Africa

Morocco's Soufiane El Bakkali believes he is the "king of steeplechase" after adding the world title in Eugene to his Olympic Games gold.

Zambia call for a replay of their Women's Africa Cup of Nations semi-final against South Africa after being knocked out by a contentious penalty.

So much can steal your smile away, I want to make people feel better, Afrobeats musician Omah Lay says.

While abortion in Canada has been legal for decades, procuring one is difficult for many. Credit: Gayatri Malhotra/Unsplash

By Juliet Morrison
Ottawa, Jul 19 2022 (IPS)

Toronto resident Miranda Knight describes her abortion experience as relatively simple. After finding out she was pregnant on a Wednesday in 2017, she booked an appointment at an available clinic and got one for the following Monday. She had the procedure that day and left the clinic by noon.

But Knight’s experience is not the reality for all. As Canada’s most populous city, Toronto has several access points to abortion. Despite abortion being legal nationwide since 1988 and officially treated like any other medical procedure, many other parts of the country do not have access points.

The United Nations has highlighted this disparity. A 2016 report from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women encouraged the Canadian government to improve the accessibility of abortion services nationwide.

According to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada (ARCC), fewer than one in five hospitals offer the procedure.

ARCC Executive Director Joyce Arthur said access could be a real struggle for those living outside cities or far from the US border. Most access points are found within less than 150 kilometers of a town, where most Canadians live.

“As soon as you’re away from the city, or up north, you often might have to travel for services, sometimes hundreds of kilometers, and even sometimes for medication. Access is pretty good in British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec […], but the rest of the provinces only have one or two or three or four access points. It’s just not enough,” she said.

Abortion access differs by province partly because healthcare in Canada is a provincial responsibility. According to 2019 figures, Quebec has the highest number of access points with 49 province-wide, while Newfoundland and Labrador have four and Saskatchewan has three.

Abortion in Canada by province. The data was published August 2019 with information from the 2014 Abortion Provider Survey. Credit: Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights

Healthcare disparities among rural and urban communities are a significant issue in Canada—especially considering the country’s geography. But Arthur told IPS that unequal abortion access went beyond that.

“Canada is a really big country geographically, so other health care procedures might be hard to access, and people have to travel sometimes. But abortion is a very simple procedure. Early-first trimester abortion can be done on an outpatient basis and doesn’t really require a lot of special equipment. Why aren’t more hospitals doing it?”

Arthur believes the culprit is stigma from the anti-choice movement.

“Much of this is due to remaining abortion stigma from before it was de-criminalized. The anti-choice movement has continued to play a big role in reinforcing that stigma and instilling fear in providers. There’s still this feeling of silencing and shame, which comes from abortion stigma,” she said.

Arthur explained it was not that long ago that doctors would get shot for performing abortions in Canada. From the late 1970s until the mid-1990s, there were several instances of violence against physicians in their own homes.

“That permeates on various levels, not just at the level of the doctor or the patient, but also in government and in medical organizations who would rather just not have to deal with abortion and not have to think about it,” she said.

Disparities in access have led community organizers to step up and help those in need get care.

Shannon Hardy, a birth doula, founded Abortion Support Services Atlantic (ASSA) in 2012 after encountering issues related to abortion access across the Atlantic provinces.

“Some things came across my desk about lack of access in Prince Edward Island. And I didn’t actually know that PEI didn’t offer abortion services, like the entire island for 32 years just didn’t offer it. […] It kind of blew my mind,” she said.

People wanting to terminate their pregnancy can contact ASSA for information, peer support, transport to abortion clinics, or even financial help for travel. In these cases, Hardy told IPS that ASSA would often fundraise to pay for gas, hotels, or flights.

Support services are beneficial for those encountering stigma, Hardy said.

“When a person is facing an ill-timed or unwanted pregnancy, they can immediately feel a stigma around seeking abortion care. Who is safe to reach out to? Will people judge me? Will my doctor/medical center offer me care? My goal for creating ASSA was to have a place […] where anyone seeking abortion care could reach out and help would just be there.”

Hardy’s work has spearheaded a movement. Many other doula organizations have popped up across the country with a similar model. They also often collaborate with national abortion advocacy organizations to help people access the procedure in circumstances that require on-the-ground coordination and support.

Yet, Hardy believes that the need for organizations like ASSA point to critical access issues across the country and inaction at government levels.

“It’s been frustrating that there’s not more access. We, as a grassroots organization, are the ones responsible for getting people from one small town to access abortion instead of the healthcare system stepping in and saying, ‘you know what, we actually have the resources to offer that medical service. So, we’re just going to do that to make life easier’,” she said.

The proportion of hospitals providing abortions to the female population. Credit: Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights

Working in Alberta, one of Canada’s most socially conservative provinces, Autumn Reinhardt-Simpson is familiar with how attitudes on abortion can impact care. She founded Alberta Abortion Access Network to help those across the province in 2015.

Reinhardt-Simpson told IPS that those in rural areas face increased access issues because their care is more dependent on the “private moral concerns” of the health care professionals in their area.

This can make trying to get an abortion more complicated, she explained. Many physicians and pharmacists are either unwilling to offer reproductive health services or unaware of their legality.

In one case, Reinhardt-Simpson had to visit ten different pharmacies to find one that stocked Mifegymiso—the abortion pill that became legal in 2017.

“They were saying things like, ‘Oh well, we can’t dispense this, or this isn’t legal yet. Or well, we can’t get the medication.’ And it’s like no, no, that’s not how this works,” she said.

Alberta has only four access points for surgical abortions, all in its cities. Along with another helper, Reinhardt-Simpson services the whole of Alberta’s 661,848 km² (411, 253 mi²) and helps people access abortion services.

In her view, the stigma around abortion care is detrimental. It can even be physically harmful—particularly for those in later trimesters desperate for solutions.

“The stigma is preventing thousands of Albertans from receiving critical and routine health care. Because there are so many hoops to jump through, some people will get tired of those hoops, and they will try to do something themselves. It doesn’t usually end well. […] the stigma is physically dangerous, it’s emotionally harmful, and culturally it does us no good,” she said.

Being familiar with reproductive justice issues as a community organizer, Knight feels compelled to share her abortion story to combat stigma and normalize the procedure.

She’s currently developing a storytelling project that will feature diverse abortion experiences. Knight told IPS the project’s proceeds would go to improving access across Canada. She hopes to help to improve access for others, considering how essential the procedure was for her.

“My prevailing feeling about the whole thing was just relief. I don’t want to live in an alternate universe where I didn’t have access to abortion. My life would be very different now,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Rights Groups Question ‘Pregnancy Register’ for Polish Women
• Abortion Decision Felt Worldwide
• Income-based Solutions Paramount for Addressing Food Insecurity – Experts

Abbey Lubega inside the larvae hatchery unit. Simple tools are used to harvest the larvae and frass. Credit: Wambi Michael/IPS

By Wambi Michael
Kampala & Kayunga, Jul 19 2022 (IPS)

The conflict in Ukraine has led to an increase in fertiliser prices in Uganda and neighbouring Kenya. Amidst the shortages, some farmers are shifting to a more sustainable way of enriching their soils using frass from the Black Soldier Fly.

Before Russia invaded Ukraine, Marula Proteen Hub, based in Kayunga in central Uganda, mobilised farmers to produce Black Soldier Fly larvae (BSF). But many, especially the elderly, were hesitant.

“I wondered what they will think of me keeping maggots? Some, however, accepted. So, they have been keeping those maggots from which we make animal feed and now, quality fertiliser too,” said Abbey Lubega, the overseer of Marula Proteen Hub in Kangulumira sub-county.

About one thousand farmers in Kayunga have been mobilised to rear the maggots, which they sell to the hub either in cash or in exchange for organic fertiliser.

“Farmers have waste on their farms. So, we give them BSF systems for rearing the larvae. We also give them five-day-old larvae. The larvae eat through waste collected from homes. After eight days, they sell us the mature larvae or feed their livestock. There is also that option. Then they retain fertiliser for their garden,” said Lubega in an interview with IPS

“What the farmers are looking for, besides this income from the larvae, is the fertiliser produced on their farms. They can produce whatever quantities they want. It is quick, it is reliable,” explained Lubega

Marula Proteen Hub is situated below a pineapple and jackfruit processing plant to tap into the waste generated as feedstock for the larvae rearing. A pungent smell of ammonia fills the air as one enters the larvae hatchery section, where five-day-old larvae eat through waste.

“These larvae are eating. They are defecating. The ammonia that you are smelling is emanating from frass,” explained Lubega

Harriet Nakayi harvests BSF Larvae in Kangulumira Kayunga District.

Harriet Nakayi lives in Namakandwa Parish, close to 75 kilometres east of Uganda’s capital Kampala. She is one of the women in this area trained to sustainably produce BSF larvae for animal proteins and frass fertiliser for their crops.

With her three-year-old daughter standing by, Nakayi scoops larvae from black containers and pours them onto a metallic net to separate them from the decomposed brown substances that look like loam soil. The larvae are about to be taken to the hub for sale. The frass and compost material are ready to be applied in her coffee, vanilla, and banana gardens.

She told IPS that frass from BSF is much easier to apply when compared with farmyard manure.

“This fertiliser does not burn the plants. So unlike manure which you have to wait for some time, you can take this one immediately to the garden,” said Nakayi

Like Nakayi, Solomon Timbiti Wagidoso, a pineapple farmer, said he applied BSF fertiliser to one of his gardens and that their growth seems to point to a better harvest.

“The government said it would manufacture our fertiliser, but I’m told that project is on a standstill. We now depend on imported fertiliser whose cost keeps on increasing,” said Timbiti

According to Timbiti, the price of fertiliser has increased since late 2020. The war in Ukraine now exacerbates the high prices.

By early April, fertiliser prices had more than doubled in Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania. The three countries and the rest of East Africa depend on imports from Russia and Belarus.

Researchers in Uganda and Kenya found that ‘the composting process of black soldier fly frass fertiliser takes five weeks compared to the 8–24 weeks for conventional organic fertiliser.

Frass, a by-product of BSF rearing, has been found to contain substantial amounts of nutrients that can fertilise the soil. Lubega scoops frass from one of the containers with his hands. Tiny maggots are still crushing the waste that now looks like fine loam soil.

“It’s almost powder, as you can see. It is very fine,”  said Lubega. “Manure from cow dung is good, but that from goat manure is better. That from chicken is better than that of a goat. So how about the larvae that are the smallest. So, we see that the smaller the animal, the better the manure.”

Lubega explains to IPS that Black Soldier Fly larvae can break the substrates to make the nutrients available to the plant.

“Inorganic fertilisers give you the nutrient the plant needs, but organic fertilisers improve the soil health. They reduce that dependency. If I buy inorganic fertiliser for this season, I have to go back and buy more for the next season. You will need to apply inorganic fertiliser throughout your entire life,” he added.

He said organic fertilisers are better suited for smallholder farmers, like those in Kangulumira, who cannot afford to buy inorganic fertilisers.

“And if you look at the cost-benefit analysis, why would I buy inorganic fertiliser if I’m going to need it all the time? It not different from teaching me how to fish and giving me fish,” added Lubega.

Rucci Tripathi, the global Practice Lead Resilient Livelihoods at international development charity VSO with an office in Uganda and several other countries, told IPS that there is a need for a strategy for farmers and developing countries to shield farmers from the current fertiliser, fuel and food prices crisis.

Tripathi said there was a need to invest in supporting community initiatives on the production of natural manure, including feeding the soils through having a crop cover such as hay and planting nitrogen-fixing plants.

“This reduces farmers’ dependence on imports of chemical fertilisers, which is good for farmers’ incomes and soil health. We see many such small-scale initiatives across Zimbabwe to Uganda to Kenya,” she said

Researchers at the International Centre of Insect Physiology and Ecology (Icipe) have revealed that adopting insect bioconversion technology can recycle between two and 18 million tonnes of waste into organic fertiliser worth approximately 9–85 million US dollars per year.

The researchers, who include Dr Sevgan Subramanian, Dr Chrysantus Mbi Tanga and Denis Besigamukama, recently published an article titled “Nutrient quality and maturity status of frass fertiliser from nine edible insects”.

They observed that although the use of organic fertiliser is acceptable and affordable to farmers, there has been limited uptake in Sub-Saharan Africa due to poor quality, long production time, and limited sources of organic matter on the farm.

“Thus, there is a need to explore alternative sources of organic fertilisers that are readily available, affordable and of good quality, such as insect frass fertiliser,” they wrote.

Dr Debora Ruth Amulen, the founder of the Centre for Insect Research and Development, based in Kampala, told IPS that there is a need to sensitise farmers about the animal proteins and fertiliser generated from BSF.

“It is useful on our farms. It’s also a useful tool for our environment. We have a lot of manure from cattle and livestock. They are producing a lot of greenhouse gases. The Black Soldier fly has been found useful in compositing urban waste,” explained Amulen, also a lecturer at Makerere University

“It is a very simple technology that even those that have not gone to school can apply. And it’s very cost-effective.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Disability Inclusion Lifts Rural Ugandan Families From Poverty
• Give Edible Insects a Chance as an Alternative High-Quality Protein Source, say Scientists
• The Future of Food: Jellyfish, Farmed Insects, 3D Printed Meat?

Credit: Sunday Times, Sri Lanka

By Charles Seevali Abeysekera
BROMLEY, UK, Jul 19 2022 (IPS)

Sri Lanka is officially bankrupt and a failed state in all but name. How did a country of 22 million people with a level of literacy on par with most of the developed world end up in such a dire position where the state coffers did not have the measly sum of 20 million dollars to purchase fuel to keep the country functioning beyond the next working day?

Whilst the vast majority of the population have concluded that the blame for this economic armageddon is due to the gluttony of corruption and greed, instigated and enabled by the Rajapaksa family , its acolytes and sycophantic nodding dogs, my own assessment is different.

It is a fact that vast sums , amounting to billions of dollars, were indeed stolen and moved overseas through various illegal networks by the Rajapaksa clan and their accomplices.

Many billions were also squandered on gargantuan white elephant vanity projects in order to glorify the Rajapaksa legacy. However, the seeds for the bankruptcy were sown when the country attained its independence from Great Britain in 1948.

Sri Lanka proudly proclaims itself as one of the oldest democracies in Asia which has had a functioning democracy since 1948. The democratic process has functioned like it should do and parliamentarians elected as they should be and the leaders who represent the aspirations and values of the people appointed as they should be.

Why then has the country reached this abyss?

For democracy to enrich the lives of the people and bring about economic prosperity, two essential and fundamental criteria have to be satisfied. The election of individuals based on merit and the adherence to a universal justice system.

In the absence of meritocracy and a universal justice system, democracy becomes meaningless – an utterly futile process which will not achieve what it is intended for.

Meritocracy is however an alien concept in Sri Lanka!

A universal justice system does not exist in Sri Lanka!

Meritocracy does not exist in Sri Lanka because the cultural DNA is that of a feudal society. Sri Lankan culture promotes race, religion, nepotism, old school connections, social connections, social influences, political influences and servitude (where one class of people are held in perpetual bondage or servants for life ) over and above the attributes and qualities of the individual.

That is a primitive mindset and a recipe for disaster.

In Sri Lanka, people are judged not by the content of their character but by their race, their religion, their socio-economic background, their family connections, the schools they attended, where they live, and who they know. (with apologies to the Rev Martin Luther King for using his words in a manner he did not intend)

When a society functions in such a feudal manner, such values permeate throughout and has a direct correlation with the workings of the justice system. The justice system replicates the culture and ultimately ends up being not fit for purpose.

If a justice system is unable to function based on facts and objectivity, the fabric of society slowly starts to tear apart because the checks and balances needed for a society to progress and for nations to grow, slowly start to dissipate.

Since 1948, Sri Lankan democracy has existed on the basis of nepotism, feudal, racial and religious criteria.

The feudal culture masquerading as democracy has elected the Senanayake family, the Bandaranaike family, the Premadasa family and the Rajapaksa family into the highest offices of the land.

The singular qualification that Prime Minister Dudley Senanayake had was that he was the son of the father.

The singular qualification Prime Minister Mrs Bandaranaike had was that she was the wife of the husband

The singular qualification President Chandrika B had was that she was the daughter of the father and the mother

The singular qualification that Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe (now acting President) has is that he is the nephew of President JR Jayewardene.

The singular qualification that Sajith Premadasa has is that he is the son of the father

The singular qualification Gotabaya Rajapaksa has is that he is the brother of Mahinda

The singular qualification Namal has is that he is the son of the father

The singular qualification Basil has is that he is the brother of Mahinda and Gotabaya.

The singular qualification Thondaman had was that that he was the son of the father.

And this is called Democracy?

This is a banana republic in all but name where Nepotism is the ultimate passport to success – and all done through the ballot box !

This is a culture of entitlement masquerading as democracy , which in turn has given birth to a nation whose leaders are elected not by the content of their character but by their name and association.

It is the equivalent of death by a thousand cuts for what has been spawned is a society where quality has been superseded by mediocrity at best and incompetence at worst.

The end result is the economic armageddon that has destroyed the country.

When leaders of a nation are elected in such a manner, those who serve them and the very fabric of society itself replicates the structural fault line that promotes feudal nepotistic values. It becomes self-fulfilling, promotes mediocrity, encourages malpractice, and creates a culture of corruption.

The legal system, which on paper is there to oversee the rule of law, sadly becomes an extension of the structural fault line which then ensures that impunity and immunity against corruption , theft or even murder, becomes standard operating procedure.

Einstein’s definition of “insanity” is where he states that if we do the same thing over and over again, we end up with the same result. Sri Lanka’s sham democracy since 1948 has been exactly that. A culture based on feudal nepotistic values which enables the same results over and over again.

The people of Sri Lanka must break this vicious cycle if they are ever to escape from the death spiral they have created for themselves.

The critical mass of people who have recently demonstrated for structural change and the complete transformation of government and governance, have achieved more in the last few months than most of the corrupt incompetent deluded half-wits in parliament ever will.

A fundamental new approach to governance based on competence and the rule of law is a pre-requisite to stop Sri Lanka disintegrating into anarchy and chaos.

Does real democracy exist in Sri Lanka ? No !

Real democracy in Sri Lanka doesn’t exist because the culture prevents those with real ability and competence from being elected on merit alone. The vast majority of the electorate simply doesn’t understand that real democracy that provides a positive outcome is based on merit, first, second and last.

It is also unlikely that the majority of the electorate will understand this any time soon.

Can the country find a leader that replicates Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew ? It is imperative that it does find such a leader who leads by example and who creates a structural transformation of society itself where honesty, integrity and the adherence to the rule of law becomes sacrosanct .

However, does such a leader exists within the current crop of parliamentarians? If not within in parliament , then where ?

A leader who will also ensure that all those who have been culpable in this bringing about this catastrophe are forced to change their ways as well as bringing to justice those who have systematically looted and stolen the countries’ wealth – politicians and non-politicians .

Does a universal justice system exist in Sri Lanka – No !

A justice system in a secular democracy has to be independent of parliament. The justice system is meant to be independent of state machinery and should not be influenced by state operatives.

However, in Sri Lanka the parliament overrules and effectively instructs how the justice system should act which in turn makes the whole system corrupt and not fit for purpose.

The country has huge numbers of legal eagles with more qualifications than they have had hot dinners and who know the finer points of the law better than most in the world.

However, they are rendered impotent and toothless because they are beholden to the political masters they serve – either through choice or otherwise.

The corrosive and toxic nature of a feudal culture which promotes false values over merit and the rule of law ensures even the greatest minds of the land are reduced to corrupt sycophantic nodding ponies.

The legal system in Sri Lanka is also an organised money printing racket where the ordinary citizen or client is entirely at the mercy of the corrupt and dysfunctional bureaucracy.

Those who operate within the system make the equivalent of monopoly money by effectively fleecing the unsuspecting and manipulating a system that is not fit for purpose.

As I write this , the elected leader of the country whose policies and incompetence were the catalyst for the economic meltdown, has fled overseas – the ultimate ” runner viruwa ” !

The man appointed as the acting leader of the nation is one whose party has a single seat in parliament – his own ! And that too not due to electoral votes but due to a corrupt system which enables ” grace and favour ” appointments to parliament.

Such is the abyss that Sri Lanka is in.

What truly beggars belief is that there are millions in the country who still believe that this corrupt rotten s–t show of a system can still be tweaked here and there and made to work.

It cannot and the saddest reality of all this is that millions of Sri Lankans will still cling to their delusional sense of self-importance and righteousness and even at this point where mass starvation is a real possibility, carry on repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

A country whose majority population follows the teachings of one of the greatest philosophers the world has known, is simply incapable of understanding some of the most basic lessons the great sage from Lumbini taught – honesty, integrity, introspection, reflection and truth !

If however, a NEW set of leaders with competence, honesty and integrity, whose primary purpose is to serve the people, can be found within parliament, within the Aragalaya movement , within the commercial sector or a combination of individuals from all three , there is still hope for Sri Lanka.

If however the same corrupt incompetent rotten thieves who still occupy positions of huge powers are allowed to maintain the status quo , the failed state that is Sri Lanka will descent into complete anarchy and bloodshed.

At the end of all that, arising out of the ashes, there will be a breakaway part of the country ………called Eelam !!!!!!!!

Charles Seevali Abeysekera, a semi-retired sales and marketing professional, has worked in the UK mailing industry for over 35 years. He also scribes a blog on current affairs as well as reflections and thoughts on his own life journey “

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram and Anis Chowdhury
KUALA LUMPUR and SYDNEY, Jul 19 2022 (IPS)

Joining or ratifying dubious trade deals is supposed to offer miraculous solutions to recent lacklustre economic progress. Such naïve advocacy is misleading at best, and downright irresponsible, even reckless, at worst.

TPP ‘pivot to Asia’
US President Barack Obama’s ‘pivot to Asia’ after his 2012 re-election sought to check China’s sustained economic growth and technological progress. Its economic centrepiece was the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP).

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

But the US International Trade Commission (ITC) doubted the Washington-based Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) and other exaggerated claims of significant TPP economic benefits in mid-2016, well before US President Donald Trump’s election.

The ITC report found projected TPP growth gains to be paltry over the long-term. Its finding was in line with the earlier 2014 findings of the Economic Research Service of the US Department of Agriculture.

Meanwhile, many US manufacturing jobs have been lost to corporations automating and relocating abroad. Worse, Trump’s rhetoric has greatly transformed US public discourse. Many Americans now blame globalization, immigration, foreigners and, increasingly, China for the problems they face.

Trump U-turn
The TPP was believed to be dead and buried after Trump withdrew the US from it immediately after his inauguration in January 2017. After all, most aspirants in the November 2016 election – including Hillary Clinton, once a TPP cheerleader – had opposed it in the presidential campaign.

Trump National Economic Council director Gary Cohn has accused presidential confidantes of ‘dirty tactics’ to escalate the trade war with China.

Cohn acknowledged “he didn’t quit over the tariffs, per se, but rather because of the totally shady, ratfucking way Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and economic adviser Peter Navarro went about convincing the president to implement them.”

Cohn, previously Goldman Sachs president, insisted it “was a terrible idea that would only hurt the US, and not extract the concessions from Beijing Trump wanted, or do anything to shrink the trade deficit.”

Anis Chowdhury

But US allies against China, the Japanese, Australian and Singapore governments have tried to keep the TPP alive. First, they mooted ‘TPP11’ – without the USA.

This was later rebranded the Comprehensive and Progressive TPP (CPTPP), with no new features to justify its ‘progressive’ pretensions. Following its earlier support for the TPP, the PIIE has been the principal cheerleader for the CPTPP in the West.

Although US President Joe Biden was loyal as Vice-President, he did not make any effort to revive Obama’s TPP initiative during his campaign, or since entering the White House. Apparently, re-joining the TPP is politically impossible in the US today.

Panning the Trump approach, Biden’s US Trade Representative has stressed, “Addressing the China challenge will require a comprehensive strategy and more systematic approach than the piecemeal approach of the recent past.” Now, instead of backing off from Trump’s belligerent approach, the US will go all out.

Favouring foreign investors
Rather than promote trade, the TPP prioritized transnational corporation (TNC)-friendly rules. The CPTPP did not even eliminate the most onerous TPP provisions demanded by US TNCs, but only suspended some, e.g., on intellectual property (IP). Suspension was favoured to induce a future US regime to re-join.

Onerous TPP provisions – e.g., for investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) – remain. This extrajudicial system supersedes national laws and judiciaries, with secret rulings by private tribunals not bound by precedent or subject to appeal.

Lawyers have been advising TNCs on how to sue host governments for resorting to extraordinary COVID-19 measures since 2020. Most countries can rarely afford to incur huge legal costs fighting powerful TNCs, even if they win.

The Trump administration cited vulnerability to onerous ISDS provisions to justify US withdrawal from the TPP. Now, citizens of smaller, weaker and poorer nations are being told to believe ISDS does not pose any real threat to them!

After ratifying the CPTPP, TNCs can sue governments for supposed loss of profits due to policy changes – even if in the national or public interest, e.g., to contain COVID-19 contagion, or ensure food security.

Thus, supposed CPTPP gains mainly come from expected additional foreign direct investment (FDI) due to enhanced investor benefits – not more trade. This implies more host economy concessions, and hence, less net benefits for them.

Who benefits?
Those who have seriously studied the CPTPP agree it offers even fewer benefits than the TPP. After all, the main TPP attraction was access to the US market, now no longer a CPTPP member. Thus, the CPTPP will mainly benefit Japanese TNC exports subject to lower tariffs.

Unsurprisingly, South Korea and Taiwan want to join so that their TNCs do not lose out. China too wants to join, but presumably also to ensure the CPTPP is not used against it. However, the closest US allies are expected to block China.

The Soviet Union sought to join NATO in the 1950s before convening the Warsaw Pact to counter it. Russian President Vladimir Putin also tried to join NATO years after Vaclav Havel ended the Warsaw Pact and Boris Yeltsin dissolved the Soviet Union in 1991.

Unlike Northeast Asian countries, Southeast Asian economies seek FDI. But when foreign investors are favoured, domestic investors may relocate abroad, e.g., to ‘tax havens’ within the CPTPP, often benefiting from special incentives for foreign investment, even if ‘roundtrip’.

Stay non-aligned
The ‘pivot to Asia’ has become more explicitly military. As the new Cold War unfolds, foreign policy considerations – rather than serious expectations of significant economic benefits from the CPTPP – have become more important.

Trade protectionism in the North has grown since the 2008 global financial crisis. More recently, the pandemic has disrupted supply chains. With the new Cold War, the US, Japan and others are demanding their TNCs ‘onshore’, i.e., stop investing in and outsourcing to China, also hurting transborder suppliers.

Hence, net gains from joining the CPTPP – or from ratifying it for those who signed up in 2018 – are dubious for most, especially with its paltry benefits. After all, trade liberalization only benefits everyone when ‘winners’ compensate ‘losers’ – which neither the CPTPP nor its requirements do.

With big powers clashing in the new Cold War, developing countries should remain ‘non-aligned’ – albeit as appropriate for these new times. They should not take sides between the dominant West and its adversaries – led by China, the major trading partner, by far, for more and more countries.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Weaponizing Free Trade Agreements
• TNCs Reviving TPP Frankenstein
• CPTPP Trade Liberalization Charade Continues
• Rethinking Free Trade Agreements in Uncertain Times
• Japan-led Pacific Rim Countries Desperate to Embrace Trump
• Model Trade Deal Con
• Lessons from the Demise of the TPP
• Trump, Clinton, Obama and the TPP

Farmers are urged to grow sorghum and millet, not just maize, to tackle drought and food shortages.

Two people in Ghana have died from the infectious Marburg virus, raising fears of a mass outbreak..

A contentious injury-time penalty gives South Africa a 1-0 win over Zambia and a place in the Women's Africa Cup of Nations final.

Ethiopia's Gotytom Gebreslase hopes peace can prevail in her country after winning the women's marathon at the World Athletics Championships.

Many NGOs suspended in 2021 remain in limbo. There have been allegations that the organisations’ suspension was because they were critical of President Yoweri Museveni’s government and policies. Graphic Credit: Cecilia Russell/IPS

By Issa Sikiti da Silva
Kampala, Jul 18 2022 (IPS)

Nearly a year after the Ugandan government suspended 54 NGOs for allegedly operating illegally and failing to file accounts, most civil society organisations (CSOs) remain shut.

Analysts say this is because President Yoweri Museveni sees them as a threat to his 36-year regime.

Dickens Kamugisha, CEO of Africa Institute for Energy Governance (AFIEGO), told IPS: “The two court cases we filed against the NGO Bureau for illegal actions against AFIEGO are still ongoing in court. But we know that the NGO Bureau knows their actions toward the affected CSOs are wrong. This is why it has continued to make endless phone calls to AFIEGO and others for informal discussions. We have asked them to put their invitation in writing, but they haven’t done so perhaps to avoid implicating themselves.”

Before its suspension, AFIEGO was one of four Ugandan organisations involved in legal action to stop the $10 billion oil project by TotalEnergies and China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC). Its opposition is based on environmental concerns.

At a recent signing of the agreement between the government and the oil major, Museveni said that the “associations that criticise this project are people who don’t have a job. They have nothing to do, so let these idiots continue to wander aimlessly. They are only good at drinking tea and eating cookies”.

However, Kamugisha asked: “What’s wrong with fighting against anything that worsens the impacts of climate change, such as this risky oil project, the deforestation of the forests of Bugoma and Budongo, the safeguarding of Nile River and Lake Edward, of Murchison Falls and Queen Elizabeth NPs, and so on?”

Kamugisha said the government’s actions towards CSOs showed that the civic space in Uganda was not getting any better.

According to Amnesty International, in the run-up to the January 2021 elections, Museveni critics bore the brunt of the security forces.

“In 2020, dozens of people were killed in the context of electoral campaigning ahead of the January 2021 general election, most of them by police and other security forces…The rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association were severely restricted. The authorities targeted organisations working on human rights and shut down the internet,” the human rights organisation said.

Many observers believe Museveni deliberately targeted the organisations for challenging his policies and undermining his rule.

Justice climate activist Robert Agenonga told IPS from Germany that the government’s decision to suspend NGOs was retaliation for their critical role before, during, and after the elections.

“So many violations occurred during the electoral period, whereby people were detained, killed, and tortured. And organisations such as Chapter Four, for instance, provided legal support to opposition politicians, ordinary people and activists that were intimidated and prosecuted during and after the electoral period.”

Museveni believes NGOs act as agents of foreign governments and are supported by outsiders to undermine the government, Agenonga said, adding that this is done to reduce the capacity of CSOs and their ability to influence communities.

Another reason behind the suspension is that the Museveni administration has accused NGOs of replacing the state’s role by receiving money for state institutions.

“Over the years, donors were becoming increasingly unhappy with Museveni’s overstaying in power. So, they have resorted to channelling money they were giving to the state through NGOs. That’s what might have angered the government.”

Before the mass suspension of 54 NGOs, the government cracked down on the Democratic Governance Facility (DGF), a multi-million-dollar fund assisting local organisations that focus on democracy, human rights and good governance.

In 2019, the authorities banned the Citizens’ Coalition for Electoral Democracy in Uganda (CCEDU), an election monitoring coalition.

In January 2021, the authorities also banned the National Elections Watch – Uganda, a coalition of local organisations, from monitoring national elections.

Kamugisha categorically denied the government’s allegations that the suspended NGOs were operating illegally, stating that it was all about intimidating, harassing and instilling fear in the CSOs sector.

“You know that the Executive Director of Chapter Four spent weeks in prison, and later his case was dismissed due to lack of prosecution. The government lost interest in the case, and later the man left for the US apparently on study leave but heard on study leave, but his organisation is as good as closed,” he added.

“Even the AFIEGO issues with the police, the police do not have any evidence of criminal offences. We are legally registered, and the NGO Bureau knows it very well.”

Chapter Four Uganda applied to the High Court Civil Division to challenge its suspension.

In May 2022, High Court Judge Musa Ssekaana called the decision to indefinitely suspend Chapter Four “irregular”. This was because there was no timeframe for comprehensive investigations into the NGO’s operations to enable the bureau to determine whether or not to revoke its permit and cancel the registration.

In June, Chapter Four was allowed to resume operations.

Another affected the NGO Democratic Governance Facility (DGF), had its suspension lifted in late June. The NGO, funded by Denmark, Ireland, Austria, the UK, Sweden, Norway, and the European Union, was suspended in January 2021. It supports projects for poverty eradication, equitable growth, and the rule of law.

Gideon Chitanga, a political analyst with the Johannesburg-based Centre for Study of Democracy, told IPS that NGO suspensions were a  draconian violation of civil liberties and human rights by the Ugandan government.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

There were no fatalities after a plane carrying 36 passengers crash-landed in Somalia's capital.

White and black bodyguards, on opposite sides of the apartheid divide, had to work together.

Lake Nokoué in Benin is home to 80,000 people who live in 42 small stilted villages. The largest of these is Ganvié.

Morocco and Zambia look to upset illustrious opponents Nigeria and South Africa in Monday's semi-finals at the Women's Africa Cup of Nations.

Pinched between two antagonistic blocs, the United Nations was in a deadlock for decades. Credit: United Nations

By Marc Saxer
BERLIN, Jul 18 2022 (IPS)

With the invasion of Ukraine, Russia effectively destroyed the European peace order. Now, Europe needs to find ways to contain its aggressive neighbour, while its traditional protector, the United States, continues its shift of focus to the Indo-Pacific.

This task, however, becomes impossible when China and Russia are driven into each other’s arms because, if anything, the key to end the war in Ukraine lies in Beijing. China hesitates to be dragged into this European war as bigger questions are at stake for the emerging superpower:

Will the silk road be wrecked by a new iron curtain? Shall it stick to its ‘limitless alliance’ with Russia? And what about the territorial integrity of sovereign states? In short: for China, it is about the world order.

The unipolar moment after the triumph of the West in the Cold War is over. The war in Ukraine clearly marks the end of the Pax Americana. Russia and China openly challenge American hegemony. Russia may have proven to be a giant with clay feet, and has inadvertently strengthened the unity of the West.

But the shift of the global balance of power to East Asia is far from over. In China, the United States has encountered a worthy rival for global predominance. But Moscow, Delhi, and Brussels also aspire to become power hubs in the coming multipolar order.

So, we are witnessing the end of the end of history. What comes next? To better understand how world orders emerge and erode, a quick look at history can be helpful.

What is on the menu?

Over the course of the long 19th century, a great power concert has provided stability in a multipolar world. Given the nascent state of international law and multilateral institutions, congresses were needed to carefully calibrate the balance between different spheres of interest.

The relative peace within Europe, of course, was dearly bought by the aggressive outward expansion of its colonial powers.

Marc Saxer

This order was shattered at the beginning of the World War I. What followed were three decades of disorder rocked by wars and revolutions. Not unlike today, the conflicting interests of great powers collided without any buffer, while the morbid domestic institutions could not mitigate the devastating social cost of the Great Transformation.

With the founding of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the foundations of a liberal order were laid after the end of World War II. However, with the onset of the Cold War, this experiment quickly ran into a quagmire.

Pinched between two antagonistic blocs, the United Nations was in a deadlock for decades. From the Hungarian Revolution over the Prague Spring to the Cuban missile crisis, peace between the nuclear powers was maintained through the recognition of exclusive zones of influence.

After the triumph of the West in the Cold War, American hyperpower quickly declared a new order for a now unipolar world. In this liberal world order, rule-breaking was sanctioned by the world’s policeman.

Proponents of the liberal world order pointed to the rapid diffusion of democracy and human rights around the globe. Critics see imperial motifs at work behind the humanitarian interventions. But even progressives place great hopes in the expansion of international law and multilateral cooperation.

Now that the West is mired in crises, global cooperation is again paralysed by systemic rivalry. From the war in Georgia over the annexation of Crimea to the crackdown in Hong Kong, the recognition of exclusive zones of influence is back in the toolbox of international politics.

After a short heyday, the liberal elements of the world order are jammed again. China has begun to lay the foundations of an illiberal multilateral architecture.

How will great power competition play out?

In the coming decade, the rivalries between great powers are likely to continue with undiminished vigour. The ultimate prize of this great power competition is a new world order. Five different scenarios are conceivable.

First, the liberal world order could survive the end of the unipolar American moment. Second, a series of wars and revolutions can lead to the total collapse of order. Third, a great power concert could bring relative stability in a multipolar world but fail to tackle the great challenges facing humanity.

Fourth, a new cold war may partly block the rule-based multilateral system, but still allow for limited cooperation in questions of common interest. And finally, an illiberal order with Chinese characteristics. Which scenario seems the most probable?

Many believe that democracy and human rights need to be promoted more assertively. However, after the fall of Kabul, even liberal centrists like Joe Biden und Emmanuel Macron have declared the era of humanitarian interventions to be over.

Should another isolationist nationalist like Trump or others of his ilk come to power in Washington, London, or Paris, the defence of the liberal world order would once and for all be off the agenda. Berlin is in danger of running out of allies for its new value-based foreign policy.

In all Western capitals, there are broad majorities across the ideological spectrum that seek to up the ante in the systemic rivalry with China and Russia. The global reaction to the Russian invasion shows, however, that the rest of the world has very little appetite for a new bloc confrontation between democracies and autocracies.

The support for Russia’s attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine – values especially smaller countries unwaveringly adhere to – should not be read as sympathy for a Russian or Chinese-led order, but as deep frustration over the US empire.

Seen from the Global South, the not-so-liberal world order was merely a pretext for military interventions, structural adjustment programmes, and moral grandstanding. Now, the West comes to realise that in order to prevail geopolitically, it needs the cooperation of undemocratic powers from Turkey to the Gulf monarchies, from Singapore to Vietnam.

The high-minded rhetoric of the systemic rivalry between democracies against autocracies is prone to alienate these much-needed potential allies. But if even the West were to give up on universalism of democracy and human rights, what would be left of the liberal world order?

Are the great power rivalries that play out in the background of the war in Ukraine, the coups in Western Africa and the protests in Hong Kong only the beginning of a new period of wars, coups, and revolutions?

The ancient Greek philosopher Thucydides already knew that the competition between rising and declining great powers can beget great wars. So, are we entering a new period of disorder?

Not only in Moscow and Beijing, but also in Washington, there are thinkers that seek to mitigate these destructive dynamics of the multipolar world through a new concert of great powers. The coordination of great power interests in fora from the G7 to the G20 could be the starting point for this new form of club governance. The recognition of exclusive zones of influence can help to mitigate conflict.

However, there is reason for concern that democracy and human rights will be the first victims of such high-powered horse-trading. This form of minimal cooperation may also be inadequate to tackle the many challenges humankind is facing from climate change over pandemics to mass migration.

The European Union, an entity based on the rule of law and the permanent harmonisation of interests, may have a particularly hard time to thrive in such a dog-eat-dog world.

Not only in Moscow, some fantasize about a revival of imperialism that negates the right to self-determination of smaller nations. This dystopian mix of technologically supercharged surveillance state on the inside and never-ending proxy wars on the outside is eerily reminiscent of George Orwell’s 1984. One can only hope that this illiberal neo-imperialism is shattered in the war in Ukraine.

The Russian recognition of separatist provinces of a sovereign state have rung the alarm bells in Beijing. After all, what if Taiwan follows this model and declares its independence? At least rhetorically, Beijing has returned to its traditional line of supporting national sovereignty and condemning colonialist meddling in internal affairs.

There are debates in Beijing whether China should really side with a weakened pariah state and retreat behind a new iron curtain, or would benefit more from an open and rules-based global order.

So, what is this ‘Chinese Multilateralism’ promoted by the latter school of thought? On the one hand, a commitment to international law and cooperation to tackle the great challenges facing humankind, from climate change over securing trade routes to peacekeeping.

However, China is only willing to accept any framework for cooperation if it is on equal footing with the United States. This is why Beijing takes the United Nations Security Council seriously, but tries to replace the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund with its own institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank.

If Chinese calls for equal footing are rejected, Beijing can still form its own geopolitical bloc with allies across Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. In such an illiberal order, there would still be rule-based cooperation, but no longer any institutional incentives for democracy and human rights.

Hard choices: what should we strive for?

Alas, with a view of containing an aggressive Russia, a rapprochement with China may have its merits. For many in the West, this would require an about-face. After all, the recently fired German admiral Schönbach was not the only one who wanted to enlist Russia as an ally for a new cold war with China.

Even if Americans and Chinese would bury the hatchet, a post-liberal world order would pose a predicament for Western societies.

Is the price for peace really the right to self-determination of peoples? Is cooperation to tackle the great challenges facing humankind contingent on the rebuttal of the universality of human rights? Or is there still a responsibility to protect, even when the atrocities are committed in the exclusive zone of influence of a great power rival?

These questions go right to the West’s normative foundation.

Which order will prevail in the end will be determined by fierce great power competition. However, who is willing to rally around the banner of each different model differs significantly. Only a narrow coalition of Western states and a handful of Indo-Pacific value partners will come to the defence of democracy and human rights.

If this Western-led alliance of democracies loses the power struggle against the so-called axis of autocracies, the outcome could well be an illiberal world order with Chinese characteristics.

At the same time, the defence of international law, especially the inviolability of borders and the right to self-defence, are generally in the interest of democratic and authoritarian powers alike. An alliance for multilateral cooperation with the United Nations at its core finds supports across the ideological spectrum.

Finally, there could be issue-based cooperation between different centres. If ideological differences are set aside, hybrid partners could cooperate, for instance, in the fight against climate change or piracy, but be fierce competitors in the race for high-tech or energy.

Thus, it would not be surprising if the United States were to replace their ‘alliance of democracies’ with a more inclusive coalition platform.

Politically, Germany can only survive within the framework of a united Europe. Economically, it can only prosper in open world markets. For both, a rules-based, multilateral order is indispensable. Given the intensity of today’s systemic rivalry, some may doubt its feasibility. However, it is worth remembering that even at the heyday of the Cold War, within the framework of a constrained multilateralism, cooperation based on common interests did occur.

From arms control over the ban of the ozone-killer CFC to the Helsinki Accords, the balance sheet of this limited multilateralism was not too bad. In view to the challenges facing humankind, from climate change over pandemics to famines, this limited multilateralism may just be the best among bad options. For what is at stake is the securing of the very foundations of peace, freedom, unity, and prosperity in Europe.

Marc Saxer coordinates the regional work of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) in the Asia Pacific. Previously, he led the FES offices in India and Thailand and headed the FES Asia Pacific department.

Source: International Politics and Society published by the Global and European Policy Unit of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Hiroshimastrasse 28, D-10785 Berlin.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Senegal and Cameroon reach the intercontinental play-offs for the Women's World Cup after repechage wins over Tunisia and Botswana respectively.

There are no fatalities among the 30 people on board despite dramatic scenes at Mogadishu airport.

A half-century of reproduction rights upended by the Supreme Court. Credit: Greenpeace.

By Joseph Chamie
PORTLAND, USA, Jul 18 2022 (IPS)

The 24 June decision of United States Supreme Court to overturn the country’s nearly 50-year constitutional right of a woman to an abortion is being felt worldwide.

In addition to the objections and protests to the court’s landmark decision within the United States, governments, world leaders, and others have expressed their concerns and dissatisfaction about the overturning a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion.

The court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established in 1973 is at odds with the views of a broad majority of the public. No less than two-thirds of U.S. adults did not want the court to overturn the 1973 decision

The European Union’s parliament overwhelmingly condemned the decision ending the constitutional protections of women for abortion in the United States. Fearing the expansion of anti-abortion movements in Europe, the parliament also called for safeguards to abortion rights be enshrined in the EU’s fundamental rights charter and protections be adopted across the EU.

The Director General of the World Health Organization was very disappointed with the decision and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights called the court’s decision a major setback. Access to safe, legal, and effective abortion, the Commissioner stressed, is firmly rooted in international human rights law.

Objections to the decision came from many government leaders worldwide. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, for example, saw the decision as a big step backwards. Accusing the court of diminishing the rights of U.S. women, the President of France said that abortion is a fundamental right of all women.

The German Chancellor viewed the decision as a threat to the rights of women, as did New Zealand’s Prime Minister who saw it as a loss for women everywhere. The Belgian Prime Minister expressed concerns about the signal the decision sends to the rest of the world about a woman’s right to an abortion.

Fifty years ago, various U.S. states criminalized a woman having an abortion. In 1973 in the case Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s majority of seven justices established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion in all 50 states (Table 1).

 

The justices concluded that state statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a woman’s constitutional right of privacy, which it found to be implicit in the liberty guarantee of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Thirty years ago, the Supreme Court revisited Roe v. Wade in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A majority of five justices reaffirmed a woman’s right to an abortion but imposed a new standard to determine the validity of laws restricting abortions.

The new standard asks whether a state abortion regulation has the purpose or effect of imposing an “undue burden”, which is defined as a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus attains viability.

In June 2022, in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization a majority of six justices concluded that the 1973 and 1992 abortion decisions of a dozen former justices were egregiously wrong in their legal reasoning that led to erroneous decisions concerning the right to an abortion.

After nearly a half century of women having a constitutional right to an abortion enshrined in the 1973 decision and reaffirmed in the 1992 decision, six justices of the current Supreme Court concluded that there is no such constitutional right. In the dissenting opinion, the court’s remaining three justices wrote that the U.S. will become an international outlier after the decision.

The court’s decision to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion established in 1973 is at odds with the views of a broad majority of the public. No less than two-thirds of U.S. adults did not want the court to overturn the 1973 decision.

In addition, a majority of Americans, approximately 60 percent, and President Biden with the backing of many Democratic leaders support Congress passing a law establishing a nationwide right to abortion. Such a law would protect a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

In contrast, a comparatively small minority of Americans, 13 percent in 2022, are opposed to abortion, with some, including Republican leaders, considering a federal abortion ban for all fifty states. Since 1975, the annual proportion of Americans who say abortion should be illegal in all circumstances has varied from a low of 12 percent in 1990 to a high of 22 percent in 2002 (Figure 1).

 

Source: Gallup Polls.

 

Following its decision to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision, confidence in the Supreme Court has reached historic lows. A majority of the U.S. public, 58 percent, have an unfavorable view of the Supreme Court. That level of disapproval is now on par with the public’s unfavorable view of Congress.

In addition, the United States has become a patchwork of abortion laws and given rise to a myriad of enforcement regulations, numerous court cases, and challenging legal questions. Abortion is now banned in at least nine states and more bans are expected in the near future. In some states, such as Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and South Dakota, abortion is banned with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Also, many state legislatures are considering ways of stopping or criminalizing out of state abortions. They are also proposing banning or tightly restricting the use of abortion medication, which was approved in 2000 by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and accounted for an estimated 54 percent of the country’s abortions in 2020. In response, other states are advancing legislation and executive orders protecting patients and providers from legal risks outside their borders.

The Supreme Court’s recent decision finding no constitutional right to an abortion has raised concerns that other rights not enumerated in the U.S. Constitution are at risk of being overturned. Among those rights are same-sex marriage, same-sex relationships, and contraceptives.

In a concurring opinion to the recent abortion decision, for example, one of the court’s justices indicated that other precedents should be reconsidered. He also mentioned that future legal cases could curtail other rights not clearly addressed in the U.S. Constitution.

The court’s abortion decision may also embolden abortion opponents, influence policymakers, and affect reproductive health programs in other countries as well. The decision puts U.S. alongside several other countries, including Poland, El Salvador, and Nicaragua, that have backtracked on or restricted abortion policy in recent decades.

However, the court’s abortion decision runs counter to recent global liberalization trends on reproductive rights. During the past three decades about 60 countries have expanded laws and policies relating to reproductive rights, including legal access to abortion.

In sum, the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court has not only revoked the nearly 50-year constitutional right of a woman to an abortion, but it is also now out of sync with the increasing worldwide recognition of fundamental reproductive rights, including a woman’s right to an abortion.

Joseph Chamie is a consulting demographer, a former director of the United Nations Population Division and author of numerous publications on population issues, including his recent book, “Births, Deaths, Migrations and Other Important Population Matters.”