Jacobin Magazine: Zeman, Again

But this comparison only goes so far. Zeman is very much a political insider, a fixture in Czech politics since the Velvet Revolution. He participated in the anticommunist Civic Forum and joined the Czechoslovak Federal Assembly in 1990. He helped rebuild the Czech Social Democratic Party (ČSSD), which he joined in 1992, and he served as prime minister from 1998 to 2002. He ran for president in 2003, but Václav Klaus won thanks to divisions in the party. Zeman never fully forgave the leadership, and, in 2009, he founded the Party of Civic Rights, which has yet to win any seats in parliament. Nevertheless, Zeman returned to national politics with a bang in 2013, when he won the first directly elected presidential race. [...]

His public pronouncements, particularly on Islam and migration, echo those of the traditional far right, though he often uses even less varnished terms than Marine Le Pen or Alternative for Germany. Zeman has forged tight links with the organized right, most notably with Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD), a virulently anti-Islam party that won twenty-two seats in November’s parliamentary election. [...]

Nevertheless, this election had the highest turnout since 1998, with 66.6 percent. On the one hand, the big numbers reflect citizens’ desire to rebalance politics following the shock of November’s parliamentary elections. On the other, it underlines the fact that the role of president occupies a disproportionate place in the Czech imagination. [...]

Some of this has merit: Zeman’s strongest support comes from smaller towns and rural areas — though he won Ostrava, the third-largest city in the country — and his voters tend to be older and less educated. But dividing society into enlightened Western subjects and post-communist dinosaurs blocks both a clear analysis of the country’s political situation and any hope of changing it. These categories do more to flatter Zeman’s opponents than to help understand what motivates his supporters.

read the article

New Statesman: The new age of great power politics

Two of the nations that had evangelised most about the liberal international order, the United States and the United Kingdom, seemed to lose their faith in its durability (and perhaps even its desirability). Even many of those who continued to value the citadel that had been built after 1945 believed that it was time to raise the draw-bridge, fill the moat and man the ramparts. Citizens of nowhere – a phrase that Huntington adapted from Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations before Theresa May’s speechwriters got their hands on it – had their notice served. Absent the US as its guarantor, what would this mean for the rules-based international system that was supposed to be the great offering of the post-Cold War Western Belle Époque? [...]

There is an ugly reality about the emerging new world order but it is a reality that must be confronted, nonetheless. As president, Trump has proved to be even more ogreish than he appeared on the campaign trail, notwithstanding the mild softening of tone in the recent State of the Union address. So many taboos and conventions have been broken (he recently traduced Britain’s NHS) that it is far from inevitable that future aspirants for high office will try to raise the bar back up again, as opposed to muddying themselves in an effort to squirm under it. [...]

Twelve months after Trump’s inauguration, it is fair to ask a broader question: what, in material terms, has changed in global politics in the first year of his presidency? The answer is that the world does not revolve around Trump, but he does embody a profound shift in the atmosphere. There is a sharpening of elbows (and, in some cases, knives) in many of the world’s most powerful capitals, with implications for prosperity and security. An age of relative equipoise between the world’s major powers is ebbing away into an era in which inter-state competition will be more nakedly pursued. [...]

It was only in the post-Cold War era, when Britain’s foremost ally emerged triumphant and seemingly unrivalled, that national defence spending dropped from an average of 3 per cent of GDP. In a world where Britain will have more difficulty in keeping its voice heard, it is time to revisit this question. When May made a point of stressing Britain’s role in European defence at the outset of the Brexit negotiations, it was widely condemned as a crude tactic. In other parts of the world, it is regarded as less uncouth to talk about such ugly realities. In Asia, in particular, where Western nations are now clambering for advantage, the relationship between trade and security is seen more explicitly in terms of a quid pro quo. As the UK government has sought to lay the ground for enhanced post-Brexit trading relations “East of Suez” – with Australia, Japan, South Korea, and others – these conversations have all been tied to closer collaboration on security and defence.

read the article

BBC4 Analysis: The Illiberal Democrats

Poland and Hungary appear to be on paths to what the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban called "illiberal democracy". What does this mean for the European Union? Naomi Grimley hears how in Hungary a respected newspaper was shut down overnight after criticising government officials. A liberal university is fighting for its survival. In Poland, a popular singer was disinvited from a festival after speaking out against the proposed outlawing of abortion. Laws have been passed which give politicians more control over the appointment of judges. Both countries are in trouble with the European Commission. And yet, the view from Warsaw and Budapest is that their governments were democratically elected, and that they are enacting the will of their peoples - a will that may not be the same as that of Brussels, but has a popular mandate. In Hungary, Naomi is told that the country simply wants to keep its Christian identity. In Poland, the argument is that the changes of the court systems are simply an overdue updating of the judiciary after the Communist era, and that Poland is entitled to develop as its voters see fit. Could their new paths divide East and West and eventually threaten the EU itself?

listen to the podcast

BBC4 Thinking Allowed: Populism

Populism - Laurie Taylor explores the origins, meaning and rise of populist politics, across the Left as well as the Right. He's joined by Mukulika Banerjee, Associate Professor in the Department of Anthropology, LSE; Luke March, Deputy Head of Politics and International Relations at Edinburgh University and Thomas Osborne, Leverhulme Research Fellow in Liberalism & Political Ethics and Prof of Social & Political Theory at the University of Bristol.

listen to the podcast

Haaretz: Chabad to Open Iceland's First Synagogue

The Chabad movement is sending emissaries, a rabbi and his wife, to Iceland, an island nation with 250 Jews where ritual slaughter of animals is illegal and circumcision is poised to be outlawed as well.

Rabbi Avi Feldman, 27, of Brooklyn, New York and his Sweden-born wife Mushky are slated to settle with their two daughters in Reykjavík, the world’s northernmost capital city and Europe's only capital without a synagogue, later this year, the couple told JTA last week.

The announcement closely followed news last month that lawmakers from four political parties in Iceland submitted a bill proposing to outlaw non-medical circumcision of boys younger than 18 and equates that practice, common among Jews and Muslims, with female genital mutilation – the custom of removing parts of a girl’s clitoris, which is common in some African Muslim communities. [...]

The absence of infrastructure for Jewish communities can be seen as “a challenge,” the rabbi said, “but it’s also a tremendous opportunity, to set up a living breathing community,” he said. Notwithstanding, local Jews have celebrated holidays in Iceland also without a resident rabbi, often with help from yeshiva students and Chabad rabbis who came there especially to celebrate the dates, Rabbi Feldman said, calling this “inspiring and very special.”

read the article

CityLab: Can This European High-Speed Train Compete With Airlines?

The tentative answer provides an interesting snapshot of just how much European travel has changed: 20 years ago, a train taking more than three hours would struggle to compete with an hour-long flight. Today, however, such as service is at a distinct advantage. It’s not necessarily the case that speed and comfort have necessarily skyrocketed for train travel (though there are indeed more fast routes now on offer). It’s because—especially for shorter distances—flying has become increasingly hellish and time-consuming. [...]

This certainly makes sense. Back in the 1990s, before Europe’s cheap flight boom, it was still possible to breeze into an airport an hour before your flight, clear security, and even stop for a coffee before making your way to the gate. Catch a plane from London to Amsterdam now and, even with online check-in, you’re cutting it close if you allow 90 minutes at the terminal. And as the number of flights have proliferated, short-hop flights from economy carriers increasingly depart from smaller airports that are at a greater distance from the city, lengthening journey times further—not to mention obliging passengers to rely on sketchy onward transit. Anyone that’s made the 40 minute rail trip out to London Stansted Airport, or touched down at Southend Airport to find the last of the evening trains to London has long gone will know exactly what I mean here. [...]

It’s these delays that make downtown-to-downtown rail travel increasingly attractive for longer distances. Eurostar trains have security and passport checks too, of course, but you’re broadly safe arriving at the station 30 minutes before departure (45 during peak times) and as little as 10 minutes for the most expensive ticket class. Under these circumstances, anyone might prefer taking a direct train from London to Amsterdam and back.

read the article

CityLab: It's Time to Ditch the Stigma of Doing Things Alone

From the looks of it, Americans are starting to ask themselves this very question. Recent years have seen a surge in the number of people traveling or dining alone. A new analysis by the online reservation service OpenTable, for instance, reveals that reservations for one have increased by 62 percent nationwide over the past two years. Solo parties are the fastest-growing reservation. “Solo dining is about treating yourself to a delicious experience and savoring every bite,” OpenTable’s Caroline Potter said in a press release.  [...]

The same goes for traveling alone. A new 2015 Visa Global Travel Intentions Study found that 24 percent of the over 13,600 travelers surveyed traveled alone this year, compared to only 15 percent who traveled alone in 2013. What’s more, the number of solo first-time travelers rose from 16 percent in 2013 to 37 percent in 2015. [...]

So why has it taken so long to jump on the solo bandwagon? For one thing, people are getting married later, so they may have more time to spend as single adults. But the Wall Street Journal reports that even married people are deciding to travel alone, “leaving significant others and friends behind.” Richard Harris, senior vice president for the tour operating company Abercrombie & Kent, explained: “It’s a conscious decision with couples now that you go do this and I’ll do that.” Ratner suspects that things like differing work schedules or needing childcare may be responsible, as well.

read the article

Quartz: President Buhari’s stumbles have opened the door for another major shift in Nigerian politics

President Muhammadu Buhari, 75, will have the advantage of incumbency which, in Nigeria, is not to be taken lightly. Since 1999, when Nigeria returned to civilian rule, a sitting president has lost at the polls only once. It happened in 2015 when Buhari’s All Progressives Congress (APC), succeeded in defeating then-incumbent Goodluck Jonathan of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP). It was Buhari’s fourth run for the presidency and snagging that election win was far from easy. It required a complex and uneasy marriage of several political parties and interests. [...]

But while the president seems undecided, he’s already facing high-profile opposition. In a 3,500-word open letter published in national dailies, Olusegun Obasanjo, Nigeria’s president from 1999 to 2007, pointedly asked Buhari not to seek re-election citing his weakness in “understanding” the economy as well as foreign and internal affairs. Some of the opposition to Buhari’s re-election bid has come from within his party. Even closer to home, Aisha Buhari, the first lady, has retweeted messages which criticized the president and suggested he’s not in control of his government. [...]

Buhari’s popularity in the north is such that if he chooses not to contest, he will still play a pivotal role in the elections by throwing his weight and popularity behind APC’s candidate. But with his plans for the election still under wraps, presidential hopefuls in the party are keeping their cards close to their chest. Should he choose not to contest however, there’s a slim chance vice-president Yemi Osinbajo might be the party’s ticket-bearer. He’s already won plaudits (paywall) during his stint as acting president while president Buhari was away on medical leave.

read the article

The Guardian: A eureka moment for the planet: we’re finally planting trees again

China plans to plant forests the size of Ireland. Latin American countries have pledged to restore 20m hectares of degraded forest and African countries more than 100m hectares. India is to plant 13m hectares, and on a single day last year 1.5 million people planted 66m trees in Madhya Pradesh alone. [...]

We are seeing a great global attempt to plant and restore forest land but paradoxically we are still losing tree cover. The rate of global deforestation has slowed by more than half in 25 years but tree loss jumped 50% in 2016, and 2017 is likely to have been worse.

The greatest threat to trees used to be loggers and the expansion of farming. These are still a threat, but human-caused deforestation and degradation make forests more fire-prone, and disease, droughts linked to climate change and harmful beetles are likely to kill trees in greater numbers. [...]

We must keep planting trees but think differently. Mass, state-sponsored tree-planting has a reputation for being expensive and badly managed. When forests are planted on an industrial scale, up to 20% of the trees may die within a few years. It costs around £720 a hectare to plant a forest, so it would cost around £250bn to plant the 350m hectares that countries have signed up to. That money is just not available to developing countries.

read the article