Main Points:

1. Wahhabism: A Source of Division
2. Islam at its core is a religion of peace and tolerance, but Wahhabism’s violent interpretations distort this message.
3. The movement fosters sectarian division rather than unity, destabilizing Muslim societies.
4. Wahhabism’s interpretations have been linked to global terrorism, misrepresenting Islam as a violent religion.

There are individuals who identify as Wahhabi, Ahle Hadis, or Salafi (terms commonly used to describe those who follow the teachings of Ibn Abdul Wahhab Najdi, and thus branches of Wahhabism) and assert that they do not support extremist ideologies or violent actions. While some adherents of these movements may sincerely believe in a puritanical interpretation of Islam, it is undeniable that Salafism and Wahhabism, in their more extreme forms, have been linked to significant political, ideological, and social upheaval in the Muslim world. The impact of these ideologies on both the understanding of Islam and the state of global affairs is complex, but it is evident that these movements have contributed to some of the most troubling aspects of contemporary Islam.

Wahhabism: Ideology of Control and Division

Wahhabism, in its origin and its contemporary manifestations, was established with a vision of consolidating political power and religious orthodoxy. At its heart, Wahhabism sought to purify Islam by stripping away what its proponents considered to be innovations (Bid’ah) and superstitions that had crept into the practice of the faith. While this idea of purging Islam of practices not directly derived from the Quran or Hadith may appeal to some Muslims, it often leads to a rigid and exclusionary approach, where those who deviate from the Wahhabi interpretation are labelled as apostates or innovators.

The tendency to declare Muslims as “Kafir” (disbelievers) or “Mushrik” (polytheists) for engaging in certain practices—such as visiting the graves of saints, celebrating the Prophet’s birthday, or seeking intercession—has resulted in an environment of fear and division. This relentless focus on “purity” has led some followers to justify violence against fellow Muslims who do not adhere to the Wahhabi creed, branding them as heretics or apostates. Such ideological purges have caused widespread strife and bloodshed, as various groups within the Muslim community are treated as enemies rather than brothers and sisters in faith.

In this climate of extreme sectarianism, Wahhabism’s emphasis on violent jihad as a central tenet of its ideology has paved the way for radicalized groups. Groups like ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and others have taken inspiration from these interpretations, using them to justify terrorist acts and the imposition of their own narrow version of Islamic rule. This connection between Wahhabism and global terrorism has had far-reaching consequences, not only for the Muslim world but for the perception of Islam in the international arena.

The Disconnect from the Spirit of Islam

At its core, Islam is a religion of peace, harmony, and tolerance. The very word “Islam” comes from the root word “Salaam,” which means peace. The spirit of Islam calls for the peaceful coexistence of all people, regardless of their faith, and emphasizes compassion, justice, and mercy. However, Wahhabism, with its rigid and militant interpretation of the faith, has distanced itself from these essential principles. By focusing heavily on violence and the imposition of a singular interpretation of Islam, it has neglected the broader, inclusive message of Islam that encourages peace, unity, and dialogue.

Instead of embracing diversity within the Muslim community, Wahhabism has fostered an environment where followers are encouraged to view other Muslims as enemies if they do not conform to its strict orthodoxy. This departure from the spirit of Islam has created rifts within the Muslim world, leading to ideological, theological, and sometimes physical battles between factions. In this sense, Wahhabism has contributed to the destabilization of Muslim societies, as people who should be united by their shared faith are instead divided by doctrinal differences.

Wahhabism and the Narrative of Terrorism

Wahhabism’s global influence has put Muslims in a difficult position where, increasingly, they have to clarify to the world that Islam itself is not a violent religion. While the majority of Muslims reject extremist ideologies, the association of Islam with terrorism persists, largely because of the actions of radical groups who claim to represent Islam while adhering to distorted interpretations of its teachings. The emergence of groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram has made it necessary for Muslims to constantly explain that their religion advocates for peace, not violence.

The unfortunate reality is that Wahhabism has become synonymous with the rise of ideological terrorism in many parts of the world. This is not because Wahhabism represents the true essence of Islam, but because its interpretation has been twisted by extremists seeking to justify their violent actions. The damaging impact of this is twofold: not only does it tarnish the reputation of Islam globally, but it also leaves Muslims to grapple with the misconception that their faith promotes terror, rather than peace.

Wahhabism and Its Allegiance with Israel and Western Powers

One of the most troubling aspects of Wahhabism is its political alignment with Western powers and Israel. While the movement is often positioned as a defender of Islam, it has been accused of maintaining strategic relationships with entities that are seen as adversaries to the broader Muslim world. The Saudi regime, which is a major proponent of Wahhabism, has been a longstanding ally of the United States and other Western nations, despite their involvement in conflicts that have caused immense suffering in Muslim-majority regions, such as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Moreover, Wahhabism’s relationship with Israel is highly controversial. Despite Saudi Arabia’s historical stance on supporting the Palestinian cause, the influence of Wahhabism within the kingdom has created a complex situation where the regime has been accused of tacitly aligning with Israel and its interests in the region. This political alignment undermines the narrative that Wahhabism is solely concerned with defending Islam; rather, it reveals a more pragmatic and opportunistic agenda that focuses on maintaining political power and securing relationships with global powers, even at the expense of Muslim solidarity.

This dual narrative—one of aggressive religious puritanism and another of political alignment with global powers—adds another layer of complexity to Wahhabism’s role in the Muslim world. It shows that while Wahhabi leaders may present themselves as champions of Islam, their actions often betray their true agenda, which involves the consolidation of power and influence at the expense of both religious and political unity among Muslims.

The Dangers of Wahhabism’s Legacy

While not all individuals who identify as Salafi or Wahhabi support violent extremism, the ideological foundations laid by these movements have undeniably contributed to the rise of terrorism and the deep divisions within the Muslim world. Wahhabism’s narrow interpretation of Islam, its promotion of violence against those deemed as apostates or innovators, and its political alliances with Western powers and Israel have played a significant role in the ongoing strife in the Muslim world.

As a result, the larger Muslim community must continue to push back against these extremist ideologies and reclaim the true spirit of Islam—a religion of peace, tolerance, and harmony for all people. Only by rejecting the divisive and violent narratives perpetuated by Wahhabism can Muslims hope to rebuild unity within their communities and present a more accurate understanding of Islam to the rest of the world.

Wahhabi and Salafi Scholars’ Role in Ideological Terrorism

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars have contributed to the spread of ideological terrorism by offering specific interpretations of Islamic texts, especially those regarding jihad, the role of violence, and the legitimacy of acts deemed as “holy war.” Some of their interpretations have been used by extremist groups, including al-Qaeda and ISIS, to justify violence. Below are some of the key narratives and interpretations promoted by certain Wahhabi-Salafi scholars, which have been controversial and linked to growing ideological terrorism?

1. Interpretation of Jihad as Violent Warfare

One of the central aspects of Wahhabi and Salafi ideology is the interpretation of jihad as not just a spiritual struggle, but as a violent form of warfare against perceived enemies of Islam.

Example: Ibn Taymiyyah (1263–1328) argued that jihad was obligatory in defence of Islam. Radical groups have cited this interpretation to justify violent jihad against both non-Muslims and Muslims deemed apostates.

2. Takfirism – Declaring Muslims as Apostates

Takfirism, the practice of declaring Muslims as apostates, is central to Salafi-Wahhabi thought, justifying violence against those who do not adhere strictly to their interpretation.

Example: Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab (1703–1792) declared practices such as seeking intercession through saints to be forms of polytheism and thus justified violence against those who engaged in them.

3.       The Obligation to Wage War against Non-Muslims

Wahhabi-Salafi scholars have interpreted certain Quranic verses as endorsing perpetual warfare against non-believers.

Example: Abd al-Aziz ibn Baz (1910–1999), former Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia, advocated the necessity of jihad against non-believers, a view referenced by extremists.

4. The Concept of “Defensive Jihad” Against Western Powers

Some Wahhabi-Salafi scholars advocate defensive jihad against perceived enemies of Islam, particularly Western powers.

Example: Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966) called for jihad to overthrow non-Islamic rule, particularly Western influence, which influenced extremist groups like al-Qaeda.

5. Martyrdom and Rewards in Paradise

Wahhabi-Salafi thought often emphasizes the rewards of martyrdom in paradise for those who engage in jihad, particularly suicide bombers.

Example: Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya (1292–1350) wrote about the rewards for martyrs, which have been exploited by extremist groups like ISIS.

6.         The Call for the Establishment of an Islamic State

Radical Salafi scholars advocate for the violent establishment of an Islamic state governed by Sharia law.

Example: Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi (b. 1959) has argued for the violent overthrow of existing governments to establish a pure Islamic state.

Conclusion

Wahhabi and Salafi scholars, through their radical interpretations, have contributed to the ideological terrorism that has destabilized regions and fostered extremism. Their influence, particularly regarding jihad, takfirism, and martyrdom, has been central to justifying violence in the name of Islam. While mainstream Islam condemns these interpretations, their continued influence in extremist circles demands a counter-narrative to promote a peaceful and contextualized understanding of Islam.

Kaniz Fatma is a classic Islamic scholar and a regular columnist for New Age Islam.

First Published on newageislam.com

The post Wahhabism, Ahle Hadis, or Salafism’s Impact on the Muslim World appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Since the beginning of Countercurrents in 2002 I have covered many conflicts in different parts of the world, beginning with Iraq war. None as worse as this one in terms of communication crack down.

On August 5, 2019 the Indian government abrogated Articles 370 and 35A, that gave special status to Jammu and Kashmir in the Indian union and dissolved the state and bifurcated it into two Union Territories. It is 25 days since now. Jammu and Kashmir is incommunicado. According to media reports there are no internet, no telephone, no cable tv. People have to line up for hours in the government offices, where there are a few telephones opened, to talk to their loved ones. They have to disclose the purpose of the conversation first, to be allowed to use the phone.

People of Kashmir are completely cut off from rest of India and the rest of the world. Kashmiri students studying in different parts of India are running out of money. However a few landline connections have been restored in recent days in parts of Sri Nagar. It is very difficult to get through a call even where landline connections have been restored.

According to some media reports which are sneaking in, provisions are running out. Essential medicines are also running out.

A young doctor  who wanted to communicate to the world the plight of Kashmiris who are in urgent need of medicines was whisked away by police minutes after he spoke out about the health crisis facing Kashmir because of the three-week-old government clampdown.

The Telegraph reported:

Omar Salim, a urologist at the Government Medical College, had appeared at Srinagar’s press enclave to speak to the media, wearing a doctor’s apron. He held a placard that said he was making a “request and not a protest”.

He had barely spoken for 10 minutes when the police arrived and whisked him away to an unknown location, making it clear the authorities would not tolerate any questioning of their actions.

Efforts to find out where the doctor had been taken were thwarted by the information blockade. Government spokesperson Rohit Kansal, the only official interface between the government and journalists, skipped the evening media briefing the second day running.

Omar had said the information blockade and the travel curbs were endangering the lives of patients, particularly those who needed dialysis or chemotherapy.

He said he did not know whether the restrictions had caused any deaths but he did know patients who had had to postpone their treatment.

“I have a patient who required chemotherapy on August 6. He came to us on August 24 but could not obtain the chemotherapy medicine,” Omar said.

“Another patient whose chemotherapy drug has to be obtained from Delhi was unable to place an order for the drug. His chemotherapy has been postponed indefinitely.”

Omar added: “There are patients who require three dialysis sessions every week but are coming only once a week. There are patients registered under insurance schemes who have to pay out of their own pockets (for every dialysis) costing Rs 1,500 to Rs 1,800. It’s not a small sum for someone earning less than Rs 10,000.”

Omar said many patients are unable to make it to hospitals or to buy medicines because of the cash crunch at the banks.

“Most important, we have 15 lakh patients registered under the Ayushman Bharat scheme. We are the number one state in India in terms of the scheme’s penetration. None of the beneficiaries are able to come and claim the benefits because there is no Internet and the card system is defunct,” he said.

“(People registered with) many other health insurance schemes, like those for textile industry labourers, cannot claim the benefit because of the lack of access.”

Omar urged the government to restore the landline connections at all the hospitals and clinical establishments to avoid “disadvantage to the patients”.

The government had suspended all mobile, Internet and landline connectivity, although many landline connections have been restored in recent days.

“If patients don’t receive dialysis, they will die. If cancer patients don’t receive chemotherapy, they will die. Those patients who can’t be operated on can die,” he said.

Due to the communication breakdown, all the news papers and websites in the Kashmir valley have suspended publication.

Irfan Malik, a correspondent with the Greater Kashmir newspaper  was apprehended by security forces on August 14 night but was released by officials s after signing a bond.

In a shocking act India’s Media watch dog, The Press Council of India (PCI) moved the Supreme Court supporting the Centre and Jammu and Kashmir government’s decision to impose restrictions on communication in the state following the abrogation of Article 370. The council, a statutory body led by a former Supreme Court judge and meant to preserve freedom of the Press in the democracy, said the basic journalistic code of conduct framed by it required the media to indulge in self-regulation while reporting on subjects that may harm State interests.

The council, headed by Justice (retired) C.K. Prasad, has filed an application in the Supreme Court seeking to intervene in a writ petition filed by Anuradha Bhasin, executive editor of Kashmir Times. Ms. Bhasin had challenged the state of prolonged and intense media restrictions in Jammu and Kashmir after the Centre blunted Article 370 and scrapped the special rights and privileges enjoyed by the people of Jammu and Kashmir since 1954.

In Jammu and Kashmir three former Chief Ministers, 40 former ministers are under house arrest. More than 4000 people are detained including leaders of Chamber of Commerce.

On 18^th August  Deccan Chronicle Headlined, Forces deploy 1 million to guard every inch of Kashmir valley

Close to 9.5 lakh personnel from the Army, paramilitary and special forces besides Indian Air Force are guarding every inch of Kashmir Valley amid heightened tensions bet-ween India and Pakistan post the scrapping of Article 370 for Jammu and Kashmir.

While majority of forces were stationed in the Valley, the Centre, over the last month has deployed over 1.75 lakh additional personnel — which is unprecedented in the history of Jammu and Kashmir.

According to 2011 census, Jammu and Kashmir population is 12.5 million. Which means, a soldier for every 12 citizen of the troubled Kashmir.

On 24^th of this month opposition leaders under the leadership of Rahul Gandhi went to Srinagar to find out the situation in the valley. They were detained in the Srinagar airport and were sent back to Delhi.

Hong Kong protest is into its 19^th week. Millions are marching in the street. There is no communication crack down or unlawful force on the protesters. France’s Yellow Vest protest is into its 40^th week. There also there is no communication crack down. Even in Gaza even when the heaviest bombardment was going on there was no communication crack down. Why is it in Kashmir?

There are reports that the Israeli army is training Indian soldiers in counter terrorism. It seems that Israeli army has come to a stage that it has to learn lessons from Indian army. By the way, India is the largest democracy in the world!

Binu Mathew is the Editor of Countercurrents.org

Courtesy: Counter Current

The post Kashmir: The Worst Conflict Area In The World appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Forest restoration is underway in Biliran, Leyte, Philippines led by the local community with support from international researchers and government agencies. Robin Chazdon, CC BY-ND

These forests provide many benefits: They store large amounts of carbon, are home to numerous wild species, provide food and fuel for local people, purify water supplies and improve air quality. Replenishing them is an urgent global imperative. A newly published study in the journal Science by European authors finds that there is room for an extra 3.4 million square miles (0.9 billion hectares) of canopy cover around the world, and that replenishing tree cover at this full potential would contribute significantly to reducing the risk of harmful climate change
But there aren’t enough resources to restore all tropical forests that have been lost or damaged. And restoration can conflict with other activities, such as farming and forestry. As a tropical forest ecologist, I am interested in developing better tools for assessing where these efforts will be most cost-effective and beneficial.

Over the past four years, tropical forestry professor Pedro Brancalion and I have led a team of researchers from an international network in evaluating the benefits and feasibility of restoration across tropical rainforests around the world. Our newly published findings identify restoration hotspots – areas where restoring tropical forests would be most beneficial and least costly and risky. They cover over 385,000 square miles (100 million hectares), an area as large as Spain and Sweden combined.

The five countries with the largest areas of restoration hotpots are Brazil, Indonesia, India, Madagascar and Colombia. Six countries in Africa – Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Togo, South Sudan and Madagascar – hold rainforest areas where restoration is expected to yield the highest benefits with the highest feasibility. We hope our results can help governments, conservation groups and international funders target areas where there is high potential for success.

A native tree nursery for large-scale restoration of Atlantic Forest at Reserva Natural Guapiaçu, Rio de Janeiro State, Brazil. Robin Chazdon, CC BY-ND

Where to start

Intact forest landscapes in tropical regions declined by 7.2% from 2000 to 2013, mainly due to logging, clearing and fires. These losses have dire consequences for global biodiversity, climate change and forest-dependent peoples.

As my work has shown, tropical forests can recover after they have been cleared or damaged. Although these second-growth forests will never perfectly replace the older forests that have been lost, planting carefully selected trees and assisting natural recovery processes can restore many of their former properties and functions.

But restoration is not uniformly feasible or desirable, and the benefits that forests provide are not evenly distributed. To make informed choices about restoration efforts and investments, organizations need more detailed spatial information. Existing global maps of restoration opportunities are based on actual versus potential levels of tree canopy cover. We wanted to go beyond this measurement to identify where the greatest potential payoffs and challenges lay.

Our study used high-resolution satellite imagery and the latest peer-reviewed research to integrate information about four benefits from forest restoration: biodiversity conservation, climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation and water security. We also assessed three aspects of feasibility: cost, investment risk and the likelihood of restored forests surviving into the future.

We studied these variables across all lowland tropical moist forests worldwide, dividing them into 1-kilometer square blocks that had lost more than 10% of their tree canopy cover in 2016. Each of the seven factors we studied had equal weight in our calculation of total restoration opportunity scores.

The top-scoring blocks, which we call “restoration hotspots,” represent the most compelling regions for tropical forest restoration, with maximum overall benefits and minimal negative trade-offs.

Forest restoration involves much more than planting trees.

Forest restoration aligns with other global pledges

The top 15 countries with the largest areas of restoration hotspots are distributed across all tropical rainforest regions around the world. Three are in Central and South America, five are in Africa and the Middle East, and seven are in Asia and the Pacific.

Importantly, 89% of the hotspots we identified were located within areas that have already been identified as biodiversity conservation hotspots in tropical regions. These conservation hotspots have exceptionally high concentrations of at-risk species. They have been been focal areas for investment and activities to promote biodiversity conservation for nearly 20 years.

This finding makes sense, since two criteria for designating conservation hotspots – high rates of forest loss and high concentration of endemic, or locally distributed, species – were also variables in our study. Our results strongly support the need to develop and implement integrated solutions that protect remaining forest ecosystems and restore new forests within these high-priority regions.

We also found that 73% of tropical forest restoration hotspots are in countries that have made commitments under the Bonn Challenge, a global effort to bring some 580,000 square miles (150 million hectares) of the world’s deforested and damaged land into restoration by 2020, and 1.35 million square miles (350 million hectares) by 2030. By making these pledges, Bonn Challenge participants have shown that they are politically motivated to restore and conserve forests, and are looking for restoration opportunities.

Forest restoration on small farms bordering Mpanga Forest Reserve, Uganda, can bring high levels of benefits and is relatively feasible to achieve. Robin Chazdon, CC BY-ND

A means toward many ends

The 88% of the lands we analyzed that did not qualify as restoration hotspots also deserve careful attention. These landscapes could be prioritized for restoration interventions that increase food, water and fuel security through agroforestry practices, watershed protection, woodlots for producing firewood and local timber or commercial tree plantations. All of these areas can provide benefits for people and the environment through combinations of different restoration approaches, even if they are not the best candidates for a full-scale effort to restore a high-functioning forest.

Forest restoration is also urgently needed in other types of forests across the world, such as seasonally dry tropical forests and temperate forests that are heavily managed for timber. Identifying key restoration opportunities in these regions requires separate studies based on their unique benefits and challenges.

Our study helps to highlight how restoring tropical forests can provide multiple benefits for people and nature, and aligns with existing conservation and sustainable development agendas, as discussed in a newly published perspective related to the new findings in Science. We hope that our map of restoration opportunities and hotspots will provide useful guidance for nations, conservation organizations and funders, and that local communities and organizations will be engaged in and benefit from these efforts.

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post High-value opportunities exist to restore tropical rainforests around the world – here’s how we mapped them appeared first on SabrangIndia.

2018 confirmed the trend: liberal democracy is weakening throughout the globe. Latin America is no exception.

The wave of deterioration and setbacks that has been gathering momentum over the last year has taken place in an international and geopolitical context that has undergone a great deal of change, the pace of which quickened as a result of the 2008 recession. Its social and political consequences constitute a dire scenario for the deepening and strengthening of Western democracies.

Different sorts of populism have mushroomed here and there in recent years. A simplifying discourse, endorsing the discredit of the institutions and the elites, and including, as a sinister side to it, an authoritarian bias, is an attractive proposition for many citizens who feel vulnerable, insecure. They are afraid of a future where their national identities wither away and their jobs disappear.

Authoritarian nationalism led by heavy-handed men appears to be the privileged prescription against distrust and fear. We have seen it happening in Russia, Turkey, The Philippines, and even in India, where Narendra Modi, after suffering a setback at the recent regional elections, is now preparing for re-election by adopting populist measures.
 

A sharp decline of US democracy

Donald Trump, however, still remains the biggest concern as far as the international order is concerned. For decades, the US has been the guarantor of multilateralism and the world champion of freedom. Despite its biased, sometimes arrogant and even violent behaviour in defending its national interests, including dictatorships when necessary, the Pax Americana imposed a liberal world order which, in many cases, has actually favoured the spread of democracy in a globalized, open economy world.

Guantanamo and the Iraq war were precedents of democratic values degradation, but the current phase of impulsive, erratic leadership, combined with militant exceptionalism, has triggered a sharp corrosion of the US’s own democracy, and at the same time has unleashed trade wars which foreshadow not only a financially difficult forthcoming year (low growth forecasts for 2019, to say the least), but also politically highly unstable, with profound disagreements on fundamental issues (global security, migration, climate change).

The dark Russian plot which helped him win the presidential election weighs heavily on Trump. This is a very serious concern indeed, which not only delegitimizes him, but also puts him on the defensive. A consequence of this is the unprecedented volatility of the people in positions of trust at the White House. In addition, Trump’s “America first” doctrine has unleashed tensions with both rivals and allies, indistinctly.

The US withdrawal from a number of critical joint-action consensus points on the international agenda is proving catastrophic. See the denunciation of the Paris agreements on climate change, or of the nuclear agreement with Iran.

Contempt for the traditional allies, the return of the arms race, the alignment with Israeli policy on the Middle East, and the connivance with the Saudi monarchy despite the Khashoggi case and the war in Yemen are further examples. And the (intended) abrupt pulling out from Syria would leave the region in the hands of Russia and its allies, Iran and Turkey. In all, a bleak and disconcerting picture which the surprising (and positive) distension with North Korea does not compensate.
 

Internal degradation

But the domestic decline of US democracy is also quite obvious. As a result of the country’s most extreme polarization ever, we have witnessed a practically total absence of consensus on State matters, the practical disappearance of bipartisanship, and a no-concessions takeover of the regulators, including the Supreme Court.

The systematic, irresponsible use of a Twitter account beyond diplomatic or Pentagon control, quite often laden with lies and visceral reactions, only exacerbates existing tensions. At the same time, the continuous attacks on the free press hasten the collapse of truth, already shattered and ravaged in the social media, and in so doing contribute to the blowing up of a fundamental pillar of democratic society.

And the situation will probably worsen in 2019, prior to getting better.

The president is cornered by investigations on sex, lies and videotapes that go beyond the meddling of the Kremlin, and Congress is now in the hands of the opposition. The democrats, most likely, will start impeachment proceedings that, although they will finally collapse in the Senate, will probably put the current administration in serious difficulties.

A deterioration of the economic environment is to be added to the instability and unpredictability in place in Washington. After a strong upward cycle brought about by tax reductions and a number of concessions to big lobbies and billionaire friends, including the dismantling of some of the (faint) market regulations established after the 2007-2008 crash, a rise in interest rates and financial destabilization are being anticipated.
 

Uncertainty in Europe, and the geopolitical context

To the extent that the US has ceased to be a model of democracy, concern in Europe is apparent. The Brexit chaos (even though, in my opinion, the British will avoid throwing themselves off the cliff at the eleventh hour) represents a very severe blow to the common European project, which, nonetheless, remains standing.

This is perhaps the best piece of news. Although the European elections in May will see a significant increase of the presence of populists and nationalists in the European Parliament, especially of the emerging far right spectrum, the centrist bloc will continue to constitute the majority of the chamber and will surely work to strengthen European citizenship and ensure peace and (some) prosperity.

Yet the far right’s entry into some European governments, the anti-immigration and anti-European populist coalition in Italy, or the unexpected rise of VOX far-right party in Spain, are taking place in a particularly unhelpful geopolitical context.

Europe, no longer enjoying US protection and bearing the brunt of British reluctance, must find its own way with greater resolve in 2019.

The other global power blocs in what is now, decidedly, a multipolar world – the US, China and, to a lesser extent, Russia (which has a keen interest in destabilizing the European Union and embraces the emulators of its illiberal democracy – Hungary, Poland…) -, do not guarantee any more the stability of the multilateral order inherited from the Second World War and the ensuing Cold War. Europe, no longer enjoying US protection and bearing the brunt of British reluctance, must find its own way with greater resolve in 2019.

Facing a potentially serious downturn in the coming year, it is anybody’s guess what capacity to provide agreed solutions the leaders of China and the US, entangled as they are in a trade war, will have, considering moreover the fact that some prominent members of the G20 such as Brazil, Mexico or Italy are now governed by populists.

Donald Trump’s attitude at the last G7 was downright insulting, and after the very mediocre results of the 2018 meeting organized by Argentina (now yet again ruined and intervened by the IMF), the prospects of reaching positive agreements in the next G20, which Japan will host in 2019, are to say the least scarce.
 

¿And what about Latin America?

In this adverse scenario, but in a peripheral situation that could stave off some discomfort, what are the prospects for Latin America in 2019?

The 2018 intense electoral cycle brought some substantial changes. The election results in Colombia produced a shift further to the right, thus weakening crucial aspects of the implementation of the 2016 historic peace agreements with the FARC. In Mexico and, especially, in Brazil, the election produced uncertain perspectives, albeit of an opposite sign.

In May, Nicolás Maduro’s reelection in Venezuela took place with little guarantees and in a very difficult context, in which the country’s deepening economic and political crisis generated a humanitarian and migratory crisis never seen before in the region, to the point that the Lima Group met last week to ask Maduro not to take office this month.

With inflation hitting the 1.000.000% mark and a sharp drop in oil prices in the last few months, the prospects for 2019 are even gloomier. The vital questions seem to be: How much more suffering is the Chavista regime willing to inflict on the population for the sake of staying in power? How much more Russian support, Chinese credit and Cuban solidarity could it hope to get?

The deadlock in Venezuela has been followed by a relatively unexpected yet very deep crisis in Nicaragua. Ortega has unveiled the most horrific face of its regime, which seems interested in doing away with any remnants of democracy, and using repression as the only political response to the malaise of the population, some of which has already decided to flee to the North before it is too late.

The unvailing migration crisis was evident in the caravans heading North from Honduras, a repressive regime backed by the Unites States. Also some caravans left El Salvador and, to a lesser extent, Guatemala, yet all of them prompted Latin Americans’ solidarity in their wake.
For his part, López Obrador, whose victory at the elections was at the same time overwhelming and hopeful for many Mexicans, shows populist vigour in some of his proposed measures (i.e., debatable plebiscites and a substantive reduction of the salaries of senior officials, starting with his own), but he has so far proven cautious with Uncle Sam.

AMLO is willing to avoid confrontation, both on immigration and economic issues. The Mexican president is well aware of his country’s huge dependence on the economic behemoth of the North. Along with a prudent fiscal policy, the unforeseen swift signing of a new free trade agreement will prove essential to carry out the ambitious internal reforms he has promised.

If AMLO, true to his leftist background and strong popular support, is able to improve some key aspects of Mexican public life (corruption, security) and govern for the sake of all its citizens and not for that of the privileged classes, as has been the case in the last decades, his ambitious Fourth Transformation will start in 2019.

But the biggest earthquake was undoubtedly the unexpected coming to power of the far-right national-populist Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil, who has just taken office in January and whose first steps as president are marking the worrying direction of a highly polarized country.
The major concern now in Brazil is not so much the economy, but how the divisive “Us vs.Them” politics is going to translate into practice, and whether the alarming campaign promises are going to actually become government measures.

Among the several factors that produced Bolsonaro’s astonishing election victory, the following should be noted: a recessive cycle the intensity of which Brazil’s economy had never known, an equally unprecedented epidemic of violence (64.000 violent deaths in 2017), huge and widespread corruption, and the wide-ranging social expenditure cuts carried out by the last governments which hit a large part of the population.

But the Brazil’s economic cycle is nearing recovery. The liberalizing orthodoxy and the privatizing mood, faithfully in line with the University of Chicago doctrines, have created great expectations among both national and foreign investors. If and when these measures are finally approved by the structurally fragmented Brazilian Congress, they could boost an upward economic cycle, which will be cheered on by the markets, especially if the measures are accompanied by a pension reform that every economic expert and international financial regulator have been demanding for years (pensions in Brazil currently are taking more than half of the federal budget).

The major concern in Brazil is not so much the economy, but how the divisive “Us and Them” politics is going to translate into practice, and whether the most alarming campaign promises are going to become government measures.

The consequences on human and civil rights, on black and indigenous minorities, on the protection of the environment and the preservation of demarcations in the vast Amazon region, and on guarantees on the rightful exercise of justice and the behaviour of the police, could entail, it is feared, a quick decline of the democratic conditions that no upward economic cycle would prevent.

Yet, like any democratically elected president, would Bolsonaro earn his 100 days of grace? We will see if and how far pragmatism prevails over rage and far-right fury.
 

At the gates of fascism?

But if the Bolsonaro government acts violently, as some expect, then we shall be close to seeing his far right populism cross the red line separating it from fascism. After all, it has all the components noted by Yale professor Jason Stanley in his recent book How Fascism Works.
We are witnessing a re-creation of a mythical past (the merry “order and progress” country which was allegedly brought by the dictatorship in Brazil), and an appropriation of the flag and the fatherland. Propaganda and anti-intellectualism are advancing. Schools and universities that do not agree with the ideas of the ruler are being put under surveillance, at the same time as reality and reasoned debate are collapsing through the onslaughts on the press, the spread of hate speech in social media, and the validation of all sorts of conspiracy theories.

To this should be added the naturalization of group differences feeding on the racism rooted in a large part of Brazilian society, which establishes as “normal” a hierarchy that defends differences between the value of one’s life and the life of others and contains a sexual anxiety which imposes patriarchy and attacks diversity as “gender ideology”.

The pre-eminence, in short, of a “law and order” policy which criminalizes those who do not belong to the dominant “Us”, exploits victimhood and justifies the use of violence to combat violence. In the shadow of Trumpism, and blessed by the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God evangelists, Brazil could well embody the greatest reactionary threat to democracy in the region.

These are not good news. But the situation in Europe does not resemble that of the 1930s, nor is there saber-rattling in Latin America, as in the 60s and 70s.

2019 looks full of uncertainties or, rather, there is certainty that the end of the progressive cycle will bring increased social tension and democratic regression. But the democratic and liberal order must defend itself by combating extreme polarization, valuing the centrality of truth and informed, honest debate, and forcefully protesting but constructively denouncing each time the red lines of freedom and the democratic guarantees, which have cost so much to gain, are crossed.

The great challenge is to build an exciting and encouraging counter-narrative, capable of breaking this spiral of negativity. To this end we will devote ourselves at democraciaAbierta in this foul 2019.

Francesc Badia i Dalmases is Founder, Director and Lead Editor of democraciaAbierta. Francesc is an international affairs expert, journalist and political analyst. His most recent book: “Order and disorder in the 21st century. Gobal governance in a world of anxieties”. He Tweets @fbadiad 

Courtesy: https://www.opendemocracy.net/
 

The post Democracy is facing strong headwinds in 2019 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Speak up for them. Shutterstock

For the thing most likely to stall human rights progress is people around the world simply not considering them to be as important as their advocates would have us believe. When it comes to a trade off between human rights and other things people hold dear – their material well-being, their security, their children’s opportunities and accomplishments – there are plenty of examples to suggest that people are reluctant to make sacrifices to realise other people’s rights.

Let’s take three obvious examples. First, inequality. Even in the most rights-observing societies, there is often reluctance among key sectors of the population to redistribute income through higher rates of taxation. For many poorer people, nothing would make more of a difference than reliable access to high-quality education and healthcare. But in the US and UK, public funding for both is constantly being squeezed. We know that reliance solely on private sector solutions creates significant inequality, but too many people simply aren’t willing to pay more to give everyone the highest possible standard of medical treatment and schooling.

Or take the treatment of refugees. As many scholars have recognised, we are never so alone and never more in need of our human rights than when we do not have the protection of a national government. When we are refugees, all we have is our “humanity”.

But far from this triggering deep concern among affluent populations, instead it seems to have fuelled a kind of moral panic about immigration in Europe and has led to the rise of right-wing politicians. The courageous decision by German chancellor Angela Merkel to open up German borders to a million refugees from Syria has weakened her politically, and allowed into German politics far-right parties and movements. When we add Islam into the mix, regardless of the importance of the right to one’s religious beliefs, things get even less rights-friendly.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel: politicians can champion human rights, but voters can topple them. Shutterstock

Finally, torture. Nothing would seem to be more of a poster child for a commitment to human rights than the claim that no one should be tortured. Yet, when we look at opinion surveys of attitudes to torture, we discover widespread support for torture designed to tackle national security threats. We can also see this punitive logic in death penalty cases in many places, where the only reason to resist the death penalty that gets any traction is the fear of executing an innocent person, rather than the fundamental human right to life.
In fact, we can see such attitudes repeated across a whole range of civil liberty issues from freedom of information to freedom of the press, from freedom of speech to freedom from surveillance. When faced with significant threats, people will actually sacrifice a good deal of liberty – the liberty of others but eventually their own, too – to keep what they have safe from harm.

‘Our jobs, our land’

I’ve always been struck by the lack of attention given to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration. It talks of our duties to the community, not our rights. Its second paragraph states:
 

In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

Authoritarian states can easily use this article to suppress rights in the name of public morality or to crush dissent and remove (or embed) property rights. But this is not how democratic states are supposed to act. Democratic states must, however, meet the demands of some coalition of their citizens. If they lose enough support among key groups within their citizenry, then the government will lose power or the democratic state itself might come under threat of being toppled.

Many Western countries have long overlooked Article 29 because, for the most part, wealthy democracies have been in the ascendant since 1948. But now they’re under pressure, and the basic social contract – the deal that these democracies strike with their citizens – is suddenly in question. New threats, such as inequality, climate change, and the replacement of manual work by AI and machines, mean those who fear that the old social contract is no longer in their interests are making their voices heard. They say, “these are our jobs”, “this is our land”, “our community has certain shared values”, and “people like us are the only real citizens”. These sentiments, echoing around the presidency of Donald Trump or during Brexit, are in direct opposition to human rights.

States don’t much like rights – they’re an annoyance or an embarrassment. The survival, and flourishing, of human rights requires people, the citizenry, the populace, to say that these rights are important and to demand that their governments observe them. And by that same logic, the people can sink them, too. In the end it is us, we – however we define that problematic term – who will make the difference between the failure or success of human rights, whatever the external and internal threats we face.
 

Stephen Hopgood, Professor of International Relations, SOAS, University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The post What is the greatest challenge to the future of human rights? We the people are appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post  Modi appears Petty and Churlish as He snubs Trudeau  appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Marine Le Pen election campaign posters, France 2017. Photo: Winfried Rothermel/DPA/PA Images. All rights reserved.

Dozens of feature articles have recently marvelled at the increasingly female face of the far right in Europe and North America. The New York Times reported, for instance, on the increased visibility of women in the upper-echelons of far-right parties, from France to Norway. A Vogue feature described this as “the friendly face of right-wing politics,” and “an attempt to soften and feminise” the European far right’s extreme views.

In North America, numerous reports have asked what draws women to radical conservative and ‘alt-right’ movements. In Canada, the Montreal Gazette said far-right women are “coming out of the shadows” in Quebec to participate in anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim campaigns in growing numbers. Marie Claire said such apparent trends were nothing less than “shocking.”

The core question posed by such pieces is: Why are women joining far-right movements? But we must also ask: Why are we so surprised? After all, these issues are not new. “What attracts women to far-right movements that appear to denigrate their rights? This question has vexed feminist scholars for decades,” is how one historian put it.
“The uncomfortable truth is that women also have a long history in far-right movements.”

The far right is often seen or assumed to be toxically masculine and a no-go zone for women. But the uncomfortable truth is that women also have a long history in far-right movements. Women played key roles in white supremacist movements in the United States, for example, including as propagandists and figureheads.

“There’s no reason to expect women to be less bigoted than men,” historian Linda Gordon concluded. Her research into the Klu Klux Klan (KKK) estimated that at least 1.5 million American women were members in the 1920s, including one third of all white Protestant women living in Indiana.

“Women organised Klan rights of passage, baptisms, graduations, marriages and funerals,” Gordon said in a recent interview. Some women, who “may not have been vigilantes themselves, nevertheless, supported vigilantism.” she added.

Women participate in a Klu Klux Klan march in 1928. Credit: US National Archives and Records Administration. Public Domain.

In the 1990s, US academic Glen Jeansonne wrote about far-right women in America during the second world war, and the so-called “mothers’ movement” which opposed US intervention but was not pacifist; its ideology was instead a mix of militant Christianity, anti-communism and anti-Semitism, he said.

Twentieth century fascist movements in Europe were known for stressing women’s responsibilities at home. In Italy, conservative ideals of good Fascist mothers and wives were prominent in propaganda campaigns. Thousands of non-conforming women were locked in asylums for ‘moral deviancy’. In Germany, it was Kinder, Küche, and Kirche (children, kitchen, and church).

Our history books are products of our societies too. Historians have also been influenced by “prevailing prejudices about the ‘apolitical’ nature of women,” and women’s supposed “predilection for the domestic sphere,” noted one academic. Has women’s participation been overlooked because researchers assumed they were just subjects, or ‘victims,’ of far-right regimes?

“Has women’s participation been overlooked because researchers assumed they were just subjects, or ‘victims,’ of far-right regimes?”

“The common assumption [is] that fascism is a misogynist movement which has tended to exclude women,” according to researcher Martin Durham who contrasted this with cases of women’s active participation in fascist politics in France, Germany, Italy and the UK. 

In Spain, the fascist Sección Femenina (SF) was “one of the most highly organised, mass women’s organisation in Spanish history,” and a “formidable political force,” said one account. Among other things it organised social assistance programmes and mass vaccination campaigns.

The SF’s promoted an ‘ideal woman’ who was self-sacrificing and obedient to men, but it was also seen by some women as empowering as it recognised and respected their otherwise neglected labour caring for children and other relatives. In the 1960s, the SF also successfully lobbied for new legislation on women’s labour rights.

Fascist propaganda picture from Spain, including the wife of Francisco Franco, Carmen Polo de Franco (right), 1937. Photo: Berliner Verlag/Archiv/DPA/PA Images. All rights reserved.

In the UK, many historical reports also “overlooked the contribution of the women’s movement to Britain’s fascist experience,” and thus failed to examine how far some women went to support Oswald Mosley’s ‘blackshirts,’ notes academic Julie Gottlieb.

Mosley’s movement even appealed to some former suffragettes. Though it has “traditionally been seen as predominantly an aggressively male movement,” there was “extensive participation of women,” said author Martin Pugh.

Some women received training in jiujitsu to throw female Communists out of meetings. Others went door-to-door to campaign for support and canvas for votes, presenting “a more reassuring image of fascism than that created by street violence and mass demonstrations.”

“Fascism’s relationship with women has been neither consistent nor predictable,” is Durham’s conclusion. While men may have been more visible in such movments, large numbers of women also participated as voters, members, fundraisers, marchers, party officials, and more.

“Fascism’s relationship with women has been neither consistent nor predictable.”

Women’s participation in a range of political movements has been ignored or written out of history. “We’ve had many social justice movements… led by men. A lot of women have participated in those movements, however their work has never been recognised,” said Carmen Perez, one of the co-chairs of the Women’s March movement in the US.

Can this help explain why we’re surprised at women’s participation in far-right politics? Could it be because we so rarely hear about women in radical politics, writ large? Meanwhile, what really motivates women to join such movements, and what do they gain out of their participation?

We are asking such questions on 50.50, the openDemocracy section covering gender and sexuality, in a special series on women and the far right. This series is part of an openDemocracy partnership with the World Forum for Democracy, which in 2017 focused on populism.

Series pieces include an in-depth feature on how the Italian media have helped the far-right group CasaPound to ‘glamourise’ fascism. 50.50 writer Claudia Torrisi looks at how the fascist movement is working to clean up its image and “build new political credibility” in the mainstream, ahead of this year’s national elections. The Italian media has been complicit in this process, she says.

Carlotta Chiaraluce. Credit: Carlotta Chiaraluce/Facebook.

Torrisi shows how media coverage focused on the movement’s female members has fawned over their beauty, and their dedication to the children and husbands, while glossing over the violence and danger of this increasingly visible fascist group. Though one prominent woman militant says the movement is actually “deconstructing the theory of the misogyny of fascists.”

Isabel Marler and Macarena Aguilar meanwhile explored women’s participation in the growing Buddhist nationalist movement in Myanmar (also known as Burma), where 2017 military “clearance operations” killed thousands and displaced hundreds of thousands of Muslim Rohingya people. These actions have been denounced by the United Nations as ethnic cleansing.

Movements are complex and comprised of many people who may have diverse motives. Women in Myanmar who have been marginalised at home and in powerful institutions may find empowerment and opportunities within the Buddhist nationalist movement that they don’t elsewhere. Female members have specifically referenced feminism as a reason for their participation.

Anthropologist Melyn McKay said women in this movement have received “a powerful platform… to elevate the concerns of women and bring visibility to the struggles they face in daily life.”

“A powerful platform… to elevate the concerns of women and bring visibility to the struggles they face in daily life.”

Globally, women’s rights advocates are warning that fundamentalists of diverse stripes are co-opting progressive language of rights and justice to pursue their own dangerous and divisive agendas. This includes movements which have used women’s rights used “to justify their hate-filled ideologies,” said Shareen Gokal at the Association for Women’s Rights in Development (AWID).

“The idea that Muslim communities are singularly oppressive towards women is consistently mobilised to widen support,” said Gokal, adding that these movements may be patriarchal, perpetuating “oppressive gender norms,” while simultaneously offering women “opportunities to experience some form of empowerment through political action, participation and even leadership.”

In the US, Marilyn Mayo, senior research fellow with the Anti-Defamation League, told us that young women are also joining ‘alt-right’ movements but that these “don’t necessarily want women to be the leaders… they think women can play supportive roles in terms of producing white children, so when [young women] get active and start having a voice, they can face criticism from some of the men.”

In India’s Hindutva movement, women are “really active publicly and that changes social discourses,” says researcher Akanksha Mehta. But many men want to restrict women’s roles in the movement to online work, emotional labour, outreach, charity work and administrative tasks, she said. “They are not fine with women being active on the streets in certain ways, or being part of the violence or leadership.”

A Golden Dawn rally. Credit: Golden Dawn Girls.

Coming up soon on 50.50, journalist Niki Seth-Smith looks at the new documentary Golden Dawn Girls, which she says gives new voice to Greek women in the country’s far-right elite. “Women have been written out of history for their shocking contributions, as well as for their positive roles,” she says, while this film throws the spotlight on three women relatives of prominent Golden Dawn members.

“Women’s roles in far-right and neo-Nazi groups have in the past been underestimated,” she writes. Reports may focus on movement leadership and parliamentary politics, for instance, or front-line acts of violence, while underplaying the importance of emotional and reproductive labour. When one of the Golden Dawn Girls tells her grandchildren “to go play with guns,” Seth-Smith notes that this is also performing a key role for the party.

From the UK, we’ll also hear from several young, female faces of the alt-right and what’s motivated them to join these movements. One told us: “In order to be successful and get bigger, more women need to join. That is why the left was so powerful for so long.” Another stressed: “The biggest misconception about women like me on the right is that we have ‘internalised misogyny.’”

Jayda Fransen (right), deputy leader of of far right group Britain First, 2017. Picture: Claire Doherty/SIPA USA/PA Images. All rights reserved.

Globally, the rise of ultra-conservative, extremist, and far-right politics poses serious risks to women’s rights. This was the conclusion of a 2017 report from UN special rapporteur Karima Bennoune, which warned of growing “populist ultra-nationalism” that disregards key principles of equality, and the universality of human rights.

In Poland – where 60,000 nationalists marched on Warsaw on the country’s independence day in 2017, chanting slogans like “Pure Poland, white Poland!” and “Refugees get out!” in one of the largest far-right demonstrations in Europe in recent years – the government has also restricted reproductive rights, pushing abortion services underground
In several countries, far-right parties have manipulated women’s rights demands into tools in Islamophobic campaigns. France’s Le Pen used the 2015 New Years’ Eve sexual attacks in Cologne, Germany, to call for a referendum on immigration to France, saying: “I am scared that the migrant crisis signals the beginning of the end of women’s rights.”

In 2017, Germany’s far-right AfD party launched an outrageous ad campaign ahead of the country’s federal elections, including a posters that read: “Burkas? We prefer bikinis,” displaying two women in skimpy bathing suits. Other ads had an image of a pregnant woman’s body, with the words: “New Germans? We’ll make them ourselves.”

FEMEN protest during a demonstration of far-right nationalist groups in Paris, 2013. Photo: Messyasz Nicolas/ABACA/PA Images. All rights reserved.

Divisive populists are a main obstacle to women’s rights, said FEMEN activist Inna Shevchenko, trying to “create clashes between groups” by reducing people single identities and “playing on fear and insecurity.” We spoke to her at the 2017 World Forum for Democracy in Strasbourg, France, where there was an oversubscribed sessions on the ‘female face of the far right.’

We’ll publish a video interview with Shevchenko, followed by pieces exploring how ‘Army of God’ anti-abortion extremists in the US have been emboldened under Donald Trump’s presidency, and how Mexico City – which decriminalised abortion a decade ago – remains an island in a sea of anti-abortion states, while the right to choose is under threat here too.
We’ll also examine how television and cinema have become ‘battlegrounds’ for a Christian right ‘spiritual war’ over gender roles and what ‘the family’ should look like, as part of our ongoing series tracking the backlash against sexual and reproductive rights. And we’ll ask: What is pushing, or pulling, young women in particular to far-right and ultra-conservative movements?

What is pushing, or pulling, young women in particular to far-right and ultra-conservative movements?

Angry young women on the right are increasingly visible online, notably on YouTube, loudly rejecting progressive values. Twenty-two year old Laura Southern is among them; her videos on YouTube, presenting bigoted views on every conceivable topic, have been viewed millions of times.

Southern also describes hating feminism, and her desire for a return to “traditional” values, yet she has been criticised as well from within her movement for not being married nor a mother herself.

Recently, we met a number of young alt-right women in the UK, north London party to celebrate the one year anniversary of Trump’s inauguration as US president. They had different stories and political journeys. Some had higher education. Some were immigrants.

Notably, several said their journeys had begun on the political left, changing course after feeling ignored or bullied. They rejected feminism flat-out, calling it hypocritical, unnecessary and even dangerous for casting women as victims, and men as predators.

The atmosphere at the party was rebellious; many talked about the ‘right to offend’ and lashed out at so-called ‘political correctness.’ It was still a noticeably male-dominated event, however. Members of the white supremacist and anti-Muslim group Generation Identity were also present.

Women are more active and visible in political life all over the world; perhaps it is not surprising at all that they are also represented in these movements too. The idea that women are naturally ‘peaceful,’ or less likely to espouse hateful or divisive views, is also an unhelpful stereotype.

There is a huge amount of anger (and skilled, political acrobacy) on the far right – which translates into a huge amount of energy. We have been here before, and to dismiss these women, leave such trends unexamined, or reduce all women’s experiences to oversimplified, single story-lines, could be mistakes of historic proportions.

Claire Provost is editor of openDemocracy 50.50 covering gender, sexuality and social justice. Previously she worked at The Guardian and was a fellow at the Centre for Investigative Journalism at the University of London, Goldsmiths. Find her on Twitter: @claireprovost.

Courtesy: Open Democracy
 

The post Why are women joining far-right movements, and why are we so surprised? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

His politics stood for justice, and equality without any spirit of violence or revenge.
Here are some Quotable Quotes from Mandela
“Overcoming Poverty is Not An Act of Charity, Its an Act of Justice.”

“”Difficulties break some men but make others. No axe is sharp enough to cut the soul of a sinner who keeps on trying, one armed with the hope that he will rise even in the end.”

“Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” 

“No one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. People must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.”

“After climbing a great hill, one only finds that there are many more hills to climb.” 

“The greatest glory in living lies not in never falling, but in rising every time we fall.” 

“Few things make the life of a parent more rewarding and sweet as successful children.” 

“No one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones.” 

“I learned that courage was not the absence of fear, but the triumph over it. The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

“Resentment is like drinking poison and then hoping it will kill your enemies.” 

“Our children are our greatest treasure. They are our future. Those who abuse them tear at the fabric of our society and weaken our nation.” 

“What counts in life is not the mere fact that we have lived. It is what difference we have made to the lives of others that will determine the significance of the life we lead.” 

“Lead from the back – and let others believe they are in front.” 

“A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy. The press must be free from state interference. It must have the economic strength to stand up to the blandishments of government officials. It must have sufficient independence from vested interests to be bold and inquiring without fear or favor. It must enjoy the protection of the constitution, so that it can protect our rights as citizens.”

“Death is something inevitable. When a man has done what he considers to be his duty to his people and his country, he can rest in peace. I believe I have made that effort and that is, therefore, why I will sleep for the eternity.” 

The post Nelson Mandela Would Have Turned 99 Today, Let’s Recall His Words appeared first on SabrangIndia.

  A flag at an anti-nuclear demonstration in Melbourne, Australia, in 2013

The United States has joined a small group of global outliers on Friday after a historic United Nations treaty to ban nuclear weapons was adopted by a majority of the world’s nations. “The adoption of the nuclear weapons ban treaty marks an historic turning point in the centuries-old battle to eliminate all weapons of mass destruction,” said Jeff Carter, executive director of Physicians for Social Responsibility.

Ahead of its adoption, Elayne Whyte Gómez, Coasta Rica’s ambassador to the U.N. and president of the United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, championed the “historic"agreement, calling it “the first multilateral nuclear disarmament treaty to be concluded in more than 20 years.”

We have just made history! The #nuclearban treaty is adopted! pic.twitter.com/A08gT0E80Q
— ICAN (@nuclearban) July 7, 2017

One hundred twenty-two nations agreed to the final draft text after weeks of negotiations that were not attended by any of the nine nuclear-armed states, which include the U.S., Russia, and North Korea. (Among those signing on, however, are two of the other “axis of evil” states: Iran and Iraq.) The Netherlands cast the sole vote against the treaty.

“The nuclear weapons states’ boycott of the ban treaty negotiations,” Carter said last month, “illustrates a denial of medical science,” referring to “empirically known consequences of the use, testing, and development of these weapons on human lives.”

The treaty is based in humanitarian law and prohibits the development, testing, production, possession, or stockpiling of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices, the transfer of such weapons, and also bans not only their use but the threat of their use. It also calls for states to undertake environmental remediation for areas contaminated by nuclear weapons use or testing, and for states to provide assistance to victims “including medical care, rehabilitation, and psychological support, as well as provide for their social and economic inclusion.”

As John Loretz, program director at International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, put it:

The nuclear-armed and nuclear-dependent states have been provided with practical and flexible ways to comply with those prohibitions once they decide to join. If they persist in defying the norms established by the treaty, they will be outlaw states.

The treaty refutes the claim made by a handful of states that they need nuclear weapons to ensure their own security, and that humanitarian consequences must somehow be balanced with those needs. Not only does the treaty insist that the dangers posed by nuclear weapons “concern the security of all humanity,” but it also calls the long-overdue elimination of nuclear weapons “a global public good of the highest order, serving both national and collective security interests.”

The International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) said Thursday it was “overwhelmingly positive about the draft treaty,” adding: “We are on the cusp of a truly historic moment—when the international community declares, unambiguously, for the first time, that nuclear weapons are not only immoral, but also illegal. There should be no doubt that the draft before us establishes a clear, categorical ban on the worst weapons of mass destruction.”

The New York Times writes: “The new agreement is partly rooted in the disappointment among non-nuclear-armed nations that the Nonproliferation Treaty’s disarmament aspirations have not worked.”
Indeed, said Dr. Matthew McKinzie, Natural Resources Defense Council Senior Scientist and director of NRDC’s nuclear program, at a U.N. media briefing last month, “Both the U.S. and Russia are modernizing their nuclear arsenals.”
“That reveals an expectation that instead of reducing and eliminating nuclear arsenals, we will have these weapons for generations to come. That’s not the future we want,” he said.
Further explaining this trend, Matt Taibbi wrote at Rolling Stone:
This slowing of the disarmament movement began during Barack Obama’s last term, coinciding with the collapse of relations between the U.S. and Russia. Particularly since 2011, when the U.S. and Russia concluded the “New START” treaty on the reduction of each others’ arsenals, dialogue has almost completely ended on the subject.
Whatever you want to point to as the reason—the much-condemned Russian adventurism in Ukraine, or maybe the 2012 passage of the Magnitsky Act sanctioning Russia for human rights abuses, a law that outraged Putin and inspired a vicious ban on American adoption of Russian children—communication between Russia and the United States had long ago dropped to almost nil. This was before last summer’s election, the DNC hack, or the rise of Trump.
As a result, the two countries who maintain about 90 percent of the world’s warheads have stopped talking about nuclear reduction, and the rest of the world—which was promised disarmament—has noticed, leading to protest moves like this new treaty ban.
“Right now,” Carter added, “the U.S. government defies its existing disarmament obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty by planning to fund an extensive buildup of its nuclear arsenal. The ban treaty is the start of a new worldwide movement that gives the United States an opportunity to break from its self-destructive nuclear weapons policy.”
“In the twenty-first century, we can no longer pretend that these doomsday devices are instruments of security. The active conscience of the American health community calls on the United States to sign the nuclear weapons ban treaty to ensure that we safeguard our world for the next generation. It’s past time that we part from this untenable path. Prohibiting and eliminating these weapons of mass destruction is the only responsible course of action for U.S. nuclear weapons policy,” Carter continued.
Added Jon Rainwater, executive director of Peace Action: “Preaching temperance from a barstool never works. The U.S. can not lead the push for nuclear non-proliferation on the Korean peninsula while it spends billions to maintain one of the world’s two biggest nuclear arsenals. It’s time for the U.S. to get off of the barstool and lead by example.”
 

The post 122 Nations Sign Historic Barring US & Russia, 122 Nations Sign Historic Nuclear Weapons Ban appeared first on SabrangIndia.

On Sunday, Ariana Grande played to a packed house of 60,000 fans at Manchester’s Old Trafford Cricket Ground, in tribute to the 22 people killed at Grande’s Dangerous Woman concert in the same city two weeks ago. She was joined on stage by pop stars including Miley Cyrus, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber and Pharrell Williams

.

One Love Manchester aimed to counter the effects of terrorism by spreading messages of unity and love through music, harnessing pop as a personal and collective coping mechanism in the face of tragedy. But in troubled times, can music really heal?

The Manchester bombing is the latest in a line of assaults on entertainment venues, including the attack on the Eagles of Death Metal concert at Paris’s Bataclan Theatre in 2015, and at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, last year. These are seemingly inspired by a desire to curtail Western liberal freedoms, and specifically the freedom of women, the gay community and the young people who are celebrated in pop music.

Given the sentiment of the event, Grande drew some backlash on Twitter for performing her risqué song Side to Side. But as she revealed during the concert, she had changed her set list after talking with the mother of 15-year-old Olivia, who was killed in the bombing. During their emotional meeting, Olivia’s mum said that she “would’ve wanted to hear the hits”.

Evidence shows that bereaved families increasingly choose to commemorate loved ones with contemporary songs with which they, or the deceased, personally identify. An Australian funeral services provider reported Queen’s The Show Must Go On or Another One Bites the Dust were increasingly popular funeral songs. In the same way, pop concerts are built on a known repertoire of songs, which the audience predicts. This assists in the ritual communication of emotion.

It was music’s capacity to arouse different emotions that allowed One Love Manchester to achieve Grande’s aim for her concerts to be, “a place for them to escape, to celebrate, to heal, to feel safe and to be themselves.” It is now well established that mechanisms such as rhythm, shared emotions and the memory of specific events make music a powerful tool for connecting with other people.

Pharrell Williams’ upbeat Happy embodied the concert’s defiant stance on terrorism, suggesting that fear can be triumphantly overcome through the enactment of happiness and joy. Coldplay’s touching performance of Fix You allowed for the expression of mourning and collective grief.

Robbie Williams led the audience in a version of his song Strong, changing the lyrics to, “Manchester we’re strong, we’re strong”. Cultural studies theorist Graeme Turner has argued that this sort of sharing brings with it a temporary experience of equality and comradeship between many people.

Black Eyed Peas’ Where is the Love?, inspired by the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, has become an anthem for countering terrorism and related anti-Islamic sentiment. It provided the Manchester audience with an emotional bridge to the larger, global community of those affected by terrorism.

We need to do more research to understand how these shared emotions and experiences can be galvanised to create longer-term resilience and solidarity. But for this night, One Love Manchester demonstrated the power of music to heal an urban community and bring people together.

Courtesy: The Conversation

The post Manchester Showed Us Ritual Emotion & the Healing Power of Song appeared first on SabrangIndia.