Young Diplomats

With the rapid spread of the Corona virus, the entire world just turned upside down within weeks. It has led to tremendous suffering and affected not just a group of people but in some way everyone. What it has also led to, however, are powerful actions of solidarity, the feeling that you can make an impact together, creative thinking and a wave of digitalisation. In this article I would like to demonstrate how these have come together and give hope to what comes after the crisis. I will end by highlighting that our task is now to keep the positive spirit, but also to make the change inclusive and open to everyone.

NEW FORMS OF COLLABORATION AND MAKING AN IMPACT

To give an example for the emerging digital opportunities: in mid-March, the German Federal Government called out to all interested individuals to work on solutions tackling the current challenges in society, politics and business. Over 40,000 people registered for the hackathon, came together remotely for 48 hours and developed various ideas on how to support the health care system, facilitate homeschooling, help small businesses, and much more. Only two weeks later, the WHO organized a global hackathon. These have demonstrated how much people can achieve in just a short amount of time, how strong the desire to make an impact is, and how many people can inspire with innovative ideas. In moments like these, you can bring those elements together and make a change. Hopefully, this spirit will last, and one can draw from its energy also later when facing other issues like climate change or inequalities.

CONNECTIONS AND OPENNESS

At the same time, while social distancing becomes part of our lives, it doesn’t feel like distancing at all. People have found ways to connect and stay in touch across the world. Technology and platforms like Microsoft Teams, Zoom or Slack have made it possible to meet remotely. More and more meetups, conferences and other events have gone virtual and are now open to a far wider audience than ever before. It does come with challenges – how do you network just through a camera, how do you make yourself heard when you have a question in a webinar with over 200 people – but it does open doors, as well. Because you get to discover new events, get to speak to people from other disciplines or countries, and get to be exposed to a whole new range of ideas and perspectives. A new kind of openness seems to be coming with it, too. People are sharing their daily routines, pictures of their home offices, or just random thoughts they have on their minds. These are just a few of the examples that illustrate a deepening openness and the opportunities to connect even when being physically apart.

NEED FOR INCLUSION

Nevertheless, while these changes feel exciting, one needs to ensure that everyone can take part in them. There are still many people without access to computers, who lack the digital know-how or where technology is not yet accessible enough to include everyone. Digitalisation will offer some new opportunities by making it easier to connect with others, to have access to knowledge and learning resources and by developing accessibility features like text-to-speech or speech recognition. Initiatives supporting digital literacy and working on improving technology are needed more than ever and should be supported, as well. Given the innovation, connections, perspectives and openness, there is a lot coming in the future. Now we must make sure to leverage this energy and to make the digital future inclusive and equal.

For reference:

WirVsVirus

https://covid-global-hackathon.devpost.com/

Photo by Federico Beccari on Unsplash.com

Time takes us away too early to compute the codes of life, so we must learn from history to gather the codes to help grope our way into the future.

Without history, nothing in our time can be examined in proper context. Our present lenses to read even into our time are too convex or concave for proper analysis.

Nevertheless, our knowledge of the past is always incomplete, oversimplified or influence by our prejudices. It is never impartial. It often aims at justifying an idea. It is a painting of an artist; the historian. 

Still, those subjective painting offers us the best instrument to form a higher perspective into our own times and to gather the codes of life.

Historiography is not a science, but it’s an old industry – a combination of art, a philosophy of a period, and the output of a man seeking perspective. History is a record of the peculiar, the exceptional and the anomaly, but never the whole truth and rarely captures the nuances of the precise time.

But like we do with science, ‘relatively’ rules! Let us indulge.

Henceforth, let us entertain each other’s delusions; for the world as we see it – is an optical illusion. That’s the final analysis of every discipline; from science, all the way to theology.

History teaches us that – the problems of life are too subtle to be resolved by our vague principles and the trifles of a single ideology. That a singular view or method never abides forever. That obedience to a single idea is too arduous. Even a broad spectrum of knowledge – followed to the extremes, turns into a squirrel path and into a tiny hole. That every ‘anchorage’ we hold to be absolute can easily turn to a quicksand. So let us keep the mind open, so it doesn’t end in a squirrel hole.

Everything is fluid in the grand history of our planet. It is subject to geology, for geology offers the very home to history, gives it form and shape it’s future. 

From geology, we know throughout history, cities forever went under water; tornadoes have destroyed in one moment what took centuries to build. Comets cause the dinosaurs to go extinct, it is said. And we also know a fragment falling off the sun can erase life on earth in a single moment.

History is also a fraction of biology. Biological laws shape history. Competition is the essence of evolution and by extension – biology. Selection is its intrinsic method; making life a form of competition. Or to state it more emphatically; competition is the very trade of life and the entire substance of all history. Then the victor often writes the history.

The love of history brings me to the conclusion that all history revolves around competition. All its events can be reduced to two basic elements; a fight over resources or a fight over an idea.

Narratives of history have been greatly influenced by claims to civilization and a want to project superiority, so let us examine that a bit….

 

Civilization never dies, it changes frame, adjust form and move it’s centers; but the substance remains. For its cradle, we found singular solitary grandeur that remains unmatched!

History of the last 5000 years is a testament that Civilization is a single continuum. It is a single metamorphosis; where one ends, another begins. But much of its vitality we owe to the Ancient Egyptians. 

Egypt has permanently captured our imagination – for it is the most sublime exhibition of the ‘impossibility’ that man is. The practical demonstration of all the scientific disciplines and mathematics through their architecture and the pyramids remains unmatched. 

The grandeur of these pyramids, the heights they reached in the humanities, the magnificent artistry, the medical advances, the lofty altitudes of thought, are just few of the pieces we can pick up from the ruins of this most sublime civilization know to man. 

Without doubt, they’re the greatest builders in history. Immensity so great a whole discipline was invented to stake a claim to this peak demonstration of man’s practical power. Mesmerized beyond comprehension, Napoleon commissioned the first badge of European scholars and archeologists to begin a new claim, which morphed into – Egyptology!

From trading with the ancient Egyptian civilization and its institutions, and also from the later conquest by the Persians, Greeks, the Romans and Arabs – so much of the world borrowed its civilization.

Civilizations always migrate and build themselves a new home. Aging cultures pass its own to posterity; across borders, rivers, oceans, mountains and deserts – to wherever the natural constitution is ready to embrace it.

Arguably, all civilizations begin in the south and east, the north and west eventually conquered them, destroyed some, borrowed from some, revitalize some and spread them again in our age. Then the last victor claim full ownership of all its triumphs.

Hindus say they invented philosophy, Chinese claim to perfect it – but we can’t hide its origin in Egypt. Two Millennia prior, PtahHotep laid out the fundamental precepts, which the Greeks pondered upon, perfected the dialectics, and later claim its full ownership in their turn. 

PtahHotep was philosophical giant ages before Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the likes, from whom the later European renaissance thinkers also borrowed. 

Now some claim the light never penetrated the ‘dark continent’. Forgetting that sunshine can send its beam into any part of the universe. It can break into a dungeon as well as into a king’s palace. Certainly, the rays of genius can penetrate any skull. At its peak radiance in history, it beamed brightly on Egypt – and poured its genius into the black skulls of Egypt.

Still we can say; civilization is a cooperative outcome. All the people produced it, but all its trails, followed backwards, points to Egypt, Africa.

Since every claim of ownership of civilization is only ‘relative’. Let us be tolerant to every claimant, but also be fearless in making own claim without malaise. 

Like our memory preserves our sanity, the purpose of history is to preserve the collective sanity of the people through the ages. To extract its lessons, apply its wisdom and use it in our own time. It is mere vanity to be used to project superiority.

Humility, kindness and tolerance have always been fashionable throughout the ages. These virtues have been the ornaments of every age. 

So while we cling to our own perspectives of history and claims civilization, let us carry with them these solemn ornaments. 

Let us be modest and tolerant.

 

As the United Kingdom joined Italy, Spain, Germany and Belgium in entering lockdown overnight, the government has afforded us ample time to pause and reflect on what this crisis can teach us. The reason? Coronavirus, or rather our response to it, has dramatically repositioned the framework of all our everyday lives. Along with the rest of Western Europe, the UK’s social, political and economic structure is now running on its baseline setting. Our doors are locked, the shops are closed, the police are on guard and life as we know it has screeched to a worrying halt. Very clear top-down instructions have caused issues of their own: the self-employed, construction workers, children of split families, the list goes on – what do they do now?

In terms of what we can take away so far from Covid-19, the instant evaporation of physical items and social norms is top of the list. Once Westminster hit the panic button the dystopia began. Bare supermarket shelves, deserted capital cities, apocalyptic queues and a string of major cancellations have formed a squadron that has removed the security from everyone’s lives.

The address to the nation by the PM on Monday evening was a chilling experience. For a couple of minutes the national silence was sobering. Lockdown, or anything close to it, has not been used since WW2. This virus is killing people and it will not cease for a while yet. Make no mistake – society’s fabric has been torn.

All of the impact felt by airlines, train operators, independent retailers, pubs, etc., will leave a mark that long outlives this pandemic. In tandem with the environmental revolution that has really gotten underway in the past couple of years, coronavirus will at last make the question unavoidable: do we really need to travel as much as we do? Airlines have been failing globally en masse for years and this will be the final nail in the elitist, fuel-indulging coffin. The decline won’t stop.

Coronavirus has brought with it questions over how connected we are, too. Emergency laws restricting social interaction have hit us all hard and made us all realise that our societal freedom is often, if not always, taken for granted. Are we interconnected too much? Wartime Europe was a Europe made of traditional family models and strong, local communities; 2020 Europe could not be any more different, where greed and unlimited choice are leisure activities, not sins. Our social behaviour may have been stopped but, ironically, the internet has provided a safety net. TV presenters are using it to address us from home; big city workers are using their bedrooms to read those pesky emails and any crowds are posted on Twitter in seconds. It seems almost impossible to imagine these scenarios without social media, doesn’t it? For the first time since its creation, the internet has temporarily become the primary interaction mechanism while face-to-face has been sent packing. Fortunately, this will make us realise the importance of human contact and reveal just how ephemeral social media engagement is. It’s great news for the CEOs of Twitter and Instagram but once this has blown over people will question exactly how relevant they are.

Using the informative angle helps to avoid stress with the news headlines. Upon seeing panic-buying in supermarkets we must ask: is overconsumption too tempting? With over £1billion of surplus groceries reported to be in our cupboards, is this the true face of human beings? How compassionate are we, deep down? There are no doubt plenty of double-agents who call out the greediness of others then raid the shops as soon as they open. The survival instinct has kicked in and we have all realised that we are just mammals with an innate objective to retain stability and existence. Science tells us that homo sapiens is a selfish species first and an altruistic species second. Quod erat demonstrandum.

Globalisation can add coronavirus to its growing list of threats. We talk about our success at dealing with the virus in terms of national figures and every graph documents the curves of separate countries. Bodies such as the EU and the IMF have faded into the background and national governments have stepped forward to tackle this problem. The Italian government’s priority is saving Italian lives, yet the virus hits us all the same regardless of ethnicity or language. Is nationhood reserved for crises? In only a few weeks, the daily workings of a globalised and tightly-packed Earth seem irrelevant as a natural health disaster asserts its dominance over human innovation again, as it did with SARS, Smallpox, AIDS and MERS.

We dealt with them as we will deal with this: panic followed by information followed by calmness. But Covid-19 is different. Ease of transmission has threatened how we live: the closer we are, the more vulnerable we are. The empirical problems will fade as we contain this evil but the theoretical, more abstract questions that have arisen will take years to tackle. We many even look back on this pandemic as having one, clear upside – we need to reevaluate how we live, consume and interact.

Dear Young Diplomats,

It is with great sorrow and sadness that we are following the COVID-19 crisis which has shaken our modern world as the number of victims and countries affected by the pandemic continues to grow every day. Drastic but necessary measures such as closing public places, banning gatherings, restricting traveling and government mandates for partial or total quarantines worry a lot of us about the future of humanity and our work on pushing for a better future.

These are very difficult moments and COVID-19 is clearing impacting our personal and professional lives, and those that we love. I wanted to wish you, your loved ones and fellow colleagues safe passage through this difficult times. We are facing a health threat unlike any other in our lifetimes. The pandemic, which is spreading at an alarming speed, reminds us that solidarity only works when it is built between people without distinction of religion, race, gender, social class, abilities, or age. 

At this awkward moment, we are all just humans worried about our survival and saddened by the suffering of our fellow people. During these trying times, neither wealth nor powers are guarantees of life because this virus spares no one. People are faced with the reality that we must fight together to protect the most vulnerable in our societies from the virus, although we know the virus’ deadly effects are not only limited to them.

Dear members, we are more than 40,000 individuals and more than 100 partners in this movement. Therefore we must use our numbers, networks, skills, and expertise to fight against this virus in this period of crisis. We appeal to your great faith in peace and development because it alone can save humanity. We appeal to this unique spirit of solidarity that led you to join our global organization by asking you to play a vital role so that together we can all curb this terrible pandemic. As such, we suggest that you:

• Wipe down frequently touched surfaces
• If you’re working from home, get up and take a 3min break every 30min. 
• Follow to your best ability the various World Health Organization recommendations on how to prevent the spread of the virus 
• Share these recommendations with your networks, followers on social media, and anyone who may not be able to access them 
• Try not to read or watch too much news if it makes you anxious
• Send us suggestions on how Young Diplomats movement can help amplify efforts to prevent the spread of the virus
• Look after your mental health. 
• Create corona virus memes to bring some smiles to people’s faces
• Follow up and make sure your government is making appropriate use of the resources dedicated to stopping the spread of the virus 
• Cancel or postpone any events or large gatherings that you have already planned 
• Stay home, avoid contact with others if you are sick and wash your hands regularly

Let us know how you are creatively and innovatively doing your social responsibility work either online or offline during this difficult time. Please email your strategies to one of the following emails:

youngdiplomatsafrica@gmail.com 

editor@young-diplomats.com

We thank you very much for your unfailing solidarity and we count on your unwavering commitment to development, peace, and dignity.

In Solidarity, 

Together, we’ll get through this!

In 1989, the Velvet Revolution has ended 30 years of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia. Not many know, that the political demonstrations have started with environmental protests.

Unlike many countries behind the iron curtain, Czechoslovakia (now two independent countries – Czechia and Slovakia) managed to overthrow the communist regime with a zero death toll. The day celebrated as the day of the Velvet Revolution is the 17th of November. However, the civil action that scared the communist officials and encouraged people to gather, started as a protest for the climate in a town of Teplice in the northwest of the country (today part of Czechia).

Coal mining over environmental concerns

The town of Teplice was covered in smog for over a month when dissidents, young students and other brave ones decided to oppose the regime and organise a protest for the climate. The communist regime in Czechoslovakia was overly reluctant to the environment. The mining of brown coal was increasing from the 1970s until the fall of the regime and decreased significantly during the 1990s (detailed data from the Czech statistic office can be found here). To support the production, sulfur was used in brown coal mines. For that, the smog in Teplice was of grey-yellow colour as the sulfur got to the air and rain evaporating from the soil.

By the beginning of November 1989, people in Teplice decided to act. It should be mentioned that organising a protest for the better environment was an act of bravery as the communist party forbid mass demonstrations for most occasions. Leaflets were distributed around the town by two students. The first demonstration took place on the 11th of November, 400 hundred people showed up.

From the reaction of the communist officials, it was obvious that the situation in the repressed country is changing. The police did not push the demonstrations as the officials have sensed the anger of the people. They were no longer willing to live in unhealthy conditions covered by smog just to report higher numbers of brown coal mining.

Four days after protests in Teplice, student demonstrations in Prague overthrew the communist party and brought the nation to democracy.

Czechs and fossil fuels today

Nowadays, not many people know the origins of the revolution. The protests in Teplice showed that the regime was getting weaker every day. People also gained confidence in standing up for their rights to live in a healthy environment.

Soon after the revolution, brown coal production has started to decrease and has been decreasing since. The environment in the Northwest has much improved. However, the Czech opinion on fossil fuels has shifted. As people were inevitably losing jobs as a result of lower production, the public opinion changed. According to public surveys, Czechs are one of the least concerned about climate change in the EU. Even though most of the population claims to be concerned about the environment, the support for fossil fuels and other unsustainable resources remains relatively high compared to other European countries.

Remembering the little stories that helped the nation to gain freedom and established democracy again could be beneficial for today’s debates about climate change and energy resources as those are inevitable questions for society.

In the past few months, the Coastal GasLink natural gas pipeline – the largest private sector investment in Canadian history– has been met with resistance from Indigenous groups across the country who have blocked railway transport across Canada.

The resistance stems from those standing in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs who have objected against the pipeline, as their traditional territory lays along the pathway of the 670 kilometre long pipeline route.

In early February, the Mohawks of Tyendinaga in Ontario blocked the tracks of the Canadian National Railway with snowplows, barrels, and wooden barricades; meanwhile, the Mohawks of Kahnawake in Quebec set up camp along the Canadian Pacific Railway, blocking access with a snow bank while burning a sacred fire; and on the other side of the country, in New Hazelton, British Columbia, the Gitxsan First Nation occupied Canadian National Railway tracks and blocked a local highway.

The blockades impacted commuters, freight transport, and workers, impacting a variety of industries such as agriculture, manufacturing, and forestry, stranding millions of dollars worth of goods.

However, Coastal GasLink, the constructors of the pipeline, remains adamant to continue construction, citing that they have reached agreements with all 20 elected First Nations band councils along the route.

First Nations band councils differ in governance from the hereditary chiefs who protest the pipeline. An elected Indigenous band council governs the reserve lands distributed as a product of Canada’s 1876 Indian Act, while the hereditary chiefs hold authority over traditional territory which predates the Act.

In June 2012, Coastal GasLink commenced environmental consultations with 20 elected Indigenous band councils along the 670 kilometre long natural gas pipeline route.

Within the temporal boundaries of construction and operations, CoastalGaslink met with the band councils to consult how their concerns would be remedied. For example, one concern raised was the disruption of subsistence trapping activities, through which Coastal GasLink assured that Indigenous groups would be compensated for losses related to construction of the project. Coastal GasLink also noted the “potential residual social effects as being the disruption of subsistence activities during construction and operations”.

Many activists emphasize that consultation does not equal consent. Coastal GasLink has also consulted with the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs, but the chiefs maintain that the effects of this pipeline long outlive the boundaries of construction and operations, highlighting the dangers to human health and the environment associated with natural gas and fracking.

Cynthia Callison, a lawyer and Indigenous negotiator as quoted in the Globe and Mail:

“They clearly don’t have the support but they made a decision based on a model of risk – ‘Do we have enough Indigenous people that support this project?’“ Ms. Callison, a lawyer and member of the Tahltan Nation in northwestern B.C.

The surge in solidarity protests with the Wet’suwet’en across the country demonstrate that this risk was costly – and will continue to be, so long as Coastal GasLink perpetuates the commodification of Indigenous groups as solely bodies to be consulted with.

Photo courtesy of Unist’ot’en Camp.

Introduction

There is a type of ‘rascality’ that every society need. This cathartic ‘virtue’ can help shake off the lethargies of the ruling class and bring sanity to the complacent masses. This is the essence of activism!

It is a quest, that can build or destroy society, and hence must be undertaken with great prudence. Should be embarked on with knowledge and principle, never on expediency or out of envy.

To paraphrase the wisdom of confucius

Before taking on the affairs of the state, one must put his household in proper order; before putting your household in order, first put yourself in order; to put yourself in order, perfect your moral compass; to perfect your moral compass, purify the heart (motives and intentions); to purity the heart, practice self-discipline; to discipline yourself, one must be aware of own ignorance/limitations; to know your ignorance, you must seek knowledge and contemplate much.

Acquisition of knowledge should be the first step in activism. And in practice, to never let conceit creep in – for it will fast corrupt original motives. This base impulse can misled the activist into feeling like he’s on some great heroic quest to save mankind. An individual can be a catalyst, but transformation is always a cumulative effort of many.

It is easier to be moved into action by hate than by love. To be peevish and resentful towards those we disagree with points to an own mind needing better cultivation. This need to be remedied, for one should not be driven to activism solely by the hatred of the ‘other’.

It is part of prudence for an activist to regularly reflect to the ideas he promulgates, his own conducts, and their consequences. He should be sure he’s not just the object of other men’s ideas, which he never understood, much less synthesize. Not to join silly adventures – simply to ‘belong’, to be seen or to make money.

It is noble to join efforts greater than ourselves; life is too great to be consumed by the needs of our one lonely soul. We simply are, because of the people.

Cunning men will cheer on the disgruntled to be vindictive, and the unripe minds to do their bidding. People acting only on selfish and mean motives love to co-opt the unsuspecting activist. They’ll prod people to join foolish ‘exploits’ to divide and sow confusion.

Politicians are quick to use activists as pawns by presenting their political opinions as positions of moral superiority. Beware, for there is a very thin line between activism and politics fanaticism.

Devotion to a ‘higher’ idea is always noble. A stand on principle against evil is a worthy sacrifice. To assume a public or conspicuous position on these based on principle, is true activism.

Be mindful of those that try to cajole you into joining their trifles. Be cautious when empathy is the primary reason offered to join a movement.

Empathy is a fine quality but it is no moral virtue. It’s a physiological reaction to an event or condition. It is not enough reason to start throwing flames, if the underlining reason is not logical or lack real substance.

It is too easy to turn an activist into a mob. To become a ‘joiner’, a herd member and start screaming meaningless slogans – Scream we can, but if it has no root in us, the next wind will blow it away!

We can make the world better not only by preaching or railing against evil, but also by constraining our own malevolence. That alone will solve half of the world’s problems.

We must seek out logical conclusions to the actions we undertake. Mere frenzies of rage, convulsions and letting off dynamites are not enough to change society. Fierce ferocity and superficial arguments are only fleeting, they can’t transform the world.

Our actions gather their own weight when carried on with knowledge and sound principle. The sentiment, from which the activism originates, will set its gravity and determine the dignity with which it is received. Action on principle last forever.

Learn and reflect. Be an individual, first. Then an activist, last!

 

A couple of things recently have triggered my interest on this notion and the results of which have made my mind wonder how broken and dysfunctional we were as a human race, going back generations. If we are still debating this in 2020 it shows that we clearly have not come on the leaps and bounds that the mainstream media and the government would have you believe. I spent my past week watching the new documentary on Malcolm X on Netflix and see the most jaw dropping and eye-opening performance from UK rapper Dave at the Brit awards. The United states and the United Kingdom, corners of the world still gripped with division based on class, race, gender, sexuality etc. I am going to breakdown both displays in a historical, yet appropriate manor, offering both solutions to the current climate, and providing people with the reasoning behind the history being so very raw for many people around the world.

The documentary on Malcolm X that launched on Netflix the past few weeks intrigued me. Although I was taught about the civil rights movement in secondary school, it was wholly centred around the rise to prominence of Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King JR, Malcolm was mentioned but never in the same importance as the prior. Looking back, the reason for this is clear. MLK and Rosa Parks advocated peaceful protesting, gathered a mass movement and demonstrated a message of unity and potentially cohesion that the States had never seen before. Although the message was successful, it did isolate many people and almost told the men who experienced police brutality, unlawful sentencing and frisk searching for no reason other than the colour of their skin, that we are not going to fight back. Where Malcolm’s campaign thrived, the people fed off the anger of a repressed group of people. They were empowered by the aggression, rebellious nature of the protesting and the middle finger to the system attitude this embodied. The media to this day, do not want to show you that violent revolution against repressive masters not only work but it plays a valuable part in the history of the region and the movement. One thing I learned from the documentary that I never knew was that the men who were jailed for Malcolm’s murder weren’t all guilty of the crime! Talmadge Hayer was the man with the .45 pistol who fired at Malcolm, he attempted to flee the Ballroom after the shooting and was tackled my members of the rally and he later confessed for his crime on the stand. He did however say that the 2 men he was put on trial with her innocent and he had never met them in his life. The FBI and NYPD convicted the other 2 men and sentenced them to 20 years to life in prison. When Talmadge Hayer wrote his affidavit, he only then for the first time revealed the real names of the men who assisted him kill Malcolm that day. The FBI didn’t deem this to be enough evidence to reopen the case. Forgive me for the story telling, but the real reason behind the explanation was to show that Malcolm’s death was always seen by the FBI because of his actions and when this did finally happen, they showed contempt to the whole community. I have never seen a more institutionalised racist system that holds unbelievable power in public office. And so, to link it back to the title, the FBI at the time were 85% white Americans. They fundamentally do not have the right to tell a Black, Asian, Traveller, Muslim man or woman when they can and can’t feel offended and abused. The reality that those people do not want to hear is that if they were born 50 years earlier, they would have been cracking the whip and partaking in the same bigotry they claim to have erased. The fact I have based this on events from the 1960s doesn’t mean to say that this isn’t still a major issue for everyday life.

The other big event of this week that allowed me to tunnel in on this opinion was Dave’s performance at the Brit awards. I first listened to the song “Black” when the album first came out and I was immediately struck by his ability to create imagery with the lyrics. But when the piano projected the images I had already imagined when closing my eyes, it brought everything home. The newspaper articles, the radio edits, the photos displaying famine and tribal warfare. “Black is so much deeper than just African-American, our heritage been severed, you never got to experiment. With family trees, because they teach you ’bout famine and greed and show you pictures of our fam on their knees”. It brought me back to Black history month that we had at school and it got me thinking, why do we need to diversify from what type of history it is? History is history, whether its centred around the slave trade, the ancient Monarchy, the second world war it is irrelevant whether it is white or black history. The fact of the matter is that on the front line in the Somme were white and black men. If I want to study the work of Huey Newton, why not call it “History” instead of “Black History”. The scheme was brought in to try and portray an image and a reflection on our flawed past, colonial heritage and apartheid. All it did was strengthen the divide and this demonstrates the errors of the white person in the race debate. They think that the struggle is over, and that differentiation and equality is the end of the road. What the fight was about from the beginning is equal opportunity, education, basic rights and living conditions. Not to have their own month dedicated to just black heritage. I am not going to make this a political discussion because frankly, previous Labour governments, Conservative governments and the Liberal Party governments have all neglected race equality issues. It does however paint a vivid picture when the nation can still elect a man that used the words “letter Box” to describe Muslim women, Watermelon smiles in reference to black people and so on. I am not saying that he is the reason for this, but it creates an environment where people who kept the views to themselves now feel they have a platform to vocalise bigoted ideology. If we as a nation cared about these issues, it would be impossible for a man who said these things to rise to such prominence.

I obtained a lot of inspiration for this article from an exceptionally talented author and publisher called Reni Eddo-Lodge who wrote the article “Why I’m no longer talking to white people about race”. She speaks from a compassionate perspective who has experience institutionalised racism in her upbringing as a black woman in the UK. We need to be asking the victims of racism what they deem to be racist, in the same way we won’t ask a rapist what constitutes as rape and what doesn’t. So, I guess my main question is, when did we favour the accused over the accuser? When England went to Bulgaria to play in a football match, the black players on the field were hounded for the full 90 minutes and the FA came out immediately and pushed for the largest possible sanctions for the people found guilty, as they should do. However, a few weeks later a game with Chelsea and Tottenham was marred with allegations of racist abuse fired onto the pitch. Neither Chelsea nor Tottenham were charged as a result. Racism in all forms is disgusting and has to be eradicated but passing the buck and kicking the can down the road only elongates that end and allows the bigot to be presented. The nation needs to shoulder the responsibility of what is happening between it’s borders before we point figures and interfere elsewhere.

During the Carnival holidays of 2019, Jair Bolsonaro—still in the nascent months of his presidency—took to Twitter to share a video from street celebrations in São Paulo that he found troubling. The uncensored clip showed one man urinating on another while dancing on the roof of a newspaper stall, about which the president urged his millions of followers to “comment and draw [their] own conclusions.” Doubling down on the absurdity of his previous tweet, he then asked his social media audience “what is a golden shower?”

During this year’s celebrations—which came to an end today at noon—many were waiting with bated breath to see what would be on the president’s mind as he took time off from running the country to relax in the beach town of Guarujá. As it turned out, Jair Bolsonaro did take to social media, but on a decidedly more sinister topic.

As reported by Estadão‘s Vera Magalhães, President Jair Bolsonaro shared two videos on his personal WhatsApp Messenger account pertaining to a demonstration called for March 15 to protest against Congress and the Supreme Court. The clips use emotive imagery—such as Mr. Bolsonaro’s stabbing on the campaign trail in 2018—and talk about the Brazilian people’s need to “take back Brazil” and “rescue” it.

Far-right Bolsonaro-supporting groups involved in the organizations for the March 15 rally have openly called for the impeachment of the heads…READ MORE

The result of COP 25 in Madrid two months ago has given a broad understanding of climate change politics. The stories of climate change itself made up of the scientific fact that the consequence of our development since the Industrial era is rising temperatures. Carbon emission is rising and now is the critical point where we believe decades from now can cause a catastrophic in human life. Back to the 1970s when Club of Rome published Limits to growth, the urgency that resources will decrease as the consequence of population growth. With the climate crisis right now, the possibility of depleted resources will be increased. So, the urgency is needed to prevent that.

If we frame this way, we are translating climate change as resource scarcity. That’s understandable because if sector such as agriculture doesn’t produce sufficient enough of food, resulting in environmental conflict between society. It is precisely what Klare said that the war will be a struggle for resources. If this happens on and on, yes, the conflict itself will be one way to control the population yet in a deadly manner. The problem of farming as an example is already happening in Africa which suffers food insecurity.

Geopolitically, the states always see international political-security-economy as a way to gain self-interest: energy, resources, domination, and strategic position. This framing has been dominated for so long that I assumed that geopolitics can be translated within three words: domination, self-interest, and power. In regards to climate change, states right now have focused on carbon marketization. We can see it in different ways: net-zero emission, carbon-footprint tax, and so on.

States has been central object in International relations studies, even though emerge many actors who can influence the policy: NGO, businessman, and academics. I think in climate change issues right now who has power and maybe the only one is world leaders. One of Greta Thunberg’s speeches has hit hard world leaders and condemns them that they have betrayed “us” (younger generation).

When it comes to security matters, security itself in Arnold Wolfer’s point of view is an ambiguous concept. Many actors will define security differently, so the perspective about climate change as a security issue shall be diverse. For example, in states actor, climate changes have pulled as national security and matter of discourse. The states always have been a central focus if addressing climate change as a security issue. It’s more like that states have a crucial factor formulating policy that will define and change the debate about climate changes so we’re focusing on how states will act. For me, climate change has been addressed depend on how urgent the impact or have a self-interest in certain sectors or regions in framing that.

Climate change often and always linked with energy issue especially fossil fuels. For the businessman, oil, gas, and coal have given them tremendous revenue. In addition to that, there are plenty of resources left in which it’s a shame if we don’t use it for business. Vladimir Putin in his commentary of Greta’s speech says that the girl did know nothing about complex reality. Russia’s primary revenue came from natural gas export. It is the same as Saudi Arabia.

The activist has always voiced to turn fossil fuels into renewable energy. That way, we can hinder and prevent climate change catastrophe. The climate change issue also has been mixed with the inequality issue. If we see from in emitter point of view, I agree that the biggest emitter must responsible and take on leadership mantle. However, changing fossil fuels with renewable energy isn’t an easy task. It impacts economic cost, revenue counting, politics, and so on.

If we talked about inequality in the biggest emitter perspectives, they will find a way to hinder climate agreement. In COP 25, the major emitter has blocked a more ambitious commitment to solving climate change. On the contrary, Small Island states like Tuvalu and the Pacific Island States always urged to have more ambitious targets because they are most impacted. So, as long as the debate is in deadlock and the difference cannot find common ground, the climate change issue problem will not be solved.

The only possible thing if COP 26 later can’t produce good ambitious targets, the matter of geoengineering will be more important than ever in which the solution back into individual states. For example, if China farming doesn’t produce enough plant because of summertime, then, the weather can be re-engineered using certain technologies. The technologies itself can be marketed if we assume that only certain states have high-end tech. In this thinking, I agree with Dalby that geo-engineering will be the next era of geopolitics.

Therefore, making climate change issues in states scope has only caused problems. The states have power because that’s where the policy will be formulated. However, states themselves always tend to fulfill self-interest, making domination in the region, and pursue greater power. What states don’t realize or maybe pretend to know nothing about, states are part of global society, part of humanity. Climate change is a human problem, not a state’s problem. It impacted on humanity itself.

Another problem rise in addressing climate change is security. In the beginning, security itself has a wide meaning depending on actor and momentum. One of the reasons is sovereignty. Pseudo- boundary that has been made since the Westphalia treaty has put more emphasis on fulfilling “I” interest first. In some way, this has been a good paradigm to prevent any foreign intervention and give more freedom to self-rule. However, in the climate change issue, it is counter-productive. This has been difficult in making consensus because states problems are different because of geographic proximity, demography, economics, and so on.

If we assume that states don’t care about sovereignty and unite as one powerful force in the time being, making all humans feel the same way about the impact of climate change is difficult. As I said, we have different geography conditions make this impossible. We have empathy, but security in an individual perspective is linked with safety and secure feeling. Unless one powerful actor (global actor) securitized this issue, the task will be impossible.

In this context, making them think that all the decision-making in the conference will affect humanity’s fate. Framing climate change as a global geopolitical problem is one big step in solving the climate crisis. One of the consequences is a paradigm shift from national interest to global interest.