Search

On September 15th, EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen delivered her State of the Union address in which she emphasized the need for a unitary response from EU Member States in the face of growing global challenges to European integration and security. The heightened tensions in the Union’s neighboring regions, the changing nature of security threats and the EU’s unique experience in military, civilian and developmental missions were all featured in her speech as she set out the Union’s defense policy direction: integrating the military capabilities of Member States under a common European framework. The theme of centralization informed most of the policy decisions von der Leyen announced, with the formation of a Joint Situational Awareness Center centralizing military intelligence and information cooperation, and the creation of a common European platform for the region’s defense industry increasing interoperability and decreasing external dependencies. This could go as far as even removing VAT for defense equipment produced in the EU, and passing the ‘European Cyber Resilience Act’ that would compile EU cyber defense policy and legislation into common standards. The speech’s concluding nod to France’s takeover of the EU Council and the adoption of a ‘Strategic Compass’ in 2022 pushed to the fore once again the debate over the federalization of Member States’ armed forces under a common EU flag. Indeed, the discussion has resurfaced innumerable times in the past and was initially animated by strong aspirations under the Helsinki Headline Goal of 1998 – which introduced the idea of a 60,000 strong task force. Even in the face of a series of security crises, such as the Russo-Georgian War, the Syrian Civil War, Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the lackluster evacuation of NATO troops from Afghanistan, it failed to mobilize support for any major shifts in European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP). While the Commission President has attributed the Union’s hesitation to develop its defense policy to a ‘lack of political will’, time has shown how structural elements, especially US opposition, have precluded such developments and, at the same time, how a change in these variables might give the EU more leverage over its military unity. The main reason the development of a defense union is stunted has been the United States’ opposition to the idea of an autonomous European authority for territorial defense. Washington’s perspective is mainly informed by ‘Atlanticist dogmatism’, a doctrine Secretary Albright sanctioned through the ‘three Ds’: ‘no duplicating, discriminating, or delinking’ of defense policy. While this policy reflects US concerns over the possibility of their waning role in the post-Cold War era and the supplantation of NATO by an EU defense union, the expansionary politics of Russia and the emergence of modern disruptive technologies leave little doubt over the relevance of the security bloc. Despite this, Washington has not moved away from its staunch opposition to EU ‘strategic autonomy’. Under Donald Trump this opposition was instrumentalized as interest in the American defense industry. This came into sharper focus with the introduction of PESCO (Permanent Structured Cooperation) and the EDF(European Defense Fund). Washington has argued that restrictive third-country regulation over IPR, funding eligibility, and export control against non-EU entities creates ‘the prospect of future European defense cooperation with limited or no American industrial participation’. Indeed, while a majority of Member States are favourable towards third-country involvement – especially from the US – those countries that house direct competitors to US defense companies (e.g., Airbus, MBDA) are driven by a ‘European money for European companies’ ethos and seek emancipation from US influence. An effort especially spearheaded by French officials. The other end of the spectrum sees eastern-European countries, most notably Poland and the Baltic states, showing the strongest hesitance towards a decoupling from the American military-industrial complex. This is symptomatic of the deeper political fracturing of the Union. These countries continue to view the US as their main security provider, with NATO as the only reliant bulwark against Russian westward influence. Therefore, as long as unanimity is required in order to pass common security policies through the EU, these countries will continue to act as Washington’s ‘trojan horses’ and undermine Brussels’ project of European defense integration. Despite the EU’s aggregated defense spending of $200 billion, Member States still lack the enabling systems and capabilities, which are often expensive and beyond individual states’ acquisition capacities, and still rely on US support for expeditionary missions. In this sense, what we see is a ‘patchwork of national forces of mostly low readiness’. Declining equipment inventories, diversified types of equipment making joint training impossible and disinvestment in defense technology R&D are only a few of the logistical challenges the Transatlantic alliance faces. Recent EU initiatives should therefore be seen only as addressing the ‘incessant fragmentation, duplication, and waste’ of current efforts, with some political analysts agreeing that a centralized European military authority would strengthen rather than undermine NATO, potentially solving the inefficiencies of the arbitrary 2% of GDP requirement. For example, research has shown that European equipment procurement could be reduced by 30% ( $15 billion per year) if it were done at a centralized level. Other researchers have argued that the centralization of EU defense policy will lead to a mutually-beneficial ‘division of labor’ between NATO and the EU. The Union can play to its strengths in resilience against non-military threats, and long-term capacity building and military training missions in its neighboring region, as it has already been doing in several African nations. Europeans have been averse to the reallocation of national resources towards national defense spending, but have been generally supportive of increased defense spending at EU level. This is usually taken to be the result of the widespread feeling that ‘the citizenship that needs protection [from the changing geopolitical climate] for many in the EU is not their national citizenship but their EU citizenship’. This collective awareness seems only to be strengthening as many on the continent are increasingly aware that the US is reorienting its foreign policy towards a ‘one-war standard’ on China’s growing influence over Asia-Pacific, leaving European security as a mere afterthought. This may prove to be just the critical juncture that will harness support for military integration across all Member States and enable EU policymakers to supplant the European defense ‘ecosystem’ with a European defense union. This process could, however, take a generation– especially in the absence of US backing – and researchers predict that full ‘strategic autonomy’ would be unsustainable for regional security, emphasizing the inextricability of NATO. The Transatlantic alliance features in every scenario. Even if the Union achieves full commitment from all its Member States, the question remains: will the Biden administration revise its position towards EU military integration and stop tilting at windmills? Image credit: [European parliament/Flic

The UK has contributed to the world’s worst humanitarian crisis: the Yemen conflict. Persistent bombing has destroyed the lives of millions. The UK government’s most recent decision regarding Yemen is a drastic cutting of aid to the region. This has prompted huge outcry, but is sadly one of many immoral choices made by the Government in this conflict. Yemen has been in a state of war for seven years. In 2014, Houthi (Shiite Muslim) rebels with links to Iran rose up against the Sunni government. They seized the capital, Sana’a, protesting against fuel prices and demanded a new government. The following year, an Arab coalition led by Saudi Arabia launched an operation to restore the fallen government. Conflict has ensued since, supported by American intelligence and weapons. The Arab-US side has been fiercely criticised for their relentless bombing campaign, which has destroyed civilian life. The UK has firmly contributed to this conflict right from the start. Between 2015 and 2020, the UK sold over £6.5 billion worth of arms to the Saudi coalition. It continues to do so. In fact, the true figure of arms sales will be much higher, with many arms being sold in secret. It was no surprise that the Court of Appeal ruled that the arms sales were unlawful under humanitarian law in 2019. And in its characteristically careless style, the UK government breached this court order three times by continuing to sell arms. And as if that wasn’t enough, the Government then declared in 2020 that their arms exports didn’t pose a threat to humanitarian law, and resumed arms exports to the Saudi coalition. The bombing campaign, facilitated by British weapons, has left two-thirds of the Yemeni population in need of aid, with 2 million children malnourished. Apart from its arms exports, the UK government is linked to Yemen in another way: aid. Aid has been a vital lifeline to millions of civilians suffering from the persistent bombing. The UK has been one of the highest aid donors to Yemen since the conflict. It’s important to note that aid has in no way made up for the arms sales; the value of UK arms sales to the Saudi side is at least 6.5 times its aid contributions. However, aid has undoubtedly helped, given high levels of malnourishment and homelessness. Last year, the government pledged £164m in aid to Yemen. But earlier this month it almost halved this figure to £87m, citing the impact of the pandemic on the economy. By cutting aid and continuing arms exports, the Government has shown that it’s willing to put profit over lives in a war. It’s clear that this decision will be ruinous for Yemen, but it’s no longer surprising from a government that has shown complete disregard for the Yemeni people. When compared to the USA, the UK government’s behaviour looks even worse. President Biden recently ended all support to the Saudi offensive, including arms sales, in a major policy shift. Biden also announced a further £137m (approximately) in aid to Yemen. The UK, meanwhile, has consistently cut aid to Yemen year-on-year since 2017. While Biden promises moral leadership, the UK government continues its immoral stance. The UK’s aid cuts to Yemen are part of broader cuts to multiple war-torn countries. Aid to Syria could fall by 67%; to Somalia by 60%, and to Nigeria by 58%. Each of these cuts will be removing a lifeline to millions of innocent civilians suffering from conflict, while the UK prioritises cutting its budget deficit. At a time when COVID-19 continues to ravage third-world countries, this ruthless ‘me-first’ attitude causes even more misery. Indeed, while the UK has ordered over 400 million vaccine doses for a population of 66 million, Yemen’s healthcare system has collapsed, with no hope of coping with the coronavirus pandemic. The government has unapologetically hoarded vaccine stocks, at the expense of poor and war-torn countries. Even though the UK government has promised to donate most of its excess vaccine stocks to poorer countries, it would only do this once its entire population has been vaccinated. Some 130 countries haven’t vaccinated a single person. Vaccines must be donated immediately; frontline workers in these countries are risking their lives during COVID-19, while this Government puts its own citizens first. Yemen will be one of the countries to suffer from the UK government’s monopolistic decisions during this pandemic, but one among many. Since the start of the Yemen conflict, the UK government has been a silent perpetrator of violence and destruction in the region. Over the past few years, Brexit and the coronavirus response have dominated news headlines and revealed this Government’s incompetence. But the Government’s treatment of Yemen goes under the radar, despite a multitude of mistakes and humanitarian violations. Yemen has been the UK’s worst foreign policy disaster in years. Even now, British planes, flown by British-trained pilots, drop British bombs over Yemen. As long as this conflict rages on, Britain can no longer call itself a force for good in the world.

The oil industry had a crisis year in 2020. Royal Dutch Shell posted a loss of $21.7bn last year and the US giant Exxon Mobil suffered a $22.4bn loss. Oil prices even turned negative. Much of this can be explained by the pandemic depressing demand for oil. But even before the pandemic hit, the oil industry was having to plan for a future away from fossil fuels. Could COVID-19 accelerate this trend? European and American producers are pursuing radically different strategies, with completely opposite forecasts of the oil market. In Europe, oil companies are clearly responding to the pandemic by turning more rapidly away from oil. BP has been a particularly notable case of this. Before the pandemic, they led the industry in promising to reach net zero emissions by 2050. And as a result of the pandemic, they announced 10,000 job cuts, along with plans for a near ten-fold increase in electric vehicle charging points. The reasoning behind these plans can be partly explained by pressure from shareholders over the climate crisis; they want to see oil companies do more to tackle climate change. But the main reason is of course a profit-motivated one. BP believes that oil demand may have peaked in 2019, a radical shift from its earlier belief in 2019 that oil demand would continue to grow in the 2030s. With the pressure from governments and investors to tackle climate change, BP also believes that certain trends, such as remote working, will be accelerated by the pandemic; this would lower demand for oil more rapidly than previously thought. Aside from BP, other European companies are taking action. Shell is moving away from fossil fuels, and towards hydrogen and biofuels. France’s Total quit the American Petroleum Institute (API), citing the API’s resistance towards tackling climate change and its support for Donald Trump quitting the Paris Climate Agreement. The plan for these European countries is generally to keep oil production as their main revenue drivers over the next decade, while using the profits from oil to invest in cleaner forms of energy. So it’s not going to be an immediate shift away from fossil fuels, but rather a period of high investment in clean energy, followed by a slower shift towards these forms of cleaner energy. The outlook still seems positive for climate activists though; European firms are clearly taking action. The mood in the USA, however, is exactly the opposite. While Europe has betted on oil demand falling away over the following decades, American companies expect oil demand to rebound, especially as they see developing economies like India picking up soon. And as such, ExxonMobil and its rivals Chevron haven’t made any big investments in renewables. But activist investors and large pension funds are pressuring American oil companies to do more. In fact, the world’s largest biggest investment fund, BlackRock, has threatened to sell its shares in the worst polluting businesses, demanding that companies disclose their plans to achieve net zero emissions. Exxon in particular, is under increasing pressure from shareholders over the climate crisis. It was once the most valuable public listed company in the world, and didn’t really have to bother about shareholder discontent. But since 2014, it’s lost a huge $266 billion in market value and made multiple costly investment errors. And once a company starts to struggle, activist investors come along. Exxon is even facing a campaign to take over board seats to drive change from within. There are signs of this pressure having an effect; they’ve created some small emissions targets, but they simply don’t go far enough. Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan analysts have pointed to recent news that oil prices have recovered to pre-pandemic levels, as a reason to be optimistic about Exxon’s future. But this wouldn’t quite be accurate. While oil prices may have recovered, demand hasn’t. Indeed, the rise in oil prices is partly explained by expectations of a quick, successful vaccine rollout and economic recovery. This is by no means guaranteed. The price rise can be significantly attributed to supply constraints; the prestigious OPEC group cut its oil production and African producers have seen declining output recently. So the price rise isn’t down to a recovery in the oil sector, but rather a continuation of its struggles in supply, and some hopeful expectations. So who is pursuing the better strategy: the American or European producers? The answer to that question will determine the future of the energy sector. At this stage, the Europeans seem to be the more prudent side in trying to diversify away from oil. Governments are slowly starting to take the climate crisis seriously; the UK will stop the sale of diesel and petrol cars from 2030, which will hugely reduce demand for oil in the UK. The arrival of President Biden in the USA poses a big challenge to the current thinking of American oil companies. He’s already rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement and stopped the leasing of federal land for oil and gas. It’s looking increasingly likely that the American companies will be left behind in the race to diversify. The oil industry has suffered repeated, painful shocks in recent years. In 2007, prices plummeted due to the recession, in 2015 OPEC flooded the market and depressed prices once again, but the pandemic has been the most brutal of all. However, it has offered the perfect storm for a shift to clean energy. The Europeans have seized it. It’s time for the Americans to do the same.

paper tiger diplomacy: a person or thing that appears threatening but is ineffectual. ~ Definition from Oxford Languages Alexi Navalny, a name only heard as a pretext to bad news. In late August 2020, news broke that Russia’s fiercest anti-corruption activist and politician had been evacuated to Germany for treatment following a suspected poisoning. Weeks later, scientists in Sweden, France and Germany all confirmed the poison to be Novichok, a nerve agent developed in secret by the USSR. As many will remember, the same poison was used against Sergei Skripal, a Russian double agent, in Salisbury in 2018. How did the Kremlin respond to allegations that they, the only owners of Novichok, were to blame for the assassination attempts against the governments most prominent critic? Blatant denial. Did they seek to substantiate or pretend this denial was plausible? No, because they have nothing to fear from the West, where strongly worded statements are the extent of an EU scolding. The mantle of resisting Russian corruption has been left to the EU as the US is left reeling after four years of Trumpism. Navalny’s poisoning is the newest epicentre of the ongoing EU-Russia tension, and if the EU picks up the gauntlet it could spell success for Navalny’s war against corruption and firm up Russia’s ailing democracy. Following the activist’s miraculous recovery, he wasted no time returning to Russia to continue the fight. Though the Kremlin sought to silence their harshest critic, the poisoning has instead made him a martyr. Political repression is high in Russia, and Navalny has already suffered dearly for his opposition to Putin’s regime. In 2013, his brother was imprisoned under fabricated charges of embezzlement; he too was charged but received a postponed sentence. After touching down in Russia, Navalny was arrested on the same embezzlement charges, but not before uploading a video exposing the billion-dollar mansion on the Black Seacoast given to President Putin by Russian oligarchs. The public response was immense, if the arrest of Navalny wasn’t enough the video of Putin’s new mansion galvanised those already angry at corruption and failing bureaucracy. The first day of protests in late January saw thousands - 40,000 in Moscow alone - in 110 cities, braving temperatures as low as -50°c to voice their anger. Russia is at a demographic tipping point, in which younger generations plugged into Navalny’s social media campaign outnumber those who grew up in the Soviet Union and watch the state-owned TV news. The number of citizens willing to accept authoritarian corruption and a usurpation of democratic values is dwindling, and the Kremlin is feeling the heat. Navalny’s return to Russia was an extremely bold play, it keeps him in the spotlight and allows his message to spread. If he’s imprisoned or assassinated the Russian people are at least watching, anymore foul play from Putin will therefore be agonisingly public and lead to greater dissent and rioting. If change is to take place, then international actors must get behind Navalny or risk the strongest attempt at democratic reforms from failing. Similar riots in 2011 were met with token investments from the government in Moscow and St Petersburg to quiet the middle classes, this cannot be allowed to happen again. While the EU is always first to write letters of condemnation, without a hard-line response Navalny’s campaign remains naked among the wolves. A genuine protective cloak, through targeted pressure, will massively support the Russian people and pave the way to fixing Russia’s widespread corruption. The most critical response for the EU is to cancel Nord Stream 2, a gas pipeline project between Russia and Germany. The EU is, however, a house divided on its policy towards Russia, the Nord Stream 2 pipeline offers little commercial value and is in fact a pet project of Putin’s, ceded to him by Angela Merkle who wishes to foster a working relationship with Russia. On the other hand, France, supported by the ex-eastern bloc nations, has called for a harder line when considering Russia’s corruption and blatant rejection of democratic processes. Worse still, the pipeline creates a relationship of energy reliance for Germany and following the agreement to buy the Sputnik V vaccine, further reduces the capacity for criticism by the EU on Russian despotism. This January EU officer Borrell was sent to discuss vaccines and Navalny with the Kremlin and, to no one’s surprise, he could not free Navalny. The time for sending ministers armed with nothing but international condemnation has come to an end. The Nord Stream 2 pipeline represents the only major chip the EU has, if Europe walked away it would not only embarrass the Kremlin but show them the grave seriousness of their actions, and that the EU will not tolerate them. With this, threats of economic sanctions would carry far more weight and cull the pattern of poisonings and the corruption of democracy. Alexi Navalny, a name that one day could be the pretext to good news. But this will not happen alone. With the USA wallowing in its own internal democratic issues, Russia has abandoned any efforts to appear democratic as the Kremlin perceives no international repercussions. Unless action is taken by the EU to show this isn’t the case Navalny may not be the last to be poisoned with Novichok. Following years of declining living standards, political repression and the recent mansion exposé the Russian public has grown wearisome. Navalny’s newfound pre-eminence in the eyes of the people could, with hard-line pressure from the EU, lead to enough momentum to cause real political change. Image credit: Evgeny Feldman / Novaya Gazeta under the Creative CommonsAttribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

On the 20th October 2020, Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch announced that the UK Government stood uniquely against the teaching of ‘Critical Race Theory’ in British Schools, marking the first instance of this marginal intellectual current being mentioned in parliament. She went on to warn against teachers promoting ‘partisan political views’, such as the existence of white privilege. Whilst the denouncement of Critical Race Theory – a movement which considers structural racial inequalities, was new in parliament, the British government has an exhaustive history of politicising academic debate and censoring the school curriculum. Where considerable attention has been paid to academic censorship in Britain’s universities, lesser consideration has been given to government meddling in the state school curriculum. As can be seen with the rise of increasingly ‘authoritarian’ education policies, Johnson’s government appears to be taking considerable care to rid schools of stances that are uncomplimentary to their governing ideology. Such was evident in the Government’s recent categorisation of anti-capitalism as an ‘extremist political stance’. In a set of guidance for schools published in September 2020, the Department for Education advised against the use of materials produced by groups that ‘publicly stated desire to abolish or overthrow democracy’ or ‘capitalism’. This move was widely critiqued by left-wing voices, with many arguing that without access to materials produced by anti-capitalist groups and more specifically anti-racist groups, students would not be exposed to conflicting points of view. Moreover, following the most recent Black Lives Matter protests, when a petition was launched to add diversity and racism to all school curriculums, the government declined to do so, insisting that the current curriculum was flexible enough to allow for teachers to ‘choose topics which highlight diversity’. Yet again, the government appeared entirely indifferent to promoting anti-racism, whilst forcing those schools who did want to teach such content to teach a watered-down version of the reality of racism in the United Kingdom. Whilst certainly more subtle in their intent, such policy interventions are hauntingly reminiscent of education under Thatcher. From the 1980’s onwards, the Conservative government worked to systematically restructure progressive education, deliberately restricting educational opportunities for the working classes. In particular, Thatcher’s policies directly targeted the working classes and were heavily influenced by Conservative philosopher Roger Scruton, who asserted that the working classes should not be educated in sociology or philosophy, given that it was their place to find work in manual employment. Whilst the policies at play here do diverge significantly, both eras of Conservatism are united by a common thread; the desire to purge the masses of the critical thinking skills that would allow them to perceive the unjustness of their situation. Just as Thatcher’s government feared a class-consciously, politically educated electorate, Johnson’s government now advocates against teaching children the reality of racism and structural inequalities in the United Kingdom. This argument is further substantiated by Gavin Williamson’s announcement in January 2021 that funding for university courses in ‘Strategic courses such as engineering and medicine’ would be increased’, whilst funding for courses such as media studies would be slashed. As I see it, the intent is highly ideological. Once again, a vast number of educational pathways are being closed off for the majority of students, with true educational choice only being available to the wealthy minority. Moreover, it is apolitical STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects, which are being promoted by the government. Humanities subjects, meanwhile, which teach students to critically engage with the social, economic and political world around them, are likely to find their funding increasingly tightened. For those engaged with scholarship of the role of the state, such moves should not come as a surprise. The education system plays an incredibly powerful role in dispersing the hegemonic values of the state, as can be witnessed across countless governments in countless nations. However, as the Conservative government continues to meddle in the school curriculum, they appear to miss a vital insight. Students do not become anti-capitalist or radically anti-racist from their teachers or school resources. Rather, students become ‘radicalised’ through experience. They become anti-capitalist, through experiencing multiple recessions, enduring years of austerity and witnessing the wealth gap between rich and poor widen at an exponential rate. Students become anti-racist, through the direct experience of racism and watching racial injustice infold before them. What exactly can be done about the creeping authoritarianism in the United Kingdom is a difficult question. The politicisation of anti-racism and the demonisation of anti-capitalism and Critical Race Theory has purposely transformed such ideological approaches into folk devils of thought. Hence, it is imperative that debate on social and political issues be actively encouraged in British schools. The importance of a politically educated electorate, who are able to hold the government to account is essential for the health of free and fair democracy. What is certain, however, is that these trends are incredibly worrying for the future of British education and far greater attention must be paid to the encroaching wave of censorship. Cover Image was from Mutant669 under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2

In an effort to reduce the transmission of Covid-19, governments around the world have ordered their schools to close. These closures mean that approximately 90% of all students are out of school and amongst them, more than 800 million girls. A large proportion of this number is made up of girls who live in developing countries, and who already face barriers in accessing primary and secondary school education. School closures do little to reduce this recurrent problem, and actually have the potential to exacerbate the gender inequalities which are entrenched in many societies. Whilst there will be girls who continue with their education once schools reopen, there are many who will not. The Malala Fund has estimated that 20 million girls in developing countries will never enter a classroom again. Two points need to be recognised. First, that girls are a particularly vulnerable, but overlooked group in the Covid-19 pandemic. Second, unless measures are taken by governments to understand the gender dimensions of school closures, the gender disparity will widen and have a significant impact on girls’ life chances. Sexual and Reproductive Barriers to Education Re-Entry Alongside school closures, governments across the world have also ordered their sexual and reproductive clinics to close, on the grounds that these services do not meet the “essential” criteria. The disruption to what is an essential service has meant that it is more difficult for girls to return to the classroom. Due to increased risks of neonatal and maternal mortality and morbidity; increased rates of adolescent and unwanted pregnancy; HIV and other sexually transmitted infections, girls might drop out of school. Past humanitarian crises such as the Ebola Crisis, have shown school closures led to rises in teenage pregnancy and that once schools reopened, girls were banned from attending due to community stigma. It is likely that in the period after Covid lockdowns, there will be similar increases in drop-out rates as girls of schooling age are forced to get married at an early age. In many developing countries, Covid-19 has worsened the problem of period poverty, which has a direct impact on girls’ attendance rates at school. In Malawi, one of the world’s most poorest countries, only 24% of schools are able to offer adequate sanitary facilities. A single sanitation product in the country is equivalent to a working day’s wage. For many young girls, they will consider themselves lucky if they are able to find spare pieces of cloth or clean paper to resemble a pad or a tampon. Stigmas surrounding menstruation mean that girls are forced to miss out on school. UNICEF has made the grave prediction that 1 in 10 African girls of schooling age do not attend school during menstruation. These drop-out rates are linked to girls and women finding it difficult to concentrate in school due to the burden that comes with not having hygienic sanitary protection and having to constantly wash and reuse unsafe products. Governments should recognise that forced closures of sexual and reproductive health care services can be detrimental to women and girls’ lives in a number of ways. Not only does this have a direct impact on their health, it also means they are likely to obtain a lower level of education. These services should be reclassified as ‘essential’. This new classification would prioritise these services, enable girls to use the services that they need, remove stigma and ensure that girls would be able to safely re-attend schools, without the burden of health problems. Developed countries should give a greater amount of aid to developing countries and enable them to secure access to safe period products. Domestic Pressures To Drop-Out Alongside sexual and reproductive healthcare needs which make it difficult for women and girls to attend school, the domestic pressures placed upon them should also be recognised. as families consider the costs of their daughters’ education. Covid-19 has exacerbated the extreme poverty, economic vulnerability and crisis in places where gender disparities in education are already at its highest. As a result, more families are now forced to make trade-off decisions as to whether their daughter should attend school or work for pay. Forced school closures means that many families can use this situation to encourage their daughters to work and provide for the family. This decision can lead to girls becoming the primary caregiver or earner for their families. Policy-makers and governments must recognise that a gendered perspective should inform a large part of their school reopening plans and try to find ways for girls to continue learning. Concluding Thoughts It is shocking how quickly terms like “childhood as motherhood”, “child marriage”, “child as breadwinner and caregiver” have become normalised in parts of the world and raises three questions. First, how did the economic situation ever come to be so dire in these countries and what can be done to improve this, so millions of girls do not suffer the same fate each year? Secondly, how could decades of progress made by bodies like the UN Girls’ Initiative and UN Women in educating girls be lost so rapidly? Thirdly, shouldn’t policymakers recognise that in developing countries where there are already large gender inequalities in education, Covid-19 will only widen the gap? Policymakers must also recognise that gender disparities in education are a real problem and attention needs to be given to those girls in developing countries who will suffer the most. It is essential that a gendered perspective is taken to tackle both, the sexual and reproductive healthcare needs and the domestic pressures placed upon girls, in order to enable them to return safely to school. Ultimately, policymakers and governments must recognise that the economic impacts of Covid-19 are not experienced uniformly and develop their policy responses in such a way that takes account of the unique experiences of gender and poverty.

The defining problem of 2021 will be disseminating Covid-19 vaccines to the most vulnerable around the world. Whilst some countries are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, some have suffered disproportionately more, and will have a much more drawn-out recovery for a variety of distinct reasons. The situation for many of the poorest and least secure nations has continued to deteriorate during the past year, with more challenges showing up daily. The impact of Covid-19 has been very ‘uneven’ between and within countries; more prominently so when considering the vaccination programs. This will have effects for decades, and the stark global injustice is clear. The Economist Intelligence Unit has predicted when countries will have mass vaccinations, and with most of Africa not being protected until 2023, questions will arise as to how richer countries can help in some of these areas as it becomes a humanitarian crisis. The map shows a pattern of economic privilege, with Europe and the USA being the first to gain access, middle income countries next, and poorest trailing behind. There are a few interesting anomalies, where the picture is slightly more complex. Geographically challenging regions In Kashmir, insufficient resources and planning alongside a particularly harsh winter have caused snowfall to be extremely disruptive, blocking highways and flights. The unrelenting snowfall has resulted in people having to carry their dead or debilitated members many miles to reach hospitals as roads are blocked, and citizens face an inability to access basic necessities like water. While India is manufacturing the Oxford AstraZeneca vaccination, which is expected to provide 90% of their vaccinations, transporting the vaccine to remote places and distributing it will be challenging, on top of the political delays in the vaccination process. Areas controlled by armed groups Around 66 million people around the world are under the control of armed groups. They are some of the most vulnerable to Covid-19 due to malnourishment, lack of medical facilities and overcrowded living spaces. While they have the right to vaccinations under international law, this is fraught with difficulty. The states in which these people live have an obligation but often not the ability to provide this, either due to a lack of resources or the fact that international aid frequently is given on the condition of zero contact with the terrorist groups. It’s a Catch-22 situation: countries are obligated by international law to provide vaccines for people they cannot access due to the same countries hindering their ability to provide vaccines through restricting contact. This is the fate of those living under Al Shabaab, Boko Haram, Al Qaeda and Hamas, and a future where they are secure from Covid-19 will be very challenging to achieve. Vaccines as a tool for political conflict Concerns have also been raised about the equality of Israel’s vaccination process. Despite having the most rapid vaccination program in the world, currently having vaccinated over 18% of their population, they have refused to provide for any Palestinian, claiming a lack of responsibility and jabs. The WHO have called for them to provide assistance, as Palestine’s healthcare system is close to collapsing, with thousands of healthcare workers having contracted Covid-19 and not a single one being vaccinated. Amnesty has called Israel’s approach ‘institutionalised discrimination’, citing Article 56 of the Fourth Geneva convention to remind Israel of their responsibility toward Palestinians. Those living under Hamas rule will also have to rely on the slow Covax program. 'Heads I win, tails you lose' A revealing New York Times article shows the stark unfairness in the global system, telling the story of a South African factory preparing to make around a million vaccinations, only to have every one shipped to European distribution centres. Many countries fall through the gaps of Covax for ‘not being poor enough’ and the program’s complexity means dangerous inefficiencies for such a time-sensitive crisis. For many South Africans, their best option to acquire a vaccine is to try and get on an over-subscribed clinical trial for a vaccine which, if successful, will go to the developed nations who have pre-ordered millions of doses, effectively crowding out the market for these poorer nations. Middle-income countries also feature stark within-country inequality which is threatening the majority of citizens’ access to vaccinations. In South Africa, concerns about the governments’ vaccine plans have led to the threat of potential legal action from their Health Justice Initiative (HJI). Fatima Hassan from the HJI called the global situation a ‘global vaccine apartheid’ and warned that South Africa’s vaccination program could follow the same problems as it did with AIDS denialism, unless the country takes a more proactive role. She highlights that although the WTO and 140 world leaders have called for the Covid-19 vaccine to be free and available to all, systemic global shortages will ultimately require rationing, potentially in the form of pricing, making it unattainable for many of the poorest. Care and diligence must be taken in the coming months to prevent needless death and suffering because of a capitalist system in crisis, where the line between health as a human right and health as a commodity is being blurred. In the long run, those more fortunate to receive vaccinations and recover from this pandemic should be attentive to the experiences of these people, and what can be done to help put it out of headlines and into history books as soon as possible. Quote in the title is from Mtshaba Mzwamadoda, 42, South Africa

The Covid-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented effect on the world; there is no human being who has not been affected. Though the priority of most governments across the world has been to reduce the transmission of the virus and search for an effective vaccine, there are also important side-effects of Covid lockdowns which should not be forgotten. One of these side-effects is the devastating impact which Covid-19 has had on the provision and delivery of medical treatment for heart and cancer patients. A group of patients who have consistently been referred to as an “overlooked” sector of the population during this pandemic. The Disruption of Covid-19 on the Provision and Supply of Heart and Cancer Care A considerable body of research has shown that the priority of National Health Service (NHS) resources to deal with the increase in infected patients has meant the healthcare system has been restructured. This restructuring has included minimising patient contact with healthcare professionals; the rescheduling and postponing of routine hospital visits and healthcare checks; the postponement of non-essential procedures, and an increase in telephone and video assisted consultations and check-ups. Heart Patients The official governmental advice of “Stay Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives” has also increased fears of contracting the virus, which has meant that heart and cancer patients are avoiding hospitals, or attending screenings too late to benefit from life-saving treatment. The European Society of Cardiology (ESC), conducted a survey with 3,101 healthcare professionals in 141 countries, including the UK in Mid-April 2020 and found some deeply alarming results. The number of heart attack patients seeking hospital care “dropped by more than 50% during the Covid-19 outbreak”. Most respondents have said that out of the patients who did attend hospital, 48% arrived later than usual for effective treatment. ESC President, Professor Barbara Casadei has stressed it is the fears of catching the coronavirus which has meant people who are even in the middle of suffering a heart attack are now too afraid to attend hospital for treatment. The real fears and anxieties of heart patients need to be recognised to a stronger degree by governments and healthcare practices. As these fears affect whether or not heart patients seek treatment and in turn, affect their health status, local GP surgeries and hospitals should provide more public reassurance to patients about what Covid-secure measures there are in place. In addition, the government should dedicate more time in Covid briefings, to reassure non-Covid patients that they still remain a priority of this newly restructured healthcare system. The Forgotten “C”? In October 2020, Macmillan Cancer Support Charity have estimated that across the UK, there are approximately 50,000 “missing diagnoses”. This means that for a similar time frame in 2019, there are 50,000 fewer people who have been diagnosed with cancer. Kimberly Eccles, a 23 year-old woman has learnt that she has a 1% chance of survival, after missing three crucial appointments at the beginning of the first lockdown; many other patients will sadly face the same fate. The situation cannot carry on as it is. In addition, Macmillan has found that more than 22% of people living with cancer in the UK, have experienced disruptions to their cancer treatment and care because of Covid. For approximately 150,000 patients, this disruption took many forms including postponements in follow-up care following earlier cancer diagnoses and delayed, rescheduled or cancelled treatments. Rosie Loftus, Chief Medical Officer of Macmillan has rightfully pointed out that in navigating all the chaos of the pandemic, there is one issue which remains clear: cancer patients’ needs do not stop during the pandemic. There needs to be greater transparency provided to patients by healthcare practitioners and governments about what changes they can expect to their cancer treatment plans, what changes these might involve and a full commitment to rescheduling any postponed appointments or consultations as soon as possible. The effects of the pandemic on mental health have been well-documented. The government should recognise these adverse mental health effects, and invest more funding plan into mental health and pastoral support schemes. These schemes could include counselling and support groups, which could help people who have been diagnosed with cancer to feel more connected during this isolating period of lockdown. Virtual Clinic Models and the Redefining of “Essential” Healthcare There has been an increase in the use of virtual clinical models and redefinitions of “non-essential” procedures. Research has found that the deviation from face-to-face to online consultations can have emotional and psychological implications for patients. The barriers created via a screen can lead patients to feel more distanced from the process, may undermine rapport building between them and their doctor and hinder confidentiality. The government should recognise that though more convenient during lockdowns, online consultations will not work effectively for everyone. There should be an increase in in-person consultations, with greater acknowledgement by practitioners and governments that the transition from face-to-face appointments to the virtual realm is not an easy one, with many complications involved. Conclusion It is very concerning that a large sector of the non-COVID patient population are suffering as a result of the restructuring of the healthcare system. It must be recognised that heart and cancer patients’ needs do not disappear during the pandemic, but are likely to worsen. The political will to reassure non-COVID patients is questionable, given that the majority of efforts are directed towards reducing the transmission of COVID and ensuring an effective vaccine roll-out. However, closer partnerships can be exercised between the NHS and the Government to provide greater public reassurance and secure more funding into more mental well-being and pastoral services for patients during this overwhelming time. Rohini Anand is a recent MSc graduate in International Social and Public Policy from the London School of Economics. The featured image (top) is by Francisco Àvia Hospital Clinic on Flickr

Last month, Amazon announced a new venture, Amazon Pharmacy into the US healthcare market, sending the stocks of leading competitors down massively. The introduction of Amazon Pharmacy has been largely expected over the past few years (given Amazon’s acquisition of the medication delivery company PillPack in 2018) but this news still sent shockwaves in the sector. The stock price of competitor GoodRx, for example, fell by nearly 19% following Amazon’s announcement. So will Amazon Pharmacy revolutionise healthcare in the US? Amazon Pharmacy allows consumers to order generic and prescription drugs online, with Amazon Prime members getting free, unlimited delivery within 2 days. This level of convenience and speed is unrivalled in the healthcare market. The only other mainstream mail-order medication company in the US is GoodRx; they have 5 million members, whereas Amazon Prime has 126 million members. This marketing reach, combined with its superior logistical power, will allow it to rise to the forefront of the sector. But the biggest impact of Amazon Pharmacy could be on price. Unlike the UK, where drug prices are regulated, the drug makers are the ones to set prices in the US. Since the early 2000s, prescription drug spending in the US has risen faster than many other western countries. Now, per capita spending in the US is more than double the UK’s and nearly triple that of Sweden’s. Healthcare can often be households’ biggest cost in the US. Shocking stories of people rationing their medication (and dying because of it) due to sky-high prices often hit the news. Amazon Pharmacy’s statement has said that its service can allow consumers to save up to 80% on generic medication. How does it do this? Amazon’s system allows users to compare the cost of drugs covered by their healthcare insurance, as well as the price of paying out of your own pocket (which can sometimes be cheaper, especially with discounts offered by drug manufacturers). Amazon also has the capacity to break some monopolies in the sector. Giant companies, such as CVS and Walmart, use their market power when negotiating drug prices to create monopolies on some drugs. This means consumers are forced to buy from them, and at exorbitant prices. Amazon’s sheer size will allow it to break these monopolies, as it has huge purchasing power. It’s clear that Amazon’s entry into the market spells good news for consumers; prices will indeed fall somewhat. But the cause behind the absurdly high drug costs in the US isn’t being tackled by Amazon at the moment. Pharmacy Benefits Managers (PBMs) have led to the high costs of drugs. PBMs are middlemen between pharmacies and drug manufacturers. In theory, PBMs are meant to reduce how much pharmacies spend on drugs. However, PBMs aren’t transparent in the real costs of drugs. They’re responsible for negotiating rebates for drugs, and they often take a large cut from these rebates. These rebates are meant to reduce pharmacies’ drug spend, but it doesn’t work out like that in practice. As rebates are based on the price of the drug, PBMs favour more expensive drugs in order to gain larger rebates. These rebates aren’t disclosed. There was hope that Amazon’s entry into the market would lead to a move away from the inefficiency of PBMs, but Amazon is currently using the PBM model. This means that Amazon is still employing the middlemen to negotiate drug prices from manufacturers, which incurs higher costs. In fact, Amazon is only partnering with one PBM at the moment, Express Scripts, whereas competitors like GoodRx are partnered with multiple (making GoodRx more likely to find cheaper products). Amazon’s solution to this competitive disadvantage would be to partner with more PBMs (that wouldn’t be a problem, considering Amazon’s buying power), but that would only serve to entrench this inefficiency in the system. Adhering to the PBM model means that the underlying reason behind the high costs isn’t tackled. Yes, consumers may receive some lower prices due to increased competition and more cost comparison, but the issue of pharmacies’ and manufacturers’ costs of using these middlemen isn’t addressed. Until this issue is solved, consumers won’t get significant price reductions going forward. But if anyone is going to break away from the PBM model and usher in real change, it’ll be Amazon. Its huge distributive, marketing and purchasing power makes it the prime candidate to do so. Bezos’ famous phrase “your margin is my opportunity” was all about removing inefficiencies in the supply chain, like middlemen. That would logically point towards a move away from PBMs, but unfortunately the signs aren’t there just yet. Amazon’s foray into the healthcare market offers hope to the millions of Americans suffering from the extortionate prices of medication. Over the course of its history, Amazon has entered markets and dramatically lowered prices in aggressive style. Undoubtedly, Amazon’s entry makes medication more convenient and somewhat cheaper. But if it wants to create meaningful, long-term change, it must turn towards addressing costs in the sector. The healthcare supply chain is hugely inefficient in the US, and Amazon has the power to change that. The removal of PBMs would go a long way towards reforming American healthcare. But at least for now, the US moves one step closer to a fairer system for its people. Image by Tumisu from Pixabay

Right now, 250 million farmers are striking against the Indian government. In September 2020, the incumbent Modi administration introduced several bills to completely reform the agricultural sector. These bills will have such enormous consequences because around half of India’s 1.4billion people work in agriculture. The reforms will supposedly liberalise the industry, but many in India believe these revolutionary changes as potentially devastating to the socio-economic system. The current agricultural system relies on two main principles, firstly, many small and undeveloped farmers and, secondly, the major governmental regulation. Indian farmers lack modern agricultural technology, and the majority of farmers own very small plots of land. Combined with a poor rural credit system, many farmers are at the mercy of the market and hold little power in terms of price negotiation. The harshness of the conditions is evidenced in the high-and-rising suicide rate among farmers. The other side of the coin is the socialist-era agricultural policy that stipulates farmers must sell their produce to licensed middlemen in chartered government yards. Such a system does lead to exploitation of farmers but, for the most part, they are guaranteed a minimum price. The Modi administration’s new reforms are seeking to liberalise this system by cutting out the middlemen and allowing farmers to sell the product themselves. Such policy gives farmers price negotiation power by giving them access to many more buyers. While this isn’t a false take, it’s very misleading. In reality, if these policies are enacted without an adequate support system, a huge portion of the 700million farmers will be exploited as they come into negotiations with major agribusinesses. In Europe, the agricultural sector is held up by a complex web of EU laws, quotas, cooperatives and unions and even with this it is still a volatile industry and many farmers still struggle under ever falling food prices. As millions of smaller farmers go bust, mass migration to the urban centres and raging unemployment are all on the table. To avoid a host of social and economic ills Modi must step back from rapid change and start listening to the farmers. This brings us to the next level of Indian politics we must unpack. The Modi administration finds its typical support base from the urban centres and not the farmers. The relationship between the farmers and Modi have been strained in recent years as the government sought to quell food price inflation in the city at the expense of the farmers. Onion exports were recently banned to ensure domestic supply was sent to the cities and food prices could be stabilised. While Modi’s base was won over, the policy led to a crash in the price of onions and devastated Indian onion farmers. As well as the urban population, the Modi administration has also been accused of working to satisfy major US agribusiness’ that have lobbied hard for this liberalisation in order to gain more control of agricultural production. By forcing even lower prices for the farmer’s crops, corporate lobbyists profit enormously while staying on side with the Modi administration for keeping food prices low. As the government continues to alienate the rural farmers by appeasing the urban population the political divide will only grow between the two spheres of Indian society. The current clash has emerged in the midst of the pandemic in which Modi’s administration has looked to force through major new legislation through parliament, which was closed in March and only opened for 18 days in September, or by way of executive orders. The administration has acted with haste and force, using the 18-day window to bring through the agricultural policy bill without allowing for scrutiny or meaningful debate. The key grain-producing regions of Punjab and Haryana are home to the most organised farmers in India and have so far been the major sources of dissent. Throughout November, farmers from these regions have parked tractors along roads and railways to plug up New Delhi’s arteries of transport. This major sit-in, performed by thousands of farmers, has been met with overwhelming support from the general public. Across the nation reports of over 250 million workers striking in solidarity with the farmers have emerged, with some extending to hunger strikes. The outpouring of social solidarity bodes badly for a chance of resolution. The Modi administration stands firmly in its policy choice and has little political motive to back down as this won’t necessarily hurt their voter base. The economic crisis will therefore be the rock on which one camp will crumble. Either the farmers will be forced into submission as they lose months of work, or the government will have to consider the impact on food prices if farmers refuse to work. But who is to blame? Since the pandemic, Modi has come under increasing fire for diluting India’s democracy. Their electoral success, however, places the Modi administration in an intensely powerful position with which they have the means to enact major socio-economic reforms. Many in India believe the government is sliding towards more authoritarian tendencies, notably in parliament's closure throughout the pandemic. Keeping this in mind, it is the Modi administration which is seen as the biggest aggressor in the current economic breakdown. One MP, Shiv Sena’s Sanjay Raut, recently vocalised how Modi’s authoritarianism and obstinacy are the main obstacles to meaningful negotiation. Many therefore see the actions of the farmers as completely rational, with their entire livelihood facing an existential threat. A simple negotiation process, as many MPs and union leaders have called for, may not be enough, however. Since 2014 PM Modi has gained a reputation for being an Iron leader, wishing to be seen as impervious to the chaos around him and convicted to governing strongly. His reputation is therefore on the line which complicates any chance for resolution. India’s socio-economic revolution is on the brink of coming into reality, but its inception must first wrestle with the complexities of democracy, or the lack of.

by Lucy Young (Research Analyst, Technology) Technological sovereignty, in the national sense, is where states rely upon nationally owned technology to function effectively, as opposed to imported goods and data. This means there is greater regulatory autonomy, creating a healthier cycle of commodity production and sale within the confines of one's own economy and legal system. Not to confuse this with data localisation, which requires data to be solely stored within the confines of territorial borders, as seen in countries like India and China.The way I see it, technological sovereignty would be beneficial for the British economy, but this is entirely dependent upon the government’s willingness to ensure transparency and more lenient borders. China is a prime example of a country reliant upon their own technology infrastructure, with the creation and distribution of Huawei technology throughout the world, and in the southern hemisphere especially. According to the White House in May 2020, this was done with the intent to “exploit the free and open rules-based order and attempt to reshape the international system in its favor”. In fact, throughout 2020, it seemed to be Trump’s administration that was exploiting parties in this dispute, as they openly pressured the U.K. to completely stop reliance upon Huawei in favour of other (American) companies. Trump’s own immigration policy is proving beneficial for other innovative nations, driving talent to the UK and Canada. These countries are joined by the E.U., also moving quickly to enhance their own internal technology market, as seen with the globally supported GAIA-X innovation. But with this new internalised system comes heightened fears that nations like France and Germany will advance past the rest; some may argue there are limited abilities to protect national policy and ensure fair competition within the Single Market Framework - and in response to this, Erixon (2020) identified four variables that come into play, relating to technological sovereignty and political considerations. These are cultural understanding, control over the digital economy, gaining dominance in EU competition, and also ensuring cybersecurity protection. It is evident that Britain’s neighbours hold the reins on training tech specialists to achieve optimal results. Promisingly, the U.K. has been moving in a direction that enhances British business and innovation. Various U.K. start-ups have been acquired by international giants - with a prime example being the acquisition of British chip designer Arm Ltd by Japanese company SoftBank for $40B. In fact, around 77 large start-ups have been valued at over $1B, making them unicorns. However, it seems that leading growth innovators are France, Japan and China, and most technologically advanced nations are Germany, Singapore and South Korea - thus forcing the U.K. to play catch-up. As we cut ties with the E.U., it is pivotal that the U.K. adopts a digital framework which would assist and support British companies in ensuring their tech can be the most prominent in the market, resulting in a limited need to outsource. This will prove to be difficult, as Britain is heavily reliant upon foreign big tech, like Apple and Alphabet. One solution to this was outsourcing infrastructure from neighbouring nations, which was one of the main beneficial functions of remaining in the EU, rather than looking across the Atlantic for westernised tech templates. High achieving STEM students are often found in Iran, Germany and Singapore, thus explaining the U.K. Government’s new fast-track Visa initiative to get more foreign talent on board. A strong market Britain can offer is the medical tech sector; director of HealthIQ, Hassan Chaudhury, claims that the U.K. is leading the way in medical technology because the NHS can’t afford to be lazy about design and testing. This includes Babylon Health (Jersey-based) and CMR Surgical (Cambridge-based), as well as fintech initiatives, Rapyd and Sterling Bank. As a result, 2019 was the U.K.’s most successful year for digital innovation, with greater VC investment than Germany and France combined. Despite this, there are 600,000 tech-related vacancies across the country, likely due to the instability of starting a new life and job in the UK during the transition period of Brexit, or due to lack of skill and training in the U.K. I believe the tech sector is an invisible industry from a public perspective, especially fintech industries. This is evident in the lack of homegrown talent and training provided in the U.K. Being a software engineer or product manager is a highly specialised role, and one that often requires an expensive university degree, which is where Britain falls short - lack of knowledge to reinforce innovation. While Chancellor Sunak has created R&D initiatives throughout the pandemic, this doesn’t help young people venture into the field to begin with. Developing accessible pathways, and normalising the industry in younger education could be pivotal. I’d recommend lenient visa regulation and admission for international talent. Arguably, leaving the E.U. relapsed our progress in foreign relations, but this could be an opportunity to collaborate with the South East (especially after the U.K.-Japan deal was executed earlier this year) and other Nordic nations like Norway and Iceland. Technological sovereignty could be the national, political initiative that Britain needs to thrive independently, perhaps enabling us to follow in the footsteps of Germany and Japan.

In an age of digitalisation, technology multinationals aren’t paying fair taxes. In fact, companies such as Apple and Amazon consistently avoid European taxes. Alarm bells were ringing when it was found that Amazon paid just $2.2m in corporation tax in the UK despite having $11.4bn in revenue in 2018. Now more than ever, these technology-based firms have been the winners, which means that many people are eager to see them contribute their fair share. To counter multinationals’ tax avoidance, countries are bringing in a ‘Digital Tax’. This means big technology companies are taxed a percentage of their revenue. France has recently started collecting its new digital tax, and it’s faced a lot of pushback from the USA and digital companies. Austria, Hungary and India already have a digital tax, while Canada has announced one. So what will be the future of the digital tax? It’s important to recognise that we’re very close to worldwide consensus that technology multinationals aren’t paying fair taxes. Thus, the OECD has been coordinating negotiations between 137 countries on implementing a global Digital Tax. But there’s one big reason why it hasn’t gotten very far: the USA. Most of the companies who would face the Digital Tax are American companies, so they’ve been procrastinating in these negotiations. It was America’s reluctance to proceed with the global tax that led France to implement a unilateral tax. So essentially, these unilaterally-imposed taxes are stopgap measures until total consensus is reached. The countries view it as a strategy (or more cynically, a threat) to bring America to the negotiating table. There’s one big problem that confronts us straight away. All these countries are bringing in their own digital taxes, at different tax rates and different definitions of which companies fall under the Digital Tax. Austria, for example, is just taxing online advertising revenues, whereas India is taxing entire online platforms and their facilitators. The tax rates vary as well, ranging from 2% in the UK to 7.5% in Turkey. Due to this, companies will likely face double taxation (where tax is paid twice on the same income). This causes confusion, both for companies who operate across the world and for the countries negotiating the OECD-backed Digital Tax. The varying definitions of digital taxes across these unilateral measures has led to three competing proposals given to the OECD, as to which elements of digital companies should be taxed. India’s digital tax forms part of a ‘significant economic presence’ proposal, which would tax a much wider part of the online market than the other two proposals. In contrast, the “user participation” proposal only taxes revenue derived from user engagement with online platforms. The OECD has acknowledged that these political differences have slowed negotiations. Its original target was to implement a solution by 2020, but this has been pushed back to only ‘working towards an agreement by mid-2021’. But even though negotiations have been hampered by differing unilateral taxes, they’ll still be key in forcing the USA to buy into negotiations. The current unilateral system means American companies will face double taxation and pay different tax rates across the world, which will raise their administrative costs as well as leading to greater tax liabilities. Therefore, it’d only be in American interests to find a global solution, which would ease these pressures on American businesses. Essentially, the world has no choice but to implement unilateral taxes in order to force American cooperation. Until the worldwide tax is established, there’s a destabilising effect that unilateral ones have on OECD negotiations: dealing with trade wars. Countries imposing a digital tax often face anger from the USA which, under Donald Trump, meant trade tariffs. America has responded to the French digital tax by announcing a new round of tariffs on France, which has drawn out the USA-EU trade war. Even President-elect Biden may be reluctant to pursue the digital tax, given his extensive connections with Silicon Valley. Donors to the 2020 Democratic campaign included Reid Hoffman (Microsoft board member and LinkedIn co-founder) and Brad Smith (President of Microsoft) for example. Indeed, it’s been noted that Silicon Valley has shown a strong preference to Biden in the recent election. With populism holding immense power across the world, politicians will be eager to use digital taxes as an extension of anti-globalisation and anti-American rhetoric; it could quickly become a new, popular form of protectionism. Thus, it’s crucial that countries quickly establish which parts of online businesses are taxable, and at which tax rate they should do this. Otherwise, we risk a perpetuation of trade wars at a time when the fragile global economy really doesn’t need them. The OECD has warned that failing to reach an agreement could lead to trade wars that would wipe over 1% from global GDP annually. Thus, Biden has to prioritise creating an effective global solution rather than his Silicon Valley connections. So are these unilaterally-imposed digital taxes justified? On balance, I’d say they are; economies are struggling now, technology multinationals are profiting, America has been slow to accept the need for a digital tax. If the USA acts constructively in negotiations, a global decision will be easier to reach.So even though it’s clear that we need to move on from these unilateral digital taxes quickly, they mark an important step in creating a quicker global solution, while creating a temporary solution for countries struggling economically.