Search

The United States and China’s relationship has never been worse in the last four decades, since President Nixon normalized the relationship between the two countries. Both nations are increasingly opposing each other on a wide range of matters from trade, to human rights and Covid-19. These tensions are placed within a clear paradigm. China’s economic and political influence are rising and are challenging US’s hegemony. To avoid a cold war (that could be far worse than the previous one) both countries need to accept their differences and find common grounds to collaborate. Their relationship has sharply deteriorated since the arrival of Donald Trump to the White House in 2016. Since his entry, he has rightfully accused China of commercial malpractices from their huge trade deficit to the stealing of intellectual property. As a consequence, US has been waging a trade war against China since 2018. Their differences have also translated into a technological war. The United States has, in recent years, targeted the Chinese company Huawei, a network telecommunication provider, by banning it from developing 5g networks and by pressuring US allies to follow suit. On the August 17, the US has given 5 weeks to the popular Chinese app Tik Tok to sell its US operations; or, face a national ban. Another contentious issue between both nations has been China’s poor records on human rights. China has recently implemented a new national security law in Hong Kong which violates the semi-democratic status that the island has enjoyed since its handover from the UK in 1997. Also, in the Western province of Xinxiang, Chinese authorities are currently interning more than 1 million people. On top of that, the mishandling and the initial cover-ups of the spread of the Covid-19 in Wuhan have been met by fierce criticisms by the Trump administration. All these sticking points have led to an escalation of the tensions. The American government has ordered the closure of the Chinese consulate in Houston and, as a consequence, had to close its own in Chengdu. The Trump administration even contemplated in the last few months to impose a travel ban to the United States to the 92 million members of the Chinese communist party. The growing tensions between both nations follow a logical pattern. The United States is the biggest economic power since the beginning of the 20th century. However, this long-lasting dominance is threatened by China. The country is rapidly growing and is projected to overtake the US by the end of the next decade. Due to the economy, China’s political influence has risen as well. China has become increasingly influential in many international institutions such as the United Nations. The head of 4 out of the 15 U.N. specialized agencies are Chinese nationals. In 2013, China has launched the ‘One Belt and Road Initiative’. It is an ambitious program that aims to increase trade exchanges between Asia, Africa, and Europe. The project covers 70 countries, 65% of the world’s population, and represents one-third of the GDP. Over time, this region could become the neuralgic center of the world economy. Nevertheless, these tensions are also explained by the ideological differences between both countries. The US is a representative democracy based on freedom and the rule of law whereas China is a centralized authoritarian regime. The opposition between these two systems of governance is already visible in the international stage with China which is increasingly challenging the liberal world order established by the US following the Second World War. The recent escalations have made the international community worried about a possible new ‘Cold War’ which would be far worse than the previous one. Unlike the Soviet Union, China is the most populated nation in the world, its economy is robust, and its military strength is rising. As the trade war has already demonstrated, both countries’ tensions can dramatically impact the world economy. This is exactly what the world doesn’t need given the current economic turmoil. As they are here to stay, both nations need to co-operate, accept their differences, and settle their disputes through international mechanisms. Instead of trying to prevent China’s rise by attacking its companies and blocking its innovations, the US should embrace it. Either way, the country will continue to rise whether America accepts it or not. The international campaign and the domestic ban against Huawei have not prevented the firm from thriving around the globe. On the other hand, China should address some issues such as its commercial malpractices and its human rights abuses. Besides, it should expand legally as opposed to what is currently happening on its Southern Sea. China and the US don’t necessarily have to become allies and agree on everything, but they should respect their differences, acknowledge each other power and always favour diplomatic means to resolve their disputes. Sources: · New York Times, How the Cold War Between China and U.S IS Intensifying · BBC, Should we be worried about the Chinese tech giant? · World Economic Forum, China and the U.S. need to embrace the idea of benign competition. Here’s why

Exploring what is happening in Belarus. The poignant words of one of modern Belarus’ greatest writers and 2015 Nobel Laureate in Literature, Svetlana Alexievich, should wake us: “a barbaric era is upon us once again”. Her speech in Stockholm contained many truths relevant to today's situation in Belarus. She spoke during a time when Ukraine was in the heat of a gruesome quasi civil war in the Donbas and Crimea, featuring state sponsored tragedies that the West had thought impossible to occur in the modern era. They did occur, innocent civilians once again felt the deep scourge of war in Europe. The rise of the illiberal forces of the world ought to worry all peace-loving peoples. The latest unfolding events in Belarus underscore what Alexeievich said in Stockholm: “Freedom is not an instantaneous holiday, as we once dreamed. It is a road. A long road. We know this now.” Interestingly, Alexeievich, on 24 August 2020, being a member of Svetlana Tikhanovskaya's recently formed Coordination Council, has been called in by the Belarusian Investigative Committee for questioning. As the world looks on with worry, this post will try to briefly explain what has happened in Belarus over these past few weeks. After elections in Belarus on 9 August 2020, President Lukashenko still clings on to power, despite these elections being widely accepted as rigged and unfair by the international community. As Europe’s longest reigning ruler, President Lukashenko has controlled Belarus since 1994 with an iron fist; quashing basic civil liberties and other freedoms that many readers of this page will have privileged access to. The elections themselves were mired by unfairness. No independent observers were allowed and common tactics to suppress opposition voices were harnessed. The main opposition candidate, Sergey Tikhanovsky, was imprisoned in May. His wife, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya, then took the reins of the opposition and ran in the elections competing against, "Europe's Last Dictator", President Lukashenko. Also arrested in June, was another opposition leader Viktor Babariko. Tikhanovskaya had gathered historic amounts of popular support across Belarus for her reform agenda. By official figures however, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya only gained 10 per cent of the popular vote, while the incumbent, President Lukashenko, received 80 per cent. Following the elections, Svetlana Tikhanovskaya fled Belarus out of concern for her own, and her children’s, bodily safety. After being reported missing by her colleagues, she emerged on 11 August. Lithuanian Foreign Minister, Linas Linkevicius, announced in a tweet that: "Svetlana #Tikhanovskaya is safe. She is in #Lithuania". In the interim between the election results and her reappearance in Lithuania however, Tikhanovskaya sought to lodge an official complaint protesting the election results. Thereafter, she was detained for seven hours and made to read off of a script to her supporters that called for: "Belarusians to accept Lukashenko’s 'victory' and 'stop protesting'". Following Svetlana Tikhanovskaya’s reappearance, mass protests in favour of the deposition of President Lukashenko swept Belarus. Protests in Minsk, the capital, have revealed the panoply of violence that President Lukashenko had long used in private against his citizens. At least two protesters are known to have died and thousands have been arrested. The "March for Freedom" has gathered the support of hundreds of thousands of citizens with recent estimates of up to 200,000 protesters in Minsk this week. Meanwhile, the sitting president currently struggles to pull public support together without being jeered off stage by factory workers. In a spectacularly démodé publicity and intimidation stunt, President Lukashenko appeared commanding from his helicopter and alighting with Kalashnikov rifle in hand and flack jacket on chest, to cheer on his squad of guards on 23 August. Above: President Lukashenko being jeered off stage by factory workers, 17 August 2020. Below: President Lukashenko appearing armed for state cameras, 23 August 2020. On 14 August Svetlana Tikhanovskaya and other leaders of the opposition formed the “Coordination Council of Belarus”. In the first official broadcast by the Council on 14 August, Tikhanovskaya sought to apply pressure on Lukashenko by claiming victory in the elections that, by the Council’s estimates, she had won by "60 to 70" per cent of the vote. In a broadcast on 17 August 2020, Tikhanovskaya applied further pressure on Lukashenko to hold a fresh round of elections under international observation and she pleaded for security forces to join the Council’s struggle. "Just as with Ukraine, Russia is considered likely to intervene if it seemed to Moscow there was a danger of 'losing' Belarus to the West." - Keir Giles, Senior Consulting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme, Chatham House. It would be naïve to try to predict what will happen as these intense political tensions unfurl in Belarus. However, what is perhaps more interesting is how Russia plays into the current situation. In the world of think tanks, Keir Giles (Senior Consulting Fellow, Russia and Eurasia Programme at Chatham House) recently published 'Watching Belarus Means Watching Russia Too'. Giles explores how "just as with Ukraine, Russia is considered likely to intervene if it seemed to Moscow there was a danger of ‘losing’ Belarus to the West." Indeed, if Lukashenko falters, which Giles sees as unlikely, there is a possibility that even the opposition, if they gain power, would acquiesce to Kremlin pressures. There are parallels between the current situation in Belarus and the Euromaidan protests in Ukraine in 2014. The Ukraine conflict was essentially split between West and East; to form closer ties with the European Union or with Russia? What followed was a bloody and protracted conflict filled with banditry and wanton acts of violence such as the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in July 2014 by Russian-backed separatists. Western powers should do all, within their means, to prevent the current turbulence in Belarus from reaching such levels of inhumane aggression. However, President Lukashenko actively promotes discourse that creates a sense of fear claiming that: "NATO tanks and planes were massing 15 minutes from his country's border". Of course this is far from the truth, and more importantly, such discourse tries to create a political playing field which forces the choice between West and East in a dangerous and undiplomatic fashion. After communications between Moscow and Minsk, it was made public that: "Russia was ready to provide aid [to Lukashenko] under the terms of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) if need be, and claimed Belarus was facing unspecified external pressure." The Institute for the Study of War published a worrying report on Russian and Belarusian military movements. "Russia began large-scale exercises with 3,500 personnel in Leningrad Oblast on August 17" however "there is no evidence of an increase of Russian force presence inside Belarus as of August 17". Although, there have been unofficial reports by the Critical Intelligence Team OSINT group that: "more than 40 Russian 'Ural' trucks with soldiers inside driving toward Belarus from Smolensk on August 16". This is in conjunction with Belarusian military forces being deployed rapidly on the country's western border with Poland and Lithuania out of a series of preposterous assertions by President Lukashenko that Poland and Lithuania threaten Belarusian sovereignty. The crucial geopolitical tensions present in Belarus are currently playing out quite rapidly and may have significant consequences not only for the people of Belarus but also of the wider region. European Union leaders such as the President of the Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and the President of the European Council, Charles Michel, have rightfully condemned the actions of President Lukashenko in quelling protests with violence. A great deal is at stake in Belarus, and in a world ravaged by the Coronavirus pandemic, economic and political instabilities, and a loss of diplomatic consensus, the world's eyes are watching closely.

As COVID-19 continues to affect lives and livelihoods around the world, we have witnessed the economic consequences of the pandemic having a regressive effect on gender equality. This article will be discussing whether the pandemic could be a catalyst for gender equality, or have the inverse effect of diminishing the cause of equal pay and gender responsibilities regarding family and work. Research has shown that women in the western world generally split household bills equally with their partners and take on the majority of domestic chores, in addition to being primary caregivers. As a result of the pandemic, with schooling being halted, this has consequently left women demotivated and behind on their own business initiatives.At the beginning of the pandemic, working from home potentially meant domestic responsibilities would be split more equally between couples. Studies of working parents’ lives during Covid-19 have shown that a disproportionate share of the burden is actually falling on women[1]. In Australia, the provisional results of a survey by the University of Melbourne suggest that in households with children, parents are putting in an extra six hours a day of supervision, with women taking on more than two-thirds of the extra time. It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Covid-19 has the potential to be a catastrophe for equality. Moreover, it seems income is a key factor in exploring how pervasive this dual expectation truly is. Scientists from the universities of Oxford, Cambridge and Zurich during March and April this year showed that working women in the UK, Germany and the US did more childcare across all wage brackets, compared to men with similar earnings. With this in mind, it seems that with the burden of familial responsibilities taken on by women being exacerbated across the spectrum, this will only make it harder to dismantle, and could only be truly addressed with a vaccine and greater economic stability. Research has also shown women are often the ones to give up their jobs due to having lower salaries. For instance, in the EU, women earn an average 16% less an hour than men, while the figure rises to 18% in the US. Women are also more likely to work part-time, largely due to existing family responsibilities. This research tells us that, although the pressures of the pandemic have forced women to perform paradigmatic traditional roles at home, modernity and the demands of society asks them to undertake a financial role too in the running of the household. This dual expectation often leads to complications for equality. Campaign groups such as ‘Pregnant then Screwed’ have drawn attention to issues regarding maternity leave, particularly in the lead-up to the crisis. The group has focused its efforts on the lack of financial support packages awarded to self-employed mothers. With packages for self-employed workers based on average profits per year, this means that periods of maternity leave have largely been dismissed or disregarded. Therefore, with the pandemic seeming to aggravate existing structural flaws, this period should instead be used to resolve these inherent difficulties to order to make unemployment an issue of personal choice, as opposed to a decision forced upon due to a lack of government support. There are, however, indicators of hope for gender equality. Although women are still primarily discharging housework and childcare duties, there is evidence suggesting that men, at least in the West, have increased their responsibilities since Covid-19 hit. This can largely be explored through unpublished research from academics at three Canadian universities, concluding that more than 40% of fathers said they were cooking more, while around 30% reported that they had improved the amount of time they spent on laundry and cleaning. More so, research from these universities also determined that chores within families had become more equally split. There are signs businesses can potentially administer lessons from Covid-19 in order to implement factors that in turn, would foster a working environment that could catalyze the cause of gender equality. Flexibility, for instance, a notion that was not necessarily mainstream before the crisis, has now become pivotal. This will certainly improve how work can be done at home without the added restrictions on time spent commuting, and standard ‘clock-in’, ‘clock-out’ hours. Clearly any discussions within the business community need to dovetail with greater government efforts to lay the foundation for equal opportunities within the labor market. Employment protection laws for those on zero-hour or very flexible contracts, and expanding parental leave opportunities for women as well as men is imperative in order to set the tone for a mutually beneficial work and home environment. An increased level of debate surrounding existing inequalities is an important first step. This should clearly be accompanied at the micro intra-relationship level with ongoing discussions about gender assignment of roles. [1]For instance, researchers from the Boston Consulting Group, which surveyed more than 3,000 people in the US and Europe, found that working women spend an average of 15 hours a week more on unpaid domestic labor than men.

“While we have all faced the same storm, we are not in the same boat.” ~ Dr Zubaida Haque, interim director of Runnymede Trust The disproportionate impact of COVID-19 across BAME (black and minority ethnic) communities within the UK is well-documented. The title – “Over-Exposed and Under-Protected” – of one of the best-known reports on the subject is a succinct diagnosis of the relationship between BAME communities and the pandemic. The findings, upon which the title has been created, are quite bleak. The BBC reports that whilst deaths from coronavirus as a proportion of the racial group is roughly matching, the actual deaths in BAME communities far outstrips the predicted deaths, especially among Black African and Pakistani people. In recognition of the disproportionate impact, Public Health England decided to track coronavirus cases by ethnicity. Runnymede Trust’s report finds multiple factors that heighten the various communities’ vulnerability to coronavirus and the negative consequences of the handling of this pandemic. In this article, BAME refers to Black African, Black Caribbean, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi people. Furthermore, the various ethnic groups have specific statistics – they definitely should not be treated as a monolith – but have been referred to together within this article due to length constraints. We are aware that workers at the forefront of the pandemic response will be at an extremely high risk of contracting the virus, and BAME individuals are overrepresented within these occupations – more likely to be in occupations that defined them as a ‘key worker’. Furthermore, BAME key workers report that “they were not given adequate PPE”, were more likely to have their safety concerns ignored, and were more likely to be given high-exposure tasks. The confluence of these circumstantial factors and discrimination provides some explanation for the high infection rate among BAME individuals. Runnymede’s recommendation is straight-forward – employers must ensure that adequate PPE reaches all staff that will be in public-facing roles. Since “adequate PPE” is clearly defined by the Health and Safety Executive, employers have no excuse. Regarding infection rate within BAME communities, the report notes that BAME families are more likely than their white counterparts to be living in a household, on average, of four adults. They also found under 18s to be a more common occurrence in BAME households (over half), compared to white households (3 in 10). Crucially, larger household sizes are not accompanied by larger home sizes. In overcrowded living conditions – where self-isolation cannot occur effectively because there are more occupants than rooms – opportunities for virus transmission are higher. Recognising this, Runnymede recommended that symptomatic individuals in overcrowded households should be allowed to self-isolate in empty hotel rooms or in temporary housing facilities, where they are provided access to food and necessary amenities during their recovery. This measure is currently in place for NHS staff and their family members and should be extended to vulnerable people as well. These recommendations address the higher infection risk posed to BAME individuals and, by extension, their household members but do little to address the economic fallout that has resulted from the government’s pandemic response. Like many countries, the UK government chose to tackle the pandemic through the imposition of a lockdown. The economic support measures that were rolled out, have yet to be assessed for their “equality impact”, as pointed out by the Runnymede. The report found lower awareness of initiatives such as furlough scheme, increased benefits, sick pay during self-isolation, among BAME individuals, which they could have used to lower the financial fallout. Whilst over 90% of white and Chinese respondents were aware of almost all relevant schemes, only around 70% of awareness was registered in the remaining groups. The recommendation that followed is to ensure that information was accessible, by providing it in various languages. Also, working with local councils and authorities, who had established relationships with the communities would convey information more thoroughly. Whilst adoption of these recommendations would mitigate against the disparity in coronavirus impact on BAME communities, it is the deep-rooted inequality and institutional racism that requires addressing – particularly in the spheres of health, housing, and employment. I would like to highlight a measure endorsed by Runnymede: increasing affordable, larger social housing. This is a key step in improving social mobility and reducing the economic vulnerability of low-income BAME families/individuals, who are often subjected to poor living conditions and extortionate rent prices in the private housing market. However, what is required, before any short-term or long-term measure can be implemented, is an attitudinal shift from the government. Race on the Agenda (ROTA), a social policy think-tank, raised concerns about the government’s commitment to addressing racial inequalities after they announced the “cross-governmental commission” on the matter. They pointed out that it came alongside Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s aim to “stop the sense of victimisation and discrimination” which suggests a desire to prove the voices of racial justice advocates as false and/or exaggerated. Another concerning aspect is the focus on “wider inequalities” which includes education issues faced by working-class white boys. This approach already suggests a misunderstanding of the issue, since the difficulties faced by working-class white people cannot and should not be equated to the structural challenges faced by BAME individuals. Whilst the pandemic’s interaction with humans has revealed and exacerbated the cracks in our society – particularly along racial lines – the government shows little willingness to accept their part and seek to make meaningful changes.