- By Raina Lath On February 4th, China will be hosting the much anticipated 24th Winter Olympics in Beijing, amidst the coronavirus pandemic. However many nations have ensued a diplomatic boycott to protest the host country's controversial human rights violations. The incentive to boycott is nothing new, groups have been advocating such protests since talks of hosting the Olympics came to light earlier this year and the traction for such boycott only seems to be increasing. The diplomatic boycott was kickstarted by the US, citing the country's human rights violations as the reason. Other nations, such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and even Canada, have followed suit as a result. But are these nations so saintly to care about human rights, or is it something political? The origins of this domino effect The US government had stated on December 6th that it would not send US government officials to the Beijing Games in protest of China’s abuses against the Uyghurs in Xinjiang and anti-democratic repression in Hong Kong. Participating in the Beijing Olympics, according to a coalition of over 200 human rights organisations, would be "an endorsement of the Chinese Communist Party's authoritarian rule" and would "turn a blind eye to these abuses." Although the organizing International Olympic Committee (IOC), has attempted to defuse the situation by highlighting its "neutrality", it seems hard to ignore the hidden political motives of those that have protested. What is the purpose of boycotting the Beijing Olympics? The boycott of the Beijing Olympics is not a new tactic. The history of boycotts dates back to 1956 and many boycotts of the Olympics have happened since. A recent example is three years ago with the diplomatic boycotts of the Russian football World Cup after the Salisbury Novichok poisoning. For a long time, the two political superpowers have been in a rivalry. An example of this is the tariffs both countries have imposed in terms of trade. Seeing this, it is no surprise that the US is strongly against China and wants the purpose of this diplomatic boycott is to humiliate and address the situation in China. The US on the other hand will still be in full support of letting athletes compete. Usually, countries hosting Olympic games have both sports and politics mixed into their motives for staging events. If countries were to send politicians to the game, it would be inferred as an approval of the government of President Xi Jinping. However, many analysts believe that a boycott of the 2022 Beijing Olympics would be ineffective and would make gaining compromises from China even more difficult. The US and other countries argue that the 2022 games might be used instead to raise attention to China's human rights violations by concerned nations and media outlets. What is China saying about this? China has reacted angrily and accused the US of “political posturing and manipulation.” Along with that, Foreign Ministry spokesperson Wang Wenbin told reporters that China had not extended invitations to the US, Canada or the UK and that it "doesn't matter if their officials come or not, as they will see the success of the Beijing Winter Olympics." He continued to say that, “sports has nothing to do with politics. It is they who have written, directed and performed this farce." On top of that, in Beijing, the foreign ministry said the Americans were interfering “out of ideological prejudice and based on lies and rumors.” China also denied all allegations regarding human rights violations with the Uyghur educational camps and in any other forms. What other countries may boycott the olympics? The European Parliament has taken solid ethical positions and overwhelmingly passed a nonbinding resolution calling on diplomatic authorities to boycott the Winter Olympics. However, because of the extensive trade ties with Beijing, it is unlikely that some other European nations will boycott the Olympics. Countries like Italy and France have stated it would not join the American boycott due to extensive trade ties with China. At the end of the day, attendance in the Olympic Games in any form is a decision of individual member states. Whether the decision relies on countries being fearful of Chinese retaliation or hurting trade, it is inevitable that worldwide political relations will be jeopardised. https://www.cfr.org/in-brief/debate-over-boycotting-2022-beijing-olympics https://www.reuters.com/world/china/australia-joins-diplomatic-boycott-beijing-winter-games-2021-12-08/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-59556613 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/world/asia/us-boycott-beijing-olympics-reaction.html https://globalnews.ca/news/8434349/countries-boycotting-beijing-olympics-what-you-need-to-know/ https://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/china-response-canada-us-boycott-winter-olympic-games-1.6279175 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-59646231

By: Sophia Rathleff Thursday 11th November - Cities, Regions and Built Environment Thursday 11th of November came as a continuation of Wednesday’s talks on transportation, with some, albeit random, additions to conversation topics. As the final day to introduce new ideas and give a final push on controversial issues, Thursday was busy in every area. Things to take away from today One, a group of countries and organisations have joined the Glasgow Decoration on Zero Emissions Cars and Vans, to accelerate the transition into zero-emissions vehicles by 2040. This comes after the UK confirms its commitment to past pledges on prohibiting the sale of new petrol/diesel vehicles. Two, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has released the first proposal for a sustainable financing plan. This could act as a skeleton for states and organisations to build off of to ensure funding goes to where it is needed and that it is the sufficient amount. This would ensure poorer nations have the infrastructure available to not only cope with climate change but counteract it as well. Three, another unlikely pair, Denmark and Costa Rica, have announced their “Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance”, which highlights their commitment to stop the domestic production of these products. They will do this by stopping the issuing of new permits, which will eventually phase their domestic use out. It also announced new members to this commitment, which include France, Ireland and Sweden. Four, Major US airlines and Amazon have announced a joint effort to curb aviation emissions by 2050. They have committed to a coordinated effort to accelerate development and the use of sustainable aviation fuels (SAF). This would mean major reductions in global emissions, through the sustainable aviation byers alliance. In conclusion, not much new but major steps have been taken in aviation and finance. It all depends on how far they are willing to go with commitment and implementation. To put it in Prime Minister Boris Johnson's words, leaders need to “go further” tomorrow to be able to make a difference. The entire success of this summit lies on the outcome of tomorrow's discussions. Consensus building will be key, but this could lead to problems with weak wording or clauses being struck. Only tomorrow will tell... Sources: https://ukcop26.org/cop-president-daily-media-statement-and-latest-announcements-11-november/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/cop26-everything-to-know-about-the-climate-change-summit-on-11-november/ Friday 12th November (+ Saturday 13th) - Closure of Negotiations Summary After a long (long) two weeks, COP26 finally came to an end after extending an extra day to finish discussions. The document leaders have been working towards is the Glasgow Climate Pact, which condenses the outcomes of the summit. Almost all decisions are taken by a consensus, due to the procedural protocols, which means all participating parties must be in agreement. This is the reason for the extension as some parties were unhappy with certain wording, which can determine the overall outcome of a clause or declaration. Overall, the consensus had been reached for the Pact and it was published on Saturday the 13th of November. Some call it a success, some a failure and others are unsure, but this declaration determines climate outcomes until 2030 regardless. Things to take away from the summit Failures and shortcomings One, coal. In the last minute bid, India prevented consensus by submitting a request to amend wording. They weakened the wording from “phasing out” coal usage to “phasing down”. This allows space for nations that currently do not have the funding to phase out coal entirely but, as it applies to every nation, it allows too much space for wealthier nations to continue with coal usage. This could prove detrimental to reducing global warming to the 1.5 goal. Though on Friday, countries, including Norway and Costa Rica, opposed this effort. Two, once again wealthier nations failed to provide adequate funding to aid poorer countries in their climate action plans. The $100 billion a year by 2020 has already failed, and once again they haven't placed any implementation plans within the Glasgow Climate Pact. This is detrimental to these nations and could inhibit progress made towards the 1.5. Three, activists and civil society were locked out of the summit, some even arrested for gathering near it. This is a major step back in terms of responsibility for the future, as we will be shouldering this issue when the current leaders kick the bucket. Four, the declaration does not make any historical acknowledgment for states impact on emissions and climate change. Notably, there was no blame put on the biggest emitters while they encouraged smaller nations to work harder on climate change. This needs to happen as a major step towards global cooperation to tackle climate change. Five, Australia won the “Colossal Fossil “ award for its abysmal performance at COP. with the US coming in second for excessive “hot air” and the UK in third for their shambles of a COP26 summit. Successes and hopes for the future One, nations agreed to review and adjust their nationally determined contributions to global emissions by 2022, reducing the time to meet every two years. This will hopefully bring stronger action and genuine implementation plans start to take place towards the end of this year and the start of next year. Two, after a considerably rocky start, China and the US’s cooperation was a pleasant surprise. Depending on how long they keep their commitments up, this could spell real hope and progress for global climate action. Three, the considerable steps are taken to counteract deforestation earlier in the summit held up to the end. Including $14 billion of private and public funds from Brazil, the global commitments to deforestation will lead to considerable flourishing for the global natural environment. Four, the cuts on methane emissions that over 80 countries have pledged to can be considered the most successful outcome of the conference. This pledge committed to cutting methane emissions by 30% by 2030. This included a significant proportion of the world’s top methane emitters. Five, there has been some improvement when it comes to climate finance, notably the agreement to plan a layout for long term funding and the increase in yearly funding. However, this agreement barely has implementation and finance targets have consistently failed by wealthier nations. Summary A few good things have come out of this summit, with more promise than in future years. The work of deforestation has been notable, with some transport pledges holding promising outcomes. Any action is better than none, that will always be the case, but inaction that feigns action is so much worse. As a result, the summit's lukewarm policies have not lived up to the standard many fear we desperately need. But Sadly, the 2030 NDC’s have been assessed by four different organisations but they have found that these will lead to a 2.4-degree global warming. This means there will have to be dramatic and sudden changes in policies within the next decade to be able to counter the effects. Many experts and activists have called this summit a failure and that it has stuck too close to the status-quo, laid out at the Paris Agreement. But in all honesty, the status quo is no longer good enough, it is nowhere near good enough. Leaders can no longer sit idle and keep using climate change meetings as a PR opportunity. If they want to make a tangible change they need to turn their faces away from the cameras and towards science. Confront the economic issues, confront the scientific and technological developments needed and confront the fact that climate change is a result of our actions. They need to listen to their youth, our present and future, and to their scientists, who continue to plead with leaders. We know what is coming if we don't act, and they know too, they are just choosing the easy way out and to put profit over people. It is difficult and complex, it will always be difficult and complex. But, every major step we take, away from fossil fuel use and away from profiting over the destruction of the environment, is a step towards untangling this knot. We have a future to protect, they are our key to making it possible. It is not just down to us, because frankly it doesn't matter how many plastic straws or bags we save or how many reuse and recycle programs we run if there are companies actively pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at alarming rates. Leaders need to tackle those corporations and take the economic blows that will follow because there will always be a cost. We are balancing on the edge and we can't afford to stall anymore. The COP26 summit was a disaster on many fronts, and a disaster we can no longer afford. From the inaccessibility to the inaction, leaders will have to do much better because by the time it passes to us, there won't be a torch left. sources : https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/cop26-commitments-goals-climate-change-highlights-boris-johnson-joe-biden-modi-greta-thunberg-b964677.html https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/what-happened-at-cop26-a-complete-report-card-80208 https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/11/1105792 https://ukcop26.org/the-conference/cop26-outcomes/ https://www.theactuary.com/news/2021/11/17/cop26-roundup

Has satire become equivalent to terrorism? By: Mihika Yadav Comedian Vir Das performing ‘I Come From Two Indias’ at the John F. Kennedy Centre “I come from an India where we worship women during the day and gang-rape them during the night.” This shocking statement is part of a 6-minute stand up set performed by an Indian comedian at the John F. Kennedy Centre in Washington DC titled, “I Come From Two Indias.” A video of the speech was then uploaded onto YouTube on the 15th of November, instigating severe controversy worldwide. As of the 14th of December, the video has received over 5.4 million views and 577 thousand likes. The comedian, Vir Das, describes what he sees as two duelling sides of India. One that longs for liberal progression and one that continues to embrace Hindutva (right-wing extremism) dogma. A quote from the piece exemplifying this idea states, “I come from an India that has the largest working population under 30 on the planet but still listens to 75-year-old leaders with 150-year-old ideas.” The comedian also joked about these two sides of India and their contrasting views on broad concepts such as sexuality, government, cricket, and journalism. Vir Das, known for being a stand-up comedian, moved into Bollywood and acted in several successful films. He’s also starred in many Netflix specials such as ‘Losing It’ and ‘Abroad Understanding’. Some prominent figures from India have come to Vir’s defence following the intense backlash he has faced for this set. The most supportive response has been from Shashi Tharoor, a writer/politician, who said that Das “spoke for millions” in his monologue. To describe him Tharoor added, “A stand-up comedian who knows the real meaning of the term "stand up" is not physical but moral.” Tweet by writer/politician Shashi Tharoor commending Vir Das’ performance However, Das is being faced with a lot of pressure and criticism from particularly members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (nationalist political party) who claim he is “defaming and spoiling the name of India in the USA”. A legal advisor of the BJP has tweeted that he has filed a police complaint against Vir Das’ inflammatory statement. Concerning this, #StandUpForIndia has been trending on Twitter, with many tweets exclaiming, “Shame On You Vir Das,” with the aforementioned hashtag. Another tweet against Vir Das’ speech by filmmaker Ashoke Pandit stated, "I see a terrorist in this man called #VirDas." Pandit also added that he believes Vir should be tried against terror laws. After facing this level of condemnation many would assume that Das would have come out with an apology for retracting his statements against India, however, a recent tweet from him proves otherwise. He mentions that, “the video is a satire about the duality of two very separate Indias that do different things.” In summary, he tries to assure everyone that he takes pride in his country and that when he asked the audience in the crowd to cheer for India, it was with ‘hope’, not ‘malice’. Tweet by filmmaker Ashoke Pandit strongly against Vir Das’ statements The public certainly has mixed reactions to the ‘I Come From Two Indias’ video, however, Das is largely being supported by younger, more liberal audiences who see eloquence in his words, as opposed to slander. Many have left comments on the video in the style of his monologue such as, “I come from an India where comedians do politics and politicians do comedy.” In terms of the audience in the original video, his most applauded line was, “I come from an India that is going to watch this and say ‘This isn’t comedy. Where is the goddamn joke?’ and yet I come from an India that will watch this and know there is a gigantic joke, it just isn’t funny.” Stand up set performed by Vir Das Sources: https://www.samaa.tv/entertainment/2021/11/vir-das-under-fire-for-poignant-take-on-indias-duality/ https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/17/india/india-comedian-vir-das-criticism-intl-hnk/index.html https://www.shethepeople.tv/news/highlights-speech-two-indias-controversy-vir-das-outrage/ https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/congress-leaders-kapil-sibal-shashi-tharoor-back-comic-vir-das-for-i-come-from-2-indias-video-2614220 https://thewire.in/the-arts/amidst-flurry-of-reactions-police-complaint-vir-das-issues-note-on-viral-monologue

By: Anjo Chu Introduction: For as long as people can remember, capital punishment has long been considered one of human’s most controversial debates. Both surrounding the fact of ethics, and the stigmatised profiling of victims that fall under the drought of capital punishment. Popular arguments for and against capital punishment fall distinctively under the three general senses of morality, utilitarianism, and the practicality of such acts. So why does the debate of the death penalty create such a dramatic politcal divide? Morality: Many of the supporters of the death penalty believe that those who commit the most heinous acts of murder because they have taken another’s life, have now lost their right to life. Essentially reinforcing the idea of “An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth”, which relates to the biblical and religious beliefs which back the argument of the death penalty for the supporter of capital punishment. They also believe that capital punishment is a form of consequence, believing that the reinforcement of the moral resentment of not only the victim’s family but as well as law-abiding civilians. Argumentatively, the opposition of capital punishment believes that legitimizing the action of law that allows for repression and killing is more counterproductive. Even more, it is of the popular belief that when it is used as a common punishment of those that thought of as more ‘insignificant’ crimes - such as drug-related crimes, or any of those that do not result in the taking of another’s life, is to the core, fundamentally immoral and inhuman since it violates the person’s right to life. Utilitarian: (the theory of morality that advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and oppose actions that cause unhappiness or harm) Many of the advocates of the death penalty often claim that capital punishment has a special effect on many potentially violent individuals for whom the threat of imprisonment is not of sufficient restraint for them. People supporting the opposition directly object by pushing the statistics that research over the years has demonstrated that the death penalty is not a more effective punishment (referring to the reduction in criminal activity as effective) than the sentence of life imprisonment. Practicality: The debate of whether capital punishment can be administered in a way of justice is also a very commonly brought up debate within this topic. Those that support capital punishment believe that it is realistic to construct laws that can dutifully restrict the racial profiling that can happen during criminal capital punishment trials, and they believe that only wrongdoers should be worried about facing the consequences. It is also notable that many of the opposition points, to the other factors that they contemplate, whether it is even possible to create laws that will - without a single valid argument, never wrongfully convict an individual of that offense. It proposes the argument that even in a completely well-run criminal justice system, the innocent will still be executed for the crimes that they did not commit. Many also argue that the poor, ethnic and religious minorities do not have access to good legal assistance, and suggesting that racial prejudice motivates the often predominately white juries in capital punishment trials that convict black or other non-white defendants in disproportionate numbers. Abolishing the death penalty Crediting the European Englightenment during the late 18th century, there was a wider spread of discussion surrounding the topic of the death penalty, along with many other dividing subjects. At the time, many crimes were punishable by death, even the more ‘insignificant’ cases (including petty theft). Slowly, many states in the US (beginning with Pennsylvania and Michigan) started to abolish the death penalty, declaring it as inhumane and an inadequate punishment for crimes. Not only was the US progressing into illegalising the death penalty, so were many South American countries such as Venezuela, followed by many European countries like San Marino, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Italy (although the Italian legislation was soon overruled by the fascist undertaking of Benito Mussolini). Nearing the 1960s, over 25 countries have abolished the death penalty, although many countries still made exceptions like crimes against the state or military code. For instance, Britain abolished the death penalty for the act of murder (in all offences), but cases of treason, piracy and other military-related crimes remained legal. Capital Punishment: Today Despite the progression of movements towards the banning of the death penalty, many countries remain in support of capital punishment, and some countries have made it a higher priority to protect the law of legalisation for the act of capital punishment. More than 30 different countries have made the importation and possession for sale of drugs (different in each scenario) a capital offence, leading to consequences of capital punishment. For example, in Iran, Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, capital punishment for the distribution of illegal substances (drugs) is normative. Singapore has one of the highest rates of execution per capita of any country, about ¾ of individuals convicted of drug-related offences have been executed. Alternatively, even though the majority of the US states have banned or put heavy restrictions on capital punishment (roughly 60%), ⅔ of all executions were coming from just 6 states (Texas, Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, Missouri, and Oklahoma). Only in a few countries does the law allow for minors (any individual under the age of 18 when the crimes were committed) to be executed. Many people disagree with this law, protesting that the child cannot be to blame as they have not yet formed correct decisive natures for their actions. Therefore, conventions such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, have been important events of discussion in the United Nations, which has not yet concluded a blanket declaration for the execution of a minor. In the late 90s, a series of cases in which an individual convicted of capital crimes and ones awaiting execution on death row were absolved based on the new DNA testing technology - many US states began to reconsider a temporary ban on the death penalty. In the early 2000s, Illinois Governor George Ryan ordered this particular ban (moratorium), explaining that the state had put to death around 12 people from 1977-2000 but that the death sentences of 13 other individuals had been quickly overturned in the same period. In 2003, Ryan completely removed all individuals awaiting execution. Following this controversial decision, a huge number of states consequently abolished capital punishment - New Jersey in 2007, Illinois in 2011, Connecticut in 2012, Washington in 2018, and Virginia just early on this year of 2021. Amidst the rapid change in politics nowadays, it is uncertain whether the ban will stay the same. Many politicians have already made claims to reverse these laws and bring back capital punishment. Not so long ago, Donald Trump was one of the first presidents in the last decade to allow the execution of 13 inmates despite worrying efforts from the American populace. Although we can see the progression in politics regarding the decision of capital punishment, the future of these restrictive laws is still left uncertain. Sources: Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/death-penalty/ https://eji.org/issues/death-penalty/

By: Sophia Rathleff Week 2: Monday 8th November - Adaptation, Loss and Damage Monday started with a global connection, having talks coming in from around the world. World leaders focused on how to support poorer and less adapted countries and talk ensued on how productive standoffs over funding are for larger nations. Things to take away from today One, African nations asked for $1.3 trillion a year from wealthier countries, which is 13-fold of what they were asking for by 2020, which had repeatedly fallen through. Two, the Minister for Tuvalu, Simon Kofe, made a speech addressing COP26 in knee-deep water. He did this to emphasise how small island nations are on the frontlines of climate change. It took social media by storm. Three, Norway and Singapore, an unusual pair, are leading talks on deals with global carbon markets. This is an issue that we omitted from the Paris accord, so it is interesting that it is coming back into the conversation. Four, former vice president al gore addressed the summit leaders congratulating progress but handing a heavy warning for what would happen if pledges fall through. Gore said, ”We must not declare victory here, we know that we have made progress, but we are far from the goals that we need to reach.” Five, many countries, organisations and individuals are lobbying for more frequent meeting times. Many are saying every five years is not enough, with UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres saying that if COP26 falls short there will be a severe need for more frequent meetings. In conclusion, Monday was the start of what is going to be a complicated and, quite frankly, stressful week. The leaders sit in for another five days (hopefully) of talks, with the immediate concern of solidifying pledges for 1.5 or lower by the time they each attend the conference. More to come tomorrow with gender, science and innovation Tuesday 9th November - Gender, Science and Innovation Tuesday opened with an optimistic outlook, that countries will most likely be able to set rules for implementing the Paris agreement by the end of this year's summit. The Official agenda is planned to focus on how climate change disproportionately affects women and to celebrate the women working with climate change issues. With a mixture of optimism and pessimism and more speeches from famous faces, the time pressure is starting to build at COP26 with only four days left. Things to take away from today One, the Climate Action Tracker predicts a 2.4 degree increase by the end of the century. This is a drastic jump from the previous 1.5 goal. The CAT also stated that the goals for 2030 are “totally inadequate”. Two, former President Obama takes the side of youth activists rallying them to “stay angry”. He stressed that channelling frustration towards world leaders is the way they can make a change. Crucially he recognised the generational ignorance that many older leaders exhibit, as it is not their world to inherit, so they tend to care less. Three, there is even more pressure building from poorer nations to get richer nations to fund climate change action and the development of adapted technology. This comes after the African nations plea for an increase in yearly funding after being constantly disappointed by richer nations which is becoming a clear trend. Four, on the topic of science and technology, Emmanuel Macron, France's president, pushed for more nuclear power worldwide. This comes amongst many talks of finding renewable sources of energy. In conclusion, the focus was much less on gender and much more on science and technology. A trend popped up that richer nations were tip-toeing around the topic of regulating big emitters. Whether we will see more conversations on this throughout the week is uncertain, but they certainly need to be included in regulations to be able to make the 1.5 goal. Wednesday 10th November - Transport Wednesday saw transport as the focus, and as emissions from the transport sector have more than doubled since the 1970s, it is more crucial than ever as the industry makes up 24% of total global emissions, there was a shift in focus to making transport greener. Things to take away from today One, the first draft of the declaration was released today, from which delegates will work for the last few days of the summit. The declaration emphasises the need for immediate action and implementation, revisiting the 2030 goals, to be able to align with the Paris agreement by 2022. Two, Prime Minister Boris Johnson, back in Glasgow by train (after severe backlash from using a private plane before), once again addressed the summit. He encouraged a final push, stating there was “still a huge amount to do” in the final days of the summit. Johnson also expressed concern for states actions, saying they are “edging towards default” pledges. He makes a valid point, and it will take the next few days to see how they change from the past narrative. Three, Saudi Arabia’s energy minister highlighted the need for flexibility within climate solutions stating states must act “without any bias towards or against any particular source of energy”. He also highlighted supporting less developed nations on a sustainable path, and to do this states could not exclude any energy sources. Four, the UK has recently pledged to end the sale of new petrol vehicles by 2030, so following this a new pledge on this issue was brought up. It has developed states committing to announcing bans soon and developing nations working “intensely” towards it. However, the major vehicle manufacturing nations, China, the USA and Germany, have sat out of this pledge. Five other deals were made by major contributors to emissions in shipping and aviation. These actions could spell major change in these sectors, which remain as some of the most problematic obstacles for reaching the 1.5 goal. This also comes after the severe backlash of world leaders using private flights to arrive at the summit. Six, there are protests for free public transportation and better cycling infrastructure, in Glasgow and around the UK. This is also a worldwide issue, especially in areas where public transport is underfunded or expensive. Public transportation and cycling is the most efficient way of reducing car usage, but it has to be convenient and appealing to the masses. Seven, the biggest development of the day is the joint China/US declaration on climate change. As the two biggest emitters of the past few years, they will organise joint meetings starting early 2022. They will attempt to lay out long term plans on issues such as methane emissions and deforestation. After being at each other's necks for the past week and a half, this turnaround is honestly both shocking and unexpected. China’s top climate negotiator even stated "In areas of climate change, there is more agreement between China and US than divergence." In conclusion, a surprising and chaotic end to the day. We will have to wait to see how these pledges turn out in the next few days, especially the “joint declaration”. It will be interesting to see the impact of protestors and youth activists in the next few days. From now on, the procedure gets technical and complicated, with the majority of discussions being consensus building. However, tomorrow should see some new declarations on cities and development. Sources: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/cop26-climate-change-summit-news-8-november/ https://news.sky.com/story/cop26-what-is-happening-on-each-day-of-the-climate-conference-12445071 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/09/cop26-updates-as-climate-summit-continues-in-glasgow.html https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/cop26-everything-to-know-about-the-climate-change-summit-on-9-november/ https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/cop26-everything-to-know-about-the-climate-change-summit-on-10-november/ https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/10/cop26-live-updates-prime-minister-boris-johnson-returns-to-summit-.html https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/Overarching_decision_1-CP-26.pdf https://www.edie.net/news/9/Boris-Johnson-and-draft-climate-agreement-from-UN-as-China--US-and-Germany-refuse-to-step-up-on-EVs--7-things-you-need-to-know-from-Transport-Day-at-COP26/ https://www.edie.net/news/11/COP26--US--China--major-brands-sit-out-of-new-global-pledge-on-transitioning-to-100--zero-emission-vehicles/

By: Sienna Lovelock-Burtt Introduced as Senate Bill 8, the so-called ‘Heartbeat Law’ as it is known, was signed into law by Texas Governor Greg Abbott on May 15. It went into effect on 21 September 2021. The Bill makes abortion illegal once a fetal heartbeat can be detected - which is usually at around 6 weeks into a pregnancy – even if there are challenging medical problems. Before this law, the 1973 Ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade was the historical precedent for abortion law. The verdict was that the United States protects a pregnant woman’s liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restrictions, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion had been illegal throughout much of the country since the late 19th century. However, Roe v. Wade ruling has proved controversial, and Americans remain divided in their support for a woman’s right to choose an abortion. Since the 1973 ruling, many states have imposed restrictions on abortion rights. Why is the new law significant? The Texas Heartbeat bill clearly violates the precedent established in Roe v Wade and has not surprisingly attracted huge controversy. At the end of October, after an appeal, the Supreme Court refused to overturn the Heartbeat bill, effectively changing the precedent. The Texas Heartbeat Act is different from other anti-abortion bills in some key respects. On the legal front, it allows any person to sue someone who performs or induces abortion, or aids and abets one, once ‘cardiac activity’ in an embryo can be detected via transvaginal ultrasound which is usually possible beginning at around six weeks of pregnancy. The act defines an ‘unborn child’ as a human fetus or embryo at any stage of gestation. An abortion patient may not be named as a defendant. However, anyone who provides support for an unlawful abortion can be sued in addition to the physician performing the procedure. That includes staff members at clinics, counselors, lawyers, financiers, and those who provide transportation to an abortion clinic, including drivers of a taxi or ride-hailing companies. The act promotes private enforcement by authorizing ‘statutory damages’ of at least $10,000 in addition to court costs and attorney #39;s fees if a defendant is proven liable. Plaintiffs are not required to have a personal connection to the patient or abortion provider to bring a lawsuit. On the medical front, the Law has raised some questions. Some have suggested that the ‘Heartbeat Law’ is incorrectly named. Several medical and reproductive health experts have argued that the embryo doesn’t even have a developed heart at 6 weeks gestation. In fact, at 6 weeks gestation, most women do not even know they are pregnant. Six weeks is one missed period – relatively common with stress, outside factors, or even a change in diet. Next Steps – so what next? The law first went into effect in September when the Supreme Court denied the petition to block its enforcement. A federal judge ordered Texas to suspend its abortion law, calling it an ‘offensive deprivation’ of a constitutional right. Two days later, it was reinstated by an appeals court, later upheld by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. With Thanksgiving approaching, it is unclear whether the Supreme Court will decide on the Texas cases before they hear more arguments. A ruling was due on the 21 st of November, but so far, the Supreme Court has not been forthcoming. A case over Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban is set to be heard on 1 December 2021. Several other states have dormant abortion laws, that now may come into action, including Arkansas, Louisiana, Kentucky, and many others. Given the highly charged, political nature of the issue – a women’s right to choose - we can expect to see legal action continue for the foreseeable future. Sources: https://www.texastribune.org/2021/09/02/texas-abortion-heartbeat-bill/ https://www.khou.com/article/news/politics/texas-abortion-law-legal-experts-weigh-in/285-50a57e8d-35aa-4e8d-beee-f069a4c935cb https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2021/09/02/we-will-keep-fighting-reaction-to-supreme-court-ruling-that-lets-texas-heartbeat-bill-stand/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/10/us/politics/texas-abortion-supreme-court.html

By: Raina Lath What is happening between Russia and Ukraine? Russian troops have been making their way to Ukraine’s border. Kyiv and the US have drawn concerns about Russia attacking Ukraine, so what exactly is happening? On November 26th the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky stated that Russia was planning to overthrow Ukraine’s government. Moscow denied all allegations and blamed Kyiv and the US for the escalating tensions. In response, Russia asserted the possibility of deploying troops on its own territory. It is insinuated that the Kyiv might be planning to seize back two eastern regions in the Donbas areas that have been controlled by pro-russian separatists since 2014. Ukraine denies planning any such offensive stating that Russia has more than 92,000 troops massed near its borders for a possible attack. This build up of troops has prompted widespread concerns of Russia invading Ukraine which used to be part of the Soviet Union before its separation in 1991. Russia Ukraine Border So how likely is war? Many sources including Western intelligence believe that Russia will not go to war. Instead, they believe a more realistic scenario is that President Vladimer Putin may utilise their military force in order to threaten Ukraine into showing that Russia is serious in defending its ‘red lines’. Russia had also stated that they refuse to accept any supply of NATO weapons to Ukraine or any NATO military presence. That being said, Putin is adept at escalating and de-escalating the crisis - which was apparent during thebuild-up of Russian troops near the Ukraine border and they subsequently pulled back. This way Russia can demonstrate their military presence to Ukraine and the world. If war were to happen, what might it look like? Russia's armed forces have 900,000 active troops compared with 209,000 for Ukraine, an advantage of more than four to one, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). But Samir Puri, senior fellow in hybrid warfare at the IISS, said the real advantage for Russia was that it already has proxies fighting in the separatist war in eastern Ukraine, this gives Russia the option to link up and extend the area under their control. However, if it came down to war, compared to 2014 when Ukraine lost Crimea to Russia without a fight, they now have a much stronger military. It also has tanks supplied from Washington and could ask the US for intelligence support. That being said, if NATO troops along with western troops come to help Ukraine, Ukraines military could potentially be powerful. But even so, Russia still has a very strong military with several more battle tanks than Ukraine. Another thing that may prevent Moscow from going to war is their relations with the US. After the annexation of Crimea, the US imposed sanctions on Russia. Putin would risk the US imposing more painful measures if he invades Ukraine. What is the US's Role in this? NATO is also worried about Russia and Ukraine. Military alliance’s Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg warned on 30th November that NATO members should prepare for the worst when it comes to Russia and Ukraine. “There is no certainty, no clarity about exactly what are the Russian intentions, and they may actually evolve and change,” the NATO chief added, noting “they’ve done it before” referring to the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. However, there are also some signs that Putin and his tanks are pushing for more talks with the US. The head of the Russian International Affairs Council think-tank in Moscow (RIAC) had said, “At a meeting between Putin and Biden, neither will give clear commitments but there may be some tacit understanding on how far the US is ready to go in increasing its military support to Ukraine.” Political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya also said "Whilst Putin has a flicker of hope that he can do a deal with Biden, he won't take any rash steps. But if he thinks it's all doomed, he could do the worst things we can imagine." Sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/qa-what-is-risk-war-between-russia-ukraine-2021-11-23/ ​​https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59428712 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/us-state-dept-says-all-options-table-over-russian-troop-build-up-near-ukraine-2021-11-26/ https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59415885 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/25/us/politics/biden-putin-russia-ukraine.html https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/01/ukraine-border-fears-escalate-as-officials-thrash-out-biden-putin-meeting.html

By: Sophia Rathleff November 2nd 2021 Coming in strong for day 2 of the World Leaders summit, we saw action taken from both leaders and outside parties. Leaders (mostly) stayed on track with the main goals of the summit. We had a final address from Biden and day 2 saw the major pledges suggested in advance of the finance meetings of November 3rd. Things to take note of today. One, 128 countries, including Russia and China, signed the Glasgow Leaders’ declaration on forests and land use, to tackle deforestation. The declaration pledges financial, agricultural and economical advances to aid in the ceasing and reversing of deforestation. Two, Biden made an address, finishing his visit to Glasgow, where he touched on multiple issues. He pledged to cut methane emissions by 30% by 2030, with over 80* countries joining the pledge. In addition, he discussed the Congress bill, currently in progress, to support the pledges he has made in the previous two days. Biden appears to be confident in the bill saying “I think we’ll get this done.” Then he went on to criticise China and Russia for not being there, forgetting other absent leaders in the process. Respectively, he calls China's decision to not be present a “big mistake” and, directly addressing Putin, says his approach has been unwilling and that “He has serious climate problems”. Three, major talks on coal usage reduction are expected to continue over the next few days in light of the High Ambition Coalition (HAC)** being confirmed to be back on track. It is expected that talks, specifically with countries heavily reliant on coal usage (notably African countries), will continue over the next few days. Four, more than 40 countries have signed the Glasgow Breakthrough Agenda, pledging to make green technology a more affordable solution. It includes a massive funding drive and adaptable technology for differing nations. Five, South Africa signed an $8.5 billion deal with the UK, US and EU to help aid the country's departure from coal usage. In addition, African countries are planning on spending $6bn a year, from tax revenues, on climate impacts. Six, Jeff Bezos, notorious (former) Amazon CEO who recently just popped to space, pledged $2 bn towards restoring nature and food systems. The $2bn, from the Bezos Earth fund (excuse the irony), is part of his $10bn commitment to climate change action. In his address, he defended his journey with Blue Origin, which (granted) used ‘green Hydrogen’ that produces mostly water vapour but still has a carbon footprint due to construction and research. Bezos stated that his eccentric trip, made him realise the earth is “finite and fragile”, and made him more committed to the cause. Still, it makes people wonder, what's the rush to get out of here Bezos? In conclusion, today was predicted to be a busy day, the information here is certainly not exhaustive. Smaller highlights include; the extension of protected areas in Ecuador, the President of Palau stating “You might as well bomb us” in reference to his countries declining state due to climate change and Greta Thunberg being filmed chanting “You can shove your climate crisis up your a***” (a strong message to the leaders inside). With many leaders heading home today, tomorrow starts the specific discussions, starting with finance. *As of 3/11/21 8 am SGT **The HAC is essentially the pledge for the 1.5 goals set for mid-century Wednesday 3rd November Wednesday is the finance day at the COP26 summit and we saw both public and private investors form the financial sector layout plans for financing the climate action pledges. The public sector is already involved through finance ministers who were at the forefront of today's discussion. However, the public sector has proven to be crucial to the climate action plan, with the CEO of EY telling CNBC “If the private sector is not involved we’re not going to get to 1.5 degrees, we’re not going to get anywhere near 1.5 degrees''. Things to take away from today One, in the address from Exchequer Rishi Sunak (UK) he announced that the UK plans to be the first net-zero aligned financial centre. This means financial firms will have to disclose their emissions, but net-zero will not be compulsory. Two, in the same address Sunak announced the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net-Zero, affectionately named GFANZ. This alliance has over 450 forms from 45 countries pledging over $130 trillion to develop the economy to back climate change pledges. However, many environmental groups have criticized announcements as they failed to end funding to fossil fuels. Three, many developing countries have highlighted the importance of global finance. With new pledges to improve infrastructures, the discussion of funding for less wealthy states is likely to be continuous. The members of the Less Developed countries (LDC) group stated that getting access to funding for climate change, but other issues such as covid19, has been a “Huge issue”. Four, Israel’s energy minister Karine Elharrar couldn't access the first meetings as the venue was not wheelchair accessible. She has muscular dystrophy and uses a wheelchair, but due to the venue's lack of accessibility, she couldn't get into the venue. She has since received an apology from Boris Johnson, though it brings the idea of climate change ableism to the spotlight for the first time. In conclusion, today was a somewhat simple day for the summit. Deals were made and finance has been secured from and for high economy countries. However, the biggest takeaway from today was the disparity between the LDC group and high economic nations. Also, following discussions of ceasing fossil fuel funding, the lack of commitment has opened the summit up for heavy criticism. Thursday 4th November - energy With fossil fuels being the buzzword for energy this summit, today saw a variety of policies come into action. Coal was the main focus of the day, with more commitments coming into conversations, leading to criticism of the lack of discussions to do with oil and gas. Oil companies, especially, are continually aiming to expand revenue without recognition of their carbon footprint. Things to take away from today One, the president of the conference announced the new Global Clean Power Transition Statement. This aims to phase out coal for major economies in the 2030’w and the 2040s for smaller economies. The commitment had over 70 signatures, however this excluded major coal giants such as China and Japan. Two, the issue of funding for less-developed nations was once again carried through conversation. Unsurprising, as they are going to need an estimated 5 to 10 times more funding than currently planned. Three, Indonesia backs out of pledges made on Tuesday regarding deforestation, stating green action should not hinder their economic development. Four, and IEA analysis shows that global warming has dipped below 2 degrees celsius, 1.8, for the first time. So, granting success in COP26, the world may be back on track for the Paris Agreement. Five, On the other side of the summit, environment groups are ramping up their efforts, including a new group Insulate Britain that has proven itself to be controversial. They have been blocking Parliament Square and sitting in front of cars, blocking roads.. They have discredited themselves by being a nuisance to regular British citizens by disrupting their daily lives. Video Reports have shown people missing job interviews and being blocked from getting to work, as a result, there have been many rage-filled encounters with drivers. In conclusion, today was filled with backpedalling and disappointing outcomes. Nations have been pledging on coal for years without solid implementation, however, we are hopeful there may be some action coming from this. Without agreements made on oil and gas, there wasn't anything new in terms of subject areas. Tomorrow, we move onto Youth and Public empowerment day. Friday 5th November - youth and public empowerment Well, with Friday being the youth and public empowerment day at this year's COP26, activists certainly didn't disappoint. Today we heard young voices take centre stage alongside the geriatric. With not much foreword, we'll move on to the small amounts of pledges and the copious amounts of, what is quite frankly incredible, insults hurled at world leaders. Things to take away from today: One, thousands of young people marched on Glasgow to protest the current climate situation. Children were seen with parents, teachers and classmates, demanding more of the world leaders. Two, reports showed that the emissions rate of 1% are set to be 30 times greater than they need to be to keep global warming to 1.5 degrees. The sheer irony of earlier speeches from the world's most famous members of the 1% is in full display now. Three more reports came through and they conveyed that we are currently on track by -63.3% for the 50% cuts needed to prevent catastrophic events from occurring. Yes, that's right, the world is on track for a 13.7% rise instead of any cuts, giving weight to the various comments by youth activists to come. Four, the $100bn in funding promised from richer nations, previously set for 2023, has been rescheduled to be ready for 2022. Five, Greta Thunberg made a comment summarising most of youth activists thoughts and feelings. She stated COP26 has been a “failure” and a “PR event”, to say the least. Six, introduced as John, the Filipino activist gave strong words about the technicalities of cop26. He said the summit had “devolved into a celebration of pointless promises by world leaders, patting themselves on the back, all the while sacrificing millions in the Global South on the altar of capitalism and imperialism.” (Holmes, O - The Guardian.) In conclusion, today certainly saw a focus on youth empowerment however it still raises the question, how willing are world leaders to listen? Tomorrow's focalization is nature where there will be a focus on sustainability and recovery. Saturday 6th November - nature Saturday saw chaos, to put it simply. The focus within the summit was agriculture and, granted, there were important decisions made. However the attention was on the protests happening around the world, but especially around Glasgow. With that said: Things to take away from today One, Idris Elba, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Goodwill Ambassador and British actor, took to the podium. He highlighted the importance of small scale farming that produces 80% of the worlds food. Alongside Ugandan climate activist Vanessa Nakate, they highlighted the hunger that is being and will continue to be caused if these issues are not addressed. Two, 45 countries have pledged to make the swap to sustainable farming.s a large number of global emissions come from agriculture, prompting the world leaders to act on the issue. Three, people have contradicted Thunberg's statement regarding COP26 as a “failure”, saying that having this outlook will do more harm than good. Essentially, the argument is that giving up gives power to the people who benefit from the fossil fuel industry. The conference has just started, so disregarding it so soon undermines the objectives and the ability to make a change. Four, an estimated 100,000 youth activists took to the streets of Scotland for the second day in a row. Saturday saw a multitude of environmental groups taking drastic action, mostly on the George V bridge. Scientists rebellion first tried to glue themselves to the bridge, later resolving to lock themselves to it. On the other hand, the police officially got involved, blocking protesters' routes and making arrests. However, they were overwhelmed by the number of protesters filling the streets. In conclusion, protests happening from Scotland to Paris have had the world captivated by the power of young voices. In the coming week, the world is sure to see just how much power these actions hold. Tomorrow is a rest day, but stay tuned for any updates. Sources: https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/11/06/cop26-five-takeaways-as-climate-protests-go-global-on-day-6 https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/19699338.cop26-recap-glasgow-protest-road-closures-up-100-000-expected/ https://twitter.com/ScientistRebel1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1456996746534473734%7Ctwgr%5Ehb_0_7%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.heraldscotland.com%2Fnews%2F19699338.cop26-recap-glasgow-protest-road-closures-up-100-000-expected%2F https://www.checinternational.org/cop26-daily-review-friday-5th-november/ https://news.sky.com/story/cop26-what-is-happening-on-each-day-of-the-climate-conference-12445071 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/cop26-climate-change-summit-news-5-november/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2021/nov/05/cop26-richest-1-will-account-for-16-of-total-emissions-by-2030-day-five-live https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/11/cop26-climate-change-summit-news-4-november/ https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/11/04/cop26-five-takeaways-from-day-4-as-countries-pledge-to-cut-coal-power https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/11/04/cop26-five-takeaways-from-day-4-as-countries-pledge-to-cut-coal-power https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/04/what-happened-at-cop26-day-four-at-a-glance https://www.npr.org/2021/11/01/1051225424/cop26-inaccessible-israeli-energy-minister-wheelchair https://www.euronews.com/green/2021/11/03/cop26-five-takeaways-from-day-3-as-focus-turns-to-climate-finance https://www.downtoearth.org.in/news/climate-change/cop26-diary-nov-3-activists-outrage-at-not-being-able-to-access-event-80049 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/03/global-finance-urged-to-step-up-climate-fight-at-cop26-summit.html https://ukcop26.org/glasgow-leaders-declaration-on-forests-and-land-use/ https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/11/02/world/cop26-glasgow-climate-summit https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/02/what-happened-at-cop26-today-day-two-at-a-glance https://www.aa.com.tr/en/environment/cop26-in-nutshell-world-leaders-depart-glasgow-on-second-day-leaving-stage-to-negotiators/2410800 https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/02/jeff-bezos-pledges-2-billion-to-protect-the-environment.html https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/07/28/fact-check-jeff-bezos-new-shepard-rocket-launch-didnt-emit-carbon/8073047002/

An insight into China's Communist and Non-communist history. By: Aditeya Das Source: Getty Images Communism is one of the most-speculated political and economic ideologies in the world. The work of Karl Marx started the idea of how everything should remain in equity. A doctor should have the same societal values as a farmer. A teacher should have the same societal value as a politician. Concepts such as previously mentioned along with several others have created the communist utopia which we know today. One of the most prominent cases of communism is in China. The former authoritarian communist state under Chairman Mao blossomed into one of the world’s biggest economies through the careful economic liberalization by Deng Xiaoping and nurturing by President Xi Jinping. But what was the real cause of these economical advancements? To answer this question you need to look at the case of the problems that were faced by the communist party before Deng Xiaoping, and the advancements made after he arrived. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, China went through what was called ‘The Great Leap Forward’. The Great Leap Forward was when Chairman Mao decided to solve China’s agricultural and industrial problems. He wanted to make China’s industrialization much more labor-intensive, as to be the true epitome of communist values. Due to China’s vast population, the government decided that it would be a much faster way to industrialize and provide jobs compared to using capital and to show the true power of Chinese communism Due to its massive population and size, China was unable to organize itself effectively. Because of a shift from the focus on agriculture to a focus on industrialization, the agriculture market of China plunged. Paired with natural disasters and the removal of aid from the Soviet Union, the move from agriculture to steel put the country into one of the worst famines in human history ever recorded with an estimated 20 million people dying due to starvation between 1958-62 leaving economic turmoil in China for 18 years. During these 18 years, there was also the cultural revolution. A UWC student stated that “In 1966, Mao Zedong fueled the Cultural Revolution in an attempt to solidify his legacy and the creation of the Maoist economic policy. As part of this, the government systematically purged intellectuals and entrepreneurs, once again virtually disabling the economy”. After Chairman Mao died in 1976, the Chinese Communist Party Politburo became very dissatisfied with Maoist economic policy, and thus facilitated Deng Xiaoping’s rise in power. In the 1980s, Deng Xiao Ping had only one goal, and that was to build up the Chinese economy. First, he decentralized the Chinese domestic economy. This means that farmers and business owners were left to control their own profits and level of production. The second act he did was facilitate the creation of massive Special Economic Zones (sez). These SEZs allowed local governments to offer tax incentives to foreign investors to develop infrastructure without approval from the Central Government. This led to China’s economy skyrocketing as the consumer goods industry exploded. This is a clear move to a capitalistic economy as the removal of huge government restrictions on businesses and a consumer-driven industry are big parts of what makes a free market economy. Source: Financial Times China’s interest in the capitalistic system was further maintained by Xi Jinping as he propagated the case of the One Belt One Road (OBOR) Initiative. To put it simply, the One Belt One Road initiative is a reimagination of the historical Silk Road, that connected China with Europe and many parts of Asia for trade in silk and spices. Leveraging on the same idea, President Xi is trying to rebuild the same connections between China, Africa, Asia, and Europe by sea and overland. He is doing this through massive development projects in other countries, such as its US$ 1.2 billion investment in Sri Lanka’s Hambantota port. The port is an important trade route and an estimated 36000 ships pass through it. Investing in Hambantota port not only gives China a good return to its capital investment but also helps it secure vital port infrastructure in a busy trade route. This is a very capitalistic idea as China is using the means of trade and investment to open up and grow its economy. This quite clearly shows a massive shift from one end of the paradigm to the other. This shows how China uses mixed approaches of communism and capitalism to advance its economy. The careful design of the economy by both Deng Xiaoping and Xi Jinping through their capitalist mindsets made Mao Zedong’s attempts at a communist paradise look like a boon in disguise. However, it is still early to declare China to be a success with its blend of communism-capitalist mindset. No one knows what is going to happen to the Chinese OBOR initiative. Will President Xi decide to keep the status quo of running the country or move back into the old ways of doing things? The only way to answer this question is by looking at the future and seeing what they do to make their already massive economy even larger. Sources: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/o/one-belt-one-road-obor.asp https://www.theguardian.com/cities/ng-interactive/2018/jul/30/what-china-belt-road-initiative-silk-road-explainer https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/the-hambantota-port-deal-myths-and-realities/ https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/revival-hambantota-port-sri-lanka-strengthen-china-position-indian-ocean-1781171-2021-03-19 https://www.britannica.com/topic/special-economic-zone https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/China-passes-law-to-make-Hainan-free-trade-haven https://www.wsj.com/articles/is-chinas-communist-party-still-communist-11625090401 https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/politics-of-economics/0/steps/30823 https://www.scmp.com/news/china/politics/article/3136835/communist-party-not-chinas-only-political-party-there-are-eight https://www.britannica.com/event/Great-Leap-Forward

By Sophia Rathleff Summary Conference of the Parties (COP) is attended by all states that signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in 1994. At the 21st meeting (COP21) in 2015, the Paris agreement was signed, aiming to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees celsius. This has been the basis for all other COP conferences since. At COP26 there is a clear set of goals to reach, but an equal amount of tension. Due to the Coronavirus pandemic, the global political climate has shifted massively from International relations to a socio-economic level. Alongside the summit, we are expecting to see youth activists from around the world hosting demonstrations throughout the conference. The goals of the summit are as follows; securing global net-zero by mid-century, adapting to protect communities and natural habitats, mobilising finance and climate change cooperation. The plans are to encourage ambitious 2030 goals in line with the net-zero goal. Cooperation is required for developing infrastructure to tackle the effects on ecosystems and communities. There was a previous goal to have $100 billion a year going towards climate change efforts by 2020, but as seen in the G7 summits they have fallen short. Additionally to add to cooperative efforts states are hoping to finalise the Paris rulebook and accelerate action. Week 1 Timetable https://ukcop26.org/the-conference/presidency-programme/ Sunday 31st October The summit procedurally opened on Sunday where Greta Thunberg, a prominent youth activist, made her first remark, placing a sense of optimism for the intense discussions to follow this week. She stated, ‘it's never too late to do as much as we can’, removing the helplessness that so often comes with climate change discussions. Furthermore, we saw the first of presumably many protests occur, in Edinburgh, with Extinction Rebellion marching in solidarity with the COP26 summit. Many important global figures are in attendance, including but not limited to President Joe Biden, Chancellor Angela Merkel and the Democratic Republic of the Congo's President Felix Tshisekedi (who is currently chair of the African Union). However, noticeable absences included China’s Xi Jinping, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro and Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. How these will affect proceedings and progress will surely become more obvious as the next two weeks unfold. The first day is for formally opening the summit and for leaders to start arriving. However, there are some things we can take away from the startup to this event. One, there is likely to be a clear recognition of the severity of the situation, more so than has ever been displayed before. Two, it is being made clear that leaders can no longer ignore youth activists and the voices of environmental groups. Tomorrow, the World Leader’s Summit begins where we will see leaders outline plans for achieving climate goals, mainly the 1.5 agreement. November 1st 2021 The first “official” day opened with a speech from Prime Minister Boris Johnson, where he touched on the severity of the situation as well as socio-political tensions. Following this, there were addresses from activists from vulnerable parts of the world, relaying their experiences of the effects of climate change. UN secretary Antonio Guterres addressed attendees saying “We face a stark choice: Either we stop it — or it stops us”, outlining the severity leaders face in the coming weeks of debate. Other notable opening speeches came from Prince Charles and Sir David Attenborough. Today we saw many leaders take the stage to outline plans, with mixed approaches and differing success. Things to take note of today. One, we saw Joe Biden take the stage, pledging his support for cooperation and pledging to, by 2030, reduce carbon emissions by 50% below 2005 levels. It was a significant speech considering the uncertainty of the USA’s commitment after Trump removed the USA from the Paris agreement in 2017. However, Biden made it clear the USA was not only back in the game but prepared to contribute heavily. Two, Brazil’s President Jair Bolsonaro sent a prerecorded video speech where he condemned recent activities, deforestation and a drastic rise in carbon emissions. Though logistically their ambitions have not changed and they have taken no accountability for climate change. Three, India’s PM Modi announced they intend to go net-zero by 2070 and have half of their energy renewable by 2030. They also called for more finance to be made available by states. Four, China’s position hasn't changed much. In a statement, Xi Jinping called for more funding for developing states, but in his absence has not made new pledges. This is leaving many to continue doubting China's commitment to the issue. Sources: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-59118835 https://unric.org/en/un-secretary-general-at-cop26-either-we-stop-it-or-it-stops-us-2/ https://electrek.co/2021/11/01/cop26-daily-briefing-5-things-that-happened-on-november-1/ https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-59110461 https://riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/brazil/brazils-bolsonaro-will-not-attend-cop-26-because-everyone-would-throw-stones-at-him/

The Feminine Mystique and its Lasting Effects Today By: Anjo Chu The Feminine Mystique written by women’s rights activist Betty Friedman, explains the prevalent frustration among middle-class American white women during the post- World War II period. Friedman coined the phrase “feminine mystique” as a way to illustrate the stereotypical assumptions of women. Explaining the belief that women could only find fulfillment in life through a domestic environment, all chores relating to housework, children and marriage. Friedman describes in fuller detail the explanation to the stigma to how women that were “truly feminine” would have no inclination for higher education - such as university, a career or even casting political votes, but that they would only be able to execute their life fulfillments in the house they reside. The book notes that this frustration had already existed, but women had trouble articulating it into words. Women that discussed this were seen as improper and ungrateful, causing an increase of negativity being related to female rage and further labelled this conversation as taboo. Friedman states, “The feminine mystique was the problem that has no name.” The feminine mystique included statics and interviews that Friedman herself hosted to further paint the picture of a woman's desire to achieve the ultimate feminine mystique. As an example, towards the end of the 1950s, 14 million girls were becoming engaged by the age of 17, at the same time the average age of marriage had dropped to 20 years old. This is a direct correlation with the decrease in the number of women attending higher education programmes and women high school graduation rates. Friedman argues that when men from the military returned home after WWII, women - that had to step in to fill the jobs men left - were expected to immediately turn back to doing so-called “feminine activities”. Men who had returned also held a certain expectation for the treatment they earned, feeling as though their wives needed to be even more nurturing towards them. Friedman noted that this was the situation that inspired her to start writing the book. With the book being written during the end of WWII, Friedman argued that because of the escalating Cold War during the 1950s, the growth of the American nuclear family and the ideal domestic life was a large part of the ideological battle against the USSR. Friedman also explained that middle-class white women were considered soldiers in the ideological battle as well because they represented the idealised femininity. “Women helped shape the idea of superiority of the American capitalist consumer society.” This book was the start and inspiration for the second-wave feminism movement. which successfully implemented the first-ever federal law to directly addresses sex discrimination. It banned discrimination in access to credit based on sex or marital status and was later amended to include race, religion, national origin, and age. Although faced with many positive reviews from fellow women of her socio-economic class, she received heavy criticisms from women of color, being portrayed as dismissive of the prejudice and racism that is so hemmed into their experience of sexism that it remains pervasive in the US till this day. Many popular writers during the time also commented on this theory of the feminine mystique coming across as a show of elitism and classism, along with it manufacturing an even more segregated idea of feminism than ever before, some even claiming for it to be counterproductive. The book also influenced the start of the conversation of abortion and birth control in America. She presents her idea of abortion very clearly in the book, expressing her opinion that if abortion was to be legalised, there would be less deaths in relation to pregnancy. Although this topic was only briefly described the book, it sparked a national discussion about the actual by-laws in regards to abortion and over-the-counter (OTC) birth control. The Feminine Mystique was commonly creditted for the women’s rights protest within the abortion strike of Roe v.s Wade, linking with historical impacts still relavent today. Sources: Book - The Feminine Mystique By Betty Friedman https://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/02/4-big-problems-with-the-feminine-mystique/273069/ https://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/ows/seminars/tcentury/FeminineMystique.pdf https://wwnorton.com/books/the-feminine-mystique/

By Shehzeen Alam The Iran nuclear deal was one of the crowning diplomatic achievements of former US President Barack Obama. However, it was a disputed issue ever since it came to completion in 2015. This is because everyone had their own opinions as to whether Obama had made the right decision. Was he too soft in terms of nuclear regulations? Or was he too harsh in terms of nuclear regulations? Before 2015, Iran had a uranium stockpile to create 8 to 10 nuclear bombs. The speculation that Iran may have nuclear weapons terrified the globe - the uncertainty and suspicion troubling communities was similar to the hysteria during the Cold War. The fact that Iran had a uranium stockpile to create 8 to 10 nuclear bombs also created serious worry for many of the Western powers. After Iran signed the nuclear deal, they reduced their stockpile of uranium by 98% and kept their level of uranium enrichment at 3.67%, which made it impossible for them to create nuclear weapons. In return for Iran’s signature, several world powers lifted sanctions on Iran. At the time, Obama stated that the Iran nuclear deal was “the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated.” In the view of the fact that Iran had nuclear bombs which are very powerful and can wipe out the population of countries, Iran had a certain power over the Western countries. This is why Obama thought it was so important to get Iran to sign the Iran nuclear deal. The Iran Nuclear Deal sparked a great deal of debate, across the US and worldwide. Many liberals think that the Iran nuclear deal is precisely what foreign policy should look like. It forecloses the possibility of an Iran-American war, using diplomatic cooperation and negotiation. However, Republicans and neoconservatives argue that this deal abjects the surrender of everything America should stand for, believing that the US should have forced Iran to give up its entire nuclear program. A few years later, on May 8th 2018, Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal. This not only increased tensions between the US and the Middle East, but also upset European allies who were a part of the Iran nuclear deal. Trump stated that the Iran nuclear deal was a “horrible one-sided deal that should have never, ever been made.” He believed that the deal didn’t address Iran’s ballistic missile program, its role in Yemen and Syrian conflicts, and its nuclear activities beyond 2025. After withdrawing from the deal, Trump reinstated sanctions on Iran, which made it harder for them to sell their oil abroad or use the international banking system. Ever since Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal, tensions between the US and Iran have steadily risen. On January 5th 2020, Iran also withdrew from the nuclear deal and mere days after that, Trump ordered a strike that killed Qassem Soleimani, an Iranian major general — this enraged and angered many Iranian citizens. A UN expert states that “the US had provided no evidence that showed Soleimani specifically planning an imminent attack against US interest.” This created global panic surrounding the possibility of a US-Iran War. On 14th February 2021, Iran’s Supreme Leader Khamenei reiterated that they would only return to the nuclear deal when the US lifted its sanctions. This was after Biden stated in his campaign for presidency multiple times that he would try to improve Iran-US relations. After this on 18th February 2021, Biden stated in his first sit-down interview as President that Iran would have to stop enriching uranium before his administration lifted sanctions. What we see now is a standoff between Iran and America with neither willing to stand down to benefit the other. Iran is waiting for the US to remove sanctions before taking actions and the US is waiting for Iran to stop enriching uranium before taking further actions. No one is quite certain what might or could happen in the future. Will Iran or the US make the first move back to restoring some sort of nuclear deal? Nevertheless, the decades of enmity between the countries are not benefitting anyone. Iran continues to have multiple sanctions imposed on them by foreign countries making it quite difficult to export oil, and America has continued to have rising conflicts with several Middle Eastern countries.