-all scheme-would allow civil society groups and independents to compete against the established parties. But the sect-based parties won virtually all the seats, and voter turnout was under 50 percent.

The tragedy in Beirut-the result of decades of systemic negligence and lack of accountability-made clear that a new government, parliamentary elections, and new political parties will not be enough to save Lebanon. The Lebanese must rid themselves of the corrupt sectarian leaders and parties that have dominated the country for decades. And they must destroy the sectarian power-sharing system that has turned into a noose around their necks.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

There Is No Russian Plot Against America

The Kremlin’s Electoral Interference Is All Madness and No Method

by Anna Arutunyan As the U.S. presidential election on November 4 approaches, many Americans have braced for interference from Moscow.

The only question, seemingly, is what form the meddling will take: Should Americans expect cyberattacks and leaks by sinister groups with ties to Russian intelligence? Divisive social media campaigns by trolls funded by associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin? Russian activists attempting to infiltrate U.S. lobbying groups?

All of the above marked the run-up to the 2016 presidential

election-and all of it may happen again this year, according to a cottage industry of U.S.-based Russia watchers and pundits. The mainstream view in the U.S. media and government holds that the Kremlin is waging a long-haul campaign to undermine and destabilize American democracy. Putin wants to see the United States burn, and contentious elections offer a ready-made opportunity to fan the flames.

But ascribing motive and intent is a tricky business, because perceived impact is often mistaken for true intent. Researchers and investigators have revealed in great detail the activities of Russian actors with ties to the Kremlin during the

28

21/08/20

2016 election. They have comparatively little information about the real impact of these measures on the election’s outcome-and still less about Moscow’s precise objectives.

Where is the evidence that Russia actually wants to bring down the liberal world order and watch the United States burn?

One certainly won’t find it in the writings and statements of Russia’s chief political and military strategists. By definition, covert interference abroad is not something officials and policymakers will discuss, even off the record. But Russian officials say and write a great deal about the United States and their own security objectives and neuralgiasenough to give a clear sense of their worldview and potential motivations for meddling in the U.S. political process.

What emerges is not a cunning, systematic scheme to corrode American democracy from within. Rather, it is a series of uncoordinated and often opportunistic responses to a paranoid belief that Russia is under attack from the United States and must do everything it can to defend itself. Every single thing that Russia stands accused of doing in the United States from 2016 onward it has previously accused the United States of doing. Moscow is showing its capacity to act, in other words, just as it believes the United States is acting everywhere else.

Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee former Vice President Joe Biden (R) and his running mate Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA) attend a coronavirus briefing at a makeshift studio at the Hotel ,13 DuPont on August in Wilmington, 2020 Delaware. - Getty

If 2020 turns out to be a repeat of 2016, it will be so not because Putin has devised a grandiose plot to bring down the United States or undermine democracy writ large but rather because Moscow is using whatever limited means are at its disposal to bare its teeth at what it sees as a far more powerful bully. And it doesn’t care a great deal about the specific consequences, so long as the result is to make itself look stronger than it really is.

THE BESIEGED FORTRESS

In Russia today, major foreign policy decisions are often made not in the Foreign Ministry but by the hawks inside the Kremlin, especially on the Security Council of the Russian Federation (Moscow’s rough equivalent of the U.S. national security council). In the bleak and often cynical worldview of these officials, the United States is constantly meddling in Russia’s internal affairs because it considers the country a threat to global U.S. hegemony. For this reason, Russia must focus above all else on defending its sovereignty against such encroachments.

In a long article published last November in the state-run newspaper Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Security Council and a chief architect of the Kremlin’s foreign policy, laid out the hawks’ view. Back in the 1990s, Patrushev wrote, the Americans had “written off” Russia as a significant world player. But when Russia regained its footing, Washington responded with a campaign to contain, undermine, and perhaps even destroy it.

29

21/08/20

Challenging a hegemon such as the United States requires not just a well-planned, proactive foreign policy but also military capabilities that Russia simply does not possess.

The notion that the United States is bent on weakening Russia is not new. In 2015, Patrushev claimed that the United States “doesn’t want Russia to exist as a nation.” He is no longer alone in his extreme views: the more Russia’s aggressive behavior over the years has run into American condemnation and resistance-notably in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine in 2014-the more otherwise pragmatic members of the Moscow elite have bought into this paranoid narrative.

In a recent interview with the BBC, Sergei Naryshkin, the head of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, spoke of the United States’ “disastrous” attempts to “rule the world from Washington.” The same fixation has cropped up in my private conversations with Russian officials. “Do you know how many ‘specialists’ the United States has operating in Moscow alone?” a prominent Russian legislator told me in 2019, using a euphemistic term for American spies. According to my interlocutor, the answer was 400. Two insiders, a Russian diplomat and another former official turned think tanker, claimed that the CIA had a department embedded within Ukraine’s main security agency to vet decisions relating to the peace process in eastern Ukraine. Every time a Russian breakthrough with Kyiv was stymied, they believed, it was because Washington had blocked it.

Russian officials see their country as under constant and covert attack by a powerful foe. Therefore, Moscow must mobilize all of its resources to defend against the “hybrid methods deployed against our country,” as Patrushev wrote in the Rossiyskaya Gazeta. Russian meddling in the United States is likely a part of that defense: Moscow is testing its capabilities and learning to do what it thinks the United States is doing but won’t admit to doing-because, let’s face it, superpowers lie, too.

It is no accident that Moscow’s preoccupation with real or perceived U.S. interference abroad predates its meddling in the 2016 election by several years. As early as 2011, Putin claimed that then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was directing the anti-Kremlin protest movement that had erupted in Moscow that year. Two years later, Valery Gerasimov, one of Russia’s highest-ranking military officials, penned

P

olitics

an article about new forms of hybrid warfare that blended conventional military force with other methods, such as disinformation, to bring down enemy states. Gerasimov was laying out what he perceived to be the strategy of Western states in Arab countries at the time-not, as many commentators wrongly assumed, his own Russian military “doctrine.”

His point was that Russia needed to learn how to predict and respond to this new threat.

The United States, it appeared to Moscow, was deploying tactics that Russia needed to emulate if it wanted to stay in the great-power game and be able to defend itself. Cyberattacks and hackings? U.S. cyberattacks against Russia have increased 11-fold in three years, the Security Council has claimed. Trolling armies? The United States paid and encouraged Russian protesters ahead of the 2012 election, at least according to Putin, and now Russia can do it, too, on the cheap and using the United States’ own social media platforms.

FREELANCE NATION

If the Kremlin truly intends to undermine American democracy, it has hardly concentrated its efforts to that end. In fact, Russian policymakers commonly criticize their own government for its slapdash foreign influence efforts. Moscow is “ticking boxes” to create an “illusion of influence,” as one former minister told me.

Challenging a hegemon such as the United States requires not just a well-planned, proactive foreign policy but also military capabilities that Russia simply does not possess. According to Patrushev, the United States spends 15 times more on its military than Russia does, and although one can quibble with the numbers, it is clear Moscow cannot compete on the same terms. Nor does it have a clear ideological alternative to liberal democracy or the kind of blind optimism that may have once driven Soviet commissars to believe they could turn Washington red. And so, for all its offensive posturing, the Kremlin has essentially adopted a defensive posture, resigning itself to disparate attacks whose message is primarily

As the U.S. presidential election on November 4 approaches, many Americans have braced for interference from Moscow.

symbolic: “If you mess with us, we will do the same to you.”

For the most part, Putin conducts this scaled-down campaign through freelancers-businesspeople, activists, lobbyists, and other fellow travelers. In this system, which some have called “adhocracy,” the Kremlin sets very broad objectives and encourages others to work within that remit. If they succeed, they are rewarded, and if they fail, they are disowned.

“It’s an approach that favors Putin’s friends,” said a source close to Russia’s defense sector. “[Their] people get involved [abroad] and then [Foreign Minister Sergey] Lavrov can say that they are not representing Russian interests, which isn’t that far from the truth.”

As a result, however, many of Russia’s so-called active measures against the West are driven not by the Kremlin but by what third-party actors think the Kremlin wants-and their guesses do not amount to a choate policy. “People have convinced themselves that Putin is Darth Vader, and that if he wants a red flag on Capitol Hill, it’s just a matter of time before he gets it,” said one analyst with ties to the Russian defense sector. “No one wants to believe that there is no grand strategy.”

Russia’s online disinformation campaign during the 2016 election was a case in point. The group behind the stunt was the Internet Research Agency, an outfit allegedly controlled

by Putin-linked businessman Yevgeny Prigozhin. Whether Prigozhin was tasked by the Kremlin to try to manipulate American voters or whether he came up with the idea himself and pitched it to Putin remains unknown. But the Internet

30

21/08/20

Republican nominee Donald Trump gestures as Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton looks on during the final presidential debate at the Thomas & Mack Center on the campus of the University of Las Vegas in Las Vegas, Nevada on October 19, 2016. (AFP / )Mark RALSTON

Russia does not ultimately care whether the United States is a democracy. It does not have an ideology to export or a vision for a future U.S. political system. ior of individual Russians abroad.

WHAT’S THE POINT

Research Agency was originally created in 2013 to mess not with American voters but with Russia’s domestic opposition, among other subjects, by increasing Internet traffic to certain regime-friendly websites. Its modus operandi on the domestic side, with poorly paid “Internet operators” working under loose directives and leaving comments on various websites, suggests that the specific slogans and memes the IRA’s trolls later pushed into the American information space were generated by the group itself and not explicitly by the Kremlin.

Some of the meddling that took place in 2016-notably the hack and leak of emails from the Democratic National Committee and Clinton’s presidential campaign-was evidently the work of state actors. But much of Russia’s perceived “interference” campaign during the election was the work of various small-scale private adventurers, such as Maria Butina, the gun rights advocate, and Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who bluffed her way into a meeting with Trump campaign officials.

“There was no massive campaign,” one Russian official told me, speaking off the record. “Disparate activities of this or that activist, or special forces group, or businessmen and entrepreneurs-these people are always active in fields like this. It’s what they do. It doesn’t mean that they are part of some grandiose plan to instigate regime change in the United States. . . . We have a lot of strange people, in Moscow and abroad, who call themselves agents of the Kremlin. They are trying to earn money or political capital that way.” In part, this is plausible deniability. But the explanation also offers a rare admission of the varying motivations behind the behav-

31

21/08/20

The ultimate irony is that whatever Russia’s goals-to give the United States a taste of its own medicine or to engage in the kind of wholesale destabilization campaign often ascribed to it-its interference has neither furthered nor defended its interests. Although it may seem to Americans that the United States could be a lot tougher on Russia, from Moscow’s perspective U.S. policy is now far more aggressive than the Russians could have expected in 2016, and many in the government lament the deterioration in relations. Sanctions have mounted in direct response to Russian interference, and Moscow is expecting more punitive measures to come.

His fawning overtures to Putin notwithstanding, U.S. President Donald Trump has pulled out of the Open Skies Treaty and the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, shutting down important avenues of cooperation with and influence for Moscow. The last treaty limiting Russian and U.S. strategic weapons, New START, may be next. More to the point, an unstable United States is an unpredictable adversary and thus harder for Russia to compete with and defend against.

It is hard to say which candidate-Trump or his Democratic challenger, Joe Biden-Moscow would pick if it had the prerogative. “At least with Biden,” one Russian official told me, “there will be a semblance of normalcy and predictability.”

But for Moscow, interference is not about backing a specific candidate, even if it happened to appear that way in 2016. If there is another Russian operation, expect contrarian messages targeting both candidates’ campaigns and highlighting generally divisive issues such as the United States’ response to the coronavirus pandemic. The messaging will not be coherent, and it will have no further purpose than to provoke arguments. Russia does not ultimately care whether the United States is a democracy. It does not have an ideology to export or a vision for a future U.S. political system. The United States has often projected its own fears and vulnerabilities onto Russia. Moscow is doing the same, just in the opposite direction.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

The Pandemic Hasn’t Killed Populism

After Lockdowns, Demagogues Will Likely Resurge

by Nadia Urbinati When the coronavirus pandemic hit, the reactions of populist leaders in democratic countries such as the United States, Hungary, and Brazil were predictable. In their trademark style,

the populists called out their favorite enemies: immigrants, political opposition, minorities, and the independent media.

They did so in the name of the “true� people, whose impulses they claimed to reveal and represent. Even when they are in government, populist leaders present themselves as outsiders

32

21/08/20

and orchestrate a permanent campaign against the political “establishment.” Their responses to the pandemic have largely followed this scheme.

But the pandemic has radically altered the socioeconomic fabric of democratic societies, and one might expect populist strategies to change accordingly. To understand how populism is evolving in the era of COVID19- is to shine a light on the problems facing the world’s democracies.

For populism should not be confused with authoritarianism or fascism: a populist is not yet a dictator, and a populist disfigurement of democracy remains within democratic bounds.

Every populist speaks the language and emphasizes the issues that resonate within the political culture to which he or she is native. Still, some broad trends among populist leaders are discernible, and they suggest that no one should count populism out of the running in democratic countries during the pandemic or in its wake. Indeed, the socioeconomic implications of the pandemic could open up new possibilities for populism, especially in those countries where it is in opposition.

NECESSITY AND TYRANNY The most difficult task of a democratic constitution is to ensure that legality does not come at the expense of democratic legitimacy, nor security at the expense of civil and political liberty. As le Marquis de Condorcet put it in 1789, “Sur la nécessité, l’excuse des tyrans.” Condorcet’s anxiety has proved prescient under the shadow of the novel coronavirus.

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban, reacts as he arrives for the fourth day of an EU summit at the European Council building in Brussels, on July ,20 2020, as the leaders of the European Union hold their first face-toface summit over a postvirus economic rescue plan. (Getty)

The case of Hungary is particularly instructive in this regard.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban used the pandemic emergency to press the country’s parliament to allow him to rule by decree and to suspend the legislative body at will. Although the parliament lifted this authorization in mid-June, the fact that it was ever in force is clarifying. The legislative body is now less a representative organ of the sovereign people than a department of a supreme majority; not the parliament but the leader is the country’s primary voice. Hungary’s case demonstrates that populism can degenerate into arbitrary rule, and it should make observers suspicious of the democratic loyalties of populists in power. Populist leaders start as democratic competitors, but how they will end is not so easy to predict.

Elsewhere, the fortunes of populists have been tied to the pandemic, and to the response of democratic governments to the pandemic, in a more complicated fashion. Many constitutional democracies have adopted interventions that would normally seem out of character: instituting centralized health-care orders under medical doctors’ and virologists’ supervision and adopting draconian limitations on the

33

21/08/20

When the coronavirus pandemic hit, the reactions of populist leaders in democratic countries such as the United States, Hungary, and Brazil were predictable. In their trademark style, the populists called out their favorite enemies: immigrants, political opposition, minorities, and the independent media. freedoms of movement and association. As medieval cities closed their gates to protect their people, so liberal societies have transformed the private homes of their citizens into walled citadels. Such interventions have become useful foils for populism, as have scientific experts, whom the pandemic has elevated to an unusual role.

Some commentators describe the ascendancy of experts as bad news for populists, who are known for anti-intellectualism and for embracing fake news and conspiratorial rumors over expert opinion. But relying on science over politics will not necessarily protect democracies from populism: just because politics leaves room for demagoguery does not mean that constricting politics will stifle demagoguery.

This question is one that has preoccupied political scholars in recent years. Some suggest that weakening populism may require the curtailment of some aspects of democratic politics. One could seek to tamp down the partisan animosity that elections unleash, for example, and to demobilize and calm a cacophonous public, while expanding the domain of nonpolitical actors and authorities such as juries, minipublics (demographically representative assemblies tasked with deliberating over discrete problems), and authorities and institutions that monitor government. Such an approach has indeed proved useful when it doesn’t substitute for elections and voting-which is to say, when it does not interfere with politics as a domain of competition and partisanship.

But the assumption that a less conflictual and partisan politics would deprive populism of oxygen-and, therefore, that an expanded role for experts would be a silver lining to the COVID19- tragedy-rests upon the unfounded assumption that populists benefit from a pluralism of ideas and parties.

In actuality, populists rise to power by campaigning against party politics, which they claim fragments the unity of the “true” people and weakens its sovereign power. That populists

P

olitics

are skeptical of experts should not occlude the fact that party democracy tolerates partisan politics far better than does populist democracy. To the extent that empowering scientific experts constricts the realm of partisan contestation, then, it is unlikely to deflate populism’s demagogic appeal. Rather, populists will campaign against unfriendly experts and draw strength from this new grievance.

LIBERTY AND LOCKDOWN So far, the pandemic has highlighted the uncertain nature of scientific knowledge rather than its salvific power: the theories and results of the biomedical sciences have shown themselves to be provisional and far from indisputable, as scientists are getting to know the new coronavirus in real time. Politicians-particularly populist politicians-have taken the indeterminacy and changeability of scientific pronouncements as license for contestation and declare the pandemic “fake news.”

Such contestation has in turn supplied oxygen to populist movements that are not currently in power. In Italy, Matteo Salvini, leader of the populist Northern League, cast doubt on the validity of medical research and the “policy of the mask” in order to complain that an “authoritarian government” had squelched citizens’ freedom of movement and impoverished them. Salvini attacked the center-left government’s lockdown both at the beginning of the pandemic in late February and at the end of the lockdown phase in May, when the country

Except for the authoritarian Orban, populists worldwide have generally chosen libertarian responses to the pandemic, not only in countries, such as Italy, where they are in the opposition but also in countries they rule, such as the United Kingdom (before the coronavirus hit the prime minister), the United States, and Brazil.

began to debate reopening. His propaganda profited from the messy and evolving scientific recommendations and predictions, opportunistically embracing the topics and rhetoric that best suited its purposes in the moment. Today, while Italy is (almost) virus free, Salvini launched a national campaign against social distancing and the wearing of the mask-he was against legal lockdown then as he is now against prudent behavior.

Except for the authoritarian Orban, populists worldwide have generally chosen libertarian responses to the pandemic, not only in countries, such as Italy, where they are in the opposition but also in countries they rule, such as the United Kingdom (before the coronavirus hit the prime minister), the United States, and Brazil. In the latter two countries, the demagogic fight against political opposition merged with advocacy for absolute “freedom” against “statism” or

34

14/08/20

Matteo Salvini attends the press conference to announce Roberto Di Stefano, mayor of Sesto San Giovanni, joining ,04 Lega party on August in Milan, Italy (Photo 2020

by Alessandro Bremec/ NurPhoto via Getty )Images

“authoritarianism.” Thus, U.S. President Donald Trump and Republican governors of some states opted for few restrictions on freedoms of movement and assembly, while fomenting opposition to “fake scientists” and to Democratic governors in charge of hard-hit metropolitan areas.

The true benefit of this stance-that of defending freedom against “authoritarian” overreach-may accrue to populist politicians only later. When societies reopen, they will confront new depths of unemployment and poverty. Populist opposition to lockdown in almost all countries will become a badge of honor and a cudgel with which to beat those governments and majorities that defended lockdowns in the name of health and solidarity. In other words, unemployment and economic distress in the months to come may well fuel populism, which is ready to mobilize the “forgotten many” against an establishment that, as Salvini thundered, deprived

35

21/08/20

them of their freedom and livelihoods at the same time.

Toeing a fine line, Salvini has expressed admiration for Orban’s decision to close the parliament in Hungary, even while accusing the center-left government in his own country of authoritarianism and of destroying economic well-being.

In defending liberty against lockdown, production against immobility, Salvini put himself at the head of a motley coalition that includes industrialists, impoverished laborers, and members of the middle class, all demanding “jobs and freedom.”

Social democratic parties (where they still exist) will have to shake themselves awake and start mobilizing citizens around social justice and redistribution-otherwise populism could have a bright future.

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

P

olitics

Civil Rights International The Fight Against Racism Has Always Been Global

by Keisha N. Blain On June 13, 2020, Black Lives Matter (BLM) activists gathered in London’s Trafalgar Square to call for the eradication of racism and white supremacy. With their fists raised high, the activists, mostly dressed in black, chanted, “Black power!” Were it not for the face masks, which they wore to help stop the spread of COVID-19, the scene could have been taken straight from the 1960s.

In that earlier era, activists around the world connected their own struggles to those of African Americans who challenged segregation, disenfranchisement, poverty, and police brutality—just as their successors do today. Mean-

while, Black American activists agitated for human rights and called attention to the devaluation of Black lives not only in the United States but all over the world, including in places under colonial rule.

Many tend to think of that era’s push for civil rights and Black power as a distinctly American phenomenon. It was, in fact, a global movement—and so is BLM today. By linking national concerns to global ones, BLM activists are building on a long history of Black internationalism. Indeed, Black Americans have always connected their struggle for rights to fights for freedom in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and elsewhere.

36

21/08/20

Although surges of Black internationalism have often been led from the top—through the efforts of politicians and diplomats—some of the most dynamic and enduring movements have developed at the grassroots, often led by Black women and involving working-class and impoverished Black people. During the twentieth century, Black internationalists organized on the local level, frequently in urban centers, to give voice to the concerns of ordinary people. Utilizing diverse strategies and tactics, they articulated global visions of freedom by working collaboratively and in solidarity with Black people and other people of color across the world. BLM activists have carried on this tradition, often using social media as a vehicle to forge transnational alliances.

Although much has changed since the 1960s, racism continues to shape every aspect of Black life in the United States.

The troubling pattern of police killings of unarmed Black Americans sparked the current uprisings, but it represents only part of the problem; such killings, horrific though they may be, are merely symptoms of the deeper diseases of antiBlack racism and white supremacy. As BLM activists have emphasized, these problems are not contained within the borders of the United States: they are global scourges, and addressing them requires a global effort.

FOOTSTEPS TO FOLLOW

TOKYO, JAPAN - 14/06/2020: Thousands of protesters took to the streets during a Black Lives Matter protest in Shibuya shopping district. Following the death of George Floyd, Black Lives Matter protest take all over the world. (Photo by Nicolas Datiche/LightRocket via Getty Images)

BLM was launched in 2013 by the activists Patrisse Cullors, Alicia Garza, and Opal Tometi after the acquittal on murder charges of the man who killed Trayvon Martin, a 17-yearold African American boy, in Florida the previous year. Following the 2014 police shooting of another Black teenager, Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Missouri, BLM evolved into a nationwide and global protest movement. In a matter of months, activists had established BLM chapters in several major cities outside the United States. In Toronto, for example, Janaya Khan and Yusra Ali co-founded a chapter in October 2014 following the police killing of Jermaine Carby, a 33-year-old Black man, in nearby Brampton, Ontario. A few months later, a diverse group of activists in Japan launched an Afro-Asian solidarity march called “Tokyo for Ferguson” in the wake of a grand jury’s acquittal of the police officer who gunned down Brown. Displaying signs in both English and Japanese, hundreds of protesters marched through the streets of Tokyo. In the months that followed, BLM demonstrations swept cities across Europe, including Amsterdam, Berlin, London, and Paris.

In 2016, Tometi delivered a speech before the UN General Assembly and issued a statement emphasizing an “urgent need to engage the international community about the most pressing human rights crises of our day” and pointing out that by internationalizing the movement, BLM was follow-

37

21/08/20

Many tend to think of that era’s push for civil rights and Black power as a distinctly American phenomenon. It was, in fact, a global movement- and so is BLM today. ing “in the footsteps of many courageous civil and human rights defenders that came before.” Over the past several years, BLM activists in the United States have indeed forged meaningful alliances with activists and human rights campaigners elsewhere. The movement’s internationalization was made visible with the massive demonstrations that erupted in the wake of the police killings of Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Tony McDade, and other Black Americans earlier this year.

In establishing such links, BLM is very much following in the footsteps of previous movements against racism. In the early twentieth century, civil rights activists often called on African Americans to see their interests as tied to those of people of color elsewhere. In January 1919, for example, the Black journalist John Quincy Adams published an open letter to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson in The Appeal, an influential Black-owned newspaper, demanding that the United States seek to protect the rights and recognition of people of color everywhere. “Through the centuries,” Adams noted, “the colored races of the globe have been subjected to the most unjust and inhuman treatment by the socalled white peoples.”

At around the same time, Madam C. J. Walker, a business pioneer who rose to fame after making a fortune marketing beauty and hair products for Black people, established the International League of Darker Peoples with several other well-known Black activists, including the Jamaican Black nationalist Marcus Garvey, the labor organizer A. Philip Randolph, and the Harlem clergyman Adam Clayton Powell, Sr. During World War I, the ILDP provided a platform for Walker and her associates to advocate for the rights and dignity of marginalized groups across the world and to tap into surging anti-imperialist and anticolonial fervor. In January 1919, Walker coordinated a historic meeting in New York City between a delegation from the ILDP and S. Kuriowa, the publisher of the Tokyo newspaper Yorudo Choho.

At the meeting, members of the ILDP asked Kuriowa to encourage Japanese officials to advocate racial equality at the Paris Peace Conference, which was scheduled to take place several days later. They received a favorable response

P

olitics

from Kuriowa, who assured them: “The race question will be raised at the peace table.” Western officials ultimately sidelined the issue of racial prejudice at the conference. But Walker’s actions laid the groundwork for a new generation of Black activists and intellectuals who sought international support in the decades that followed.

The 1930s saw the rise of a number of grassroots political organizations through which African Americans built alliances with activists of color from other countries in the global struggle against white supremacy. During the early 1930s, Pearl Sherrod, a leader of an organization called the Development of Our Own, became an early proponent of solidarity among poor nations, identifying the common interests between Black Americans and non-whites in colonies across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America.

In a 1934 editorial in the Detroit Tribune Independent, she reminded readers that “the greater part of the colored world is today under white political control,” even though the majority of the world’s inhabitants were nonwhite. Echoing Garvey, W. E. B. Du Bois, and others, Sherrod called on people of African descent in the United States to forge transracial political alliances. “Then, and only then will we get power,” she wrote.

Sherrod’s internationalist vision mirrored those of other Black intellectuals and activists, including members of the Peace Movement of Ethiopia, the largest Black nationalist organization established by a woman in the United States.

In 1964, Malcolm X toured West Africa for six months, during which time he made a pilgrimage to Mecca. When he returned to the United States, he established the Organization of Afro-American Unity, which became a significant vehicle for Black internationalist organizing in the 1960s.

Founded by Mittie Maude Lena Gordon in Chicago in December 1932, the PME advocated universal Black liberation, economic self-sufficiency, racial pride, and Black unity and attracted around 300,000 supporters during the 1930s and 1940s. Deeply attuned to developments elsewhere, Gordon sought out alliances with activists from abroad. In December 1940, for example, after reading in the <i>Richmond Times</i> about Akweke Abyssinia Nwafor Orizu, a Black nationalist from eastern Nigeria, she invited him to speak before an audience of PME supporters in Chicago. For ten days in March 1941, Orizu held a series of public meetings with Gordon and her supporters, addressing African nationalism and the emigration of Black Americans to Africa.

Like Sherrod, Gordon saw a direct link between manifestations of white supremacy in the United States and those in Asia, arguing in 1942 that the “destruction of the white man in Asia is the destruction of the white man in the United States.” In particular, she emphasized the connection between the challenges facing Black Americans and the plight of Indians under British colonial rule. “The complete freedom of India will bring complete freedom to the American black people,” she wrote, “because the same men are holding them in slavery.”

38

21/08/20

A demonstrator shouts slogans on a megaphone during a Black lives Matter protest outside Scotland Yard. (Getty)

The following year, the anticolonial activist Eslanda Goode Robeson, the wife of the singer and civil rights activist Paul Robeson, joined Nkrumah, the Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba, the U.S. labor organizer Maida Springer, and many other notable figures at the All African People’s Conference in Accra. At the conference, attendees advocated the immediate end of colonialism in Africa and emphasized the significance of pan-African unity. In subsequent years, several well-known Black American activists and intellectuals, including Du Bois, Maya Angelou, and Julian Mayfield, relocated to Ghana, drawn to the country by Nkrumah’s pan-Africanist vision and excited by the challenge of nation building in a postcolonial state. “I never dreamed to see this miracle,” Du Bois later explained. “I am startled before it.”

During this period, activists skilfully leveraged their transnational alliances and global audience to bring international pressure on the United States to confront racism and discrimination. Against the backdrop of the Cold War, U.S. leaders wanted their country to be seen as a champion of equal rights and democracy and as a beacon of freedom. But efforts to draw a stark contrast between U.S. democracy and Soviet communism were undermined by the mistreatment of Black Americans. Black leaders took advantage of this tension to advance the struggle for civil and human rights.

FREEDOM IN THE MOTHERLAND The Black internationalist movements and organizations that formed in the first half of the twentieth century laid the intellectual groundwork for the civil rights and Black Power movements of the second half. Many of the African American leaders who emerged during the 1950s and 1960s adopted an internationalist vision. For some of them, Ghana—one of the first African countries to gain independence from European colonial rule—held particular significance. Martin Luther King, Jr., and his wife, Coretta Scott King, worked across national borders and forged solidarity with people of color across the globe. The Kings joined a cadre of Black activists and artists—including Randolph, the actress and vocalist Etta Moten Barnett, and the political scientist and diplomat Ralph Bunche—on a trip to Ghana in 1957, just after the country won its independence from the United Kingdom. At the invitation of Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s new prime minister, these African American activists participated in several events in the capital, Accra. During an interview he gave while in Ghana, King credited the visit with renewing his conviction in “the ultimate triumph of justice.” Ghana’s liberation, he said, had given him “new hope in the struggle for freedom.”

39

21/08/20

Less well-known and more radical African American activists also drew inspiration from overseas and built international networks. From 1957 to 1963, the Universal Association of Ethiopian Women, a grassroots organization led by the radical Black activist Audley “Queen Mother” Moore, brought together Black women in Louisiana to seek reparations, welfare rights, and legal aid for Black men in the United States who had been wrongly accused of rape.

Moore emphasized the need to secure rights and freedom for “Africans everywhere at home and abroad,” and the UAEW actively forged transnational relationships, including with the Kenyan labor leader and pan-Africanist Tom Mboya.

Moore mentored a number of Black Power activists, including Malcolm X. Her dreams of global Black liberation influenced the internationalist ideas that defined his later years.

In 1964, Malcolm X toured West Africa for six months, during which time he made a pilgrimage to Mecca. When he returned to the United States, he established the Organization of Afro-American Unity, which became a significant vehicle for Black internationalist organizing in the 1960s.

During his first public address on behalf of the new organization, Malcolm X—who had adopted the name el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz following his trip to Mecca—explained that the new group would seek to organize “everyone in the Western Hemisphere of African descent into one united force” and, eventually, to “unite with our brothers on the motherland, on the continent of Africa.”

Malcolm’s work inspired the activists in the Black Panther Party, originally established in Los Angeles in 1966 by Huey Newton and Bobby Seale to challenge police brutality against African Americans—much like today’s BLM movement. And, like BLM, the BPP’s work in the United States sparked a global movement to confront anti-Black racism.

By the late 1960s, BPP chapters could be found in several cities across the globe, including Algiers and London. BPP leaders also maintained strong transnational alliances with activists in diverse places, such as Cuba, India, Israel, and New Zealand.

From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, African Americans were actively engaged in the struggle to end apartheid in

From the late 1960s to the early 1990s, African Americans were actively engaged in the struggle to end apartheid in South Africa.

South Africa. Several organizations, including the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and the National Council of Negro Women, supported the antiapartheid movement through picketing, lobbying, fundraising, and other activities. Prominent African American celebrities, such as Harry Belafonte, Arthur Ashe, and Stevie Wonder, also lent their support, using their platforms to bring international attention to the issue.

The collaboration between African American and South African activists highlighted the power and significance of Black internationalism as a political strategy. Activists in both countries endured some of the same challenges, including anticommunist smear campaigns waged by officials intent on suppressing Black resistance. Yet these transnational exchanges played a vital role in shaping the foreign policies of both nations. The political gains and successes, no matter how small, helped invigorate organizers, who drew inspiration from one another as they worked to dismantle racism and white supremacy. By linking local and national concerns with global ones, activists during this period set a precedent for future generations of Black internationalists, including members of BLM.

BLACK LIVES MATTER—EVERY WHERE In a recent interview, Cullors, one of the co-found-

40

21/08/20

American civil rights leader Malcolm X (1925 1965 -) sits and meets with Prince (later King) Faisal al-Saud the regent of Saudi Arabia (1906 1975 -) during a visit as a guest of state and as a pilgrim to the Muslim holy city of Mecca, April 1964. (Photo by Pictorial Parade/Getty Images)

Rory Kennedy, Randall Robinson, Douglas Kennedy and Senator Gary Hart link arms, as they demonstrate against South African government’s apartheid policies at the South African Embassy. The Kennedy children were arrested by D.C. police soon afterwards.

Robinson heads the antiapartheid “Trans-Africa” )organization. (Getty

ers of BLM, described the current uprisings as “a watershed moment” in U.S. and global history.

“The entire world is saying, ‘Black lives matter,’” she added. “The world is watching us,” remarked her fellow co-founder Tometi. “We see these rallies in solidarity emerging all across the globe, and I have friends texting me with their images in France and the Netherlands and Costa Rica, and people are showing me that they are showing up in solidarity.”

BLM has become a vital force in the long history of Black internationalism. The movement now offers a significant platform for Black activists in the United States to forge and deepen transnational links with activists across the globe.

Today, BLM has a global network of dozens of chapters.

This number will likely grow exponentially in the coming years.

The protests in the United States, in their strength, reach, and sheer magnitude, are unlike any the country has ever witnessed before. The COVID-19 pandemic—which has exacerbated already difficult conditions for Black people in the United States and abroad—has provoked a sense of urgency among protesters. As recent data have revealed, COVID-19 infection rates in Black communities are sig-

41

21/08/20

nificantly higher than in predominately white communities.

Owing to disparities in income, wealth, and access to health care, among other factors, Black people in the United States are dying from COVID-19 at a rate that far exceeds those for other racial groups, laying bare how racism shapes every aspect of Black life.

As the 2020 U.S. presidential election looms, the uprising that began this past spring in the United States is likely to fuel new rallies and protests, which will probably expand across the globe, extending to new places and inspiring activists of all races and social backgrounds. Efforts to quell these movements will also intensify—including efforts that involve surveillance by local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. However, the urgency of the moment and the demands to dismantle anti-Black racism and white supremacy and the violence they yield will keep activists in the streets. Those in the United States can take heart knowing that people all over the world see their own struggles for rights and dignity reflected in the BLM movement.

This article was originally published in the September/ October 2020 issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine and on ForeignAffairs.com.

A Weekly Political News Magazine

2

Issue 1814- August- 21/08/2020

Kamala Harris: The Attorney General Vying to Become the First Female and Black Vice President www.majalla.com

C

ulture

Hollywood Is Running Out of Villains Fear of Authoritarian Regimes Is Pushing the Film Industry to Self-Censor

by Kal Raustiala What sets the United States apart from the rest of the world is and has always been its soft power. The Soviets may have equaled the Americans in nuclear capability, but they could never rival the

appeal of the ÂŤAmerican way of life.Âť And even as China tries to spread its culture across the globe, its rise tends to inspire more trepidation than admiration.

Many ingredients combine to give U.S. soft power its strength and reach, but entertainment and culture have always been central to

44

21/08/20

the mix. Film and television have shaped how the world sees the United States-and how it perceives the country›s adversaries. Yet that unique advantage seems to be slipping away. When it comes to some of the great questions of global power politics today, Hollywood has become remarkably timid. On some issues, it has gone silent altogether.

The most glaring example is the growing wariness of U.S. studios to do anything that might imperil their standing with the Chinese government. China›s box office is as large as the American one, and entertainment is above all a business. So Hollywood sanitizes or censors topics that Beijing doesn›t like.

But the phenomenon is not limited to China, nor is it all about revenue. Studios, writers, and producers increasingly fear they will be hacked or harmed if they portray any foreign autocrats in a negative light, be it Russian President Vladimir Putin or North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. It wasn›t always this way. In the 1930s, Charlie Chaplin›s The Great Dictator took on Adolf Hitler. Later, Martin Scorsese›s Kundun shone a light on the fate of Tibet, and The Unbearable Lightness of Being and The Hunt for Red October made the Cold War come alive. Today, the market power of China-and the cyberpower of some rogue states-is making studios and creatives think twice about producing such daring, overtly political films.

And as the retreat from the kind of films that once bolstered American soft power accelerates, Hollywood is running out of real-life antagonists.

THE GREAT LEAP BACKWARD Boxing robes from the Sylvester Stallone film «Rocky IV» on display during a press preview of Heritage Auctions upcoming auction of memorabilia from the very popular boxing saga at the Fletcher-Sinclair ,20 Mansion October in New York 2015 Getty

Nazi troops were marching into Poland when Chaplin began filming The Great Dictator. The film›s titular character, a buffoonish, mustachioed dictator named Adenoid Hynkel, was clearly meant to deflate Hitler›s magnetic appeal. The British government, seeking to appease Germany, initially suggested it might ban the film from British theaters. (It changed its mind once the war commenced.) Even among Chaplin›s collaborators in Hollywood, some feared a backlash. (Hollywood also had a financial interest in reaching the large German film market, although historians debate how much this led American studios to bend to Nazi preferences in the 1930s.) U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt is said to have personally encouraged Chaplin to continue production. When the film was released in 1940, it proved an artistic and political triumph and was among the highest-grossing films of the year. Soon, overt condemnations of fascism were the norm: between 1942 and 1945, over half of all Hollywood films touched on the war in some way or another, hundreds of them with an anti-Nazi message.

With the Cold War came a new adversary against which to deploy the promise and glamor of American consumerism. Hollywood was on the frontlines of this effort. American films from the early years of the Cold War often brimmed with anti-Soviet jingoism.

(I Was a Communist for the FBI, released in 1951, is a classic of

45

21/08/20

Many ingredients combine to give U.S. soft power its strength and reach, but entertainment and culture have always been central to the mix. Film and television have shaped how the world sees the United States-and how it perceives the country›s adversaries. the genre.) Indeed, nearly half of all war-themed movies coming out of Hollywood in the 1950s were made with the Pentagon›s assistance and vetting to ensure they were sufficiently patriotic.

(To this day, the Pentagon and the CIA have active entertainment liaisons.) Even foreign productions were enlisted in the culture war against the Soviets: in 1954, when British animators adapted Animal Farm, George Orwell›s famous allegorical indictment of Stalinism, they enjoyed secret CIA funding.

By the 1960s, Hollywood productions began to cast the United States and its role in the world in a far more critical light. But even if it was not their intended effect, these films projected American values and bolstered U.S. soft power in their own way: by demonstrating Americans› openness and tolerance for dissent. Dr. Strangelove called out the absurdity of apocalyptic nuclear confrontation. Apocalypse Now, Platoon, and even the popular TV series M*A*S*H presented nuanced and sometimes harrowing perspectives on U.S. power abroad.

Today, audiences can take their pick: there is no shortage of jingoistic U.S. films or televisions series, nor of material that challenges pro-American foreign policy orthodoxies. When it comes to how other great powers are portrayed, however, some hot-button topics are now off limits. American films dealing with the history and people of Tibet, a popular theme in the 1990s, have become a rare sight. There has never been a Hollywood feature film about the dramatic-and horrific-massacre in Tiananmen Square in 1989. The 2012 remake of Red Dawn initially centered on a Chinese invasion in the United States but was later rewritten to make North Korea the aggressor instead of China. And Variety called the 2014 blockbuster Transformers: Age of Extinction «a splendidly patriotic film, if you happen to be Chinese.»

Across the board, film studios appear to take great care not to offend Chinese sensibilities. One scene in last year›s Abominable, coproduced by DreamWorks and the Shanghai-based Pearl Studio last year, featured a map showing the so-called nine-dash line, which represents China›s expansive-and highly contested-claims

C

ulture

in the South China Sea. That same year, CBS censored its drama series The Good Fight, cutting a short scene that mentioned several topics that Beijing considers to be taboo, including the religious movement Falun Gong, Tiananmen, and Winnie the Pooh-a frequent and sly stand-in for Chinese President Xi Jinping on Chinese social media.

The most obvious reason for Hollywood›s timidity is the enormous size of China›s market. Unlike the Soviet Union during the Cold War, China is not only a geopolitical adversary but also a major economic partner. Its box office numbers will soon be the world›s largest. Hollywood never cared much about distributing its movies in the Soviet Union. The same isn›t true of China today.

The promise of Chinese funding is another potential reason for studios to toe the party line on sensitive political questions. The Shenzhen-based tech giant Tencent, for instance, is an investor in the highly anticipated remake of Top Gun. An early trailer for the movie shows Tom Cruise wearing his iconic flight jacket-but without the Taiwanese and Japanese flag patches that were sewn into the back in the original 1986 film. The world›s largest cinema chain, which includes the American subsidiary AMC Theatres, is now owned by the Wanda Group, a Chinese conglomerate. Foreign funders can be useful partners, but their presence, unsurprisingly, can also make producers wary of content that might displease their benefactors.

Box office and funding are not the only reasons Hollywood is shying away from certain topics. It is likely that studios and theater chains also worry that some content might lead them to come under attack from foreign hackers. Hollywood itself was already hit in 2014, when Sony Pictures fell victim to a

Fears of a cyberattack are not fiction.

HBO, Netflix, and UTA, one of Hollywood›s largest talent agencies, have all suffered hacks in recent years; in the case of HBO, federal prosecutors eventually indicted a former Iranian military hacker.

major cyberattack ahead of the premiere of The Interview, a satire of North Korea›s leader Kim Jong Un. The North Korean government had previously warned Sony, branding the film›s depiction of Kim «an act of war» and promising «a resolute and merciless response.» Debate remains in the industry over whether the hack was in fact the work of North Korean hackers or rather that of disgruntled insiders-or perhaps even Russia. Regardless of the culprit, the attack was an inflection point. Since the days of The Great Dictator, studios have worried that controversial material might hurt their bottom line. But the Sony hack added fear that personal or professional harm might come to those who provoke certain foreign leaders or regimes.

Russia elicits particular fear. When the idea of adapting the book Red Notice, which details the corruption of Putin›s cronies, was discussed at a major studio a few years ago, executives balked, fearful of the potential repercussions of angering Putin, according to a person familiar with the discussions (The upcoming comedy with the same title, featuring Dwayne Johnson, is unrelated.)

Red Sparrow, the 2017 film based on a novel by a former CIA operative, kept the book›s Russian setting but left out Putin, who had played a central role in the novel. As the Hollywood Reporter noted at the time, «by avoiding Putin, Fox also is steering clear of any Russian hackers who might protest.»

Fears of a cyberattack are not fiction. HBO, Netflix, and UTA, one of Hollywood›s largest talent agencies, have all suffered hacks in recent years; in the case of HBO, federal prosecutors eventually indicted a former Iranian military hacker. Devastating cyberattacks against other U.S. entities, such as the 2015 data breach at the federal Office of Personal Management, which U.S. officials linked to the Chinese government, have shown that no institution is immune from the threat. Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election further fueled the perception in liberal Hollywood that foreign hackers are skilled, ruthless, and essentially undeterrable.

A DYING GENRE Hollywood›s self-censorship is no passing fad. The specter of retaliatory attacks-online or offline-is unlikely to fade, and barring a major economic meltdown, the appeal of China›s massive moviegoer market will remain. Chinese acquisitions of theater chains, investments in film studies, and cofinancing of movies make Beijing a critical player that can shape the content of American entertainment-and thereby blunt a key aspect of American soft power.

Indeed, the U.S. government increasingly views the entertainment industry as a potential national security liability. The Committee

46

21/08/20

(Original Caption) Charlie Chaplin as Hitler and Jack Oakie as Mussolini in the United Artist picture The Great Dictator (1940). (Getty)

on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), the government body tasked with vetting foreign investments in critical industries, has traditionally not concerned itself with the entertainment sector. But the tide seems to be turning. In 2016, Chuck Schumer, the Democratic senator from New York, wrote a letter to then Treasury Secretary Jack Lew noting the Wanda Group›s acquisition of AMC Theatres, as well as its investments in American studios, urging the committee to pay closer attention to such deals.

As the line between technology and media continues to blur, CFIUS will probably heed Schumer›s call before long. (Indeed, CFIUS is currently engaged in a review of ByteDance, the Chinese parent firm of the massively popular video-based app TikTok.) But greater government scrutiny is unlikely to make studio executives more willing to run with content that might draw the ire of Beijing and threaten their profits. The result is an uneven competitive landscape that rewards those who play it safe. Tibet, Taiwan, and Tiananmen will remain taboo subjects in Hollywood.

47

21/08/20

The same deference shown to Beijing may be extended to countries that lack major box offices but whose regimes have shown themselves willing to attack their perceived opponents abroad, such as North Korea and Russia.

Chaplin attacked Hitler and made money (and art) in the process.

But it is hard to imagine a modern-day Chaplin tackling Vladimir Putin, let alone Xi Jinping. Villains in comic-book capes still exist-indeed they are proliferating. Yet the kind of ripped-fromthe-headlines film that once bolstered American soft power vis-àvis its rivals is increasingly rare.

Not long ago, an Oscar-winning screenwriter was asked to rewrite one of the biggest video game franchises. The company began by saying that the war-based game had a problem: who was the enemy? It could not be China, of course. Nor Russia, North Korea, or Iran. As the company executives said, «We don›t know who we can make the villain anymore.»

This article was originally published on ForeignAffairs.com.

B

ook Reviews

One Country, Two Systems, No Future The End of Hong Kong as We Know It

by Jane Perlez City on Fire: The Fight for Hong Kong. Antony Dapiran. Scribe, 336 .2020pp. Unfree Speech: The Threat to Global Democracy and Why We Must Act, Now. Joshua Wong with Jason Y. Ng. Penguin Books, 288 .2020pp.

Last summer, hundreds of thousands of protesters had been pouring onto the streets of Hong Kong for about a month when I got a call from a senior official in Beijing inviting me to lunch.

We were quite friendly. We had shared stories about our work experiences and had politely sparred over the deepening chasm between the United States and China. I was about to leave China after seven years, and I was looking forward to a warm goodbye.

Thanks to Beijingâ&#x20AC;şs scrupulous censorship, the crowds of angry Hong Kongers had barely registered on the mainland. Even as Hong Kong was becoming important on the world stage, the open defiance toward Beijing-two back-to-back marches had drawn more than a million people each-had yet to be revealed by Chinaâ&#x20AC;şs

48

21/08/20

state-run media. Chinese leaders were afraid of contagion: if images of the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong were seen on the mainland, they might inspire errant thoughts and actions.

So as I headed to lunch, ordinary Chinese people were only vaguely aware of the tumult. Many of them consider Hong Kong to be a place that is rightfully part of the mainland and dismiss its residents as spoiled ingrates who do not understand the wisdom of hard work. When the protests later turned violent, China›s media presented the tear gas, Molotov cocktails, ramming rods, and injured people as dark examples of what was wrong with the disobedient territory.

My host quickly dispensed with pleasantries. Hong Kong was the designated subject of our discourse, and the tone was more insistent than usual. As my host described the protesters as traitors, the United States became central to the argument: Washington was acting as the Black Hand. More specifically: «Allen Weinstein is responsible.» I knew about Weinstein from a book he wrote in 1978 that set out to prove with newly disclosed documents that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy. «But Weinstein is dead,» I replied. The official retorted that Weinstein had founded the National Endowment for Democracy in 1983 and insisted that the NED was behind the protests.

Protester holding a Liberate Hong Kong, revolution of our times flag which is banned in Hong Kong due to the new Hong Kong national security law during the demonstration.

Pro-democracy demonstrators protest calling on the Japanese Government to take action against the Hong Kong National Security Law and Chinese Government at the National Diet of Japan. (Photo by Viola Kam/SOPA Images/ LightRocket via Getty Images)

The idea that Washington was provoking the eruption in Hong Kong through a thinly funded nonprofit seemed far-fetchedsomething out of a 1950s playbook. But it also sounded like the kind of theory that would be attractive to Chinese Communist Party loyalists. In fact, my lunch partner had just emerged from a long refresher course at the Central Party School, the main ideological training ground for China›s elite, and the subject of how to deal with Hong Kong had been on the curriculum.

Some weeks later, another Chinese official offered the same NED conspiracy theory to a friend of mine, a prominent civil servant in the government of one of the United States› Asian allies. My friend had more fortitude than me and gave the rational response: if Washington had tried to organize the Hong Kong protests, only a handful of people would have shown up.

By blaming Washington, Beijing was eliding its own responsibility for the political unrest, which was provoked by the creeping chokehold that China›s leader, Xi Jinping, had imposed on Hong Kong in the previous five years. Decades ago, China and the United Kingdom agreed that when British rule of Hong Kong ended, in 1997, the territory would be entitled to its own governance. Under the Basic Law, Hong Kong›s chief executive would be appointed by Beijing but the territory would maintain its own legislature and an independent judiciary, with the right to freedom of expression as the underlying glue. The arrangement was designed to last until 2047, when Hong Kong would pass into the hands of China. Although it was not specified in writing, it was generally assumed that the agreement would grant Hong Kong breathing room until then.

49

21/08/20

Before Xi came to power, China›s officials dealt with it through their appointees in the territory, who publicly supported the status quo. Xi had other ideas, however, and soon began chipping away at the territory›s autonomy.

Before Xi came to power, in 2012, Beijing had mostly treated Hong Kong as a backwater. China›s officials dealt with it through their appointees in the territory, who publicly supported the status quo. Xi had other ideas, however, and soon began chipping away at the territory›s autonomy. At first, his Hong Kong handlers meddled by dictating a new school curriculum, designed to inculcate loyalty to Beijing. A strong backlash from Hong Kongers forced the withdrawal of the plan; the leaders of the anti-curriculum effort also mobilized 79 days of protests in 2014, known as the Umbrella Movement. In 2015, five Hong Kong booksellers vanished; all had been known to offer material critical of the mainland. Some of them, after reappearing, later revealed that they had been abducted by Chinese law enforcement. As a result, written criticism of China, once an attraction in Hong Kong for even the curious party faithful visiting from the mainland, disappeared.

In 2019, when Beijing proposed an extradition law that would allow criminal suspects in Hong Kong to be tried on the mainland, China›s overbearing approach finally proved more than Hong Kongers could bear. Naturally, many of them feared that the extradition law would cast a wide net and capture more than just those in legal trouble. Protests over the move have roiled Hong Kong for the past year, and the tensions finally came to a head when, on June 30, China imposed a harsh new national security law on the territory-a move that eschews any pretense of democratic rule, strips Hong Kong of much of its autonomy, and arguably signals its absorption by the mainland, decades ahead of schedule.

As two recent books make clear, what has happened in Hong Kong will affect not only its 7.5 million residents but also the entire region-and the rest of the world. China›s crackdown has revealed that Xi is determined to impose authoritarian rule on the troublesome territory. Washington, meanwhile, has shown little appetite for confronting China over Hong Kong. And yet there is little doubt that the drama there will have an impact on the already tense U.S.-Chinese relationship.

B

ook Reviews

A TEAR GAS BUFFET

In City on Fire, Antony Dapiran gives a rousing account of the protest movement from its beginnings in 2014 to the long showdowns in 2019. Australian by nationality, Dapiran has lived in Hong Kong for 20 years. As a blogger and a lawyer who has advised many Hong Kong firms, Dapiran is convincing in his analysis that the protests were homegrown, largely born of Beijing›s heavy-handed determination to stage a takeover of the former British colony decades before it had any legal right to do so.

Dapiran takes readers through the streets, alleyways, and subways of the city alongside the black-clad, yellow-hardhatwearing, gas-masked protesters. He gets inside their skin, signing in to Telegram, an online social network used by the protesters to organize. Because Dapiran is with the crowds, he describes with great verve how the protesters operate without leaders, instead moving «like water» to pop up and then evade the police.

It is appropriate that Dapiran begins his discussion of the 2019 protests with the Hong Kong police resorting to tear gas, a vestige of the British colonial era. (He also points out that tear gas is not in fact a gas but rather a powder delivered by the smoke of a burning shell.) During the seven months of protests that began in June 2019, the police fired 16,000 rounds of tear gas, lobbing it inside subway stations, onto crowded walkways, and onto apartment balconies. Hong Kongers sardonically called the tactics an «all-you-can-eat tear gas buffet.» Hong Kong nurses, who treated wave after wave of victims, rallied against its use.

The tear gas had a dual role. «As well as having a psychological effect on those being gassed, tear gas also has a psychological effect on those deploying it,» Dapiran writes. «By creating a scene of violence and chaos, tear gas works to objectify the crowd, turning it from a group of human beings into a seething, writhing mass.»

Soon, the Hong Kong police pulled out another weapon. Outside the government headquarters at the end of August, the police unleashed water cannons onto thousands of protesters. The jets

In City on Fire, Antony Dapiran gives a rousing account of the protest movement from its beginnings in 2014 to the long showdowns in 2019.

of water contained a form of pepper spray and an indelible bright blue dye. Protesters were left dripping, smarting in pain, and now easily identifiable for arrest.

As the protests unfolded, Beijing bullied or co-opted Hong Kong›s commanding heights, sending a clear message about who was now in charge. Rupert Hogg, the chief executive of Cathay Pacific Airways, a potent symbol of Hong Kong as Asia›s financial hub, was forced to resign when staffers showed sympathy with the protesters. By contrast, Beijing treated the Hong Kong police sergeant Lau Chak-kei as a hero. He had pointed his shotgun-his finger on the trigger-at an unarmed crowd outside a police station.

(The police later said that the gun was loaded with beanbags.)

The Chinese government hailed Lau for standing up to what it characterized as violent rioters and invited him to Beijing for the National Day celebrations.

Last November, Dapiran watched as young middle-class professionals passed chunks of bricks from hand to hand to be thrown at the police during their two-week siege of a university campus. «It was clear to me that something in Hong Kong society had broken,» he writes.

LETTER FROM A HONG KONG JAIL

The 2019 protesters could easily have used Joshua Wong as their mascot. Wong had been a -17year-old charismatic leader of the 2014 Umbrella Movement-the vibrant precursor of the 2019 protests-and subsequently served several prison sentences for his activism. But instead of seeking to spearhead the more recent opposition to Beijing, Wong endorsed the idea that the 2019 protests should try a different strategy and be leaderless. None of the 2019 demonstrators put his or her head above the parapet by making speeches. Wong wandered the streets at the peak of the 2019 protests as one of the pack, almost unrecognizable except for when he turned up for interviews with the Western press.

Unfree Speech, his portrait of his generation of Hong Kongers, provides a basic understanding of why so many ordinary people, most of whom had never been near a demonstration before, took to the streets. They were loyal, he explains, to Hong Kong-and not to the United Kingdom, like their parents, or to China, from where many of their ancestors had fled.

Wong writes that he learned about Hong Kong›s extraordinarily high rates of economic inequality as a student at United Christian College, a private secondary school in Hong Kong. Old people pick through trash cans and push heavy carts of recycled paper to make a borderline living. Salaried workers live in tiny cramped apartments. Yet the city›s monied class, with ties to Beijing, owns some of the most expensive real estate in the world. Although many members of his age cohort stayed on the sidelines during the 2014 protests, Wong was driven, he explains, by what he calls an «incompetent» Hong Kong government and the economic and

50

21/08/20

and its allies would have to pay if they tried to oppose him. Xi acted quickly to contain the protests. The coronavirus pandemic delayed his imposition of a new draconian national security law, but only by a few months.

The new law, put into effect on June 30, brings Hong Kong directly under China›s thumb. It has effectively flattened the already reeling protest movement. Beijing›s long-dreaded security forces are now authorized to set up operations in the territory. Beijing will be able to override local laws. Separatism, terrorism, subversion, and «colluding with foreign powers» are all defined as crimes. In short, the law makes it almost impossible for protest leaders, such as Wong and older prominent figures of the movement, to oppose the diktats of the Communist Party without risking extradition to the mainland. Hours after the new law came into effect, Wong and his co-founders resigned as the leaders of Demosisto, the political party they had formed in 2016 as the face of the protest movement.

social effects of the SARS epidemic, which hit Hong Kong especially hard. Most important, he found he had a gift for speaking in a way that could mobilize his peers.

Due to his organizing skills and his clarity as an anti-China campaigner, Wong served 69 days in Hong Kong jails, where he turned 21. While there, he kept a diary, which he reprints as a part of his book. What is most notable, Wong led a jailhouse protest against the compulsory biweekly head shaving of the juvenile inmates. He was allowed to receive mail, play Ping-Pong, and keep current with his computer skills. His jottings fall short of ranking among the classics of prison literature, but they are appealing as an entrée into the mind of a brave young protest leader.

Wong is not so foolhardy as to call for independence for Hong Kong; he knows that is not a winning idea. But he has been unrelenting in his advocacy for freedom of expression and a fair electoral process, both of which Beijing has feared could become attractive at some point on the mainland.

YOU COULD BE NEXT

Even as the protests heated up during 2014, Hong Kong stayed low on the agenda at the White House and on the periphery in the inner sanctum of Zhongnanhai, the formal seat of Xi›s power in Beijing. But the turmoil of 2019 pulled Hong Kong right to the center of Xi›s concerns. Xi essentially defined Hong Kong as a sovereignty issue, raising the price that the United States

51

21/08/20

For the small clutch of Washington lawmakers who care about Beijing›s suppression of human rights, Hong Kong›s travails have intensified their hard line against China. But for many Americans, including many policymakers and officeholders, the territory is little more than an exotic destination, an entrepot that mixes Asia and the West, and a now faded stopover for shopping. The lack of appetite in Washington to take a stand on Hong Kong almost certainly means that the territory will be steadily subsumed into China›s grand design for the Greater Bay Area, a planned megapolis of roughly 70 million people and 11 cities, including booming Guangzhou and Shenzhen. What has been Asia›s financial hub may find itself reduced to a twentyfirst-century version of the fishing village that Queen Victoria›s subjects found when they sailed into the harbor in 1841.

The takeover of Hong Kong has also sent shudders through Taiwan, intensifying opposition there to the mainland. Chinese fighter jets buzzed Taiwan›s airspace on a daily basis in the period leading up to Beijing›s imposition of the new national security law in Hong Kong. That sent an unmistakable message to the island›s 23 million inhabitants: «You could be next.»

The day after the new national security law went into effect, the U.S. Congress unanimously passed a bill imposing sanctions on the Chinese officials and companies that will help implement the law. There is talk of revoking Hong Kong›s special status under American trade law, a step that would have little impact on Hong Kong›s economy. These measures are unlikely to deter Beijing›s resolve to keep Hong Kong on a very short leash or impress Hong Kong›s business community, now dominated by big Chinese investors. Whoever occupies the White House come January will have a hard time reversing the mugging of a world-renowned vibrant society at the hands of the Chinese Communist Party.

This article was originally published in the September/October 2020 issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine and on ForeignAffairs. com.

H

ealth

The Power of Protein Protein Can Help Older Men Build and Maintain Muscle, but the Amount and Source Matter

by Harvard Menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Health Watch Men gradually lose muscle mass as they grow older, a natural effect of aging called sarcopenia. During his lifetime, a man loses about 30% of his muscle mass. Yet older men can maintain and even regain muscle. It takes a combination of regular weight training and a proper diet, including adequate amounts of protein.

Protein is one of the three primary macronutrients, along with carbohydrates and fat. It consists of 20-plus amino acids, which help build and repair muscle fiber, which is why protein is often referred to as your musclesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; building blocks.

PICK YOUR PROTEIN

These foods contain a hefty amount of protein.

Source: USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference.

?HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH

The Health and Medicine Division of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) recommends that adults get a daily minimum of 0.8 grams of protein for every kilogram (kg) of body weight. You can calculate this by dividing your weight in pounds by 2.2 and then multiplying by 0.8.

But ongoing research suggests that to help counter sarcopenia, healthy older adults may need 1.2 grams of protein per kg of body weight each day. That comes out to 95 daily grams for a 175-pound man.

52

21/08/20

However, the source of your protein is just as important as the amount. When you eat food with protein, you also consume everything else that comes with it. This includes carbohydrates, fats, vitamins, and minerals, as well as added sugar, extra sodium, and other additives.

“You need to get enough protein, but also good-quality protein,” says Emily Gelsomin, a senior clinical nutritionist with Harvardaffiliated Massachusetts General Hospital. She suggests focusing on plant proteins like beans, nuts, and soy like tofu. “Plant-based proteins not only help build muscle, they are also linked with a reduced risk of heart disease,” says Gelsomin.

Meat is another source of protein, but opt for healthier choices like fresh or frozen lean meats and poultry and fatty fish like salmon. Avoid processed foods like bacon, hot dogs, and cold cuts -- including turkey and chicken versions, which often contain sodium and chemical additives. (See “Pick your protein” for a list of high-quality protein sources.)

Also, try not to load up most of your protein in one meal.

“Spreading your protein throughout the day is a better way to maintain muscle mass compared with consuming high amounts at one time,” says Gelsomin. She suggests dividing your daily amount equally over your three standard meals. So if you need to consume 90 grams, try to eat 30 grams at each meal.

But don’t go overboard: more protein beyond your daily requirement does not equal more muscle. “Plus, overeating protein

53

21/08/20

means extra calories,” says Gelsomin. “Focus on getting only what you need.”

POWDER POINTERS

If you have trouble getting enough protein from food, another option is protein powder. Protein powders come from plants (soybeans, peas, rice, or hemp), eggs, or milk (casein or whey protein). Most plant-based powders serve up about 10 to 15 grams of protein per scoop, while egg- and milk-based powders offer closer to 30 grams per scoop.

The main advantage of protein powder is versatility. It can be added to a smoothie, stirred into oatmeal, or just mixed with water or milk (regular, soy, or almond).

The major downside is that protein powders are considered dietary supplements and therefore are not strictly regulated by the FDA, so there’s no way to know for certain if a product contains what the manufacturer claims. A solution is to select brands with an NSF certification. NSF International is an independent organization that tests and inspects food products to ensure they meet public health standards.

Many people opt for flavors like chocolate or vanilla, but keep in mind this usually means added sugar, sugar alcohols, and other artificial flavorings. “Compare labels to make sure there is no more than 10 grams of added sugar per scoop,” says Gelsomin.

Po

rt

ra

it

Kamala Harris: The Attorney General Vying to Become the First Female and Black Vice President

by Ali El Shamy A Daughter of Immigrants

Like most American citizens, Kamala Harris is a descendant of Immigrants. Her mother, Shyamala Gopalan, immigrated to the US in 1959 to attend graduate school at Berkeley University in California.

She would go on to do a master’s degree and PhD in endocrinology. She then would go into cancer research. Her father Donald Harris migrated to the US from Jamaica in 1961 in order to attend graduate school also in Berkeley. Afterwards he became an Economics professor at Stanford University. Her parents met at Berkeley and married in 1963.

Early Life and Tribulations

The Civil Rights Movement marked the early years of Harris’s life, a time period in which African Americans were fighting for their equal rights.

Harris’s first childhood was in a predominantly black neighbourhood in Berkeley, CA. Fortunately, California was one of the more progressive states in the country and the state government was implementing programmes that aimed at ending desegregation. These policies enabled Kamala to attend a school in which students from all races were allowed to attend. Despite these policies, Harris and her sister still faced racism in their everyday lives.

Harris’s parents divorced when she was just seven, and when she and her sister stayed with their father at the weekends; neighbours wouldn’t let their kids play with the Harris sisters due to the fact that they were black. These early tribulations made Harris realise that if she wanted to get anywhere in life she would have to work long and hard because there

were countless people in the world who would deny her capabilities just because of the colour of her skin.

Embracing Her Heritage

As a half Indian and half black woman, Kamala made it a point to embrace her ethnic identities and cultural heritages. As a young girl, Kamala attended both a black Baptist church and a Hindu temple.

Furthermore, she would often visit her extended family in both Jamaica and India and she still keeps contact with her aunts and uncles in India. After high school, she studied Economics and Political Science at Howard University, a historically black university located in Washington, DC. After graduating in 1986, she went back to California to study law at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law. During her law studies she was elected president of the Black Law Students’ association.

Legal Career

After earning her law degree, Harris was appointed as the deputy district attorney for the Alameda Country in California. Then in 1998 she became the assistant district attorney for then San Francisco district attorney Terence Hallinan. In 2004, She would go on to run against Hallinan to overtake his seat as San Francisco’s district attorney. Harris was endorsed by Senator Diane Feinstein, campaigned for several legel reforms and pledged never to use the death penalty in convictions. She would go on to win the election with 56 per cent of the vote, becoming California’s first district attorney of colour. In 2010, she ran in the California Attorney General election, and this time she was endorsed once again by Senator Feinstein and House Speaker

54

21/08/20

Nancy Pelosi. She would win the election and would become the first African American, Asian American and woman to become California’s attorney general.

Her legal career has been mired in some criticisms as she opposed placing body cameras on police officers and more controversially she refused to prosecute Steve Mnuchin when he was the CEO of OneWest Bank, which at the time was foreclosing on senior citizens during the recession.

Presidential Campaign In January 2019, Harris announced that she would run for president of the United States vying to become the Democratic candidate to take on President Trump. However, following a dismal performance in polls she dropped out of the race in December 2019 and endorsed Joe Biden for presidency.

Joe Biden Picks Kamala

As former Vice President Joe Biden became the democratic nominee for the 2020 elections, many wondered who he would pick to be his running mate. Some have stated that the decision would be vital this time due to Biden’s old age, and that his choice could ultimately become a make or break moment in his campaign. In August, Biden chose former rival Kamala Harris as his running mate.

This surprised some voters due to the fact that she had openly attacked many of his former policies.

Nevertheless, he seems to have put these grievances behind him as he hopes that his pick might appeal to minority voters. If Joe Biden wins the presidency in November then Harris would become the first black and Asian person to become Vice President and she would also be the first woman to hold the position.