Iran nuclear

How long to the bomb – what to do about Iran’s nuclear ambitions?

Iran’s nuclear ambitions have long been a headache for the Middle East and beyond. Trump’s maximum pressure approach to an increasingly conservative, hostile Iranian government has not solved the nuclear problem for the Biden administration. Ongoing sanctions are expensive and difficult to monitor. There is increasing pressure from both inside and outside Iran to return to the more user-friendly 2015 agreement  brokered by the Obama administration. A panel of experts from the US, Israel, the UAE and the EU gathered recently at a wide-ranging conference on the Middle East, organised by the Brookings institute. In spite of America’s desire to focus elsewhere, all agree that Iran’s nuclear programme is a security threat that simply cannot be ignored.

Iran began its nuclear development programme in the 1950’s under the Shah. However, it was only in the 1980s and 90s that the Islamic Republic began taking a renewed interest in it. Since then, various initiatives designed to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been taken. Most significantly perhaps was the 2015, Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear agreement brokered by the Obama administration with Iran. Designed to monitor the Iranian nuclear programme, it had the backing of the UN Security Council members, Germany and the European Union.

‘Have we done maximum pressure long enough? ‘– Suzanne Maloney

Others, including Israel, the UAE and Saudi Arabia argued that it was not strong enough. They claimed that Iran simply used the agreement to buy time in order to further develop their uranium enrichment programme under the cover of a compliance that was difficult to monitor. The Trump administration ceased to follow the agreement. Instead, it took what it called a ‘maximum pressure’ approach to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This involved more extensive sanctions and a zero tolerance approach to its nuclear development programme. Did this approach work? ‘Realistically, we are never going to come to a clear conclusion on that one’ admits Maloney.

As an increasingly fractured, poverty-stricken Iran approaches national elections in June. The Biden administration is under pressure to make clear its own approach to what most agree is the most dangerous country in the Middle East. ‘This is not a static situation’ says Suzanne Maloney, Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institute. The Iranians are actively taking steps to force the US and international community, to act as quickly as possible, in order to gain a strategic advantage, explains Maloney. Amos Yadlin, Former Head of Military Intelligence Directorate – Israeli Defense Forces, explains that Israel is concerned about this sense of urgency. ‘Don’t rush because the Iranians are pushing you’ says Yadlin. ‘The Iranians want to go back to the 2015 JCPOA more than you, because it serves them!’

EU keen to return to the 2015 Nuclear agreement with Iran – Ellie Geranmayeh

Ebtesam Al-Ketbi, President of Emirates Policy Center, agrees with Israel. ‘We are not against diplomacy’ she explains, ‘but it should be played well.’ She expresses concern about what she sees as the naivety of the American and European approach. ‘You have to understand how the game is being played in Iran’ she says and advises ‘strategic patience’ on the part of the Biden administration. Such attitudes stand in clear contrast to those of Ellie Geranmayeh, Deputy Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme – European Council on Foreign Relations.  While acknowledging that the EU, like the US, sees Iran’s nuclear ambitions as the number one security threat for both sides of the Atlantic, she explains that Europe is keen to get back to the 2015 deal as soon as possible.

The EU views Trump’s maximum pressure approach as largely unsuccessful with regards to restraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions including the develop of its nuclear enrichment programme. With an increasingly conservative political elite in Iran threatening to oust the comparatively moderate incumbent President, Rouhani, in the upcoming elections, the EU feels it is a ‘now or never’ moment to get Iran back to the negotiating table. Geranmayeh points to the legal mandate from the UN Security Council for a return to the JCPOA and the positive role of personal diplomacy between Biden and Rouhani. The longer this current state of limbo continues with Iran waiting for some sort of economic relief from the West, the greater the chance of increasing Iranian aggression and further development of their nuclear programme, Geranmayeh argues.

‘We have to be very clear-eyed about the nature of Iranian leadership’ – Suzanne Maloney

Maloney argues that one ‘can’t have things good, fast and cheap, you have to pick.’ With regards to Iran, she believes that the US approach should be good rather than fast.  She is reluctant to be pressured by the political timeline presented by the Iranian national elections in June and points out that although Rouhani is currently in power, Iran’s nuclear programme has always been subject to consensus decision making including the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei. She describes as ‘absurd’, the idea that the US has any influence over Iranian domestic politics.

With these in mind, she maintains that the US’s central objective has to be the deterrence of Iranian nuclear capabilities. ‘We have to be very clear-eyed about the nature of Iranian leadership’, she warns. Hostage taking and support of proxy attacks in Iraq and other Middle Eastern countries are all examples of what Maloney sees as political brinkmanship on the part of Iran. ‘I don’t think we have forever and a day to deal with the Iranian problem, but I also don’t think we should let the Iranians try and force a deal on the rest of the world that is sub-optimal’.  

Wherein lies a solution?

Yadlin speaks of the importance of having what he terms a ‘Plan B’. ‘This is necessary, when you’re dealing with a country like Iran’, he maintains, pointing out that Iranian leadership is not curtailed by democratic election cycles. ‘The Iranians plan for half a century ahead’. He argues that in order for diplomatic pressure to work, it must be backed by a credible military option from both the US and Israel. ‘When sanctions were really painful, the Iranians came to negotiate. Unfortunately they were much better negotiators than the other side.’ However he agrees that broadening the JCOAP agreement is unrealistic because of the complexity of the task. Instead he suggests a two prong approach: one part involves diplomacy leading to a possible nuclear deal. The other involves Israel and the US continuing to work together to curtail Iran’s military activity in the Middle East.

‘You have to understand the region otherwise Iran will literally take you hostage’ – Ebtesam Al-Ketbi

Ebtesam Al-Ketbi agrees that ‘the Israeli’s understand the strategic approach of the Iranians far better than the Europeans and the Americans’. She explains that for the Gulf States the threat of ballistic missiles from Iran is of greater concern than a nuclear attack, because of their geographical proximity. For this reason, they did not support the 2015 nuclear agreement and are in agreement with Israel’s two part approach. ‘You have to understand the region otherwise Iran will literally take you hostage’ she warns. Al-Ketbi also expresses concern that if the US significantly downgrades its involvement in the Middle East, the Russians and the Chinese will ‘come in through the window’.

Geranmayeh agrees that a parallel track with regard to Iran and other regional issues is part of the European position. However she does not believe that an Iranian presence across various Middle Eastern ‘hotspots’ can simply be removed. Instead, Europe would like to see the UN overseeing a dialogue process between Iran and its Gulf Cooperation Council neighbours. She points out too that in order to sit down and negotiate with Iran, the US will also need to be prepared to make some concessions.

For Maloney, the problem is largely structural. She notes that the politics of the Iranian establishment has ‘narrowed significantly in the past decades and this has not been primarily the result of US policy.’ She suggests instead that the structure of power in Iran is set up in such a way as to prevent a more wholesale shift toward greater democracy. The Supreme Leader does not want the expansion of the political rights that are guaranteed in the Iranian constitution but have never been adhered to. The military agrees with this position. As a result, ‘there is no opportunity for anyone who has a different perspective, to advance in Iranian politics’, Maloney explains. She admits to becoming ‘more jaundiced’ in her views on Iran over the years and warns that ‘this is a very, very dangerous government’ with whom one needs to negotiate very carefully.  

bitcoin

Baffled by blockchain, bitcoin and everything in between?

Tesla recently invested 1.5 billion dollars in bitcoin and Mastercard announced it will accept crypto currencies as payments. The last five years have seen a strong shift toward digital currencies and the blockchain technology that underpins them. What does this mean for banking and finance in the future? Will cash become obsolete as national currencies go digital and how will it all be regulated? Head of Data, Blockchain and Digital Assets at the World Economic Forum, Sheila Warren, recently spoke at the Brookings Center on Regulation and Markets to address these and other questions.

Blockchain technology and bitcoin cryptocurrency are sometimes confused with one another. Cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin have been treated with suspicion because of their underworld origins. While the apparently limitless transparency and energy requirements of blockchain has raised doubts about its security. As Sheila Warren puts it, ‘It’s an open secret that most technology took off because of illicit activity’. But she is equally sure that this is no reason ‘to throw the baby out with the bath water’. Cryptocurrencies and the technology that supports them are ultimately tools that can be used for good or bad. The challenge is how we organise the use of these technologies for good in increasingly borderless domains.

Quick recap

Blockchain is a decentralised technology that removes the need for intermediaries like banks because it substitutes the trust we have in institutions with the trust we have in a network chain of anonymous computers. Each one of these computers automatically makes a record of any and all transactions on the blockchain. This means that a record is both highly public and very difficult to alter. One would have to tamper with each of the separate records in order to compromised the security of the blockchain. It is the decentralized transparency of blockchain technology that gives it its power.

Bitcoin is a digital currency with its own intrinsic value. The most well-known of many cryptocurrencies, it is supported by blockchain technology and may be used as an investment. There are other kinds of digital currencies that are less volatile and more secure. Central bank digital currencies, issued by the central bank of a country is like digital cash. For example, China’s digital yuan. Stable coin is cryptocurrency which is fiat-backed but is not issued by a central bank. These can be pegged to anything e.g. futures markets, commodities markets etc. ‘There is room for all of these things in the ecosystem’, maintains Warren.

‘We’re just starting to unlock the programmability of money’ – Sheila Warren.

These digital currencies can be programmed. This has given rise to Smart contracts in a variety of business areas. Warren points to the insurance industry as a key area for development. For example, if your flight is delayed, a smart contract will ensure that you are reimbursed automatically without the hassle of negotiation with the travel company in question. Crop insurance organised with the help of blockchain would also give individual farmers more control and facilitate their participation in the wider market system. ‘We’re just starting to unlock the programmability of money’ says Warren. This, she believes, is the primary use case for digital currencies. But switching over to such systems will take time and money.

There are of course a variety of other uses to which digital currency and the blockchain technology that underpins it might be put.

Supply chains

A lot of exploration and research has been done around how blockchain can be applied to supply chains. This technology can be used to check the origin of products – this clearly has important implications for bio-products, Fairtrade products and of course, health products like face masks, PCR tests, even vaccines. Blockchain technology can even be used to check emissions and off-set carbon credits. But Warren points out that ‘Blockchain is a team sport’. It really only makes sense to implement this fairly costly, high energy technology when you have a large coalition of organisations that span borders.

Trust and transparency

The decentralized nature of blockchain, perhaps counter-intuitively, provides high levels of trust in its ability to maintain accurate records. This is especially attractive in countries where trust in government institutions, for example, is low. Land titling was an early use case that helped clarify and regulate land ownership claims in an open and systematic way. Governments can also use blockchain to their advantage – for example, tax reporting. PWC recently brought out a report on how blockchain technology can be used to establish a global standard for tax reporting.

Many developing countries are showing increased activity in a variety of blockchain-based initiatives, explains Warren. Simply because the need is often more acute there. She mentions the Bahamas, Cambodia and Bermuda where weak institutions make many basic financial and legal services subject to fraud. Larger countries like China and India are also throwing their economic weight behind these technologies. China has ‘gone very big on digital currencies’ with the creation and promotion of the digital Yuan, explains Warren. While India is working toward a fully digitized identity system. Something which Warren describes as some ‘very serious experimentation that is very important to track.’

Financial inclusion

For those who have no access to basic financial services, technologies like blockchain can facilitate financial inclusion as the smart phone has done in many parts of rural Africa. Cryptocurrencies also have high use in hyperinflationary economies. Stable coin, a reserve-backed digital currency, has huge potential for trading pairs, Warren explains. Its stability and the speed at which it can be traded facilitates the creation of capital markets. Nevertheless, culture plays a large role in the use of any technology and Warren takes pains to point out that different cultures respond to new technologies at different rates and in different ways. For this reason, ‘the idea that cash is going to become obsolete ignores the realities of many people’s lives’.

Regulation

Digital currencies are, by definition, borderless. This makes global regulation both difficult and important. Organisations like the World Economic Forum, the IMF and the World Bank are all looking into this complicated problem. Warren agrees however that ‘it is almost impossible to affect compliance’. In spite of ‘a tremendous amount of desire to regulate digital currencies’ Warren says that she is ‘very hesitant about regulating technology in its pure form’. 

The real issue, is, how do we create  system that is safe for the average person? Warren believes that we are going to need to fundamentally rethink what we mean by user protection laws and regulations in the process. Who are we protecting exactly? And what is the role of the government in protecting consumers? No one wants to lose their life savings or find that they are being used to fund terrorism. But Warren points out that even in the virtual world, ‘people are findable – it’s pseudonymous, not anonymous’. So although regulation will inevitably lag behind the creation of new technologies, it is not impossible.

Warren admits that the question of how can we make tech regulation more agile, is key. Yet she describes herself as ‘a pragmatic optimist’. ‘There are things that are going to emerge in this crypto-ecosystem that we can not even conceive of yet. And once we have them, we’re not going to know how to live without them!’ laughs Warren.  

czarina musni

Listen to Czarina Musni on defending democracy.

What is life like for human rights lawyer and activist, Czarina Musni of the Philippines? How do her and her colleagues resist increasing pressure from President Rodrigo Duterte’s government and what does it mean to be red-tagged? I spoke with Czarina who is currently here in the Netherlands as a guest of the Shelter City programme on what it means to risk your life on a daily basis and how she finds the courage to continue.

Listen to Czarina Musni on what it takes to defend democracy in the Philippines
polish polonaise

Polish polonaise – stately steps in the wrong direction?

This time last year, I attended a celebration at the Polish Embassy in the Hague marking the 450th anniversary of the Union of Lublin. Some call it the precursor to the European Union. This time last year, national elections also brought victory to right wing, Law and Order party giving it another term in office. One year on, the country has been rocked by protests against proposed changes to abortion laws as women rights and those of the LGBTQ community face increasing threat. As one of the largest countries in Europe with some of the most dramatic history, Poland’s future and past merit attention. Yet the country’s recent Nobel laureate, Olga Tokarczuk, faces strong resistance to her attempts to do just this.  

Lublin is the largest city in eastern Poland, it sits near the border with Ukraine and Belarus. In 1569, it became the site at which two sovereign countries – the Kingdom of Poland and the Duchy of Lithuania merged to form a Commonwealth. The two nations agreed to be ruled by a single monarch, elected jointly by both nations in free elections. Like the European Union of today, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had one currency and conducted foreign affairs and defense policy jointly. However, government departments specific to each country were preserved as were their official languages, armies, treasuries and judicial systems.

At its zenith, in the early 17th century, this dual state covered almost 1 million square kilometers and sustained a multi-ethnic population of 11 million people. Indeed the Commonwealth was marked by relatively high levels of religious tolerance, guaranteed by the Warsaw Confederation Act of 1573. Although Catholicism was the dominant religion of the state, freedom of religion for other faiths including Islam and Judaism was granted.

Celebrating and problematizing diversity.

Perhaps it is not so surprising that Nobel Prize winner, Olga Tokarczuk’s most recent novel, The Books of Jacob is set in the early years of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Described by its English translator, Jennifer Croft, as a rewriting of history designed to  ‘celebrate and problematize diversity of faith, gender, language and nation’, the book follows the life of Jacob Frank. He is a Jew of Sephardic origins who was born in Poland but grew up in Romania and the Ottoman Empire.  In the summer of 1579, he led the conversion of thousands of Jews to Catholicism in what is now the Ukraine. Seeking to establish himself as the new Jewish Messiah, he adopted elements of Catholicism and Islam in his teachings.

Considered by many to be the Nobel prize winner’s masterpiece, it was published in Polish in 2014 and remained a national best-seller for over a year afterwards. By delving into the multi-ethnic world of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the novel raises questions that are highly pertinent in today’s Europe. Although her book sold 170 000 copies in hardcover and was winner of Poland’s biggest literary prize, Tokarczuk attracted harsh criticism. Denounced by nationalists as a traitor, the author received death threats and her publisher had to hire bodyguards for her. “I was very naive. I thought we’d be able to discuss the dark areas in our history,” Tokarczuk admits.

Readers are encouraged to re-examine their own histories as its plot and characters both celebrate and problematize diversity. It speaks to the issues of tolerance and inclusiveness that the current refugee crisis has raised. Particularly in countries like Poland where the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) has taken a strong stance against the influx of migrants. Indeed the European Commission has just referred a third case to the European Court of Justice on threats to the rule of law introduced by the PiS. Tokarczuk’s 1000 page novel has yet to be translated into English. Publishers in the United States hope to have an English version ready by March 2021. In the meantime it is worth considering the hostile reactions by the ethno-nationalists in Poland. The country’s ruling Law and Justice party won again yesterday in national elections with 43.6%, bringing them another term in office.

An increasingly divided society.

Working from a strong Catholic base, the PiS prides itself on its conservative stance. Party president, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has stated that PiS exclusively recognises families as ‘one man, one woman and children’. Unsurprisingly, their stance on  LBTQ rights is largely intolerant with some local councils in Poland declaring ‘LGBT-free zones’. I spoke with human rights activist, Elzbieta Podlesna, who temporarily fled Poland for refuge in Belgium, after  her involvement in the so-called ‘rainbow madonna’ incident. Podlesna and others believe that Polish society is increasingly divided along conservative/liberal lines. Recent protests against draconian abortion laws have served to highlight these divisions. In a country where a deeply traditional Catholic Church has strong links with the ruling party, human rights are increasingly threatened.

The first codified constitution in modern European history.

Shortly before its demise, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth adopted the first codified constitution in modern European history, the second (after the United States) in modern world history. So advanced was the May 3rd Constitution (1791) in terms of the liberties it provided for its citizens, that its creation caused immediate reaction amongst neighbouring states. Russia, Prussia and Austria all took the opportunity to go ahead with the third and final partition of Poland. So that by 1795, not only the constitution but the state of  Poland itself, had ceased to exist. It would be 123 years before Poland would come into existence once more – just in time for the Second World War, followed by decades of Russian communist rule.

Given the turbulent history of this country, it is understandable that nationalism has flourished. It provides the sort of clear, reassuring narrative that has been largely absent from Polish history. Yet, writers like Tokarczuk , provide other less comfortable but far more impressive narratives. Ones that celebrate diversity, dissent and tolerance. In time, Polish politics will hopefully reflect this rich history and in so doing, help to further enrich Europe, as it did 450 years ago.  

Brexit – biggest trade deal in British history?

As the 31st of December Brexit deadline looms ever closer, we look back at over 4 years and 9 rounds of UK/EU negotiations on Britain’s withdrawal from the Union. The EU is Britain’s biggest trading partner, the UK is the EU’s second biggest trading partner after the US. Thus far, the Withdrawal Agreement, effective as of February 2020, is the most tangible evidence of the future EU/UK relationship. But if one ignores the politics and ideological chest thumping for a moment, does the answer lie in approaching Brexit simply as one of the largest, most ambitious trade deals in history.  

‘If we don’t achieve some sort of deal, history will not look kindly upon us’ says Director of the Bruegel Institute, Guntram Wolff. Although it might seem that little progress has been made on Brexit besides increasing levels of acrimony between the divorcees, one should not overlook the remarkably united and hence relatively rapid response from the EU. Composed of 27 member states, all of which have varied trading relations with the UK, most agree that credit goes to Michel Barnier and his team for ensuring a united EU stance.

André Sapir also credits the Trump presidency with helping the EU ‘to maintain cohesion on Brexit’. Perhaps more importantly, he predicts that a change of president in the US, will have a significant impact on EU/UK relations. This remains to be seen but Democratic candidate, Joe Biden, has made it clear that the Good Friday agreement must be respected. Sapir admits that Westminster’s recent amendment to the Withdrawal Agreement with regards to the Irish question, ‘was like a bomb’ that ‘very nearly derailed negotiations’. 

No to the European Court of Justice

Aside from this apparently intractable issue, two others remain. The need for a so-called ‘level playing field’, meaning agreement on a common dispute settlement mechanism that is not the European Court of Justice. And, the somewhat erroneous issue of fisheries. The latter has caused concern on both sides. It is more symbolic than real in terms of its economic importance to a Brexit trade deal. The contribution of the fishing sectors to the economies of both the EU and the UK are negligible.

However, fishing agreements affect coastal communities in France and Scotland as well as the Netherlands and Denmark, to a lesser degree. So politically, it is a highly charged issue. The EU has previously tied access to financial markets to fishing rights but commentators agree that this may prove counter-productive to a Brexit trade deal. As Deputy Director of Bruegel, Maria Demertzis, asks, ‘why are we spending all our dry gun power on an issue that is less important than other things?’

‘I’m not frightened at all by the fisheries issue’ – André Sapir.

But Sapir is more optimistic. ‘Personally, I’m not frightened at all by the fisheries’ he says. Pointing out that the fish which are taken out of British waters, are consumed on the plates of the EU27. This is the essence of a trade deal he insists. The Senior Bruegel Fellow also notes that the three major sticking points in Brexit negotiations  have remained largely unchanged. He sees this as positive. With regards to the level playing field issue, Sapir suggests that both sides would have to agree on a set of trading rules, ‘almost identical to what we have now’. They would then have to find an alternative to the European Court of Justice, to ensure enforcement. Clearly it would have to be ‘something that both sides can trust’ in order for a Brexit trade deal to work.

‘Trust based on mutual interests is really what lies at the core of this agreement’ he says. But the issue of trust is a delicate one. Although most agree that European and British interests lie close together, trust between the two sides has been stretched over the past 4 years of rocky negotiations. Demertzis points to the ‘symbolic significance’ of the UK’s recent decision to ignore previous agreements and go against international law. Such actions highlight the fact that trust alone is not enough. Guntram Wolff agrees, emphasising the importance of clear rules that can be effectively enforced. Essentially, it is about ‘finding the right balance between access to the market and ensuring a level playing field’. Deputy Director, Demertizis agrees that financial markets and access to them is a key issue. She also raises the issue of defence. Noting that this too is an important element for the EU to try and secure.

The time for game playing is over’ – Guntram Wolff

But it is Guntram Wolff’s comment that, ‘the time for game playing is over’, which  echoes the sentiment of many EU negotiators. Will there be a Brexit trade deal, at the very last minute? Maria Demertzis and André Sapir are optimistic that some sort of agreement will be reached. Wolff is less optimistic, insisting that there will be no more extensions. ‘We are in the tunnel and everyone will have to find a way to agree’ he says. As the economic realities of Brexit, made worse by the global pandemic, become increasingly clear, it is hoped that pragmatism triumphs over misplaced idealism. Trade has formed the foundation for many a peace treaty. Brexit, one hopes, will prove no different.

progress

The power of progress and why we resist it.

As the world continues to struggle with the corona pandemic, progress may seem painfully slow. But as Steven Pinker recently pointed out in an online discussion organised by De Balie in Amsterdam, ‘Data shows that progress is a real phenomenon’. The Harvard-based psychologist reiterates the argument he makes in his best-selling book, ‘Enlightenment Now’: apply reason, science and humanism to the problems of the world and the result is progress. Yet, in spite of large amounts of data provided in support of world progress, many believe humankind is in a terrible state.

‘It’s not a case of seeing the world through rose coloured spectacles’ insists Pinker. ‘The case I’m making is really one of data’. The psychologist cites life expectancy, which has gone from an average of 31 years of age for most of history to 71 years of age globally and 80 years of age in developed countries. Two hundred years ago 90% of the world lived in extreme poverty, this figure has now dropped to 9%. Suicide worldwide has fallen by 40% in the last 30 years. War used to be the norm, we are now living in what some have called, the long peace. This doesn’t mean that there isn’t room for more progress, Pinker explains. Neither does it mean that progress is inevitable. But a lot of good news, ‘consists of nothing happening’. Bad news is usually far more sudden and dramatic. It is also therefore easier to report. So, unless you look at the data, your view of the world can be out of sync with reality.

Nevertheless, ‘a lot of forces in the universe are out to get us’ Pinker warns. The most prominent of these is disease. Infectious disease has been the norm throughout history. Wars kill far fewer people than pathogens. ‘The bugs are out to kill us and we’re out to defend ourselves’, says Pinker. So it is inevitable that Covid 19 is going to set back progress. Life expectancy will go down and poverty will increase. But, reason, science and humanism have been developed to help us fight disease, Pinker insists. And Covid is no different. Although daily news headlines might decry the spread of corona and the rising death toll worldwide,  Pinker points out that in comparison to previous pandemics, our progress in dealing with Covid 19 has been remarkably speedy.

‘We should invest in the equivalent of a fire department for pandemics’ – Steven Pinker

Pinker points out that we identified the pathogen within days. It took 3000 years to identify the pathogens associated with smallpox and polio. 15 years for HIV and 5 years for Ebola. Within weeks, the DNA structure of the corona virus was established and a vaccine is months away. However this does not mean that scientists and/or politicians have all the answers. Neither should we expect them to. Indeed, the psychologist suggests that we should treat pandemics the way we treat fires in cities. We should invest in the equivalent of a fire department for pandemics which will be at the ready for when a pandemic emerges. One of the biggest psychological obstacles to the fight against this pandemic, he argues, has been its politicization, from an early stage.

Politics and the media focus largely on the short term. ‘If you look at the news, things never get better. It’s only the data that shows the progress we have made.’ But Pinker agrees that in terms of the environment, progress is less evident. The climate crisis is much more sever than Covid. The issue is energy. Every aspect of life needs energy. Thus far we have depended largely on fossil fuels for our energy needs. ‘Burning fossil fuels has solved many problems but has also created many problems’.

‘We should be aiming for a clean-enough environment’ – Steven Pinker.

Pinker believes that the problem is solvable but ‘we’re going to have to do the math and realise that energy is good.’ Particularly in developing countries like India and China. ‘They’re going to want to get rich and we should not stop them.’ As with all things, Pinker, sees the climate crisis as a trade-off. If we want a perfectly clean environment we would all be living in poverty, he maintains. ‘We should be aiming for a clean-enough environment’. And indeed, in developed countries, the data shows that water and air have become significantly cleaner over time.  

Principal research scientist at MIT, and author of More From Less: The Surprising Story of How We Learned to Prosper Using Fewer Resources—and What Happens Next, Andrew MacAfee argues that degrowth is not necessarily a prerequisite for saving our planet. Over the last fifty years, the world’s richest countries have learned how to reduce their footprint on Earth. MacAfee claims that the data shows a decoupling of growth and environmental harm in wealthier countries.

Rich countries have reduced their air pollution, for example, not by embracing degrowth or offshoring, but by enacting and enforcing smart regulation. Research from a 2018 study shows that in the US, changes in environmental regulation rather than in productivity and trade account for most of the emissions reductions. China too, has succeeded in significantly decreasing air pollution in densely populated areas (30% reduction between 2013 and 2017) thanks to government policy. MacAfee points to the environmental Kuznets curve (EKC) by way of explanation. Named after economist Simon Kuznets, the curve posits a relationship between a country’s affluence and the condition of its environment.‘

Environmental Kuznet curve

So why the reluctance to embrace the progress that centuries of dedication to science, reason and humanism are able to offer us? Perhaps a natural human tendency toward focusing on the negative. An evolutionary quirk designed to keep us every ready to face danger in whatever shape or form it might come? Perhaps the never ending stream of negative news reporting that most of us accept almost unquestioningly. 

Perhaps, as MacAfee suggests, there are some for whom their jobs and  reputations depend on continued adherence to the degrowth argument in spite of evidence to the contrary. But surely the ultimate question is how many of us would be willing to accept recession if it weren’t necessary. MacAfee’s ecomodernist argument posits that most of the world’s people would much rather, ‘eagerly sign up to climb our new green path to prosperity’. Progress is not inevitable as Pinker repeatedly points out. But neither should we reject it on grounds of fear, negativity or ignorance of the data.

loneliness

The cost of loneliness – and how Corona made it worse.

As much of the world continues to struggle with the social distancing and fewer social interactions demanded by Covid 19, increasing levels of loneliness confront both individuals and societies. British economist and author, Noreena Hertz, recently (8 September) published a new book called, ‘The Lonely Century: How Isolation Imperils Our Future’.  At its heart lies the question: are we in the midst of a global loneliness crisis and what can we do about it? Loneliness as a widespread social phenomenon with increasingly obvious economic and social costs, may well be just as lethal and insidious as Covid 19 but far more long term. What can governments and societies do about an issue that some have described as the last taboo?

Loneliness has been recognised as a problem among the elderly for some time. In 2017, the London School of Economics undertook a study of loneliness in older people . They concluded that an epidemic of loneliness was costing £6000 per person in health costs and pressure on local services. Researchers also suggested that for every £1 spent on preventing loneliness in older people, £3 of savings could be expected. Loneliness is also linked in the study to earlier death and higher risks of dementia. But with the advent of a global pandemic that requires increased social isolation, fueling ever greater dependence on technology, the reach of loneliness is growing.

Should we consider a loneliness tax on large companies?

Fortune magazine reported that between 25% and 45% of American adults report being chronically lonely. In her book, Hertz speaks of the need to price loneliness so that market forces can be used to fight it. She feels there is a legitimate case to be made for a loneliness tax, particularly with regards to the work place where research shows that 40% of employees globally report feelings of loneliness and isolation. Not only does this make them less productive and less loyal, the health costs of loneliness for governments are millions of euros each year. The last twenty years have seen rapid socially disruptive transformations of our societies. Excessive social media use, fewer and delayed marriages, a rising senior population and increased working from home, to name only a few. This last has been further exacerbated by the arrival of Covid 19.

The New Zealand government’s website, ‘Conquering Loneliness in NZ’, has a dedicated section now called ‘Covid 19 and Lonely’. Here you can find guiding principals on how to approach Covid 19 loneliness along with a page of resources dedicated to help you take practical steps to combat it. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the advice includes, showing gratitude, giving your brain a break, connecting meaningfully with others and being creative.

Professor John Cacioppo, late director of the University of Chicago’s Center for Cognitive and Social Neuroscience, studied loneliness for over 20 years. He argued that loneliness is contagious, heritable, affects one in four people, and increases the chances of early death by 20%. But loneliness is not about how many people you have around you, nor is about simply having someone on whom to offload your problems, like a therapist. Professor Cacioppo found that ‘rich reciprocal connections’ are the most effective antidote to loneliness.  

Loneliness is both personal and political

For Noreena Hertz, loneliness is both personal and political. Describing her book as ‘a call to action’, Noreena argues that re-connecting society must be put at the very heart of the political project to fight loneliness. ‘Big tech, big business and government are all in the dock’ she declares. Yet she agrees too that it cannot be a top-down approach only. The future is also in the hands of individuals. One of the anecdotes she mentions in the book is her meeting with a young woman in New York who offers her services as a friend for $40 per hour.

It’s not what you may think, and Hertz admits feeling a little apprehensive before their meeting. But this young graduate student literally offers to spend time with lonely professionals. Most are in their thirties and forties and simply want someone to go to a movie  or have a cup of coffee with, perhaps browse some shops. This is exactly what Noreena did with Britney for 3 hours. She described the experience as pleasant and paid the young woman $120 at the end of their three hours together.

Is loneliness linked to rising support for populist parties?

Noreena Hertz also spent a lot of time interviewing right wing populist supporters from a variety of countries, in preparation for this book. She found that loneliness and a growing sense of social and political isolation came up repeatedly in her discussions with many of them. She mentions Eric, the Parisian baker, who joined Marine Le Pen’s party and Rusty, the Trump-voting railroader, who would, traditionally have voted for the Democrats.

Loneliness has also been defined as feeling one has no place in society. Hertz believes that it is this type of loneliness that is at the root of the rise in populism. This is linked of course to job loss due to automation and the rise of the gig economy which creates jobs that lack rights and status. The author cites research done in the United States showing that states which had automated more rapidly, are the ones most likely to vote for Trump.

Is social media the tobacco of the 21st century?

Technology, in the form of social media is also a key culprit in the growth of loneliness, Hertz argues. She believes that social media companies or ‘the frightful five’ as she calls them, have a duty of care to their consumers and likens the situation to tobacco companies in previous decades. Both products are strongly addictive and bad for one’s health. Like their predecessors, social media companies are ‘not doing nearly enough’ to warn users of the dangers to their health. ‘I think it’s time for government to step in’, the author declares. Hertz calls for government to provide regulation that encourages both large and small businesses to be rewarded for community-minded projects.  Corona, Noreena points out, has helped us to recognise the importance of community, now we need to build on that.  

popular protest

The power of popular protest – populism’s positive side?

Popular protest, the peaceful kind, is an important part of a healthy democracy. Protest movements have changed the lives of millions, although many started with only a handful of activists. The fall of the Berlin Wall and ultimately the Iron Curtain stands out for many in recent European history. But more recently popular protest movements have increased across Europe. At De Balie, in Amsterdam, we recently heard from the leaders of the Yellow Vests in France, the Sardines in Italy, Extinction Rebellion in the UK and the Million Moments in the Czech Republic. We also heard from Demosisto in Hong Kong who are fighting for democracy in the face of strong opposition from mainland China. Do movements such as these embody the positive and very necessary side of populism and identity politics in a democracy?

The Hong Kong protest movement is now famous worldwide. Nowhere is the fight between democracy and autocracy more dramatically defined than on this small, beleaguered island in the South China Sea. A leaderless movement, like so many others, we heard from one of the long-time organisers, Wong Yik Mo, who shared their lessons for protest, based on hard-won experience. He speaks of the importance of working together as a group and helping one another.

In Hong Kong this has come in the form of provision of food, accommodation and medical attention to protesters. He also emphasises the importance of sticking to your goals, but still being flexible enough to adjust to changing events. ‘Be like water but do not kow tow!’ Know your enemy. Clearly the Chinese Communist Party is a formidable enemy to have, nevertheless, it’s important to know what you’re up against. Linked to this, is their decision to build an essentially leaderless movement in which ‘Nobody is the hero, but everyone is a hero’.  

Fighting the ‘sad, bad populist politics’ of Italy – Mattia Santori of the Sardine movement

Other popular protest movements in Europe, have also chosen to take a decentralised approach to their organisation. Co-founder of Extinction Rebellion in the UK, Clare Farrell, explains that they view their approach as opting for lots of leaders rather than being leaderless. ‘We don’t want to become reliant on a single voice or too small a group of voices’ she explains.

Mattia Santori, co-founder of the Sardine movement in Italy explains that he and his flatmate, who started the movement together, initially agreed to take turns talking with the press. ‘It wasn’t easy ,we had to accept these roles as leaders’ and admits that he is pleased they are still friends! Santori explains that the movement grew out of a desire to fight against ‘the bad, sad politics in Italy, the populist politics’. The first protest took place in Bologne, Santori’s hometown, and the goal was to get 6000 ‘sardines’ into the town square to protest. ‘We don’t have economic power but we do have people power!’ he laughs.

Although the Sardines are fighting against populism in Italy, comments such as these merely highlight the populist nature of their own endeavour. Similarly, the Million Moments for Democracy movement co-founded by Benjamin Roll in Prague, stemmed from an initial desire to see the resignation of a corrupt, autocratic Prime Minister. But in time, Roll admits that they came to realise their real goal was to protect and defend democracy. ‘One of the biggest problems, is that people here don’t believe in democracy’ he explains.

‘Democracy is more than just elections’ – Benjamin Roll of Million Moments

‘Democracy is more than just elections. It’s about our everyday lives, our attitudes.’ To this end, he admits that they are in contact with the opposition parties in the Czech Republic. Their role is to encourage a deeply divided political opposition to work together and cooperate so that they can offer a clear alternative to those who are currently in power. Ultimately the Million Moments movement works to stimulate an active civil society and democratically engaged citizens.

Priscillia Ludosky, who co-founded the Yellow Vest (Giles Jaunes) movement in Paris in 2018, explains that it started with a simple desire to denounce inequalities. She began a petition requesting more transparency regarding the fuel tax. ‘It was an invitation to start a public debate’. As a result, they have been accused of being anti-climate change. But Ludosky tells us that this was an attempt by the political establishment, including the French government, to discredit a movement which has grown in power and political strength.

Like the Sardines, she agrees that, ‘we don’t have a lot of financing and therefore we need to be very smart with our choice of tools.’ She also admits that she too was initially approached by every major French political party. They tried to persuade her that the Yellow Vests should be associated with their own political agenda. But all were eschewed. ‘They are like poison for me’ says Priscillia, of the political establishment.

The missing piece in European democracy?

Do these movements see common ground between them? Would they consider working together on a pan-European or possibly a global level? Benjamin Roll sees a role for the Million Moments in a wider European context, particularly in other Eastern European countries where similar fights for democracy are currently raging. Mattia Santori believes that ‘it is our responsibility to create a trigger point for Europe’. He views movements like his and others as ‘the missing piece’ in European democracy.

Clare Farrell of Extinction Rebellion says, ‘our doors are always wide open’ to work with other popular protest movements. Their goal of having a citizen’s assembly in parliament, is based on a strong belief in the need to ‘change democracy in order to fix the problems about which we are protesting’. Wong Yik Mo of Demosisto in Hong Kong sees a clear correlation between the erosion of democracy in Europe and China’s influence, particularly over countries like Hungary and Greece. In this sense he sees much common ground between their efforts in Hong Kong and popular movements in Europe.

In spite of their differing agendas, all of these popular protest movements share a common desire to harness the power of the people in order to improve democracy. From this perspective, they are populist in the best sense of the word. Their function, like that of the media, is to serve as watch dogs of the political establishment. Their refusal to be absorbed by this establishment is also the source of their power and independence.

abraham accords

The Abraham Accords: is economics the answer to peace in the Middle East?

The Middle East has proved a consistent source of challenge for the most able diplomats and the greatest statesmen. The recent signing of the Abraham Accords marks the normalization of relations between Israel and the two Gulf states of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. On the back of these agreements, President Trump has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. However critics claim that they do little to address the Palestinian question. Neither do they tackle the very real issue of rising sectarianism and its threats to a broader peace in the region. Will the economic ties that such agreements foster and the expectation that other Middle Eastern states may follow suit, prove stronger than entrenched ideological divisions?

The Abraham Accords puts a formal seal on pre-existing relations between Israel and the Arab states of Bahrain and the UAE. They include a formal abolishment by the UAE of its forty year boycott of Israel and pave the way for stronger economic, political and cultural ties between countries. They also include the establishment of embassies and direct flights between signatories. Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, David Schenker, foresees cooperation on trade, healthcare, education and even security. ‘We believe the agreement puts the region on a truly transformative path’ says Schenker. Without naming further potential signatories, the Assistant Secretary of State draws attention to America’s ‘outstanding’ relations with other Gulf states like Kuwait where 40 000 US troops are stationed. Other possible candidates include Oman and Morocco.  

Will the Abraham Accords lead to further widening of sectarian divisions?

The deal marks the beginning of full diplomatic relations between Israel and the two Gulf States since its declaration of independence in 1948. But perhaps it is the largest, most influential Gulf State, Saudi Arabia’s, tacit approval of this normalization of relations that is of most significance. Many agree that it is unlikely that Bahrain would have signed the deal without the explicit consent of the Saudi royal family. It is no secret that America, particularly under Trump, and Saudi Arabia are close allies. Senior Advisor to the President and Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is in direct contact with Saudi Crown Prince, Mohammed bin Salman. Although the Saudis are unlikely to follow suit any time soon, the signing of these Accords may be seen as a strengthening of relations between Israel and the Sunni Arab states of the Persian Gulf against Shiite Iran and its allies.

Asked if the Abraham Accords circumvent the Arab Peace Initiative, which holds that peace between Israel and the Arab States should come before normalization of relations, David Schenker is quick to deny this. He insists that the new deal is an acknowledgment of the need by some Arab states to ‘put their own interests ahead of a particular cause’. This shift from idealism to pragmatism is better understood in a world where the price of oil is now at $40 a barrel and a global pandemic demands attention.

Is economic necessity promoting pragmatism over idealism in the Middle East?

These new economic constraints have put pressure on reform programmes started in a number of Gulf States as a result of dwindling oil reserves and increasingly modest oil prices. An average oil price of $60 a barrel is needed to fund the ‘cradle to the grave’ programmes run by many Gulf states, Schenker tells us. He suggests that it is economic necessity that has encouraged a greater willingness to take a more pragmatic approach to relations with Israel and the West.

But there is another side to this story. As many recently marked the 19th anniversary of 9/11, the issue of terrorism, specifically, Jihadism and Saudi Arabia’s long established role in funding it, cannot be ignored. As Senior Fellow at the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, Center for Middle East Policy, Bruce Riedel, points out, Saudi Arabia plays a central role in the development of the modern Islamic Jihadi movement. 

King Salman is ‘the most sectarian leader we’ve seen in modern history’ – Bruce Riedel

Prince Salman, now King Salman, has been the leading figure in the private raising of funds for the Jihadi movement since the 1960s. In the 1980s, Salman raised significant amounts of money for the Mujahidin in Afghanistan and he did the same for those in Bosnia. It was only in 2003, Riedel explains, when Osama Bin Laden declared war on Saudi Arabia that the Jihadi movement became a problem for the Saudi elite and successful action was taken to curtail the threat from Al Qaeda.

To this day, Riedel says, private Saudi funding for Jihadi groups continues and Jihadism still infiltrates the highest institutions of the Saudi state. King Salman and his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, are ‘the most sectarian leaders we’ve seen in modern history’ maintains Riedel. The Director of the Intelligence Project cites the war in Yemen as evidence of this and suggests that a new US administration ‘needs to take a very hard look at this’. He also advocates the re-opening of discussions with Iran.

Saudis are eager to help end the war in Yemen – Assistant Secretary of State, David Schenker.

However, Assistant Secretary of State, David Schenker points to two recent attempts by the Saudis to end the conflict in Yemen. He says the Iranian-backed Houthis have ‘not been particularly productive partners’ in peace negotiations and ‘do not seem to be interested in a unified Yemeni government’. ‘We are all hoping that the Houthis prove themselves to be Yemeni patriots and not a tool of Iran’ says Schenker, ‘but the jury is still out on that’.

Sectarian divisions also promise to flare up in Lebanon, particularly in Beirut, where recent devastating explosions coupled with corona and years of corruption, have brought the nation to its knees.  Schenker points out that Lebanon currently has a 200% debt to GDP ratio and 50% of the population lives below the poverty line. The government recently resigned leaving a power vacuum that many fear will be filled by Hezbollah. This group is currently the strongest in terms of weapons and military force.

‘We believe you have to choose between the bullet and the ballot’- David Schenker.

The US do not want to include Hezbollah in the negotiations for a future Lebanese government. ‘We believe you have to choose between the bullet and the ballot’, says Schenker, admitting that the US and France, ‘seem to have very different ideas’ regarding Hezbollah. Nevertheless, the US has supported the recent French initiative for Lebanon. Describing it as has having ‘a lot of merit’, the Assistant Secretary of State says the US is in agreement with the need for concrete reforms before the release of international funding.   

The Abraham Accords provide concrete evidence of a shift toward more pragmatic, economically-based approach to tensions in the Middle East. Broader changes in both regional and global conditions have helped prepare the ground for such a shift. David Schenker mentions a deal they are currently working on between Lebanon and Israel. It involves the development of three of the most profitable natural gas deposits that straddle the Lebanese/ Israeli border. The money from such a development could help a nation in deep financial crisis. Schenker is hopeful that the passing of a sovereign wealth fund law would follow, in order to ensure the Lebanese people properly benefit from this windfall. Will initiatives like these, based on economics and fueled by pragmatism, successfully circumvent years of ideological stalemate in one of the most troubled regions of the world?