Categories
Featured Politics

America- Divided Against Itself

Abraham Lincoln famously quipped that “A House divided against itself, cannot stand”. Though these words were addressed to an 1800s America on the brink of Civil War, their message is applicable all across history: a timeless reminder that fundamental differences between allies can destroy even the most valiant institutions and movements from within.

A poignant example of this is the Spanish Civil War, which raged from 1936 through until 1939, ending just as the rest of Europe erupted into chaos with the outbreak of World War II. Spain, since the exile of its king in 1931, had become a democratic republic: it championed values such as suffrage, divorce, gender equality, and freedom of religion, all of which were controversially progressive issues for a country that even today is still deeply devoted to its traditional Catholic roots. Even these five years, then, were plagued by bitter political battles between the progressive left and the traditionalist right, as well as spats within each camp between those in support of republic and people wanting to tear it down, whether that be Christian monarchists or radical anarchists. This period of tension, subterfuge and backstabbing eventually concluded with the army’s right-wing generals launching an invasion of southern Spain, plunging the country into a Civil War.

The lines of this war were quickly and decisively drawn. There were “Nationalists”, people in support of the rebels’ leader, General Francisco Franco, and his fascist invading forces, and “Republicans”, which were pretty much everyone else: an alliance of everyone from moderates who simply preferred democracy to fascism, to socialists, to all-out anarchists, who just hated Franco more than they disliked the moderate Republic. While this uneasy alliance, borne out of hatred of their shared enemy, lasted about a year, by 1937 in-fighting began: extremists and moderates began to attack each other in the infamous “May days”, leaving the entire alliance vulnerable to the more unified, aggressive and focused Nationalist forces, who took advantage of the chaos to gain the upper hand in the war. The Republicans never recovered, and lost their stronghold of Madrid in March 1939, letting in nearly forty years of brutal dictatorship.

Francisco Franco celebrates his victory in the Spanish Civil War. Madrid, March 28th, 1939.

I think there are important lessons we can learn from this example, many of which are particularly relevant in today’s US. The truth is, like the (Spanish) Republicans, the current American Democratic party is an incredibly unlikely alliance: for the past 4 years, it has shown surprising cohesion as the “anything but Donald Trump” wing of the American political spectrum. Trump himself, on the other hand, is no match for Franco’s extremism and brutality—nonetheless, his recent denial of the legitimate results of the 2020 Presidential election only reinforces his long-standing opposition to democracy if it does not work in his favour, much like the 1930s Spanish right wing. And while, like in Spain, this shared enemy of democracy may temporarily unite two disparate viewpoints to oppose it, I think that the party, and President Joe Biden at the head of it, are going to face the mounting challenge of keeping the organisation together as time drags on.

Kamala Harris and Joe Biden celebrate their victory in the 2020 US Presidential Election. Wilmington, Delaware, November 7th, 2020.

Over 81 million Americans voted for Joe Biden: more than in any other election in the nation’s history. This, in itself, is a staggering figure which only highlights the importance of last year’s election. In the world’s most diverse nation, this group obviously consisted of a wide range of demographics: people of all ages, genders, races and backgrounds stepped up to vote, many for the first time. The victory they achieved was massive both in terms of sheer numbers and significance, and pushed Biden over his first hurdle to become the 46th President of the US. However, it only represented the first of his many challenges: more than anything now, it emphasises the weight of the unique hopes of those millions of individuals, all of which now rest on his shoulders.

Biden has already taken further steps by winning a majority in the US Senate. Unlike the UK, where the Prime Minister is simply appointed by the biggest party in Parliament, which is elected at once, America has separate elections for both the Senate and the House (think of these as almost like the House of Commons and the House of Lords, but both have important powers) as well as an entirely different one for the President, which is what we saw in November. While the approval of all three is needed to pass major legislation, it is possible for a President to have control of only one of these or even to have neither, as Obama faced later on in his Presidency—this means their opponents can stop almost anything they do. The good news is that while the world was watching Trump-supporting extremists storm the Capitol a week ago, the Democrats quietly won two Senate seats back from Republicans in special elections in Georgia, securing (barely) a majority for Biden when he is inaugurated on top of his control of the House; this means the President will actually be able to effectively pass laws through the Houses without the Republicans entirely blocking everything.

Joe Biden campaigning with Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock, the two recently-elected Senators from Georgia. Atlanta, January 4th, 2021.

However, the battle nowhere near done—the new President still faces the crucial issue of keeping his party together, on top of running a whole country, down the line. Even after the races in Georgia, the Senate will be perfectly split 50-50 (with the Vice-President having the deciding vote): if even one Democrat decides to vote against him, he won’t be able to pass anything into law. In his new autobiography, “A Promised Land” (which I really recommend if you want to learn about American politics; it’s teaching me a lot), Barack Obama highlights the difficulties of this situation. The knife-edge majority grants every Democratic Senator a huge amount of bargaining power, allowing them to force any law Biden tries to pass to change, stopping it in its tracks by voting against it if he doesn’t listen to their demands. This presented huge issues for Obama who, even though he had a bigger majority than Biden does now, had to bend over backwards to ridiculous personal requests in order to pass anything at all, taking huge shortcuts such as extra billion-dollar projects in Louisiana to deliver his landmark healthcare bill, for example. The new President will face all of the same issues that Obama did: even so, I think that the fallout from having to concede to these demands may be greater than ever, effectively threatening to divide the party in two.

Americans gather around a radio at the Lincoln Memorial to listen as Barack Obama wins his first Presidential election (Obama remarks in “A Promised Land” that this is his favourite image from the night). Washington, D.C., November 4th, 2008.

The Democratic Party is split between two blocs: “moderates”, who are less harsh right-wingers looking to keep continuity in the US (think UK Tories but mixed with Lib Dems), and “progressives”, who push for greater government investment and change (more like Labour). This important rift, while having been swept under the rug for years in order to deal with Trump, is once again beginning to rear its head now that the Democrats once again have control of government. Biden and his future Vice-President, Kamala Harris, mostly fall into the former camp, while figures such as Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are more prominent leaders of the latter. Progressives, though, were instrumental in securing Biden’s win—led by Bernie after his defeat and young campaigners on social media, they began a mighty push to “settle for Biden”, throwing their support behind him solely in order to kick out Trump—Biden, too, rose to their demands, for example on cancelling student loan debt, knowing that he had to count on their support to win. And, he has: but now that aim has been achieved, the atmosphere amongst progressives is beginning to change from support to suspicion. Biden’s cabinet nominations are showing many more play-it-safe moderate figures than progressive torchbearers, causing many voters to be disappointed, indicating that there may already be a marked difference between Biden’s agenda and that which many progressives, both voters and politicians, were hoping for. The cracks, then, may already be beginning to show.

What does any of this mean? I am worried that like in 1930s Spain, the differences between the Democrats could spell disaster for them. The fact that any of the fifty Democratic senators could single-handedly stop a law from passing will mean that any of them could make pretty much any request they wanted: but what happens when a moderate makes a demand that progressives don’t like? Or vice versa? Such arguments are bound to happen, and I think they may well tear the party apart, causing either half to entirely veto legislation made by their own official allies. Meanwhile, the Republicans will surely be waiting on the sidelines, spying weaknesses to exploit during future elections in 2022 and 2024. If the Democrats can’t reconcile their differences, I don’t see their grip on power lasting long.

Mark Twain, Lincoln’s contemporary, told us that “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. The Spanish Civil War was fought over 80 years ago and in entirely different circumstances, but the principles at stake were mostly the same as in modern America: those who are driven to defend democracy pushing back those who are desperate to bend it to their will. And while we might think that if anywhere, democracy is safe in the Land of the Free, the 6th of January taught us that we should take nothing for granted (especially when the police and even the President support the aggressors). Joe Biden may yet face some of the toughest challenges of any President in recent memory: we will all be counting on him to overcome them.

Rioters storm the US Government at Capitol Hill in protest of the results of the 2020 Presidential Election. Washington, D.C., January 6th, 2021.

References
Most of this piece was done from my own knowledge, but there are a few articles out there touching on similar themes:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/15/democrats-divided-joe-biden-election-party
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/09/us/politics/democratic-party-joe-biden.html
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-issues-that-divide-people-within-each-party/
Also, if any of this interested you at all, read A Promised Land. Even if you don’t like Obama (I’m hardly his hugest fan), it offers an illuminating account into American and world politics from someone who was at the centre of it all (and actually knew what was going on, unlike more recent Presidents). Here is a link to it from my favourite independent bookshop here in Edinburgh, because fuck Amazon:
https://lighthousebookshop.com/products/a-promised-land-obama?_pos=1&_sid=c9c3f1d91&_ss=r

Image sources, in order of appearance (all credit goes to their rightful owners):
https://twitter.com/cfr_org/status/714464591384821760
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/11/07/ap-says-joe-biden-has-won-presidential-race-as-trump-continues-challenges/
https://www.wsbtv.com/news/politics/president-elect-biden-congratulates-warnock-ossoff-record-turnout-georgia/4IGI3R3P6FHLXABG3FGD3SP62Q/
https://mattmendelsohnphotography.pic-time.com/art/mattmendelsohnartgallery/5f5283602405c10b4473d61e
https://www.rappler.com/world/us-canada/summary-trump-statements-inviting-supporters-join-rally-united-states-capitol-january-2021

Categories
Archive Politics

Archive: Privilege

Here’s the second archive piece from this summer. I wrote this one with my friend Seb Kingsberry for our school magazine in response to the BLM movement after the killing of George Floyd. Both of us are white, and pretty privileged ourselves, but we couldn’t just sit back without using our position for something; this piece is written from our perspective, about how the movement affects us and the people around us and what we can do to create change. Black Lives Matter, today and forever; don’t stop fighting until the people who aren’t recognising that are stamped out.
–AB

Many of us in the King’s community, pupils and adults alike, will look at the issues raised by the murder of George Floyd and think that they don’t apply to us. We go to a school in a Somerset town, where minorities and people of colour are few and far between, we are far removed from the tales of police brutality that we hear of in the cities of the UK and America. And besides, we’re not racist; incidents of abuse to people due to the colour of their skin are incredibly rare and, once they’re dealt with, they are quickly forgotten, and that’s enough, isn’t it?

More than anything, the past months have opened our eyes to the fact that it’s not.

As a community and as a country, most of us don’t understand how privileged we really are. We’re lucky to live in the world that we do, seemingly disconnected from the issues that encapsulate the protests that we are mere bystanders to. The truth is that those of us who are white benefit from that simple fact; the colour of our skin. Because we’re white, we don’t have to grapple with belonging to a community where everyone looks different to us. Because we’re white, we don’t have to worry that someone will judge us on our skin colour before they even meet us. Because we’re white, we don’t have to feel that intangible fear that so many feel every time they look at a police car; that they will be arrested, attacked, or even killed solely because of their appearance. Something that we must consider is that our lives have been made easier because we live in a world designed for people like us. And it’s not that our lives haven’t been hard, or that all lives don’t matter; nobody has ever claimed that. But the fact that people who are black or brown have to go through things that we don’t is an injustice that we have to fight; during this challenging time we need to use our privileged position to do something about it.

One person alone cannot stop police brutality, or undo the racist sins of history. But what we can do is take small steps, by ourselves, to start being anti-racist, and building a solution to the problem.

The first step is education. This issue is not going to fix itself until we learn more about it; we need to open ourselves up and listening to the voices of people of colour, whether that be through talking to our friends about the difficulties they face or reading articles and books that deal with historical and current issues of racism. Something many of us lack at King’s is exposure to, and awareness of, these struggles; nothing will change until we understand how our privilege has affected us and how others’ lives are made harder due to their ethnicities. It doesn’t take long to read one article a day, however an essential start to solving this is first understanding what we’re dealing with.

The next part is much harder, but is even more important; it involves challenging ourselves, and those around us. We live in a culture where talking about racism has become avoided and frowned upon, often for fear of somehow saying something wrong. In this culture, things will not change. Making mistakes, regretting something and atoning for it, is just how we grow as people, and it’s normal. If you find information about historic racism, or police brutality, or BAME education, that makes you change your mind, have the maturity to change it; stubbornness and close-mindedness get us nowhere. And if your friends, or even your family, make genuinely racist comments, have the courage to challenge them. Question why they believe what they believe; though it may be difficult in the moment, people won’t change if they don’t realise they’re wrong. Maybe they won’t back down, but in responding you’re showing them that their views aren’t accepted, around you or anyone else. But please don’t turn family dinner into a shouting match; approach it in a calm and measured way, and just have a discussion about it.

It is evident that we could benefit from greater open-mindedness and diversity at King’s; in our public-school world, it is all too easy to ignore these problems, but now is the time to step up and change that. In the past, we haven’t done enough to be anti-racist; but what matters now is that we try to change the future and build a community, and a world, where the colour of our skin does not decide who we are. Doing that won’t be easy or fast, and it was never going to be; but after some time and effort we will emerge as a more understanding, empathetic and united community.
–24/06/20

Categories
Alex Archive

Archive: “A Generation, Lost in Space”

I thought I’d take a minute to backlog a few pieces I had written earlier this year for my school magazine. This one is about lockdown and its effects on the teenage generation; it’s a bit sappy (it was a school magazine, alright) but it was a fun one to write. See if you can spot all the references (they took a lot of effort to fit in). The other archive piece should follow tomorrow; I’ll try and get some new main articles out soon.
–AB

Call it the day our music died; on March 20th, 2020, in a move not made in over 130 years, the UK government cancelled all GCSE and A level exams for this summer. The news was hardly unexpected; the exponential spread of covid-19 had already caused the government to shut all schools as potential viral hotbeds that Wednesday, and most universities had already closed their doors. But what this move effectively did is leave hundreds of thousands of teenagers and schoolchildren totally aimless— the focus of their lives, the goal of years of their work, had been swept from underneath their feet.

But though our summer swelter will be endured, for the most part, indoors and separated from our friends, we haven’t let that crush our spirit. Facing indefinite months in isolation, I spoke to my friends about how they were going to pass the time; I was shocked to find many already had plans in place, from learning Chinese flutes, to picking up new languages or running every day. I resolved to attempt to emerge from lockdown somewhat prepared for University and learn to cook (I can report that so far, zero kitchens have been destroyed in the process). I’d honestly expected most people to give up and sunbathe (an equally tempting option), so seeing them plan to put their time to good use was heartening.

But not only have we bettered ourselves; many have made efforts to emerge from their fallout shelters to better their community, too. Within days of lockdown beginning, teenagers (and even some teachers) had banded together through social media to nominate each other for a “Run 5, Donate 5” campaign where over £5.6 million was raised for NHS charities. And this was only the start; through making masks, social media campaigns, and volunteering to deliver shopping or even just call those who are, unfortunately, spending these months alone, our weeks divided as a school community have been spent making a difference at home, wherever we may be.

And though we’re split apart, these events have brought our nation, and our world, closer together. I now speak to my grandparents and cousins more than I ever did before (for the most part through the now-ubiquitous online quiz); neighbours seem friendlier, and my friends less far away. I suppose that lockdown, more than anything, has brought us all together, because we’re all in it together. In a way, right now we all are in one place, facing the problems of social isolation, economic insecurity, and fear of the virus; but in sharing that experience, we’ve all become that bit closer to one another. Of course, those of us who go to King’s are in a much more privileged and safe position than most in the midst of lockdown; but I think that this situation has given us space to reflect and build empathy and awareness for those less fortunate than us. I hope that this crisis will indeed give us time to start again, as a generation and as a country, and build a more understanding and united world.

For many of us, lockdown has taken away the ends of our school careers, and some of the most important summers of our lives; holidays and gap years have been postponed, and any whiskey (and indeed rye) and singing will have to be enjoyed with our parents, not our friends. In March, when this all began, I was worried a community usually so active and connected would end up becoming isolated, depressed and broken. Yet what the past few months have created is a sense of unity and responsibility; though our exams and our school, for the moment, may be gone, we have found new meaning in embracing the situation we’ve been placed in. And though the courtroom is indeed adjourned as to when we will be able to see each other again, and our music may have gone quiet for now, it is anything but dead; to hear that, you only need listen every Thursday.
–04/06/2020

Categories
Featured Politics

Uighur crisis- Déjà Vu

Several weeks ago, in mid-July, I was standing in Dam square in Amsterdam. It’s a renowned centre of activism and multiculturalism in the area; on that day, I was sat listening to a busker playing a Turkish clarinet and watching stands that ranged all the way from an online summit on Iran to a single person holding up a sign against systemic racism as an eclectic mix of people of all ethnicities and nationalities passed through. As I took in the scene, I was approached by a Chinese man who, in broken English, explained to me that he was collecting signatures for a petition over the CCP’s treatment of the Falun Dafa movement. As he explained his story to me, I was struck by the striking similarities between his situation and ones I have seen across social media and even in history class; specifically, the recent persecution of the Uighur Muslims of Xinjiang. Their plight has been reported since 2018 and is gaining a resurgence across the news and social media, but relentlessly continues all the same. It dawned on me then that we have seen their exact story before with Falun Dafa, and if authoritarianism continues to exist unchallenged, we will doubtless see it again.

3pm in Dam Square. Amsterdam, 17th July, 2020.

Let’s start at the beginning; specifically, the mid-1990s, where a new form of spiritual practice, known as Falun Dafa or Falun Gong, is taking hold of China. Its founder, Li Hongzi, promotes a set of meditations and spiritual exercises designed to bring his followers the values of “truthfulness, compassion, [and] forbearance” which are central to the movement. It is, ultimately, about peace and self-discovery**(see edit at end); however, as it grows, China’s Communist Party, the CCP, seeks to control it, initially by attempting to establish Party branches within Falun Gong groups. When the groups refuse this, the CCP bans the publication of Falun Gong books in July 1996. Still, the movement grows; by 1999, some estimates pin 70 million people as practicing it, 18% of the population. Then, in July, the crackdowns begin; within a week of the CCP beginning nationwide arrests, some 50,000 Falun Gong practitioners are detained by the authorities. Hongzi flees for the US. Those who are captured are sent to secret concentration camps, where they are tortured, beaten, and forced to renounce their beliefs, calling Falun Gong an “evil cult” and expressing utter loyalty to the CCP. For those that succumb to the abuse, there are reports of their organs being harvested by the government. One practitioner, James Ouyang, tells the Washington Post in 2001 that he was abused by police for nine days straight before he denounced the movement and was allowed to leave. The West, shocked, condemns China’s actions to no avail; the systematic abuse carries on regardless.

1. Thousands of Falun Gong practitioners gather for their daily meditation. Liaoning Province, 1990s.
2. The first 4.25 protest against Falun Gong Persecution. Beijing, 4th April, 1999.
3. A lawyer is arrested for defending the rights of Falun Gong practitioners. Shandong Province, 2nd July, 2009.

Sound familiar? It should. The exact same strategy is being used today against the Uighurs. The Uighurs are an 11-million-strong ethnic population from Xinjiang in Northwest China who bear close links to central Asian nations and, majoratively, practice Islam. In the past, the Uighurs have intermittently expressed wishes for independence from a China which is different to them ethnically, religiously, and ideologically; nonetheless, separatist rumblings have been silent for years. Since 2018, there have been reports of many Uighurs mysteriously vanishing, reportedly having been sent to hastily built and rapidly expanded “re-education” camps, where, the CCP asserts, they are merely trained in artistry, poetry and music. Family members from outside of China claim that they have had no contact with these relatives, some of whom have apparently disappeared off the face of the earth. Though China studiously denies any maltreatment in these camps, stories relayed anonymously by survivors, terrified for their lives, show that through systematic torture, pressuring and brainwashing, inmates are forced to curse religion and renounce the Qur’an while singing songs praising the CCP, and chants of “Long Live Xi Jinping!”. Yet again, reports have escaped of the organ harvesting of those who die. Despite constant coverage since 2018 and international condemnation, Communist Party denial remains intact while these prison camps continue to expand. The relentless campaign to remove Islam from China shows no signs of slowing down; and, what is more, its development shows profound resemblance to what happened to the Falun Gong movement in the 1990s.

First of all, why? Why go to such extremes, even against international pressure, to crush what are mostly peaceful religious movements? The answer is, to put it simply, because the CCP are scared.  Authoritarian regimes thrive on a sort of fanaticism; much like religions do, they aim to invade and control the daily lives of their followers, and need their utter devotion to effectively function. Religion, in any form, poses a direct threat to this aim; it has the potential to replace this devotion to the ruling party with another, rival one, freeing those who follow it from the direct control of the regime, and even uniting them against it. We’ve seen it all before; Adolf Hitler himself spent years embroiled in a bitter fight with the Catholic Church, which refused to come under his control. No matter how hard he tried, whether through replacing priests or trying to swap pictures of Jesus for those of him in churches, he was emphatically rebuffed; and leaders of the Church, ever-popular amongst the people, were untouchable even to the SS lest they risk an all-out rebellion. Hitler failed to defeat religion, and the Church led resistance against him throughout the war, undermining his grip over the people.

Nazi stormtroopers holding propaganda in front of a church. Berlin, July 23rd, 1933.

The CCP refuses to make the same mistake; it wants its local headquarters to be its people’s Church, and Chairman Xi Jinping to be their God. If Falun Gong, or Islam, or whatever comes next, no matter how peaceful it is, stands in the way of that by setting forward an ulterior ideology, of course the Chinese government will stop at nothing to take it down—it wants the people’s devotion to itself, and it alone. And why shouldn’t they stamp it out; after all, they got away with it last time. Post-1999, the once-surging Falun Gong movement melted into the shadows, its memory erased from the Chinese people’s minds, and its followers banished, with little left to do but try to drum up support in places such as Dam Square for a cause that is long lost. If nothing changes, we are cursing the Uighurs to the same fate.

But finally, will anything change? Can it? The depressing and slightly morbid answer is, unfortunately, probably not. Recently, I have seen waves of support across Instagram for the Uighurs; stories seem awash with thousands of posts indicating the grim reality of the concentration camps and organ harvesting. Our politicians aren’t unaware, either; Dominic Raab, Marco Rubio and a whole host of others have officially condemned China’s actions. All of this seems impressive; however, do China care about Instagram stories, or foreign “condemnation”, or tiny petitions signed by tourists in a square in Amsterdam? No. Not at all. Western social media is banned in China, after all, and China’s historic hatred of foreign intervention in its affairs has only further hardened it against listening to any recommendations the West might make to it on how it chooses to treat its people. In an epitomising example of this in late July, the Chinese ambassador to the UK blatantly denied all misconduct even when faced with tapes of prison camps on the BBC’s Andrew Marr show; he, like the government he serves, cares precious little for what we think, so long as we keep buying their exports and using their products. If we really wanted to try to stop any of this, we would have to engage with China in a unified and direct way, and hit them where it hurts. I’m talking trade embargoes, or even further. A situation like this could even offer opportunity for an alliance between the defenders of human rights in the West and Islamic countries in the East to fight this injustice, together; if enough countries banded up, we could send out a threat that China simply couldn’t afford to ignore. But in a world fraught with xenophobia, mutual distrust and outright war between the West and Muslim nations, could such an unlikely unification ever be pulled off? And is Boris Johnson, or Donald Trump, really going to put their compromised political status and their already-crippled economies on the line in a war against China over a group of persecuted Muslims, half the world away? Perhaps, taking action would only serve to divide us just as much as our lack of it defines us.

China’s ambassador to the UK rebukes reporters, calling alleged prison camps “fake news”. London, 25th November, 2019.

We failed to properly react to Falun Gong 20 years ago. Today, the Uighur crisis is showing us that we clearly haven’t learnt our lesson. And mark my words: if we don’t learn it this time, the next will play out the exact same way. The harsh reality is that as long as authoritarian regimes like the CCP continue to exist, systematic killings like that of the Uighurs will occur. And with the way things are, none of that is showing signs of changing anytime soon.

Street protests commemorate 20 years since the CCP began arrests of Falun Gong members. San Francisco, July 22nd, 2019.

EDIT
Since writing this, a few people have engaged in conversation with me about Falun Gong propaganda and cultism; after doing a bit of research, it’s come to my attention that these pretty heavily and unfairly influenced my writing process and resources used for this article. I knew that Li Hongzi had gone progressively more insane over the years, but had no idea about the blatant extremism of the movement, which has more or less evolved into a cult. This, of course, doesn’t at all excuse the CCP’s abuse of Falun Gong, which remains abhorrent; however, the movement’s treatment equally doesn’t venerate it from all criticism, which it undoubtedly deserves. Below are some resources on the darker side of Falun Gong:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JaPzJKycxc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAwsU6YIDHQ&t=23s
https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/trump-qanon-impending-judgment-day-behind-facebook-fueled-rise-epoch-n1044121

References
I read a lot for this one, and there’s a lot of information out there on it. Nonetheless, here are the resources that helped me the most in writing this piece:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-china-blog-48700786
(The BBC has done a lot of reporting on the abuse of the Uighurs, and so I highly recommend looking at their content if you’d like to learn more.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/08/05/torture-is-breaking-falun-gong/ea6c5341-c7a7-47c9-9674-053049b7323d/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Falun_Gong

Categories
Featured Politics

Hong Kong-A Tale of Two Cities

The situation in Hong Kong is as serious as it is difficult. Millions of protesters line the streets and fill the universities, in outcry against the Chinese dictatorship. Their demands are, for the most part, reasonable; they want withdrawal of Carrie Lam’s proposed extradition bill, which would have Hong Kong prisoners sent to China at Beijing’s request, an independent investigation into the reported police brutality, involving outright beatings, gassings and alleged gang-rape of unarmed innocents and, most essentially yet controversially, real democracy and free elections. For some, they will stop at nothing until this vital request is fulfilled.

There have been many comparisons, notably by leading activist Joshua Wong in his visit to Germany, that Hong Kong is “the new Berlin” of my generation’s Cold War. The problems faced are, indeed, similar; a pro-democracy movement protesting the oppression of the totalitarian dictatorship it is forced to live under, and that dictatorship attempting to crush it into the ground. Hong Kong has a clear parallel with Berlin in that it is the semi-free link between China’s iron firewall and the outside world; this, combined with its slowly eroding “one country, two systems” status, fuels revolutionary attitudes in a strikingly similar fashion to how it did in Berlin. Perhaps, as happened 30 years ago, these protesters could start a nationwide movement to free China from the grips of its communist rulers; yet, the likelihood of this outcome seems to lessen and lessen with every Chinese response.

  • Joshua Wong

The protesters in Berlin were, undoubtedly, lucky; rather than being faced with the consequences of defiance, they were met with support from the Russian dictator, Mikhail Gorbachev; he went on to not only liberate Berlin but all of Eastern Europe from the clutches of the USSR and its puppets. But Xi Jinping is no Gorbachev, and Hong Kong no Berlin. In Europe, communism was all but finished; despite their planning, coordination and cooperation, the Soviets had not truly rivalled the Western states economically, and though they used terror tactics, and propaganda, to fully permeate every part of their people’s lives, they still did not fully embrace communism. After 40 years, Gorbachev realised that communism had failed; when the uprisings began, he embraced them. In China, the exact opposite has happened; economic performance is unprecedented, and I have seen first-hand the unquestioned control that the CCP holds over the hearts and minds of the Chinese people. They, like those who dare oppose them, are unyielding in their demands.

Hong Kong is, I fear, much more like Belfast, where I lived as a child, than Berlin. Both the so-called liberators and rulers are growing in violence as tension rises and no side seems willing to give. The students filling the universities, crying for freedom from China, seem only too similar to the youths who founded the IRA in the 1970s and set out to deliver Northern Ireland from British control. I felt the echoes the of bitter, bloody street fighting that ensued whenever I visited the city, conscious to hide any sense of Englishness lest an impassioned Republican notice. The war in Ireland never truly ended, rather reached a bitter stalemate; the standard-bearers of the IRA continue their fight politically in the halls of Stormont, rather than violently in the streets that surround it. What I am sure of is that Hong Kong’s freedom fighters will receive no such opportunity, and, if they press too hard, that China’s retaliation will know no limits. If the ripples of a conflict such as the Troubles can still be felt in Belfast today, I fear for the escalation of its new sister.

Maybe Hong Kong is not Berlin or Belfast, but its own story entirely; it will certainly make for a significant tale and its inhabitants, those who tried to fight the most powerful regime in human history, made an example of—for better or for worse. Whether today’s protesters reach freedom as in Berlin, grind to a violent stalemate as in Belfast or meet another end entirely at the end of Xi Jinping’s wrath, their memory will separate a city, a nation and a planet for years to come.

References

Joshua Wong on Berlin:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-germany/my-town-is-the-new-cold-wars-berlin-hong-kong-activist-joshua-wong-idUSKCN1VU0X4

I’d had the idea for this article a couple months ago, but several people had beaten me to writing similar stuff. Here are some of my favourites:

https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/could-hong-kong-become-belfast

https://thediplomat.com/2019/11/hong-kong-the-new-berlin-wall/

Categories
Alex

Alex’s Blog

I’m Alex, and I study PPE; that’s Philosophy, Politics and Economics. I like to think it’s how the world works, with each part representing a part of how businesses and governments think:

  • Philosophy: The vision, the ideology behind every decision,
  • Politics: The idea, how that vision is going to be realised,
  • Economics: The process, how that idea is going to be brought into the world.

It fascinates me so much because it gives me the chance to understand and learn from so many other people’s perspective on the world and what’s going on in it.

I guess I’m making this blog as somewhere to add my own.

-AB, 13/01/20