Diplomacy & Crisis News

Surupa Gupta

Politics, South Asia

While farmers may not have much power individually, they have been a force to contend with in Indian politics.

For over two months, farmers in India have been on a largely peaceful protest over three laws the Indian Parliament passed in September 2020 to liberalize how and to whom farmers can sell their produce.

Men and women, young and old, have been participating in these protests and show no signs of giving up. Tens of thousands of farmers from all over India came together on Feb. 6 to set up blockades across all main roads in the country, shutting down all traffic for nearly three hours.

As a scholar of the political economy of India’s agricultural sector, I argue that farmers in India, though not organized, have nonetheless been a formidable political force in the country. In the past, they brought the nation’s cities to a near standstill in disputes with the government, and they could do so again.

India’s regulated farm markets

The government claims that the new laws are meant to raise farmers’ incomes and transform Indian agriculture. According to the government, they will also end “excessive regulatory interference” and thereby encourage the private sector to invest in storage, transportation and other parts of the agriculture supply chain. The laws will, officials say, offer farmers the opportunity to market their produce to various groups of buyers – processors, retailers, exporters and so on.

In the past, the Indian government has played a major role in providing farm infrastructure in India.

In response to persistent food insecurity in the 1960s, the government put in place a set of policies that would increase agricultural production through the use of inputs such as high-yielding seeds, chemical fertilizers and adequate water and electricity supply.

On the demand side, the government bought grain and other commodities from the farmers, guaranteeing floor prices, and then distributed the food to consumers throughout the country.

To maintain price stability and to protect farmers from being ripped off by middlemen, the government created regulated markets. These policies, which began within two decades of India’s independence in 1947, were consistent with the socialist model of governance India had adopted.

However, according to experts, these regulated markets, created to protect farmers, emerged as obstacles to growth in the farm sector.

Farmers’ apprehensions

Under the Indian Constitution, regulation of agriculture happens at the state level. During the last two decades, several states have changed policies to make it easier for farmers to sell outside those regulated markets, but those policy changes were not enough to attract the private sector to invest in the agricultural supply chain. The government claims that the new laws will create uniform legislation across the country.

Farmers, however, are afraid that the new laws will drive down prices and drive the farmers off their lands.

They are also concerned about the unbalanced negotiating power with a powerful corporate sector, which would own infrastructure such as warehouses and refrigerated transportation.

The power of farmers

While farmers may not have much power individually, they have been a force to contend with in Indian politics.

Most notably, in the 1980s, farmers protesting low crop prices and demanding free electricity supply brought New Delhi to a standstill. At the time, farmers’ groups with diverse political ideologies from various parts of the country quickly unified behind their common demands.

At that time, in New Delhi, they held protest marches as a show of power; in rural India, they restricted entry of government officials into their own offices; and nationally, they blocked food transportation routes.

The federal government yielded to their pressure and raised the minimum support price of crops; many state governments offered free electricity to farmers.

Farmers also demonstrated their power on several occasions when the Indian government was engaged in negotiations to form the World Trade Organization. Pressure from farmers led India to demand high tariff protection – ranging from 100% to 300% – as a way to lessen the competition from imports.

India’s rural economy is still largely dependent on farming and related activities, and the farm sector accounts for nearly 50% of the workforce. Farmers also constitute an important voting bloc.

Nationwide support

The current protests are being led by farmers mainly from the northern states of Haryana and Punjab, states that are central to India’s food supply. These are the states from which the Indian government buys a majority of the wheat and rice that is eventually distributed at subsidized prices to consumers in the rest of India. In the past, farmers from these states have enjoyed enormous political clout as well. To add to the power of these protests, farmers from other states have been been joining the protests.

The current administration, thus far, has indicated that it will not roll back the laws. Prolonging the protest, in my view, makes the administration appear ineffective, a risk it can scarcely take with major state elections looming ahead. The protest is costly to farmers as well.

Although the protests have been largely peaceful so far, on Jan. 26, India’s Republic Day, clashes took place between farmers and the police. If that happens again, it would be an alarming prospect for all concerned.

Surupa Gupta, Professor of Political Science and International Affairs, University of Mary Washington

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

Image: Reuters

Charlie Gao

Security,

The gun is designed to perform "mercy kills," but not on people.

Here's What You Need To Remember: The pistol is not intended for assassinations. A closer look at the design and contemporary technology suggests that B&T was being honest with the name of the pistol.

B&T’s Veterinärpistole 9 (VP9) is one of the most niche products made by Swiss firearms manufacturer B&T AG. A bolt action pistol with a magazine grip designed to quietly kill wounded animals, it outwardly resembles the suppressed Welrod pistol used by the Allied Special Operations Executive (SOE) to assassinate targets during World War II. This, along with the stylish leather case the gun comes in, has led some to suggest that the VP9 is a modern stealth assassination pistol. But a closer look at the design and contemporary technology suggests that B&T was being honest with the name of the pistol.

In mechanical design, it’s amazing how much the modern VP9 resembles its predecessor, the Welrod. It wouldn’t be surprising if the VP9 project started as a way to see if the company could modernize the Welrod. The design of the trigger bar and grip safety are practically the same as the original Welrod, albeit made with better materials and manufacturing. The design of the bolt is also similar, with two locking lugs operated by a rotating knob on the rear of the pistol.

The suppressor itself is where the differences begin to be seen. B&T’s VP9 has a detachable suppressor that screws onto a very short barrel. The detachable suppressor makes it easier to interchange the wipes and perform maintenance on the suppressor. The detachable suppressor also means that the sights are moved onto the front of the upper “receiver,” rather than being on the tip of the suppressor as they are on the Welrod.

So why is the VP9 a true “veterinary” pistol? Part of it is the target market. Police in Germany are often called out to perform mercy kills on wounded animals, an action called a “Gnadenschuss” (directly translated, a mercy shot). These are usually carried out with hunting rifles or Bundeswehr surplus G3s. However, these usually end up bothering citizens due to the loud noise of a rifle shot.

The VP9 provides a quiet alternative that’s less likely to disturb citizens. It ships with a manual that shows the various positions to aim to quickly kill most animals. Prototypes of the VP9 were also capable of being fired with a “tool like” grip, so the VP9 can be used more discreetly than a normal suppressed pistol.

As for actual “assassination” weapons, suppressor and pistol technology have advanced considerably since the 1940s Welrod. For actual “combat” usage, a suppressed semi-auto pistol that provides follow-up shots will always be preferred to the bolt-action VP9. The short sight radius on the VP9 limits accuracy, and even in the case, the whole pistol is a relatively bulky deal.

Mossad assassins in the 1970s were known to use suppressed semi-automatic Beretta 71 pistols in .22LR, a cartridge that suppresses far better and provides rapid follow up shots. A Beretta with a suppressor is a far smaller package than the VP9’s entire case, with its wipes, spare magazines, and additional parts.

Charlie Gao studied Political and Computer Science at Grinnell College and is a frequent commentator on defense and national security issues.

Image: Stealth Pistol

Rodney E. Rohde

Coronavirus, The Americas

Most children don’t get severely ill from COVID-19, but they can still spread the virus.

It may be summer before children under 16 can be vaccinated against COVID-19 in the United States. That’s a problem for reaching herd immunity quickly.

Children are a significant portion of the population – roughly 65 million are under the age of 16, making up 20% of people in the U.S. While children appear to face less danger of severe illness or death, they can still spread the virus, though how much young children contribute to transmission is still unclear.

Some simple math shows why America has an immunization numbers problem.

America’s immunization numbers problem

Initially, it looked like herd immunity could be reached when 60-70% of the population was immune. Herd immunity means that enough of the population has either been vaccinated or gained immunity through natural infection to stifle the virus’s spread.

However, research and expert opinions now tell us this number is likely much higher – in the 70-90% range due to highly transmissible virus variants that are emerging.

With children under 16 unable to get the vaccine, that leaves 80% of the U.S. population eligible to be immunized. A tiny percentage of those adults shouldn’t be vaccinated due to severe allergies to ingredients in the vaccines or other serious health conditions.

But not all of the remaining adults plan to get the vaccine. A large percentage – 32% in one recent national poll – say they either probably or definitely won’t get inoculated. In another poll, nearly half either said they won’t get the vaccine unless required to or they want to “wait and see” and how it works for others.

Without broadly vaccinating children to reduce COVID-19 transmission, herd immunity simply will not happen.

What about natural immunity?

You may be asking: What about all the people who have already been infected?

So far, the U.S. has had about 28 million confirmed COVID-19 cases. Since a large number of infected people never show symptoms, the CDC estimates that 83 million people in the U.S. were actually infected last year – about a quarter of the population.

At this point, however, researchers don’t know how long natural immunity lasts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends that people who had COVID-19 should still get vaccinated.

The vaccination effort will still have an impact on the pandemic, even if herd immunity takes longer. As former CDC Director Tom Frieden pointed out to me, “Even without children being vaccinated, vaccination of adults will decrease deaths substantially and could decrease spread.”

When can kids get vaccinated?

One of the main questions among parents is when children can get the vaccine. The short answer: We don’t yet know.

First, the national vaccination process is still ramping up, starting with medical staff and the most vulnerable adults. About 1.5 million people are getting the vaccine each day, and each needs two doses.

Second, the two vaccines with federal emergency use authorization are only authorized for adults and older teens right now – Moderna’s for ages 18 and older and Pfizer’s for 16 and older.

Drug companies must run extensive tests on thousands of subjects to show their vaccines are safe and effective. While the FDA fast-tracked the COVID-19 vaccine trials for adults, the process for children will likely take longer due to factors like safety data. Depending on the vaccine technology, this data for children can take up to six months compared to two months for adults.

Moderna also had difficulty initially finding enough volunteers for its trials in adolescents. In mid-January, the company had only enrolled about a third of the 3,000 volunteers needed. Pfizer’s clinical trial for adolescents completed recruitment but has not publicly released data.

For younger children, Moderna’s CEO reported in January that the company would likely soon begin clinical trials for ages 1-11. Pfizer has not released details for that age range.

A third vaccine could also soon be in the mix. FDA advisers are expected to discuss Johnson & Johnson’s application on Feb. 26.

Frieden said it’s likely vaccines could be authorized for adolescents by summer. That would add children ages 12 to 15 to the vaccination eligibility list – another 5% of the U.S. population.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser on COVID-19 to the president, recently suggested a similar time frame. Vaccine trials in younger children will begin in the “next couple of months,” Fauci said, and “as we get to the late spring and summer, we will have children being able to be vaccinated.”

Rodney E. Rohde, Professor of Clinical Laboratory Science, Texas State University

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

Image: Reuters

Eliga Gould

Politics,

The decline of impeachment in Britain coincided with the rise of another, more effective process by which high officials there could be held accountable.

Impeachment was developed in medieval England as a way to discipline the king’s ministers and other high officials. The framers of the U.S. Constitution took that idea and applied it to presidents, judges and other federal leaders.

That tool was in use, and in question, during the second impeachment trial of Donald Trump. Republicans raised questions about both the constitutionality and the overall purpose of impeachment proceedings against a person who no longer holds office.

Democrats responded that the framers expected impeachment to be available as a way to deliver consequences to a former official, and that refusing to convict Trump could open the door to future presidential abuses of power.

An impeachment case that was active in Britain while the framers were writing the Constitution in Philadelphia helped inform the new American government structure. But the outcome of that case – and that of another impeachment trial a decade later – signaled the end of impeachment’s usefulness in Britain, though the British system of government offered another way to hold officials accountable.

Impeachment in Britain

During the 17th century, the English Parliament used impeachment repeatedly against the royal favorites of King Charles I. One, Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford, went to the gallows in 1641 for subverting the laws and attempting to raise an Irish army to subdue the king’s opponents in England. Although kings couldn’t be impeached, Parliament eventually tried King Charles I for treason too, sentencing him to death by public beheading on Jan. 30, 1649.

A century later, impeachment no longer carried a risk of execution, but in 1786 the House of Commons launched what would become the most famous – and longest – impeachment trial in British history.

The lower house of Parliament, the House of Commons, impeached Warren Hastings, who had retired as governor-general of British India and was back in England, for corruption and mismanagement. That action provides a direct answer to one current legal question: The charges were based on what Hastings had done in India, making clear that a former official could be impeached and tried, even though he was no longer in office.

Future U.S. president John Adams, who was in London at the time, predicted in a letter to fellow founder John Jay that although Hastings deserved to be convicted, the proceedings would likely end with his acquittal. Nevertheless, Adams and Jay were among those who supported the new U.S. Constitution, whose drafters in 1787 included impeachment, even though that method of accountability was close to disappearing from Britain.

Nearing the end of its usefulness

The trial of Hastings, in Parliament’s upper house, the House of Lords, didn’t actually begin until 1788, and took seven years to conclude. The prosecution included Edmund Burke, one of the most gifted orators of the age. Eventually, though, the House of Lords proved Adams right, acquitting Hastings in 1795.

This stunning loss could have been the death knell for impeachment in Great Britain, but Hastings was not the last British political figure to be impeached. That dubious honor goes to Henry Dundas, Lord Melville, Scottish first lord of the admiralty, who was charged in 1806 with misappropriating public money. Dundas was widely assumed to be guilty, but, as with Hastings, the House of Lords voted to acquit.

These examples showed that impeachment, even when the accused government official had done the things that he was accused of doing, was a blunt, cumbersome weapon. With both Hastings and Dundas, the House of Commons was willing to act, but the House of Lords – which was (and is) not an elected body and therefore less responsive to popular opinion – refused to go along. As a tool for checking the actions of ministers and other political appointees, impeachment no longer worked, and it fell out of use.

A new method of accountability

The decline of impeachment in Britain coincided with the rise of another, more effective process by which high officials there could be held accountable.

British prime ministers answer to Parliament, doing so literally during the now-weekly question time in the House of Commons. Leaders who for whatever reason lose the support of a simple majority in the lower house, including through a vote of no confidence, can be forced to resign. The last time a British prime minister lost a vote of no confidence was in 1979, when the minority Labour government of James Callaghan was defeated.

If a prime minister receives a vote of no confidence, there is an alternative to resignation: call an election for a new Parliament, which is what Callaghan did, and let the people decide whether the current government gets to stay or has to go. If the prime minister’s party loses, he or she is generally out, and the leader of the party with the new majority takes over. In 1979, the defeat of Callaghan and the Labour Party paved the way for the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher, Britain’s first female prime minister.

This provides an immediate course of action for those who oppose a British government for any reason, including allegations of official wrongdoing, and delivers a rapid decision.

In the United States, by contrast, a president can be accused of corruption or even sedition but face no real consequences, so long as one more than a third of the Senate declines to convict.

Now that Trump has been acquitted, then the Constitution’s bulwark against presidential malfeasance could become yet another mechanism of minority government.

Another path

If impeachment is rendered useless in the U.S., as it was in Britain two centuries ago, the Constitution does offer another remedy: Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Originally intended to prevent former Confederates from returning to power after the Civil War, Section 3 bars people who have “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the U.S. from serving in state or federal governments, including in Congress or as president or vice president.

The language in the amendment could justify barring Trump from future office – and the resolution to do so may require only a majority vote in both houses of Congress, though enforcement would likely also need a ruling from a judge.

Eliga Gould, Professor of History, University of New Hampshire

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

Image: Reuters

James Pethokoukis

Politics, The Americas

Partisan primaries have developed into anti-democratic and elitist purity tests for candidates. Those who fail particular litmus tests on abortion, guns, or fealty to Donald Trump may find themselves defeated.

What is next for Donald Trump? There are reports that the former president is intending to play a role in the 2022 election. One report says his hit list includes Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY), Gov. Brian Kemp (R-GA), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC).

Note: All of these individuals are Republicans. Rather than support opponents in the general elections against the Democrats who harried him, the former president wants to use the 2022 primaries to get back at legislators who were insufficiently obedient.

None of this should be surprising. One of the hallmarks of Trump’s presidency was his predilection for trying to exact retribution through primaries. During his presidency, he goaded #MAGA candidates to challenge senators and congressmen who dared to publicly disagree. Remember Arizona Senator Jeff Flake and Bob Corker? They are just two of the GOP legislators who crossed Trump and then chose not to run the primary reelection gauntlet. Most infamously, on January 6, Trump threatened to “primary the Hell” out of any legislator who refused to try to thwart the counting of states’ electoral slates.

That the electoral primary has become a weapon of an aggrieved former president is a remarkable development. But for those elections observers who have been complaining about primaries for the past couple decades, it likely is no surprise.

The partisan primary, wherein each party allows only its registered voters to participate, came into vogue a century ago. It was a progressive reform that toppled the old system that had Democratic and Republican party bosses picking their candidates. Letting party members pick their candidate was much more democratic and likely reduced some of the corruption that occurred in the proverbial smoke-filled backrooms. A recent report by the Open Primaries Education Fund notes:

“The American system of primary elections worked, because most Americans were members of one of the two major political parties and had access to them as a result of the overlap between voter and party registration. From 1940 to 1960, independent voters hovered between 15% and 20% of all registered voters. In 1961, 80% of Americans were members of either the Democrat or Republican parties.”

Reality, however, has moved on, and partisan primaries have developed into anti-democratic and elitist purity tests for candidates. Those who fail particular litmus tests on abortion, guns, or fealty to Donald Trump may find themselves defeated.

The causes are twofold.

First, many Americans have grown weary of the two parties. Today, 40 percent of Americans are independents, and in many states they are forbidden from voting in primary elections. The reader would be wrong to imagine this exclusionary policy was the province of the GOP. Both parties like closed primaries, which exist in red states like Kentucky and blue states like New York.

Second, astonishingly few voters participate in primaries. Typically, somewhere between 20 and 35 percent of those eligible to vote in the Democratic and Republican primaries do so. And these are not low-stakes races like local dog catcher — these abysmal participation rates are for congressional and presidential elections. The few who turnout naturally tend to be the most intensely partisan and single-issue voters.

The effects on Congress are plain for all to see. Legislators fear working across party lines on any issues that might tick off their most passionate voters. Republicans refuse to cut a deal on immigration that looks like “amnesty” and Democrats flee any talk of reigning in entitlements, which consume about 70 percent of the budget. Many legislators want to reach compromises on pressing issues like these, but they don’t. Nobody wants to get primaried.

There is, obviously, a way out. The parties could open their primaries to independents. Some states, such as West Virginia, have made this reform. Other states, like North Dakota, have open primaries that permit anyone to vote in the primaries.

In the meantime, the primaries trap draws tighter on GOP legislators, as Donald Trump plots his moves.

This article was first published by the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: Reuters

James Pethokoukis

Politics,

Currently, concerns about populism are focusing more on politics than economic policies. That might be even more the case if the next two years proceed as many forecasters are predicting. But the possible persistence of populist economic thinking could be a longer-term threat to American prosperity.

Donald Trump is gone, but his populism lives on. It’s not just that President Biden, like his predecessor, has signed a “Buy American” executive order for federal purchasing that’s meant to bolster domestic manufacturing. (Fun fact: Economists Gary Hufbauer and Euijin Jung estimate that federal and state “Buy American” requirements cost US taxpayers an additional $94 billion in 2017.) Nor is it just that Biden seems to be in no hurry to eliminate existing China tariffs. One could also point to an economic plan that shows scant current concern for its impact on national debt levels. There are also signs of an aggressive regulatory stance towards Wall Street and Silicon Valley. In an essay last December, The American Prospect’s Robert Kuttner urged Biden to govern as “progressive populist” and to reclaim “the economic populism that was once the essence of the Democratic Party and the allegiance of its voters.”

None of this — call it populism lite — would likely surprise the economists who authored the new VoxEU essay, “The cost of populism: Evidence from history.” The researchers assembled a cross-country database, identifying 50 populist presidents and prime ministers in the period 1900–2018. And one of their findings is that populism often isn’t a one-off event. From their analysis:

The key message from the figure is that populism at the government level appears to be serial in nature, as it is observable in the same countries again and again. We identify long and repeating spells of populist rule. Having been ruled by a populist in the past is a strong predictor of populist rule in recent years. Interestingly, half of the countries with recurring populist spells … saw switches from left-wing to right-wing populism or vice versa.

Source: “The cost of populism: Evidence from history”

Now, most politicians strike populist themes from time to time. Recall Al Gore’s 2000 campaign theme, “The People vs. the Powerful.” But to qualify as a populist, according to Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, and Christoph Trebesch, the leader must place “the alleged struggle of the people (‘us’) against the elites (‘them’) at the centre of their political campaign and governing style (for example, based on this definition, Putin, Reagan or Obama cannot be classified as populists, but Bolsonaro, Berlusconi, or Trump clearly can).”

Based on that criteria, I don’t think Biden would make the cut — at least not yet — since his campaign, at least, was based on a theme of unity rather than conflict. That said, one might naturally expect some other future presidential candidate to run more explicitly as a populist, based on both Trump’s electoral success and the historical evidence gathered by the economists.

Which leads to the other big finding here:

When populists come to power, they can do lasting economic and political damage. Countries governed by populists witness a substantial decline in real GDP per capita, on average. Protectionist trade policies, unsustainable debt dynamics, and the erosion of democratic institutions stand out as commonalities of populists in power. … There are only nine cases in which the populists left office in a regular manner. The large majority of exits (32 cases) were irregular, meaning that populist leaders refused to leave office despite losing an election or reaching the term limit (eight cases), they died in office (three cases), they resigned (13 cases) or were forced to resign because of a coup, impeachment or a vote of no confidence (eight cases). … The erosion of democratic norms may explain both the persistence and the negative economic outcomes of populism

Currently, concerns about populism are focusing more on politics than economic policies. That might be even more the case if the next two years proceed as many forecasters are predicting. But the possible persistence of populist economic thinking could be a longer-term threat to American prosperity.

This article was first published by the American Enterprise Institute.

Image: "Buy American" by carnagenyc is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

 

Michael E. Webber

Climate Change, The Americas

The central U.S. has freezes, heat waves, windstorms, droughts and floods. All of these events stress the electric grid, pipeline networks, roads, rail and waterways.

Editor’s note: Amid record cold temperatures and skyrocketing energy demand, utilities across the central U.S. have ordered rolling blackouts to ration electricity, leaving millions of people without power. Energy expert Michael E. Webber explains why weather extremes can require such extreme steps.

1. The Plains states have a lot of wild weather. Why is this cold wave such a problem for utilities?

The central U.S. has freezes, heat waves, windstorms, droughts and floods. All of these events stress the electric grid, pipeline networks, roads, rail and waterways. Right now in my state of Texas, ERCOT, a nonprofit corporation that manages the power grid for most of the state, is imposing rolling blackouts because demand for electric heating is very high. So is the Southwest Power Pool, which serves customers in 14 states from North Dakota to Oklahoma.

About 60% of homes in Texas have electric heat, and most of the rest use natural gas or propane. Normally our peak electric demand is on summer afternoons for air conditioning. But in this sustained cold, electric demand is spiking to keep homes comfortable and pipes from freezing. This storm is more extreme than the most severe winter conditions that ERCOT typically plans for.

At this time of year, power plants that run on coal or natural gas often shut down for planned maintenance ahead of the summer cooling season. That means we have less capacity available than usual right now.

To meet the difference between high demand and low capacity, utilities are cycling power on and off to different neighborhoods or regions of Texas in a methodical way to keep things in balance. If they didn’t do this, there would be a risk of a much wider-scale blackout, which would be catastrophic and life-threatening.

2. How do utilities plan for this kind of extreme weather?

Utilities everywhere follow the weather very closely. Temperature changes affect the need for heating and cooling, which drives demand for electricity and natural gas. Meteorological conditions affect the availability of wind and solar power.

Thermal power plants – which burn coal, natural gas or biomass – also need a lot of water for cooling to run efficiently, as do nuclear power plants. If climate change warms rivers or reduces their water levels, it could force those power plants to turn off or reduce their output.

Weather forecasting has improved as satellites become more abundant and computer models become more sophisticated. Utilities can take steps in advance of a major storm, such as asking customers to preheat their homes. For ratepayers who will do this, the utility may adjust their thermostats to reduce power flow when demand is high.

Power providers can also ask large industrial customers to temporarily shut down factories to reduce electricity demand. And they can give hourly or minute-by-minute updates to customers about rolling blackouts and provide real-time maps of power outages.

Utilities work year-round to harden the grid against extreme weather. They may build berms to protect power plants against floods, fill reservoirs in preparation for droughts, replace equipment that can get overheated in the summer or weatherize power plants for cold conditions.

Almost exactly a decade ago, in February 2011, Texas suffered a significant series of rolling blackouts when cold weather forced dozens of coal and natural gas power plants offline. This cold snap is testing the upgrades utilities made after that event.

3. Does having a diverse fuel mix protect against energy crunches?

Texas is blessed with multiple energy sources. Much of it is produced locally, including natural gas, wind and solar power. Over the past 15 years, the state has diversified its fuel mix: Coal use has dropped, wind and solar have grown, and nuclear and natural gas use have held steady.

Each of these options has pros and cons. Wind and solar do not require water cooling, so they work fine during droughts and floods. But they vary based on wind patterns, cloud cover and time of day.

Nuclear power is reliable, but sometimes nuclear plants have to reduce their output during heat waves or droughts if their cooling water is too hot or scarce.

Natural gas is a high performer, but in the 2011 Texas cold snap, gas plants struggled to keep up with demand because many homes and businesses were using the fuel for heat. That reduced the pressure in gas pipelines, which made it hard to physically move gas to turbines that needed the fuel to generate electricity.

Much of the coal burned in Texas power plants comes from Wyoming over a sprawling rail network that can be disrupted if a bridge or section of track is out of commission for repairs. Utilities store 30 days or more of coal in piles near their power plants, but those piles can freeze or be flooded, as occurred when Hurricane Harvey swamped Houston in 2017.

Because all of these options fail in different ways, a diverse mix is the best basis for a robust system. Today Texas has three times as much wind power-generating capacity as it did in 2011, which may help stave off the worst risks of a statewide blackout.

This extra wind will be especially important because about 30% of ERCOT’s generating capacity is offline right now, reportedly due to natural gas shortages. Some West Texas wind turbines have also shut down due to icing, but turbines in other parts of the state are partially offsetting those losses. ERCOT will investigate all power losses after this storm passes and use what it learns to make new improvements to its system.

4. California has had rolling blackouts recently, too. Is this a national risk?

California is a big state with power sources in many locations, so it relies on a sprawling network of wires and poles to move electrons from one place to another. Those power lines can sag when it’s hot out and fail when high winds blow trees down onto the wires.

Aging transmission and distribution networks can also spark wildfires, which is a growing risk as the effects of climate change worsen drought conditions in the West. To manage those risks, California grid operators will preemptively turn off the power to prevent wildfires. They also did this in August 2020 to ration power during a heat wave.

Weather-related power outages are increasing across the U.S. as climate change produces more extreme storms and temperature swings. States that design their buildings and infrastructure for hot weather may need to plan for more big chills, and cold-weather states can expect more heat waves. As conditions in Texas show, there’s no time to waste in getting more weather-ready.

Michael E. Webber, Josey Centennial Professor of Energy Resources, University of Texas at Austin

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

Image: Reuters

Nathan Bartlett

Coronavirus,

The AstraZeneca vaccine, sometimes also called “the Oxford vaccine”, is a core plank in Australia’s coronavirus vaccine plan, with the Australian government securing 53.8 million doses.

South Africa will pause its rollout of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine after a small study suggested it offers minimal protection against mild and moderate infection from the South African coronavirus strain known as B.1.351.

The South African health minister said the government was waiting for scientific advice on next steps.

A media release issued overnight by the University of Oxford said a study of about 2,000 volunteers with an average age of 31 found a two-dose regimen of the AstraZeneca vaccine (officially known as ChAdOx1 nCov-19):

provides minimal protection against mild-moderate COVID-19 infection from the B.1.351 coronavirus variant first identified in South Africa. Efficacy against severe COVID-19 infection from this variant was not assessed.

The analysis is yet to be peer reviewed or published.

The AstraZeneca vaccine, sometimes also called “the Oxford vaccine”, is a core plank in Australia’s coronavirus vaccine plan, with the Australian government securing 53.8 million doses. It’s worth remembering, though, that it’s just one of the vaccines that will be made available in Australia — and that vaccines are just one of a range of responses we will need to get the pandemic under control.

So what’s all this mean for you? There’s no doubt this news is disappointing — but it’s also no great surprise given how quickly this virus mutates. And it doesn’t yet mean Australia should abandon its plan to rollout the AstraZeneca vaccine.

The sobering reality is setbacks such as these are to be expected in vaccine development, especially when dealing with an agile, fast-mutating virus such as this coronavirus.

 

Still better for Australia to have AstraZeneca than not

It’s reasonable for the South African government to pause while it reflects on what these new data mean.

For Australia, it’s too early to bin the AstraZeneca vaccine as part of our rollout, especially as the South African variant is not yet prevalent here. If we did that every time we got new data, we would never get any vaccines out. I think, at this point, it is still better to have the AstraZeneca vaccine in Australia than to not have it.

Based on Australia’s current circumstances, I think it’s reasonable to say we just need anything that will help reduce the risk of severe disease. That will help ease the burden on health-care systems.

We will get better vaccines coming out all the time. It’s an iterative process.

Encouragingly, Oxford said in its press release that:

Work is already underway at the University of Oxford and in conjunction with partners to produce a second generation of the vaccine which has been adapted to target variants of the coronavirus with mutations similar to B.1.351, if it should prove necessary to do so.

Such an agile virus demands a range of responses

These new developments highlight how quickly this incredibly agile coronavirus adapts and changes. While the level of infection remains so high, we must get used to the idea that new strains will be appearing all the time.

Vaccines are best suited to stationary targets and currently, SARS-CoV-2 is anything but — with so much human infection occurring, the virus has huge opportunity to mutate and generate variants.

Having said that, the newest vaccine technologies such as mRNA vaccines (including what’s commonly known as the Pfizer vaccine) can rapidly update and reformulate to keep up with mutant viruses.

Of course, it still takes some time to manufacture and distribute new vaccines so there will inevitably be a lag of months between identifying a new virus variant and making and distributing an updated vaccine.

A month is a long time in a pandemic. That underscores how critical treatments addressing these gaps are going to be if we are to have any chance of bringing this pandemic to an end within the next couple of years. Those responses will likely include antivirals that reduce duration of infection and other treatments that provide rapid, broad spectrum protection against viruses by directly boosting innate immunity in the airways.

Managing expectations

Vaccines can have amazing efficacy in clinical trials but things may be different in the real world when you are dealing with different populations and exposure to different virus strains. That is a normal part of vaccine development and global rollout, and we must manage expectations around this.

We always knew the first generation vaccines would be far from perfect, and certainly not a magic bullet. As scientists have said all along, this is a long game with incremental gains. And with so much research focused on beating this pandemic, there is huge reason for optimism.

We don’t want people to be discouraged from getting vaccines. Based on current circumstances and the fact the South African variant is not yet prevalent in Australia, the AstraZeneca vaccine will be one of a suite of responses that will help bring a reduction in serious disease in the first place — and ultimately prevent transmission as vaccines become more effective and supported by other treatments.

Just like you get a new flu shot every year, so it may be in the future you get a new coronavirus jab as better and more targeted vaccines become available.

New treatments will become available to support better and better vaccines, which will slowly but surely bring an end to this pandemic.

 

Nathan Bartlett, Associate Professor, School of Biomedical Sciences and Pharmacy, University of Newcastle

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

Image: Reuters

La NASA finira-t-elle par découvrir des traces de vie sur Mars ? Eternelle question. Mais que ces traces existent ou non, le résultat pour l'industrie aérospatiale est le même : l'exploration de ce nouvel eldorado lui offre une grande bouffée d'oxygène et une véritable manne financière. Toute une (...) / États-Unis, Nucléaire militaire, Énergie, Espace, Nucléaire civil, Recherche, Science, Technologie - 2004/12

What George Shultz understood about American power.

It is time to admit that there is a central defect in the United States’ current approach to the Gulf.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’hiver 2020-2021 de Politique étrangère (n° 4/2020). Norbert Gaillard propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Emmanuel Saez et Gabriel Zucman, Le triomphe de l’injustice. Richesse, évasion fiscale et démocratie (Le Seuil, 2020, 304 pages).

Emmanuel Saez et Gabriel Zucman, professeurs d’économie à l’Université de Californie à Berkeley, donnent un aperçu de l’histoire fiscale des États-Unis et analysent le creusement des inégalités depuis l’ère Reagan, signalant ses effets dévastateurs sur la démocratie américaine.

Les deux premiers chapitres battent en brèche l’idée selon laquelle les États-Unis ont toujours été un pays à faible pression fiscale. L’un des éléments constitutifs du New Deal fut en effet la mise en place d’un système fiscal très progressif, destiné à réduire les inégalités et à instaurer de facto un revenu maximum. C’est ce système qui a été démantelé par les Républicains dans les années 1980, aboutissant à des écarts de revenus vertigineux.

Les statistiques présentées pour illustrer ce phénomène sont édifiantes. Par exemple, en 1978, la moitié des Américains les plus pauvres captaient 20 % du revenu national contre seulement 12 % pour le centile supérieur. En 2018, ces proportions s’étaient inversées. La fiscalité a largement contribué à façonner cette tendance. Entre 1980 et 2018, le taux effectif d’imposition des 50 % les plus pauvres est resté stable, alors que celui des 400 Américains les plus riches a été divisé par deux, devenant même inférieur à celui des classes populaire et moyenne ! Cette évolution est le résultat de plusieurs facteurs : en premier lieu, les baisses successives des impôts sur le revenu et sur les sociétés. Mais le creusement des inégalités est aussi la conséquence de l’explosion de l’optimisation et de l’évasion fiscales à partir des années 1980, au moment où la pression fiscale ne cessait de diminuer. Cet argument fort d’Emmanuel Saez et Gabriel Zucman décrédibilise ainsi tous ceux qui proclament que s’il y a des paradis fiscaux, c’est simplement parce qu’il y a des « enfers fiscaux ».

Afin de combattre les inégalités et stopper la concurrence fiscale entre États développés, les auteurs avancent une longue liste de propositions. D’abord, chercher une coordination au niveau du G20 en vue d’harmoniser et d’appliquer un taux unique d’impôt sur les sociétés. Ensuite, instaurer un « impôt de rattrapage » pour récupérer le manque à gagner lié aux bénéfices d’entreprises et aux capitaux divers qui filent dans les paradis fiscaux. Il est suggéré que les pays à fiscalité élevée collectent les impôts dus aux États récalcitrants dans le but de les convaincre de se joindre au mouvement. Cette proposition, séduisante sur le papier, est cependant susceptible de fragiliser l’existence de nombreuses entreprises. Sont également préconisées la taxation des transactions financières avec les paradis fiscaux non coopératifs, la création d’une autorité anti-optimisation, l’instauration d’un impôt sur la fortune, et la fusion de l’impôt sur le revenu et de l’impôt sur les sociétés – l’objectif étant qu’un dollar de salaire soit imposé au même taux qu’un dollar de bénéfice. Enfin, il est envisagé de créer un impôt sur le revenu national à taux unique pour remplacer les primes d’assurance que les classes populaire et moyenne versent pour leur couverture santé.

Cet ouvrage brille par sa rigueur, sa cohérence et sa clarté. Certaines de ses recommandations sont discutables, mais d’autres mériteraient d’être appliquées dès que possible.

Norbert Gaillard

>> S’abonner à Politique étrangère <<

Accédez à l’article de Fred Eboko et Sina Schlimmer ici.

Retrouvez le sommaire du numéro 4/2020 de Politique étrangère ici.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’hiver 2020-2021 de Politique étrangère (n° 4/2020). Paul Maurice, chercheur au Cerfa à l’Ifri, propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Agnès Arp et Élisa Goudin-Steinmann, La RDA après la RDA. Des Allemands de l’Est racontent (Nouveau Monde, 2020, 408 pages).

La question centrale posée par Agnès Arp et Élisa Goudin-Steinmann est contenue dans le titre de leur ouvrage : en quoi la République démocratique allemande (RDA) continue-t‑elle d’avoir une influence sur la société allemande, même après sa disparition, y compris sur les générations qui ne l’ont que très peu, voire pas, connue ?

Pour les auteurs, ce qui fait aujourd’hui l’expérience d’être « Allemand de l’Est » est peut-être davantage ce qui s’est passé après la chute du Mur que durant les quarante années d’existence de la RDA : la délégitimation d’une histoire écrite par l’Ouest et les « vainqueurs de l’histoire ». L’objectif de cette écriture biaisée de la RDA après 1989-1990, centrée sur l’omniprésence de la Stasi, sur la domination politique du Parti socialiste unifié d’Allemagne (SED), ou sur l’assujettissement à l’URSS, était de renforcer la démocratie dans les « nouveaux Länder ». Mais ceci a, au contraire, conduit à une exclusion des citoyens de l’ex-RDA, de leur vécu et de leurs parcours personnels.

Depuis une dizaine d’années, la recherche scientifique tend à évoluer – les deux chercheuses font d’ailleurs un bilan de ces évolutions historiographiques, dans lesquelles elles s’insèrent, dans la quatrième partie de l’ouvrage (« Dédiabolisation ? La RDA dans la recherche scientifique »). On cherche désormais à s’intéresser aux gens « ordinaires », et à une histoire orale de la RDA.

L’originalité de l’ouvrage tient aux entretiens biographiques avec 19 citoyens de l’ex-RDA. Il s’agit de citoyens qui n’étaient ni dans l’opposition militante, ni dans le soutien actif – à l’exception d’un seul fonctionnaire du régime. Ils se trouvaient dans l’entre-deux, où l’on donne le change tout en étant critique envers l’emprise du politique sur le quotidien, en conservant l’Eigensinn, le quant à soi, défini par l’historien Alf Lüdcke, la possibilité de s’arranger avec les opportunités qui s’ouvrent.

Il s’agit ici non de généraliser à partir d’un panel réduit, mais de redonner la voix à ces citoyens de l’ex-RDA, issus de milieux intellectuels et sociaux très différents, mais aussi de trois générations différentes. Celle des « pères fondateurs », qui ont vécu le traumatisme du nazisme et fait le choix volontaire de s’installer en RDA, en se sentant une responsabilité face à l’histoire. Celle du baby-boom, les « nés-dedans » (Hineingeborenen), pour qui 1989 a signifié des temps difficiles : ils n’ont connu que la RDA et ont eu des difficultés à se réinventer. Enfin celle des Wendekinder, nés autour des années 1970, trop jeunes pour avoir eu des choix difficiles à faire, et qui n’ont connu la RDA que dans l’enfance.

Par leur démarche mêlant témoignage et analyse, Agnès Arp et Élisa Goudin-Steinmann cherchent à montrer en quoi les mémoires des citoyens divergent autant des discours médiatiques. Les principaux témoignages aboutissent à un constat similaire : celui d’une vie qualifiée de « normale », d’autant plus qu’elle est révélée en creux par les ruptures biographiques après 1989-1990. Si nul ne regrette la période du Mur, les témoins insistent sur des aspects essentiels de leur existence : l’absence de chômage, le système de santé, l’indépendance économique des femmes, les loyers dérisoires.

Pour améliorer la compréhension du moment 1989-1990 comme situation historique, il est intéressant de prendre en compte ces discours des citoyens eux-mêmes, révélateurs des impensés de la réunification et de leur prix politique.

Paul Maurice

>> S’abonner à Politique étrangère <<

Basma Zahran allume une cigarette. Auparavant, elle expliquait qu'elle ne pouvait fumer en public. « Alors, pourquoi fumes-tu, aujourd'hui, devant tout ce monde ? » « C'est le changement », répond-elle simplement, interdisant ainsi toute réplique. / Égypte, Femmes, Société, Printemps arabes 2011- - (...) / Égypte, Femmes, Société, Printemps arabes 2011- - 2011/03

Jusque-là confrontés à un pouvoir « féodal », les paysans égyptiens ont accompli « le second acte de la révolution. Les ouvriers font grève et revendiquent ; les paysans, eux, reprennent d'eux-mêmes leur outil de production : la terre ». / Égypte, Agriculture, Printemps arabes 2011- - (...) / Égypte, Agriculture, Printemps arabes 2011- - 2011/03

En France comme à l'étranger, la connivence des pouvoirs politiques avec de puissants patrons de presse attire régulièrement l'attention sur le contrôle des médias. Quelques groupes industriels possèdent la plupart des maisons d'édition et contrôlent une grande partie du contenu et de la distribution (...) / Culture, Économie, Idées, Industrie culturelle, Livre, Politique - 2007/10

This article is the English version of : Chantal Delsol, « Le crépuscule de l’universel », published in Politique étrangère, Vol. 84, Issue 1, 2019.

During the two centuries following the French Revolution, Western culture has claimed its status as upholder of universal values to justify its spread around the world. Our conquests were disguised as missions, in keeping with a long tradition – from Pericles bringing democracy to subject cities, through to Christians leading crusades in the name of Truth. A faith in human rights was the new gospel preached by its disciples. And the message was getting through. After Peter the Great’s Westernization of Russia by force, Japan and Turkey followed suit. Over two centuries, foreign cultures all became Westernized, more or less of their own will, and often laying claim to our principles and using our terminology.

All regimes, even autocratic ones, were keen to call themselves “democratic.” Western leaders, who toured the world to lecture on human rights, were frequently received in host countries with protestations of the countries’ excellent democratic credentials. The general feeling that there was some virtue attached to Western culture came from the idea of progress. Everyone wanted to be “modern.” History was even reinterpreted. Perhaps more out of diplomacy than conviction, the Chinese went so far as to claim around the time of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights that they had played a role in starting the eighteenth-century Enlightenment. 

All this was true until the turn of the twenty-first century. For almost twenty years now, the Western message has been received differently. And on all continents: in China and many of its neighbors, in the majority of Islamic countries, and in Russia. What is new is that for the first time, we are confronted by foreign cultures that openly oppose our model, reject it with reasons, and justify a different type of society from ours. In other words, they dismiss the universality of the principles we sought to bring to the world and possibly see them as the results of an ideology. This rejection is new, not in its expression, but rather in its scale. It overturns the understanding of universalism we thought we upheld. It changes the geopolitical order. The ideological nature of the break is beyond all doubt: it is our individualism that is in question, and everything that comes with it.

Several points need to be made in order to gain a better understanding of this unprecedented situation. The cultural centers in question tend to put forward similar arguments to delegitimize the West. They question our role as a culture of emancipation and freedom; and their role, they say, is to defend communities, both small and large. One might say that in the face of the individualist West a huge holistic front has been opened up. Certainly, the bipolar world of the Cold War, which left a unipolar world after the fall of the Berlin Wall, has now become multipolar. But rather than seeing here a “clash of civilizations,” one should first attempt to ascertain the extent of the anti-Western movement that is being expressed everywhere and giving way to a new era. […]

Read the rest of the article here.

>>> More articles of Politique étrangère are available for reading
on Cairn International <<<

Targeted, sharp action to reverse the coup is urgently needed.

Democracies have to learn how to manage some people’s innate fears of change.