The Politician – Summer 2021

The Politician

Our Team Editors: Millie Dodd and Daisy Studd Writing Team: Current affairs: Lula Johnson Iona Bensley Olivia Griffin-Roach Ruby Alexander Economics Carla Pongracz Isabella Chen Feminism Lauren Baines Mathilda Serero Environment Honor Wiggins Catherine Benson Hebe Dennison Social and cultural Daisy Studd Millie Dodd Nina Citlucanin Hannah Quinn Anais Berns We would like to thank Dr Woodberry for helping us to set up this magazine and supervising the process. We hope you enjoy reading our first edition of ‘The Politician’ as much as we enjoyed creating it. - Daisy and Millie If you would like to be involved in the next edition email us at ThePolitician@Godolphinandlatymer.com

Current Affairs

To what extent have coronavirus restrictions taken away our free will and political responsibilities?

By Lula Johnson

I am sure that all of you in some way or another have been strongly affected by the coronavirus pandemic. Whether you were unfortunate enough to suffer through the virus yourself, or whether you, like millions of others, were confined to an extreme lockdown imposed by various governments. You might be questioning whether this was an attempt to control the spread of this deadly virus and in turn protect the population, or was it a way of the government trying to exercise authority over the general public?

Firstly, it is important to establish the sheer sense of urgency that many governments face in their need to act extremely fast when deciding how to react to the increasing fears that were sweeping through the UK in March. There are now 40 cases of this deadly virus in Italy. Looking back at the craziness of the last 14 months themselves, the question of what would I have done if I was in the position of the prime minister himself springs to mind. Would I have locked down the whole country perhaps earlier than Boris Johnson did previously?

Or would I have taken the approach of prioritising the economy and thus not having a lockdown at all?

I would argue that it is crucial to try and find a balance between these two extremes in terms of doing the best thing for the general health of the country, while also thinking simultaneously about the economy. Now, you may be wondering what approach that the UK government of Boris Johnson took when tackling this Covid-19 Outbreak.

Although, Boris Johnson runs to some extent a rather conservative government with the general goal of his cabinet being to promote the means of capitalism. This was until the likes of the Coronavirus Outbreak came about and the Prime Minister had to dramatically change his values and goals as the leader of the Conservative Party.

Instead of remaining fervently opposed to having any form of lockdown where it can be seen that the government is taking away some civil liberties and rights away from the citizens of that country - thus taking perhaps a more left-winged approach to this issue, Boris Johnson instead put the UK through

three lockdowns. This raises the question of did the government do the right thing? Were they morally correct in trying to preserve the general health of the country in exchange for citizens giving up a certain amount of their free will?

Above: Image showing the Coronavirus Pandemic.

As a citizen of the UK, I would say that it is rather naive to argue that there is a way of ensuring that this virus did not spread exponentially without citizens not necessarily being forced to, but rather out of choice, giving up some of our free will.

Whether this was from the forcing of citizens to wear masks and practice social distancing, or whether this was being told to follow the message of staying home - there is no doubt that our inclination towards having civil liberties were somewhat restricted due to this outbreak.

This image shows the extremity of the Covid-19 Outbreak and just to what extent that this affected billions of people all over the world, from something that started off as being seen as a Chinese issue to something that is now affecting all corners of the world, as many countries are now experiencing their third wave of a Covid-19 Outbreak.

Nonetheless, although many countries took a similar, if not more extreme approach than the UK, there were also some countries who did not impose lockdown restrictions for their citizens. An example of this is Sweden who controversially were against any type of lockdown in fear of taking away the free

will of those who live in Sweden - perhaps due to the nature of Sweden being extremely liberal.

Although this approach taken by Sweden ensured complete freedom in the rights of their citizens, as I previously mentioned, it is very important to find the correct balance between looking after the general health and welfare of the country, and also ensuring that the members of that country do not feel as if their civil liberties are being taken away.

Above: Image showing an anti-lockdown protest in London.

As seen from the image above, the lockdown that was imposed onto the UK, also brought about a number of protests campaigning against lockdown measures. The fact that there were anti-lockdown protests taking place showed how people felt as if their civil liberties were being taken away as a result of, for example, social distancing measures being put in place.

Although it can be argued that on the whole, the UK government were trying to consider the general health of the country as a whole in regards to the Coronavirus Pandemic, I believe that it is hard to fully do so without in turn limiting the free will that the population has to do as they please.

Ongoing Conflict Between Israel and Palestine

By Iona Bensley

Palestine and Israel’s conflict is rooted in their ideological differences and has been for years.

However, the current conflict is becoming increasingly violent as Israeli settlers attempt to assert more control over the Palestinians. The conflict is putting civilians in places of vulnerability in both Palestine and Israel.

The origins of the conflict date back to the end of World War One when Britain took over Palestine.

The Palestinian land was home to an Arab majority and Jewish minority. The tensions due to differences in belief grew with the Jews claiming Palestine as their ancestral home and the Arabs claiming that same land. Throughout the early 20th century violence became more prevalent between the two groups. As a result of this in 1947 the UN attempted to split Palestine into two states - one Jewish and one Arab. This was denied by the Arabs and therefore never went through. However in 1948, Britain ended its rule of Palestine leaving Jewish leaders to declare the state of Israel. This resulted in a war lasting for a year and neighbouring Arab countries invaded. From this point onwards the land that was once Palestine began splitting between forces with most of it being occupied by Israel. Over the next years the conflict continued. The Six Day War in 1967 further strengthened Israel’s occupation of land seizing the Sinai Peninsula, the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. Most Palestinian refugees live in Gaza and the West Bank. The West Bank remains occupied by Israel but they pulled out of Gaza.

Currently, tensions between the Palestinians and Israelis have been particularly high for various reasons, the most profound being the issue of whether a Palestinian state should be created.

Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are restricted by the Israeli rule. Since mid April 2021 violence between police and Palestinians has been increasing rapidly.

The Israeli threat to evict Palestinians from their homes in Sheik Jarrah, a neighbourhood in Jerusalem has triggered this increase in conflict.

Jerusalem is a holy city with sacred value to both Jews and Arabs. During Ramadan, the Palestinians have claimed that Israel’s restrictions have been harsh and unjust. The Palestinians began to protest in East Jerusalem on the 6th of May and reportedly threw stones at the Israeli police force. The Israeli police then used tear gas and stun grenades inside the Al-Aqsa mosque. On the 10th of May Hamas issued an ultimatum to Israel declaring that they must remove forces from Al-Aqsa and Sheikh Jarrah. After they received no response, Hamas launched dozens of rockets at Israel, some of them hitting schools and houses despite Israel’s iron dome interceptors. Following this, Israel began air strikes against Gaza. It is important to acknowledge that in relation to both sides of the conflict, it is only small extreme groups or leaders who are taking action and yet the consequence of this impacts civilians massively.

Above- Free Palestine protests in London

Above: Aftermath of the conflict

The media has been particularly harmful in the way it is dispensing information regarding both sides of the current conflict. Both Palestinians and Israelis deserve to live in peace and have access to fundamental human rights. The nature of the

conflict cannot excuse antisemitism in the media or sweeping statements regarding the entirety of either side.

Israeli air strikes have knocked down two apartment blocks in the Gaza Strip, civilians were warned in time to evacuate nevertheless homes have been destroyed. Alongside this thousands of civilians from both sides of the conflict have been injured. The conflict between Israel and Palestine is a question of human rights and there have been worldwide attempts to support the Palestinians as well as protests in favour of the Jewish cause.

Protests are occurring worldwide in support of the Palestinians with the slogan ‘Free Palestine’. In New York, London, Cape Town and Sydney demonstrations are being held to condemn the Israeli rule and to protect Palestinian homes and livelihoods. Alongside this, there have also been some noticeable protests in favour of the Israelis in London. Hundreds gathered in protest of the actions of Hamas and against the rise in antisemitism brought about by the conflict.

It is evident that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is not coming to an end and the media has expressed fears of a full scale war. The escalation of events in recent days proves that the conflict’s civilian impact for Palestinians and for Israelis too is out of control. The increase in displacement in Palestine and deaths and injuries on both sides continues and it is difficult to say how the conflict will progress for all involved.

How the EUs covid 19 vaccine rollout became an “advert for Brexit”

By Olivia Griffin Roach

I am sure all of you reading this are aware of the utter catastrophe of the EU vaccine drive and their sheer inability to work together to resolve the problem efficiently. The coincidence of the United Kingdom leaving the EU and the Union's vaccine debacle has evidently swayed a large majority of those dithering on the fence to “support” Brexit. It may be incorrect to assume that British public opinion has shifted in favor of the country's exit from Europe; however, it can be viewed as a less catastrophic action, casting a ray of hope on the political change. In this article, I'll examine the reasons for the EU vaccine's failure and how it has influenced public sentiment on Brexit both domestically and within the EU. Let us start at the beginning, when it became increasingly apparent that the EU's vaccination program would trail one step behind that of other major world powers. The calls for the first vaccine rollout began in December, whereby the United States began to sort their administration of the doses. The union leaders ultimately positioned themselves behind the major power in order to access their progress in the procedure. The continents hesitancy in comparison to the United States can further be seen in the differing levels of investment into the vaccination production, development and testing. By the time Europe agreed to pool its money and negotiate as a bloc, Washington had already invested billions on clinical trials and manufacturing. The European Commission reported a $3.2 billion joint vaccine purchase in mid-June. The Trump administration's vaccine initiative, Operation Warp Speed, had a $10 billion budget in Washington. The Union was said to have lacked the wartime procurement powers that the Trump administration had used to secure raw materials and instead acted as a “customer” 1 buying goods. “They assumed that simply contracting to acquire doses would be enough” recalled Dr. Slaoui. As a result of the union's delays and lack of investment, they fell

Apuzzo, M., Gebrekidan, S., & Pronczuk, M. (2021) Where Europe Went Wrong in Its Vaccine Rollout, and Why. The New York Times ‌ 1

progressively behind in the queue for their first doses. Political fallout has arisen due to the failing inoculation campaign, with leaders pointing fingers at one another about why some of the world's wealthiest countries, which are home to vaccination factories, are unable to keep up with other wealthy nations in injecting their citizens. The statistics reflect how poorly the programme has gone. The Uk has vaccinated over 50% of its adult population, and the United States not far behind. Yet European countries like France, Italy, Spain, and Germany are still at less than 10%. So, although infections, and more significantly, deaths and hospitalisations, are declining in the Uk and the US, Europe is returning back into a 3rd lockdown.

Above: Graph of vaccination doses by population (per 100 people) The success of the British vaccination program is said to have "stung" Europeans, particularly given the kingdom's recent exit from the bloc. In early December, the Uk became the first country in the world to authorise a covid-19 vaccine for emergency use. However, the groundwork was laid nearly a year before, when the Department of Health officially started preparing a mass vaccination campaign before the first case of covid-19 in the UK was confirmed. The resounding success of the British inoculation program was based on this proactive behaviour and financial commitment.

This is evidently backed whereby in June 2020, the UK signed a contract with AstraZeneca for 100

million doses, as well as a separate agreement with Pfizer-BioNTech for 40 million doses.

The success of the UK's vaccine campaign has instilled a strong sense of patriotism among the public, especially among brexiteers who believe they have disproved remainers' doubts of the Uk's abilities. This can be seen whereby 67%2 of Britons believe the U.K. has handled the COVID-19 vaccination program better than governments of countries in the EU.

Above- map outlining the proportion of a population dosed with at least one Covid 19 vaccine (%)

But there has also been a great sense of distrust and criticism amongst even the most Remain-backing

corners of the British political classes. This has been triggered through the threats to block the export of millions of doses of the vaccine from EU member countries. European leaders discussed export bans, first articulated by Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. It came amid the slow-moving vaccine rollout across the bloc while Britain has managed to vaccinate 28 million people.

The EU's image has also been severely harmed by this proposition 3, both within the bloc and amongst Dickinson, A. (2021) UK’s Remainers question love for EU amid vaccine row. POLITICO. URL https://www.politico.eu/article/remainers-brexit-ukeu-coronavirus-vaccine-row/.

3 Lynn, M. (2021) How the Covid-19 vaccine crisis is putting the EU in danger. MoneyWeek. URL https://moneyweek.com/economy/eu-economy/603 013/how-the-covid-19-vaccine-crisis-is-putting-theeu-in-danger. ‌ 2

those in Britain. The Commission has trampled on property rights and suspended the rule of law in its panic over vaccine supply. It has confiscated materials and barred businesses from exporting with no right of appeal.

It is difficult to suggest that the actions of the British in response to the covid 19 crisis and actions of the EU would greatly impact the referendum result, but it has instilled a slight sense of trust in the UK's capabilities amongst the public (whether they be remainers or brexiteers). What are your views on the competence of the Uk government in this moment of crisis?

Introducing the Geopolitics of the South China Sea Dispute

By Ruby Alexander

We can trace the origins of the South China Sea dispute back to the 1951 San Francisco Treaty, which failed to allocate possession of the Spratly Islands when Japan lost its title to them following its defeat in World War Two. The South China Sea is hugely important for several reasons. Firstly, one third of all the world’s commerce passes through it, and it serves as the key route of passage between the Indian and Pacific oceans. Containing 12% of the world’s fisheries, it is also a key location for the fishing industry and acts as a major food source for many.1 This means that control of the South China Sea would give claimants significant power in the region.

Another key reason for the dispute is the wealth of natural resources found under the seabed, with 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and 11 billion barrels of oil in confirmed and probable reserves while large areas are yet to be investigated. 2 Access to these resources has huge economic benefits for all involved parties, which is the reason why the islands that would give you access to them are heavily contested. Debates over sovereignty of the various features in the region, namely the Spratly and Paracel islands, alongside other reefs, form the crux of the conflict. Several claimants are converting features they occupy into military bases, in some cases housing airstrips. China is particularly prolific, using dredging techniques since 2013 to expand the land areas of features they

claim in order to allow them to accommodate more military equipment. For example, Fiery Cross Reef is a rock located in the Spratly Islands. China has reclaimed 677 acres of land and has built a military outpost including an airstrip.3 Despite some Chinese officials claiming that Chinese rule over the South China Sea dates to the 15th Century Ming Dynasty, all evidence suggests that the region was ungoverned until the 20th century, instead acting as the home of semi-nomadic fisherfolk and pirates. When the communist regime came to power in mainland China in 1949, there was renewed focus on reclaiming China’s position as ‘The Middle Kingdom’, and this was used to justify the occupation of seven reefs in the Spratly islands between 1988 and 1995, and the subsequent development of military functions. In 2009, China issued a ‘nine-dash-line’ map, illustrating their claim to almost the entirety of the South China Sea over their rival claimants, who it continues to regularly confront at sea.

1

Salleh, A. (2020). The South China Sea: Preventing the Tyranny of the Commons. [online] thediplomat.com. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/01/the-south-china-se a-preventing-the-tyranny-of-the-commons/#:~:text= Around%2012%20percent%20of%20the Accessed 8 May 2021].

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (n.d.).

South China Sea Energy Exploration and Development. [online] Available at: https://amti.csis.org/south-china-sea-energy-explora tion-and-development/#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20En ergy%20Information%20Agency [Accessed 8 May 2021].

2

Above: Fiery Cross Reef before and after Chinese dredging Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan all claim to have sovereignty over at least some of the South China Sea. Physical proximity to

Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. (2016).

Fiery Cross Reef | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative. [online] Available at: https://amti.csis.org/fiery-cross-reef / [Accessed 8 May 2021].

3

the islands and waters forms the basis of most of these claims, meaning that international law falls firmly on their side. The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea created Exclusive Economic Zones, giving states rights concerning exploration and use of marine resources, in the area stretching 200 nautical miles from the country's coast. The claims made by these countries almost completely fall within their EEZ’s and they are therefore supported by international law. In 2016 an international tribune in The Hague ruled that China has no historical rights based on the nine-dash-line map, but unsurprisingly both China and Taiwan reject this ruling.

Above: A map showing the claims of all nations involved The US has not officially backed any claimant, despite its open criticism of China’s behaviour.

However, as a result of wide-ranging security commitments in East Asia, including alliances with the Philippines, Singapore and Vietnam, the US continues to have high levels of involvement in the dispute. It aims to prevent China expanding its sphere of influence in the region and criticises the building of military bases. Furthermore, the significance of the South China Sea for the transportation of goods produced in the region by American companies provides strong economic incentives for the Americans. The US regularly conducts ‘Freedom of Navigation Operations’, typically involving sailing destroyers within 12 miles of Chinese occupied features.

Some would argue that the dispute could ultimately improve relationships between the US and

Vietnam, who have been cooperating in order to achieve their common goal of limiting Chinese influence in the region. An alliance with Vietnam would reverse the flow of new diplomatic wins by Beijing and would help deny Vietnam’s EEZ to China for lucrative exploitation of the oil, gas, and fish. It would also serve as an example to others in the region on how to protect their EEZs and stand up to Chinese influence. It has the potential to be scaled to other countries in the region, which could see China becoming increasingly contained. In 2020 the USS Theodore Roosevelt made the second-ever visit by a U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to Vietnam, marking 25 years of diplomatic relations and growing security ties between the former Cold War antagonists. 4 However, the US and Vietnam share few common values and ideologies and are currently only cooperating as a result of negative cohesion.

Vietnam does not share the belief in the key features of a free and open Indo-Pacific, namely freedom of navigation for warships. Vietnam has long had restrictions on warships entering its territorial waters, not dissimilar to China’s and Vietnam also has both a territorial sea baseline and a prior notification regime that have been the direct target of US Freedom of Navigation operations with warships in the recent past. Many believe that this alliance will continue while it remains mutually beneficial, but that it will not be long lasting due to these differing beliefs.

In conclusion, the South China Sea conflict continues to develop rapidly and is highly volatile in nature. If you are interested in exploring the complexities of the dispute further. I would highly recommend looking at the resources from the Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, which includes interactive maps, feature trackers, satellite imagery of military developments and frequent news updates.

Press, A. (2020). South China Sea: US Carrier Visit to Vietnam Marks Growing Ties. [online] thediplomat.com. Available at: https://thediplomat.com/2020/03/south-china-sea-us -carrier-visit-to-vietnam-marks-growing-ties/ [Accessed 8 May 2021].

4

Economics

Politics in early 20th century (1905-17) Russia and its economic effects

By Carla Pongracz

At the beginning of the 20th century, Russia’s economic problems were getting steadily worse.

Under the rule of Tsar Nicholas II, between 1900 and 1915, the country faced virtual economic collapse. The series of revolutions, as well as the first world war, only made things worse and by the end of the war, there were high rates of currency inflation, critical food and fuel shortages and problems in the transportation network.

Tsar Nicholas was not a competent leader. He was out of his depth, when it came to holding such a high position and had a very weak character. When Russia entered into the Russo-Japanese War in 1904, fighting over an area of Northern China, for its valuable resources and a port that worked all year round, they were easily defeated. Their apparent advantage as a major European power did not work in their favour and the Japanese easily defeated their old-fashioned military tactics. The Tsarist government was blamed for this humiliating defeat and there was a loss of morale amongst the people.

In opposition to the Tsar’s incompetence, there were many parties fighting for power. One of the most dominant being, the Social Democratic Party which split into two main groups in 1903, the Bolsheviks (majority) and the Mensheviks (minority). When the first revolution, of 1905, struck, the Tsar only survived because he issued the October Manifesto in 1905, which promised the reforms the liberal middle-class people demanded e.g. freedom of speech and religion, a parliament known as a Duma, with representatives elected in a general election. The Tsar had also had the support of the military as the majority of them stayed loyal to him throughout the revolution. When the revolution weakened in April 1906, a new set of Laws, called the Fundamental Laws, was enacted, which established Russia’s State Duma, the first parliament of around 500 elected delegates.

However the powers of this Duma were very limited, with the Tsar keeping hold of very important powers, such as authority over the armed services and foreign policy. He also had the

right to veto any Duma legislation and if the Duma was not in operation he had the right to pass any new laws he thought necessary, under Article 87 of the Fundamental Laws.

Above: Tsar Nicholas II and his family Essentially, the Duma was very much just a display for the people rather than demonstrating actual change in the way Russia was being governed.

Between 1906 and 1917, there were 4 Dumas in total. The first two Dumas only lasted a couple of months, as they were dominated by reformers, and peasants, which the newly elected Prime Minister, Stolypin, soon realised was a threat towards tsarism. This made it abundantly clear to the revolutionary parties that elections would not help them achieve their aims. In 1907, Stolypin restricted the franchise to reduce the representation of radical and national minority groups ensuring that the 3rd and 4th Duma had mainly conservative members, rather than reformers.

Essentially, the Duma was very much just a display for the people rather than demonstrating actual change in the way Russia was being governed.

Between 1906 and 1917, there were 4 Dumas in total. The first two Dumas only lasted a couple of months, as they were dominated by reformers, and peasants, which the newly elected Prime Minister, Stolypin, soon realised was a threat towards

tsarism. This made it abundantly clear to the revolutionary parties that elections would not help them achieve their aims. In 1907, Stolypin restricted the franchise to reduce the representation of radical and national minority groups ensuring that the 3rd and 4th Duma had mainly conservative members, rather than reformers.

Above: Vladimir Lenin addressing the crowds

Above- Soldiers sat in makeshift tents

The economic impacts of the war were tremendous.

It cost 17 billion roubles which increased national debt drastically. The Russian government had introduced a prohibition of alcohol in 1914 to tackle drunkenness but the taxes from vodka sales made up 25% of government tax receipts, so they raised taxes and got loans from other countries. But by doing this they raised national debt even further.

The Germans had also captured important economic regions such as the coal-mining areas, now known as Poland. This blocked Russia’s access to Europe so they could not trade with their allies, and therefore put them in a very difficult position, as they had next to no form of overseas market. The military had also demanded a ban on grain exports in order to increase their supplies from peasants' harvests which affected the already weakened economy as a source of income was depleted. 15 million men had been sent to war so there was also not enough labour for factories or fields, and not enough supplies of raw materials to sustain production, therefore a lot of factories had to be shut down. This further affected the economy as less was being produced not only to export, but also for the Russian cities, as they were on the brink of starvation. The limited food supply had to be shared between the army and the cities, and food often sat in wagons on the tracks and rotted because there were no available trains to transport it.

The failures of war and the impacts it had on standards of living of the Russian people led to the outbreak of revolution in February 1917. The government had announced that bread would have to be rationed in Petrograd, starting on the 1st of March, which led to a quarter of a million people taking to the streets to protest. The numbers were far too high for police to control and the clashes between the protesters and policemen are what led to the February Revolution. Thereafter followed an army mutiny, in which soldiers and workers captured Petrograd’s main weapon store, broke into prisons and released political prisoners. It was evident that the monarchy was failing and eventually, Tsar Nicholas II was forced to abdicate on March 2nd 1917. His abdication was followed by the newly formed Provisional Government, which was to run Russia until democratic elections could take place for a Constituent Assembly. The mistakes of the provisional government in the months to follow, is what opened up the pathway for Lenin to return to Russia and bring the Bolsheviks to power.

Is British Capitalism in crisis?

By Isabella Chen

Despite periods of time when governments took a more socialist approach, throughout history, capitalism has been the political and economic system that has made Britain the way it is today. In this article, I will argue whether it has worked and whether it is in need of reform.

Capitalism can be defined as an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and their operation for profit. It thereby encourages competition and innovation through the incentive of profit. It requires a free market economy to succeed by distributing goods and services according to the law of supply and demand. Laissez-faire capitalism is the idea that the government should have no control over the markets and should only intervene to establish a level playing field i.e eliminating unfair advantages gained by monopolies and oligarchies. The main advantage to capitalism is the way in which it provides producers with incentive to innovate so that producers obtain bigger profits and more efficient production methods. Producers respond to consumers' demands and change prices accordingly. Prices are maintained at appropriate levels, assuming there is perfect competition in the market, which is fostered by capitalism. However, there are arguably many disadvantages to capitalism and the one that stands out to me the most is that it neglects large sections of society.

Capitalism makes it very difficult for the disabled, those without a good education or support and those who lack competitive skills to prosper in society. There is little equality of opportunity in capitalism and a further problem is that this inequality can be beneficial to those who win the most under capitalism. Due to many people not being able to reach the playing field, there is less competition for the big businesses which, in extreme cases, can lead to a monopoly. Those who benefit off capitalism can also use their wealth as power by, for example, exerting influence on government decisions through lobbying. External costs are also disregarded under capitalism. The environment suffers hugely from some industries as their main goal is to produce as much as possible and as efficiently as possible. They do not

necessarily take into account the negative externalities that derive from production for profit.

However, relating capitalism more specifically to the UK, I will be outlining the history of the British economy and where it has led us to today. We can observe capitalist ideas put into practice as early as the 16th century, where means of production were privately owned. During the 18th century, the industrial revolution took place and the factory system was developed. Low wages, poor working conditions and child labour were all things that can summarise what it was like for the average worker.

However, without those sacrifices the UK would not have been able to advance as fast as it did. Adam Smith was an advocate for laissez faire capitalism and his policies were put into place across Europe with relative success until the First World War. During the postwar era and the consequent Great Depression, Keynesian policies were introduced and state intervention was initiated. Clement Attlee’s 1945 win meant Labour was able to shift the UK economy more to the left. This was done through policies such as; the introduction of the NHS and increased government spending.

Above - Margaret Thatcher, PM from 1979-1990 However, in 1979, when Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister, she introduced policies that believed in the free market, made an effort to reduce state intervention in the economy, reduced power of the trade unions and tackled inflation. The overall results of this were positive outcomes for production, foreign trade balance, establishment of

new businesses, investment and economic growth and reduced inflation at the expense of increased unemployment and inequality, especially in the north of England. Some argue that Thatcher’s policies made us all better off. She transformed London into the financial dominator it is today which supposedly had a ripple effect to all sections in society which, in the long term, improved living standards for most.

A couple decades later, after the Financial Crisis in 2008, there was a rise in skepticism over capitalism. Young people have voiced their concerns about climate change and inequality, both issues that capitalism overlooks. Investors currently own many UK companies and their goals tend to be oriented towards profit instead of the greater good for society. Some suggest that stakeholder interests should be considered to a greater extent to encourage more sustainable long term growth. Other propositions are tougher policies on tackling carbon emissions, pollution and biodiversity loss through projects such as more green infrastructure.

Above - an example of green infrastructure This will require investment and innovation that will generate new jobs across the nation. More government spending must also occur, in sectors such as health, education and childcare, in order to increase labour productivity.

Whilst it can be said that British capitalism is in crisis, it does not mean that we must completely abandon capitalism. Some may argue it is just in need of reform, others will argue that a completely new system is required to ensure a better future. I would argue that change does indeed need to occur.

It should be done through things like increased government spending on public services that benefit society in the long run (education and health) and continuing to set targets and policies to reverse the environmental damage that capitalism

has created and greater wealth distribution to the less fortunate in society, to create more levelled playing fields and greater equality of opportunity.

Feminism

How has female representation in 10 Downing Street affected feminism?

By Lauren Baines

Parliament, which has been around since 1265, has only seen 2 female PMs, Margaret Thatcher (1979-90) and Theresa May (2016-19). An instant reaction would of course be to say that this female representation has been a massive step in the right direction for feminism, and we can't deny that having our first woman PM was a major symbolic leap forward, a thought that would have disgusted many 100 years ago, but, have Thatcher and May really been the best feminist icons?

Between Thatcher’s resignation in 1990 and Cameron becoming leader in 2005, the Tories held 4 leadership elections consisting of 14 candidates, but not a single woman was to be found on the ballot. This all changed in 2016, when Theresa May and Andrea Leadsom were battling it out, for party leadership and also for the role of PM too. This is a stark contrast to the left, which has returned no female PMs, in comparison to the Conservatives’ two, but are the 2 from the Tories beneficial to the feminist cause?

Did May and Thatcher fight their way against the odds, forcing the political structures to adapt to assist women? No, they took the same shape as the male leaders before them in order to fit the patriarchal standards, anti-women policy positions included. May was initially praised by writers as a leader for women’s equality and a “woman’s woman”. But Theresa May backed harmful austerity cuts that have unequally hit women. She oversaw the deportation of thousands of vulnerable women, including those deemed “not lesbian enough”, and she refused to disclose the extent of sexual abuse in the inhumane women’s detention

centre Yarls Wood out of fear of damaging commercial interests.

Thatcher, nicknamed “Thatcher, Thatcher, Milk Snatcher” sponsored legislation to eliminate the free milk programme for students over the age of 7. The programme began in 1940 when children and pregnant women were issued milk to prevent malnutrition that might be brought about by wartime shortages. 30 years later with Britain stuck in an economic crisis, Thatcher claimed that the free milk was too expensive and proceeded to steer through legislation limiting it to children under the age of 7, a blow for many women. Her Cabinet was filled entirely with men, except for one woman briefly, highlighting her lack of female unity.

Despite being the first female PM, she had no interest in social equality and knew nothing of female solidarity.

Above May and Thatcher The question then becomes whether representation alone is an indication of feminist success. It’s undeniable that it’s more difficult for women in general to make it to the top in politics, and in that case Thatcher and May were a feminist success. Thatcher, being the first female PM, has set a precedent that women can in fact enter 10 Downing Street and has paved the way for women, like May, to become PM in the future. Although her

policies and priorities were not centred around feminism, she did destroy the stereotype of women being soft and fragile, by being strong willed and not backing down from a fight as evidenced by her nickname ‘The Iron Lady’.

But, as tempting as it may be to celebrate these women leaders as signals of progress, these two were not feminists. So although the Conservatives might be winning the race when it comes to female PMs, when it comes to feminist PMs, no party is anywhere near.

Women in 19th Century Britain

By Mathilda Serero

The role of women in the 19th century is a topic that is fascinating as, to many, this period saw somewhat backward thinking despite the birth of a feminist suffrage moevement. Women had, in previous centuries, worked alongside men.

Their place was not confined to the home in the way that we often think they were. It was not until the 19th century that we see the progression of women to the position where they were expected to become homemakers and work was, quite simply, unacceptable. It is even the case that during this period there were numerous cases of women going completely mad due to the lack of mental stimulation. I suggest for further reading that The Yellow Wallpaper by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is an excellent short story that captures the position that women in this time were forced into. The protagonist is confined to a room after suffering from postnatal depression. It was thought that the best cure and solution for her would be to remove any sort of occupation and mental stimulation resulting in her fixating on characters on the wall and her ultimate madness. Women were not only constrained by social convention but by their clothes. They could barely move due to the restriction caused by corsets and the enormous bell shaped skirts that were the fashion of the time. Perhaps most importantly, social restraints included the idea that a woman should never express her exact feelings, including the idea that having a desire for food was completely unacceptable, showing quite evidently that women were restrained and their role in society was seemingly aesthetic and material.

A published lecture by renowned social commentator John Ruskin, Sesame and lilies, paints the picture that I have described. Ruskin emphasises that the role of women is to be constrained to the home and describes men as the creators and inventors. This work was published in 1865 and illustrates the idea that

women and men are two separate spheres, only to come together for meal times. I would note that it was not the case that men were seen as entirely superior, Victorian thought was based on the “fact” that men were fallible and would eventually succumb to inevitable failure whilst women were the moral superiors. And it was this moral superiority that confined them to the home where they would be most useful.

Above: This was the header used for Vogue magazine between 1892 and 1906. The image above shows two women, one reading and the other looking in the mirror.

Victorian culture was driven by the aesthetic and superficial. To bring this into some literary context, the plays of Oscar Wilde encapsulate the frivolity of society. Wilde satirizes society whilst simultaneously conveying the nature of convention by describing events such as parties and tea time.

What is crucial to understand about this period is the nature of language and mannerism, people did not say what they meant, and in order to understand what people really wanted to say one had to interpret gesture and tone.

Victorian social standards and expectations were, to an extent, a charade. Everything was so perfectly calculated that the smallest mistake would ensure your downfall. I don’t wish to digress into the formalities of Victorian social etiquette but instead to help paint the picture of the Victorian woman. She is confined to the home, she is expected to socialise, her appearance is her most important feature and

for many, her intelligence is to be limited to a capacity of listening and understanding, yet participating physically is just unacceptable.

Perhaps what is most thrilling about this time is the new found drive for more - the birth of feminism. Whilst the Victorians were famously set in their ways we can see the seeds of feminism and advocating for women's rights beginning to be sown. Since the middle of the 19th century women had been fighting for more protection and the right to vote, while this did not come into action until 1918 when women who were over 30, property holders or married to an elected government official were allowed to vote, change was in motion. The 1882 Married Women’s Property Act saw women gain some control over their earnings and property. Furthermore, in 1897 the National Union of Women’s Suffrage Societies was formed, with Millicent Fawcett as president. The perseverance and birth of the suffrage movement in this time saw women beginning to have their voices heard. We even see in literature the idea of the “new woman” come about. Wilde explores this in his play An Ideal Husband where Lady Chiltern expresses an interest and participation in political matters. We even see Lady Chiltern in a “walking dress” symbolic of the new woman breaking away from the restriction of her clothes. From the 1800s we can see real change in women's position, the early 19th century saw the creation of the Girl Guides, further education of women was becoming more and more acceptable for example in 1849 Queens College girls school was founded and a select few, highly privileged and scholarly girls were able to attend. While this is leaps and bounds away from equality between men and women, it was a step forward and the legislation of the time, while seemingly futile in comparison to the levels of equality and justice that we expect today, was to an extent revolutionary.

However, I suggest that one should take this statement with a pinch of salt. The Victorian period was not exactly one of sexual liberation and freedom for women. There was strict censorship and, as I have described,

women were expected and restrained to be in the home. Despite certain progressions and developments, the Victorian woman was, on the whole, suppressed. Many of the high society stars were vehemently opposed to the education of women. We see this reflected in literature time and time again, in An Ideal Husband Lady Markby is the antifemenist, she associates an educated woman with unattractiveness. This is not just dramatised in literature, cartoons circulated that depicted a woman that was educated as ugly and utterly unappealing.

Above : a 1910 poster depicting the suffragettes as the women who have never been kissed.

Propaganda like the poster above circulated and instilled within society that the new woman, the feminist, the educated lady was something that was repulsive and unattractive. The pressure that Victorian expectation exerted on women from a young age to look the part, behave perfectly and find a husband was enormous. It constrained women and was reinforced by the narrative that a woman who spoke her mind and educated herself was not something to be admired.

Environment

Learning from Eco-Anarchism

By Honor Wiggins

There is no doubt that in a world rampant with corruption, poverty and international conflict, ‘fluffy’ political ideologies seem like a dangerous distraction from the viciousness of our immediate reality. Post-capitalist fantasies seem like mockery of the harsh conditions workers face daily. One may express disgust at the ignorance of even entertaining the prospect, as if we have forgotten the past failures of ‘communist’ systems. But a severe attitude such as this may do nothing but prove the faults of our system.

Our complacency with the government’s shameless failure to reach ecological regeneration goals, to then unapologetically introduce laws condemning protesters after systemic faults were brought to question, to begin development on High Speed 2 in the face of an environmental tipping point is evidence that so long as these dominating forces exist, we will continue to resolve problems only when they pose an imminent threat to the economy. ‘Fluffy’, frightfully radical, seemingly deluded ideologies may be exactly what saves us.

And with sky rocketing carbon emissions, acidification of oceans, and mass extinction, a form of ‘Green Anarchism’ or ‘Eco-anarchism’ may be the means to confront the root problem of our destructive detachment from the Earth.

Above: Power station grid1

Green anarchism is a sector of anarchist theory that dissects humanity’s relationship with the earth and its ‘non-human’ population. It 1

AP 2021, The COVID crisis triggered the largest annual drop in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions since the Second World War, Sky New

reframes our civilization as an illegitimate hierarchy over our surroundings2. Eco-anarchism posits that there is something fundamentally absurd in the dominating position we have assumed, operating as if we did not evolve from the same ancestral organism as every other living thing. We act as if we have no active part in the nature which we constantly attempt to ‘other’.

Humans and nature are inseparable from each other, therefore resolving our exploitative behaviour is not a question of minimising the harm done but to dissolve any ideas of right to do so.

Anarchism is complex and weighted with historical context but, as a whole, advocates for non-domination. The specific monopolies of power that anarchism criticises are different within each environment, but in this context humans are the dominating power. Beyond that, anarchist theory is notoriously vague. But since there is nothing vague about the climate crisis, eco-anarchism has very clear, identifiable goals.

At its forefront, Green-anarchism urges us to prevent ecological catastrophe. The way in which we do so must be in a societal transformation, recognising that this catastrophe cannot be averted solely through resistance of domination. Anarchism would dismantle anthropocentrism, the western view that places human society at the center and transition us to a biocentric view, the view that all life is worthy of moral consideration in their own right, not when it is suits human desires3. The implications sound extreme but our view of ‘extremity’ comes from the comfort of our position.

Biocentrism is not inversing the roles but instead restores the balance which we have disrupted.

Rethinking humanity’s place on the earth is not anti-civilization. We have no choice but to maintain our society, but what we should learn is that mitigation of the crisis will not sustain us. By finding ways to lessen the impacts of the climate crisis on our own well-being only, we ignore the reason we face the threat of extinction: our own 2

Clark, J 2020, ‘What is eco-anarchism?’, The Ecological Citizen: A peer-reviewed ecocentric journal, vol. 3, pp. 9–14.

3 DesJardins, JR 2019, Biocentrism | ethics, Encyclopædia Britannica.

self-interest. Instead, we must use a bioregional outlook, in which we form a deep respect for the plants, insects, animals, insects and mechanism of the world around us.4 Interconnectedness is imperative. We were born as one, so we should not aim to survive on our own.

The Anarchist Library 2014, What is Green Anarchy?, The Anarchist Library, viewed 14 May 2021, <https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-what-isgreen-anarchy>. ‌ 4

Is the UK Government Doing Enough to Tackle Air Pollution?

By Catherine Benson

Air pollution is one of the biggest threats to public health in the UK – behind only cancer, obesity and heart disease. In response to this, Theresa May’s government published the Clean Air Strategy in January of 2019, which aims to cut the costs of air pollution to society by £1.7 billion a year by 2020. This ambitious project is an addition to the commitment to halve the number of people living in areas that breach the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on air pollution by 2025. This came after a study by the British Heart Foundation (BHF) revealed that 15 million people in the UK live in areas where the average level of PM2.5 – a microscopic particle that comes primarily from vehicle emissions, wood burning and construction – exceeds the n (WHO) guidelines. If these obligations are fulfilled, they would make the UK one of the first major economies to adopt their air quality goals based on WHO recommendations, according to the government press release.

The Clean Air Strategy also includes a range of actions to reduce emissions from transport and farming, plus incentives for clean economic growth and innovation. It also aims to spread awareness about the range of daily activities that contribute to air pollution. The strategy provides consumers with reliable information to make informed choices to protect themselves from the dangers of air pollution.

Above: Image of air pollution in London

Meanwhile the Environment Bill, the most important piece of legislation this decade according to green campaigners, has been delayed yet again. The Environment Bill was first announced almost three years ago in July 2018. The bill sets out a structure for ministers to impose new targets for air pollution and enshrine EU regulations into UK law. Since 2018, the bill has been “severely delayed” for the third time, sparking outrage amongst its supporters. Campaigners argue that further delay of the bill will prevent action on air pollution as well as water pollution and other significant environmental issues.

Above: Image of traffic in London The Environment Bill is paramount in order to enshrine air pollution policies into statute law and thus ensuring their enforcement. The British Heart Foundation, amongst other organisations, called for the WHO guidelines on PM2.5 to be enshrined in the Environment Bill. These calls, however, were not heard by the government4. An opportunity to make meaningful change that would have started us on the path towards cleaner air was missed by the government by not including WHO limits on PM2.5 in the bill. While the bill does include a legal commitment to set a limit on P M2.5 by October 2022 many argue that this is too long to wait.

The reason PM2.5, dubbed the “invisible killer”, is so critical to mitigate is due to the serious damage it can cause to our health, especially children. Harmful implications include increasing the possibility of heart and respiratory diseases. Health experts also say that these poisonous pollutants can reduce lung function and can cause asthma to develop in those young people who are exposed to them. Other scientific studies have highlighted links to dementia, harm to unborn babies and the increased risk of cancer as examples of the long-term damage done by air pollution.

Considering the risks the “invisible killer” poses, a weak strategy and delayed Environment Bill are not enough to tackle the air pollution crisis. Furthermore, the current lax guidelines do not provide adequate protection for the citizens of the UK against the hidden dangers of air pollution.

Sources: Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Department of Health and Social Care, The Rt Hon Michael Gove MP, and The Rt Hon Matt Hancock MP, ‘Government launches world leading plan to tackle air pollution’, <https://www.gov.uk/government/news/gove rnment-launches-world-leading-plan-to-tackle -air-pollution>, 14.01.19 (04.05.21) British Heart Foundation, ‘Air Pollution’, <https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-a nd-public-affairs/creating-healthier-environm ents/air-pollution>, (04.05.21) HETAS, ‘Clean Air Strategy’, < https://www.hetas.co.uk/clean-air-strategy-20 19/#:~:text=Government%20Announces%20C lean%20Air%20Strategy,Transport>, 14.01.19 (04.05.21) British Heart Foundation, ‘Air Pollution’, <https://www.bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/policy-a nd-public-affairs/creating-healthier-environm ents/air-pollution>, (04.05.21)

To what extent has the Paris Climate Agreement been hindered by Trump and his administration

By Hebe Dennison

In 2015, 195 countries came together to sign the Paris Agreement, a legally binding, international treaty that would transform the way in which the world views and responds to climate change. Its goals are to limit global warming to below 2 degrees celsius of pre-industrial temperatures, to keep the effects of climate change at a manageable level.

Each country that is participating submits a nationally determined contribution (NDC), that outlines the plans they will take to lower emissions1.

So why is the Paris Agreement needed? Well, since the industrial revolutions of many developed countries, the burning of fossil fuels to generate energy has been unintentionally emitting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. This enhances the greenhouse effect, which is when the greenhouse gases i.e carbon dioxide, absorb solar radiation and re-emitting it in all directions, meaning that the atmosphere is being warmed up.

This heating of the planet unfortunately doesn’t just mean we get a few more beach days. Its consequences can cause social, economic and environmental devastation, as a result of rising sea levels, increased extreme weather events and more frequent droughts. Many have predicted that if we increase global warming to just 2 degrees celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, the effects will be catastrophic, and mass climate migration will be forced to take place. This is why it is essential for countries to work together, as they have done in the Paris Agreement, to mitigate these destructive impacts.

United Nations Climate Change (2016). The Paris Agreement. [online] UNFCCC. Available at: https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-paris-ag reement/the-paris-agreement [Accessed 12 Apr. 2021].

1

Above: The World Leaders at COP21 in 2015, where they created the Paris Agreement The Paris Agreement has been widely praised for paving the way for climate change conversations and action. The act of 195 countries coming together to agree on a global problem, signifies to citizens all around the world the urgency and gravitas of the situation. It also helps hold countries accountable, as the ‘enhanced transparency framework’ forces countries to submit a report providing the information needed to track their progress. These reports will then be reviewed by experts and other governments.

Another strength of the Paris Agreement is its increased focus on climate adaptation. While climate mitigation is absolutely crucial to slowing global warming, it is naive to ignore the effect that it is already having on communities world wide.

From increased hurricanes and droughts, to rising sea levels that are enveloping islands, communities are suffering, and the Paris Agreement is a hope of change and help, prompting governments to strengthen their countries ability to deal with these impacts. Developed countries are also assisting developing nations to achieve their climate change goals, through financial funding and the sharing of technology and information.

However, while the Paris Agreement is a seemingly perfect solution (or at least the path to a solution), its credibility was put into jeopardy by the actions of Donald Trump, the 45th President of the USA. When Trump came to power in 2017, he made the decision to pull the USA out of the Paris Treaty, asserting that the impacts on the US’ economy would be too great a sacrifice. Throughout his

presidential campaign, he had championed the revitalization of the US’ coal industries, and the Paris Agreement is incompatible with this goal.

Trump suggested that if followed through, the Paris Agreement could result in the loss of 6.5 million jobs and 3 trillion dollars of the GDP2. Pressure exerted from fellow Republicans and parts of the international community, such as UKIP, also contributed to Trump’s subsequent departure from the Treaty.

Above- The participation in the Paris Agreement in November 2019

This withdrawal sparked both global and national outrage, with even the USA’s major oil companies i.e Chevron criticizing it. The previously united nature of the treaty was disrupted, lowering the value that it was perceived to hold. As one of the world’s biggest emitters, this move was particularly damaging, as it sent the signal that they aren’t concerned with climate change. Due to the USA’s overwhelming power and influence, there was concern that it might potentially persuade other governments and citizens to also downplay the danger and urgency of climate change. It also substantially slowed down the progress being made in the US in terms of climate mitigation and adaptation, with many of the environmental regulations that Obama had put in place being removed.

Loris, N. (2019). 4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement. [online] The Heritage Foundation. Available at: https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/ 4-reasons-trump-was-right-pull-out-the-paris-agree ment [Accessed 10 May 2021].

2

However, how far did their withdrawal actually jeopardize the Paris Agreement? Now that Biden has rejoined as one of his first acts of presidency, are there any long lasting negative impacts? It certainly exposes that even within the US, which is commonly regarded as one of the most developed countries in the world, climate change is still not taken seriously by many citizens, who were willing to vote in a President who promised to actively reverse many of the climate change mitigation strategies imposed by Obama. However, across the country, 24 state governments pledged to continue their work towards reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement, even if the USA as a whole were not formally a part of it3. This even included Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, who have a long history of manufacturing and were targeted by Trump in his presidential campaign. This provides hope, as even places who benefit from the activities that increase global warming are willing to make sacrifices to limit climate change. Biden’s rejoining of the treaty also means that while Trump’s presidency may have slowed down climate change prevention, the USA still has an opportunity to make up for their past errors.

It is important to consider that even without the temporary withdrawal of the USA, the Paris Agreement still has lots of flaws. While it is undeniably a step in the right direction, many argue that it is still not enough. Since countries were able to create their own NDCs, they have not all set themselves goals which represent the proportion of global emissions that they produce. This means that even if all of the countries fulfilled their aims, climate change still wouldn’t be slowed quickly enough4. The lack of enforcement or legal penalties if countries fail to meet their goals may also contribute to a lower level of urgency within countries, leading to less action.

Denchak, M. (2019). Paris Climate Agreement: Everything You Need to Know. [online] NRDC. Available at: https://www.nrdc.org/stories/paris-climate-agreeme nt-everything-you-need-know#sec-whatis [Accessed 11 May 2021].

3

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. (2019).

Paris Climate Agreement Q&A | Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. [online] Available at: https://www.c2es.org/content/paris-climate-agreeme nt-qa/ [Accessed 10 May 2021].

4

Above: A map showing whether each countries contributions to the Paris Agreement will be sufficient Between the flaws of the treaty, and the US pulling out for a period of time, is the Paris Agreement and the global climate doomed? Well, while Trump’s withdrawal was both symbolically destructive and concerning due to the levels of emissions being produced by the US, the outrage at both a national and international level reflects that while many may not be troubled by climate change, many more are. With the USA rejoining the Paris Agreement, and COP26 coming up in Glasgow this year, recognition of the need to minimise climate change is at an all time high. The Paris Agreement has been a crucial step in unifying and prompting the global community to create steps to tackle climate change, and it is now time to power through with these actions.

Social and Cultural Affairs

Can your # make a difference?

Does social media have the potential to make long lasting political change

By Daisy Studd

Depending on who you ask, the attitudes towards social media vary massively. The young people of today have grown up with the pressures of social media for their entire childhood and the ever increasing demands of these outlets will arguably only grow throughout their lifetimes. Parents telling their teens to ‘get off their phones’ and ‘see the real world’ is a conversation many have had, more than a few times. Of course, social media is a place for sharing photos, opinions and maintaining contact with people all across the globe almost instantaneously but many also argue that social media is a powerful tool for political discussion.

Social media outlets like twitter and instagram have been used in the West especially, as a platform for sharing political opinions for many years. Why else would politicians head to these networks to build up a following and communicate with the wider world? I’m sure everyone remembers Trump’s iconic use of Twitter before he was banned from the platform following Biden’s success in the elections.

The speed that social media moves in allows people across the globe to access information in seconds and allows them access to a plentiful supply of resources at the end of their fingertips. Social media has also, over the years, grown in popularity as a platform for activism, reaching a wide audience and quickly sharing messages with huge potential influence extremely easily. Research shows that in the year 2020, 3.96 billion people used social media actively across the world.1 This astounding figure shows how wide social media platforms can reach and demonstrates the huge collective of 1

https://backlinko.com/social-media-users

people it has the opportunity to influence. But does posting on social media actually make a difference or is this activism simply performative?

Cases where social media can be effective often revolve around social issues. Over the past few years environmentalist activism, Black Lives Matter organisers and other social justice groups , have used social media to start a conversation. Often, social media can be used to push people to consider opinions, and it forces them to become aware of an issue, simply by opening their phone or device. The impact of social media comes from its accessibility and the “trends” in movements. Often, a particular issue is brought to attention via social media outlets and everyone is so inundated with posts, petitions and information they have no choice but to become aware.

Political change cannot happen overnight however, especially in states of authoritarian or dictatorial leaders. Amnesty International is an organisation dedicated to advocating for human rights, and they function by putting immense pressure on governments to reverse decisions that they believe violate basic human rights. Amnesty is a key NGO that utilises social media to spread awareness, and push people around the world to join their fight and help make a change.2 Amnesty’s success stories however, while impressive and still hugely valuable to those involved, do have limits. The human rights NGO focuses disproportionately on countries where they believe their pressure will be successful, meaning that often much worse cases of human rights violations are left unseen and unheard because the organisation knows that their pressure will not have an impact and resources are best kept to focus on other areas of the globe. In recent years, 2

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/

countries like China have simply ignored the hundreds of emails, letters and other forms of pressure that Amnesty utilises when trying to influence a government. Many argue that because social media pressure has no genuine power, and is often just used as a tool to insert pressure or raise awareness, its impact can still often be very limited.

As previously mentioned, over the years, social media has been utilised for many activist agendas, such as the #MeToo movement which was first used in 2006 on the platform ‘myspace’ to speak out against sexual violence and support other women who were suvivors of sexual misconduct.

3 This movement empowered women across the world to speak out against their perpetrators and created a safe environment for women and girls to seek help. In recent months, this movement has restarted, following the death of Sarah Everard in the UK. The instagram account ‘everyonesinvited’ blew up, exposing the damaging culture of rape and sexual assault in schools and universities across the UK. 4This account, founded by Soma Sara has gained global recognition, allowing what started as a single girls experience with rape culture to become the face of a detremental and prominant issue that students across the country have been battling. It is clear that in this case, social media did wonders to shed light on such a pressing issue that has been ignored for decades by both the government and educational institutions. The way that young people across the globe felt empowered and inspired by the account to seek help, share their testimony or spread awareness for the issue meant that, almost overnight, the world opened their eyes to issues right in front of them.

So yes, clearly sometimes, one person speaking up and posting on social media can make a difference.

3 4

https://metoomvmt.org/ https://www.everyonesinvited.uk/

Ultimately, each activist movement must be looked at on a case by case basis. It would not be possible to mention every time a group or organisation has taken to social media to let out a message and it would also not be possible to work out how effective each individual movement has been. What can be said however, is that in a country like the UK, where access to social media is the norm and information is passed around via these outlets, there is never a harm in trying.

Political change may not always be possible by simply pressing a button and posting a picture but spreading awareness for issues that you feel are relevant to the wider community is better than doing nothing. Just because Amnesty International is ignored by certain countries, does not mean it stops trying. Just because you can’t see tangible results from one post on social media immediately, doesn’t mean it hasn’t got a purpose. The privilege we have in the UK to be able to speak out about topics we are passionate about should not be wasted. Who knows? Maybe you will wake up and have sparked a revolution...

Sherpas: The Unsung Heroes of Everest

By Millie Dodd

I am sure all of you reading this are aware of the prestige of reaching the summit of Everest for mountaineers all over the world. It is seen as a huge accomplishment- but I can guarantee that not all of you are aware of the laborious effort of Everest Sherpas in facilitating the climbs. In this article I am going to attempt to explain the importance of the mountain for local communities and why Everest has been a source of much controversy.

Firstly, it is important that I establish a key difference in viewpoint. For us Westerners the mountain is seen as a challenge and tourist attraction. Climbing Everest is, for many, a ‘bucket list’ achievement- and so it has become a booming tourist sector for the Napalese government. Our relationship with the mountain is a superficial fantasy when compared to its importance for local Sherpa communities. Sherpa is defined as a type of ethnicity common in the mountainous regions of Nepal. The Sherpa ethnicity is synonymous with Buddhism, and so their relationship with the mountain is one of great respect and love. They call the mountain Chomolungma or ‘Mother of the world’, with the peak holding high status as a representation of their deities. The mountain is more than just a challenge for the Sherpas: it is their livelihood and protector, and this makes them the perfect guides to navigate the treacherous paths of the mountain. These starkly contrasting values of the mountain provide a worrying reality: how will the mountain’s function change, depending on Western tourism ? With Everest expeditions bringing in $700 million each year and providing 1 million jobs, it is clear to see that the Nepalese government has formed a dependence on Everest expeditions. This has many positive impacts on local communities including more jobs and increased revenue. The importance of this roaring tourism trade can be seen through the disastrous impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on Nepal.

Following the outbreak, all expeditions to Everest’s summit were cancelled, leaving behind the 80% of the population who depend on tourism. For the government, Everest is one of the most important industries- but this has led to a series of other

issues. Over-climbing on the mountain has been a huge problem.

Above: Image of the lines at the top of Everest.

This picture depicts the lengthy lines that can take hours to shift, at the peak of Everest. Additionally, the clash in values as mentioned above have also been a huge problem for Everest. For many Sherpas, the boom in tourism has provided them with yearly wages, but not much else. Heavy dependence on Westernised tourists who do not hold the same value to the mountain as they do, has been a source of much frustration. Fights and brawls have risen dramatically, particularly between the young Sherpa’s and tourists. It seems as though decades of underlying tensions are finally surfacing, often with fatal outcomes.

It would not be acceptable to talk about Sherpa’s without mentioning Tenzing Norgay. Arguably the most famous Sherpa of all, he was part of the first Everest expedition ground. Norgay’s relationship with the mountain meant he was a perfect guide for the mountaineering expedition. Once again however, Norgay was a source of much controversy.

His work on the expedition was very much in the shadow of Hillary. He was knighted, whilst Tenzing only received an honorary medal. It seems as though this lack of Sherpa appreciation has resurfaced on Everest now, with a huge lack of appreciation for the dangers the Sherpa’s endure in order to facilitate expeditions.

Above- Tenzing Norgay and Edmund Hillary on the first Everest expedition.

2014 marked a turning point for Everest. An avalanche in the Khumbu icefall became the second-deadliest event on Everest. Sixteen people died on what is described as the most dangerous section of the expedition, the ice fall is constantly changing shape making it extremely unpredictable.

The event sparked a huge backlash against the mountaineering companies and the government.

Sherpas at base camp felt completely overlooked, the bodies of their colleges were unrecovered, yet the companies wanted to continue expeditions over the dead. Here, tourism trumped morality. Strikes for compensation and a better casualty approach launched, further halting expeditions. The event was a huge turning point in Sherpa passivity, they now demanded a change in government attitude to the dangers of tourism on Everest to them and visitors.

Above: Khumbu Ice fall It is clear that there is a huge issue on Everest. To what extent should tourism mean that a community of essential workers are overlooked ?

This has clearly been a problem for decades since Everest was first summited, Sherpas have never been at the forefront of expeditions despite their crucial hard work in ensuring they go ahead. The future of Everest is uncertain, the impacts of the covid pandemic and an inflammation in tensions suggest to me that change is on the horizon.

I would highly recommend, if you haven't already, watching the film ‘SHERPA’ to educate yourselves on a different perspective of Everest. For the Sherpas the mountain is both a light and a detriment to their lives.

Is there an ethical dilemma in creating laws prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in athletic competitions in a gender that they were not ‘assigned to at birth’

By Nina Citlucanin

To understand whether transgender people should be allowed to compete in competitons in a gender that they were not ‘assigned to at birth’, you must first understand what it means to be transgender. 1Transgender people are people whose gender identity is different from the gender they were thought to be at birth.

“Trans” is often used as shorthand for transgender. 2The participation of transgender people in athletic competitions has been highly discussed and many people have different opinions, since it's not just a political issue, but also a social issue.

The majority of people want equality and fairness, however reaching this is a struggle since many have outdated views on how society should be run, and have clouded judgement on certain things. For example, many people are biased when it comes to supporting the transgender community because they don't know anyone who is transgender so cannot understand. This highly influences the debate on whether transgender people should be allowed to compete in athletic competitions. On one side of this argument, excluding transgender people from athletic competitions would be unethical since any form of discrimination against the LGBTQ+ is unlawful.

Therefore, it is against the law to discriminate against people for their gender reassignment.

1

National centre for transgender equality, frequently asked questions about transgender people, published july 9th 2016, https://transequality.org/issues/resources/frequently-ask ed-questions-about-transgender-people, [accessed 01/05/2021] 2 A level playing field – Should Transgender athletes be allowed to compete in the category that matches their gender identity in the 2020 Olympics?, february 7 2020, http://www.open.ac.uk/blogs/OU-Sport/?p=2304 [accessed 01/05/2021]

Furthermore, by having laws that support and encourage trangender athletes from competing in competitions, these athletes can be seen as role models to younger children who may be questioning their gender or sexuality. This can further inspire younger people who are transgender to get into sports. One example of a transgender role model is Laurel Hubbard, a transgender weightlifter, who transitioned from male to female. Once she transitioned she successfully competed in the common-wealth games and achieved a record breaking performance in the women’s weightlifting category. Having a role model for young children is vital since it allows young people to have aspirations and sports is very important so should be accessible to everyone.

Below - Image of Laurel Hubbard

However, allowing transgender athletes to compete in athletic competitions in a gender that they were not ‘assigned to at birth’ does have some controversy. The reason for this is because some people believe that although you may classify yourself as a man or a woman, you still have the genetics of the gender you were assigned to at birth and so it is unfair to allow you to compete in competitions against, for example, women if they were born with the ‘genetics of a man’. One person who believes

that there should be laws created to prohibit transgender athletes from competing in athletic competitions is Jerry Wallwork. Wallwork who is the head coach for the Samoa weightlifting team said, “A man is a man and a woman is a woman and I know a lot of changes have gone through, but in the past Laurel Hubbard used to be a male champion weightlifter.” By this he is suggesting that just because Hubbard is female, she has the strength ability of a man and that is unfair to the other women who are competing against her in weightlifting.

When looking at both sides of the argument, one would say that they both have strong points, however creating laws prohibiting transgender athletes from competing in athletic competitions in a gender that they were not ‘assigned to at birth’ would be detrimental to the mental health of the athletes and younger people who are also questioning their gender.

Furthermore, everyone should be encouraged to take up sports and that should not depend on their gender.

How Successful was the Political Integration of both German Countries after the Reunification in 1990?

By Hannah Quinn

The reunification of Germany was a monumental event for German citizens as it marked the end of a divided nation, and for the East German population, the end of an almost four decade long repressive socialist government. This article will focus on the political and economic integration following the reunification, and the impacts this had on both countries, which I find fascinating, as reconciling the two opposing ideologies - capitalism in West Germany and communism in the East posed numerous challenges for the government and the people of both countries, particularly those of East Germany who had grown up in the communist political system.

The reunification was brought about by the multitude of events in East Europe in 1989 when the Soviet satellite states began to push back against Russian control following Gorbachev’s new progressive reforms; glasnost and perestroika. In East Germany discontent had been growing due to gradually worsening living conditions which were exacerbated by the fact that they were considerably lower than those in West Germany. The mass protest movements started in countries such as Hungary and Poland and gradually spread across the Eastern bloc, eventually leading to the fall of the Berlin wall which was an event that became a symbol for the end of the Cold War division. Free elections were subsequently held in 1990, and the party in favour of reunification - the East German wing of West Germany Chancellor Helmut Kohl’s Christian Democratic Union1 - won most of the seats, leading to the end of the division on the 3rd October 1990.

Wikipedia Contributors. “German Reunification.”

Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification.

Accessed 10 May 2021.

1

Above: East Berliners at the fall of the Berlin Wall Reunification hence established the expansion of the West German political system in East Germany, as well as a new economic system that merged the two economies. On the 18th May 1990 a treaty was signed that replaced the East German Mark with the West German Deutsche Mark2, a currency that was recognised by East Germans as being stable. In addition to this, to further develop unity, West German laws were enforced in East Germany3 in order to develop a cohesive and stable political framework for the new country. East Germany was absorbed into the Western side, with Helmut Kohl becoming the Chancellor of the new Germany, and the red, black and gold flag unifying both countries.

As a result, Eastern Germany inherited the country’s privileges in international politics, with perhaps the most prominent example being their seats at the UN, NATO, and the European Committees4. For the first time the East German people were represented in western politics.

Wikipedia Contributors. “German Reunification.”

Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification.

Accessed 10 May 2021.

3 Wikipedia Contributors. “German Reunification.”

Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification.

Accessed 10 May 2021. ‌ 4 Wikipedia Contributors. “German Reunification.”

Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification.

Accessed 10 May 2021.

2

years9. Furthermore, even with this investment, the East German economy suffered due to a lack of productivity. This was as a result of years under communist rule, the high unemployment rate, and the new regulations that East German businesses were expected to follow10. There was, however, a significant rise in average living standards in East Germany, with gross wages rising from 35% of the Western level to 74%11.

Above: the previous split between the two countries The reunification did not occur without any political and economic ramifications however.

Initial obstacles resulted from the government needing to restructure businesses from East Germany, as declaring private ownership rights was a fundamental part of West German capitalism, but opposed the previous East German political system.

The government passed the Property Law Act in 19925 which increased investments within Germany, so the government could compensate citizens’ former properties, as declaring ownership resulted in complications about the leadership of businesses6. A further problem was investing in infrastructure in East Germany, which was essential as the East German economy was far behind that of the West German one - upon reunification, East Germany only contributed 8% of national GDP7 - which was a massive problem for the private sector8. Consequently, Western Germany was forced to spend huge sums of money, often through public funding, a fact that incensed the West German people; it was expected that the cost of this investment was €2 trillion over 20

“Political Effects | Effects of Reunification of Germany.” U.osu.edu, u.osu.edu/eng4400portermaldonado/political-effect/ . Accessed 10 May 2021.

6 “Political Effects | Effects of Reunification of Germany.” U.osu.edu, u.osu.edu/eng4400portermaldonado/political-effect/ . Accessed 10 May 2021.

7 “Political Effects | Effects of Reunification of Germany.” U.osu.edu, u.osu.edu/eng4400portermaldonado/political-effect/ . Accessed 10 May 2021.

8 “Political Effects | Effects of Reunification of Germany.” U.osu.edu, u.osu.edu/eng4400portermaldonado/political-effect/ . Accessed 10 May 2021.

5

The daily lives of the citizens were also affected, particularly those of East Germany who were experiencing a complete shift of ideological political systems. Many struggled with job losses, the new western regulations, and seeing their old customs and products being replaced by capitalist western products12. These aspects greatly challenged the concept of full integration, and the divide between the two countries remained.

Above: German unification celebrations in Berlin These differences are less prominent today, however have prevailed to some extent. Economic disparities remain prevalent with large subsidies still being transferred from west to east, the economic output of the eastern side at ⅓ of the western’s and incomes 10% lower, as well as a

Wikipedia Contributors. “German Reunification.”

Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification.

Accessed 10 May 2021.

10 “Political Effects | Effects of Reunification of Germany.” U.osu.edu, u.osu.edu/eng4400portermaldonado/political-effect/ . Accessed 10 May 2021.

11 Wikipedia Contributors. “German Reunification.”

Wikipedia, Wikimedia Foundation, 21 Mar. 2019, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reunification.

Accessed 10 May 2021.

12 “Political Effects | Effects of Reunification of Germany.” U.osu.edu, u.osu.edu/eng4400portermaldonado/political-effect/ . Accessed 10 May 2021.

9

continued higher unemployment rate13. To put this into context, the former East German area has often had parallels drawn between it and the underdeveloped Southern Italy14. While the East German economy has recovered significantly and their political representation has increased, with an example of this being the current Chancellor Angela Merkel who was raised behind the wall, the differences still remain. This is demonstrated by the recent rise of support for more extreme nationalist parties in the Eastern side of the country15. There are also mentality gaps between the youth and older generations, with the younger having very little knowledge of the previous Eastern country. Moreover, many young people move West due to its more metropolitan feel and larger industries16, which demonstrates a further divide between the two sides and demographics within the country.

Overall, the greatest success resulting from the reunification was the economic recovery of East Germany, however disparities remain showing that full integration, politically, economically, and socially, has not yet been achieved.

Welle (www.dw.com), Deutsche. “Germany Faces Old Problems 30 Years after Reunification | DW | 03.10.2020.” DW.COM, www.dw.com/en/germany-reunification-2020/a-551 31890. Accessed 10 May 2021.

14 Welle (www.dw.com), Deutsche. “Germany Faces Old Problems 30 Years after Reunification | DW | 03.10.2020.” DW.COM, www.dw.com/en/germany-reunification-2020/a-551 31890. Accessed 10 May 2021.

15 Welle (www.dw.com), Deutsche. “Germany Faces Old Problems 30 Years after Reunification | DW | 03.10.2020.” DW.COM, www.dw.com/en/germany-reunification-2020/a-551 31890. Accessed 10 May 2021.

16 Welle (www.dw.com), Deutsche. “Germany Faces Old Problems 30 Years after Reunification | DW | 03.10.2020.” DW.COM, www.dw.com/en/germany-reunification-2020/a-551 31890. Accessed 10 May 2021.

13

Wind Of Change: The CIA’s Anthem for the End of Communism?

By Anais Berns

In September 1989, months before the fall of the Berlin Wall, Klaus Miene from the German rock band Scorpions began writing the song Wind of Change which would later sweep throughout Eastern Europe and become an anthem for the end of communism. The power ballad was inspired by Russia’s gradual thaw under Gorbachev’s policy of glasnost and was embraced throughout Russia and Eastern Europe as the Iron Curtain rusted away.

But is it possible that this song, which was so influential in promoting Western culture behind the Iron Curtain, was planted or meddled with by the CIA in some way? Journalist Patrick Radden Keefe explores this theory in an 8 episode podcast series on Spotify, Wind of Change1, and investigates the rumour through interviews with ex-CIA agents, fans of the band in Ukraine and even a member of the band itself.

Pictured above: Scorpions poster Rock music in the Soviet Union was banned on the basis that it was decadent and culturally corruptive.

This did not stop Soviet teens smuggling and making their own records out of old x-rays. These became known as ‘bone records’ as they often had old images of bones still burned into them. This culture represents the power of music in repressive regimes, something which the CIA was aware of and utilised throughout the period. For example, artists such as Louis Armstrong and the country

group Nitty Gritty Dirt Band were sent on CIA-approved tours behind the Iron Curtain in order to exercise soft power and spread iconic American music to the masses.

Pictured above: Nina Simone2 Another example is Nina Simone, an American singer, song writer and civil rights activist.

Unbeknownst to her, Nina was used as part of an operation when she went on tour to Nigeria in 1961 and died without ever knowing the truth about this tour.

These covert operations demonstrate the idea that culture can be, and is, weaponized by governments to be propaganda, as the most effective form of propaganda is when the target audience doesn't know that it is politically charged. For many people, this raises questions of morality surrounding the corruption of art as well as the problems that come with this. As Keefe mentions in an interview with the Rolling Stone, “There’s a natural tendency to want to think of music as an undiluted, pure interaction between the listener and the song.”3 When people are forced to reevaluate and question the authenticity of the music, some believe it takes away from it.

By the 8th episode, Keefe has travelled around the world following leads and talking to various individuals in order to come up with a picture of the truth which might make sense. In the 8th 2

Cnn.com, 2021, http://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/150706110551-01-nin a-simone-restricted-super-tease.jpg.

3

1

Patrick Radden Keefe, “Wind of Change,” Spotify (Pineapple Street Studios, May 20, 2020), https://open.spotify.com/show/3vikAuFxKVNe2GBZC61IYD ?si=0ZAaBevvQzuS18SRKEOfww.

Andrea Marks and Andrea Marks, “Could the CIA Have Planted Hair-Metal Propaganda during the Cold War?,” Rolling Stone, July 14, 2020, https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/wind-of-chang e-cia-propaganda-cold-war-podcast-1027873/.

episode, he presents this information and his various findings to Klaus Miene himself, the lead singer of the Scorpions and the man who supposedly wrote the lyrics to the song. Miene talks about his experience as a member of a rock band during the Cold War and the way music was perceived as a threat in Russia and how young generations were exposed to the ‘poison’ of the Scorpions. He mentions the restrictions at the time and how many were put in jail simply for listening to Scorpions’ music. Even when the situation was letting up and the Scorpions played in Leningrad, during their stay the KGB ransacked their hotel rooms and followed them around the city.

Eventually, Keefe brings up the question he has been waiting for months to ask and explains to Miene the real reason for their interview. Keefe talks him through the story through the years, from when he first heard the story from an ex-CIA agent to the examples of precedent of CIA involvement in pop culture to the suspicious story of Doc McGhee, the band’s manager who was part of an international drug ring and managed to avoid going to prison despite most of his associates facing jail time.

Miene seems surprised and amused to hear this story and laughs without seeming uncomfortable.

He says that he wrote the song after being inspired by their tour in Russia in August 1989 and denies any CIA involvement. He asks to hear about the research in more detail and agrees that it ‘makes sense’ based on the CIA’s history of promoting Western music behind the Iron Curtain. The whole experience was much less confrontational than Keefe imagined it would be and Miene’s body language and gestures seemed to imply that he was telling the truth.

However, Keefe returns to the baffling question of how did this story come from within the CIA if it was not true? He wonders if the CIA could have been involved with the song in other ways, such as distributing illegal records across Eastern Europe.

While he remains perplexed at the way the story seemed to become more plausible the further he delved into it, Keefe concludes that he has not been able to prove or disprove it and that this conspiracy theory will remain unknown.

As with most conspiracy theories, we can continue to wonder and never reach a conclusive answer.

However, from this story we can gain an insight into the secretive nature of the CIA and the weaponization of music and culture throughout the Cold War.

Thank you for reading! We hope you enjoyed.

Get involved!

ThePolitician@godolphinandlatymer.com