Professor Henry Srebrnik

Professor Henry Srebrnik

Saturday, September 28, 2024

Satisfaction with Democracy has Been on the Decline

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Saint John, N.B.] Telegraph-Journal

Elections for national office this year have been, or will be, held in more than 60 countries, home to nearly half the people on earth. People around the world generally believe representative democracy is a good way to govern their countries. Yet in recent years, democracy has been facing increasing challenges.

A shrinking voter turnout globally and increasingly contested election results are posing a risk to the credibility of democracy, according to a report published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Sept. 17.

It has been measuring democratic performance in 158 countries since 1975 and revealed that 47 per cent of these nations witnessed a decline in crucial indicators over the past five years, making it the eighth consecutive year of global democratic decline.

Global voter turnout between 2008 and 2023 plunged by 10 percentage points, going from 65.2 per cent to 55.5. As well, between mid-2020 and mid-2024, one in five elections were legally challenged. In the United States, less than half of respondents called the 2020 presidential election “free and fair” and the country “remains deeply polarized,” the report said.

A Pew Research Centre survey published last June 18 also found that enthusiasm for democracy has slipped in many nations. Even in high-income democracies, dissatisfaction has been on the rise.

 Asked in 12 economically advanced democracies -- eight of them European, two in east Asia, plus Canada and the United States -- how satisfied they are with the state of their democracy, people in these nations have become more frustrated with their democracies since 2021. A median of 49 per cent across these 12 nations were satisfied with the way their democracy was working in 2021; today, just 36 per cent hold this view.

Satisfaction has not increased in any of the 12 countries surveyed, while in six --Canada, Germany, Greece, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States -- it has actually dropped by double digits.

Social scientists have identified at least three major forces that collectively bind together successful democracies: social capital, strong institutions, and shared stories. But all three have been weakened in the past decade.

Politicians seem to be going out of their way to alienate and infuriate voters, pursuing unpopular policies at the very same time as they demonise and clamp down on debate. The most frequently used counter populist frame is “conspiracy theory.” Today they attach the label to a wide range of issues, and they often frame their opponents as foreign, crazy, dangerous, and undemocratic.

Governments have been using so-called hate speech, fake news, and misinformation as justifications for censorship. What all censors have in common is their unshakable conviction that they “know the truth and must control the ideas or influences to which you may become exposed to protect you from falling into error (or sin),” writes civil rights lawyer Stephen Rohde in the June 14, 2022 Los Angeles Review of Books.

But it’s clear that voters are beginning to realise that all those calls to censor “hate” and “misinformation” are simply calls to censor them. It is increasingly common to see individual rights attacked as selfish and contrary to the “common good.” Western leaders extol democracy yet pay little homage to personal freedoms.

But it’s not just formal government that wields such power. As Tom Slater, editor of the British internet magazine Spiked, noted in 2022, “Big Tech censorship increasingly resembles state censorship by the backdoor, with the dirty work outsourced to the private sector. Capitalist power is being wielded against ordinary people, at the behest of the state.” Software engineers have become social engineers in our democracies.

“We are living through the capture of institution after institution by economic, political and cultural elites rich in either cultural capital or just plain capital, but rarely majority support,” according to British political theorist Alan Johnson in a 2023 article in Fathom. “They are arrogantly imposing their designs and preferences on the ‘deplorables’ and ‘bigots’ over whom they sometimes let it slip they think they rule.”

As a result, majorities feel shut-out and coerced by a global economy and by laws and treaties that seem to originate in far-away bodies and which they do not feel they can influence, and by the illiberal cancel culture imposed on them by (often tiny) activist minorities. Even in places where incumbent governments have retained power, they’ve done so with significantly less public support than before.

So does capitalism inherently undermine the agency of citizens in a democracy? In The Crisis of Democratic Capitalism, published last year, Martin Wolf, chief economics commentator at the Financial Times in London, thinks that it does.

The tension arises because inherent to democracy are agency and equality before the law, whereas inherent to capitalism are hierarchy and difference. Yet democracy needs capitalism: only its dynamism, competition and creative destruction can produce a reasonable expectation of gradually rising living standards. In an interview, Wolf maintained that the market economy is failing. “It’s failing economically, and because it’s failing economically, it’s failing politically. This created a profound disillusionment with elites.”

Perhaps we should remember political theorist Michael Walzer’s admonition, in the 2020 book Justice is Steady Work, that “The final victory of liberal democracy isn’t anything like final; democracy still needs advocates and fighters.”

 

Wednesday, September 25, 2024

Is Qatar Getting Away With Murder?

By Henry Srebrnik, [Winnipeg] Jewish Post

Qatar…home of Hamas leaders, Al-Jazeera, host of soccer’s 2022 World Cup, and wealth beyond measure. And everyone’s favourite centre for “negotiations” to end the war Hamas unleashed on Israel a year ago. It’s become everyone’s go-to country, a veritable “light unto the nations.”

However, as the 1946 song “Put the Blame on Mame” has it, in a different context, of course,That's the story that went around, but here’s the real lowdown” … about this duplicitous Persian Gulf emirate.

Even before the Gaza war began, there was an upswing of commentary celebrating a shift in the policies and behavior of Qatar: away from promoting and subsidizing radical Islamist groups, and towards “deconfliction” and moderation.

Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, the country’s emir, has been basking in the glow of international approval, depicting the country as a global influencer and peacemaker. The Qataris want to make themselves indispensable.

It plays into Doha’s ongoing attempts to create an illusion of rebranding as a moderating actor in the Middle East and beyond, pushed by various propagandists in the West on Qatar’s payroll, including more than a few American university centres and departments awash in Qatari money.

The emir and other officials spent two days in Canada Sept. 17-19, meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and cabinet ministers. The Gaza war was on the agenda, of course. Indeed, Jewish-Canadian leaders urged Trudeau to criticize him over his patronage of Hamas. But being able to tap into Qatar’s wealth via business and trade was more likely on Trudeau’s mind.

Qatar has one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, at $110,000 a year. And while its total population is some 2.7 million, most of these are guest workers, including European lawyers and consultants at the top of the scale, and at the bottom South Asian labourers. Only some 313,000 are native Qataris, the ones who benefit from the riches it derives from the sale of oil and gas.

The Peninsula, an English language daily newspaper published in Doha, ran an article on the occasion of the emir’s visit by noting the expanding trade and investment cooperation between Canada and Qatar, especially with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) in June between the Qatar Financial Center and the Canada Arab Business Council, a non-profit organization that aims to enhance trade and investment relations between Canada and the Arab world.

The MoU “aims to establish an integrated framework for cooperation and coordination in specific sectors through joint initiatives and the exchange of information and expertise, with a focus on stimulating growth and promoting innovation in areas such as financial services and professional business services.” Ahmed Hussen, Minister of International Development participated in a signing ceremony with Lolwah bint Rashid Al-Khater, Qatar’s Minister of State for International Cooperation.

More than 9,000 Canadian expatriates live in Qatar, working in Canadian and Qatari companies and institutions. From January to July, Canada exported goods valued at $103.45 million to Qatar, while Qatar’s exports to Canada amounted to $90.27 million.

There is also a partnership in academic programs, as the University of Calgary has been in Doha since 2006, offering a Bachelor of Nursing program, along with the College of the North Atlantic, which transformed into the University of Doha for Science and Technology. Furthermore, there are several Doha-based schools that offer Canadian curricula.

In their meeting, Sheikh Tamim expressed his aspiration to work with Trudeau to advance their bilateral cooperation across multiple sectors in order to “contribute to enhancing regional and global peace and stability.” Bilateral relations between the two countries were discussed, especially in the fields of investment, economy and international cooperation, “in addition to developments and situations in the Gaza Strip and the occupied Palestinian territories.”

Qatar has been very successful in its efforts to shape public opinion in Canada, as well as in the far more important United States. The amount of money that Qatar has poured into universities, schools, educational organizations, think tanks, and media across America, and the number of initiatives that Qatar uses to influence American opinion, is overwhelming.

According to a 2022 study from the National Association of Scholars, Qatar is the largest foreign donor to American universities. It found that between 2001 and 2021, the petrostate donated a whopping $4.7 billion to U.S. colleges. The largest recipients are some of America’s most prestigious institutions of higher learning. They include Carnegie Mellon University, Ivy League Cornell University, Georgetown University in Washington, Virginia Commonwealth University, and Texas A & M. These schools have partnered with the regime to build campuses in Doha’s “education city,” a special district of the capital that hosts satellite colleges for American universities. (Texas A&M decided earlier this year to shutter its branch campus in Qatar.)

Georgetown University in Qatar, for instance, was hosting the “Reimagining Palestine” conference Sept. 20-22. The event engages scholars, experts, and the public “in timely and relevant dialogues on globally significant issues,” according to a description of the gathering. One of the speakers, Wadah Khanfar, “was active in the Hamas movement and was one of its most prominent leaders in the movement’s office in Sudan,” the Raya Media Network, a Palestinian outlet, tells us. In the months following Oct. 7, the campus has hosted a variety of seemingly anti-Israel events.

Since 2008, Qatar has donated nearly $602 million to Northwestern University, whose journalism school is ranked as one of the best in the world, to establish a school of journalism in Qatar.  The Northwestern University campus in Qatar and Qatari broadcaster Al-Jazeera in 2013 signed a Memorandum of Understanding to “further facilitate collaboration and knowledge transfer between two of Qatar’s foremost media organizations.” Are Northwestern’s interests really aligned with Qatar?

Qatari state-financed entities also often fund individual scholars or programs in the United States without official disclosure or being directly traceable to a government source, thus avoiding public scrutiny. For example, Ivy League Yale University disclosed only $284,668 in funding from Qatar between 2010 and 2022. Researchers at the Institute for the Study of Global Antisemitism and Policy (ISGAP) in a report released in June, though, found that this amount reflected only a small fraction of the money and services the university and its scholars had in fact received over that period. The most common channel for hard-to-track Qatari support for Yale came from individual research grants originating from the Qatar National Research Fund, and their report found 11 Yale-linked QNRF grants which came to at least $15,925,711.

Recent research from the Network Contagion Research Institute indicated that at least 200 American universities illegally withheld information about approximately $13 billion in Qatari contributions. Also, according to the report, from 2015 to 2020 institutions that accepted money from Middle Eastern donors had on average, 300 percent more antisemitic incidents than those institutions that did not.

Overall, the report found that “a massive influx of foreign, concealed donations to American institutions of higher learning, much of it from authoritarian regimes with notable support from Middle Eastern sources, reflects or supports heightened levels of intolerance towards Jews, open inquiry and free expression.”

Much of Doha’s engagement with the world is run out of the Qatar Meeting, Incentive, Conference and Exhibition (MICE) Development Institute (QMDI), which promotes Qatar as a good place for business. The annual Doha Forum gathers major policymakers from around the world.

Qatar’s influence-buying strategies are a textbook example of how to transform cash into “soft” power. The relationship between one of Washington, D.C.’s top think tanks and Qatar, for example, began in 2002, when the emirate underwrote a Doha conference featuring then Qatari Foreign Minister Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani and former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk, at the time the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings. (Hamad oversaw Qatar's $230 billion sovereign wealth fund until 2013.) In 2007, Brookings followed up by opening a centre on Doha.  It didn’t end well. In 2021 the institute ended its relationship with Qatar amidst an ongoing FBI investigation.

Still, Washington treads carefully when it comes to criticizing Qatar. It’s not just about money. After all, the Al-Udaid Air Base is home to the U.S. military’s Central Command (CENTCOM), and the country is just across the Persian Gulf from Iran. In fact, Washington’s relationship with Qatar is so close that in 2022 the White House officially designated the emirate a “major non-NATO ally.” The Qataris, realizing that their very existence would be threatened were the U.S. to relocate its CENTCOM operations to the UAE or Saudi Arabia, in January hastened to nail down the agreement for another decade.

Yoni Ben-Menachem, a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told the Jewish News Service (JNS) that the Gulf country is more dangerous than Hamas or Hezbollah since it is extraordinarily wealthy and thus in a position to influence U.S. administrations.

Qatar has for many years been involved in financing the campaigns of the Democratic Party, he claimed, “especially Hillary Clinton’s campaign” in 2016. He added that former U.S. President Bill Clinton is known to have flown to Qatar to bring back suitcases full of cash.

According to Jonathan Ruhe, director of foreign policy at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), Qatar has portrayed itself as “indispensable to U.S. interests in the Middle East, including negotiations with the Taliban, reconstruction aid for past Gaza conflicts, and building the massive Al-Udeid base for U.S. forces.” 

Yet although it hosts the Pentagon’s regional command, Qatar has long supported terrorism. For decades, it has opened its doors to Islamist terrorists, Taliban warlords and African insurgents. Doha housed the Taliban’s political office before that group returned to power in Afghanistan in 2021.

Beginning in 2012, the Israeli government allowed Qatar to deliver cash to Gaza. Over the next nine years, Qatar provided $1.5 billion. Prior to the outbreak of the present conflict, Doha subsidized Hamas to the tune of $360 million to $480 million a year. With one third of that money, Qatar bought Egyptian fuel that Cairo then shipped into Gaza, where Hamas sold it and pocketed its revenue. Another third went to impoverished Gazan families, while the last third paid the salaries of the Hamas bureaucracy.

The leaders of Hamas, including Khaled Mashaal and the late Ismail Haniyeh, who was chairman of the Hamas Political Bureau until assassinated by Israel in July, have been regular guests in Doha, living in luxury. (The emir sat in the front row with mourners during Haniyeh’s funeral in Doha.) Qatar has defended Hamas’s presence in the country.

“This was started to be used as a way of communicating and bringing peace and calm into the region, not to instigate any war,” Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani told U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken last October. “And this is the purpose of that office.” Blinken seemed to buy this. At a press conference in Doha in February, he asserted that “we’re very fortunate to have Qatar as a partner.”

As far back as 2007, when Hamas seized control of Gaza, Qatar recognized that “adopting” the group would be a worthwhile opportunity: connections with Hamas in Gaza grants Qatar influence and status in the Middle East and beyond. In addition, they bolster the popular Arab perception of Doha as working for the Palestinian cause. In 2012, the emir became the first head of state to visit Gaza, pledging $400 million to Hamas. At the same time, the Qataris became the exclusive mediators between Israel and Hamas.

The U.S. has accused the Qataris of harboring members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp (IRGC). But at the same time the Qataris are an important intermediary between America and Iran. Doha has enjoyed good relations with the Biden administration, which it helped in the American hasty withdrawal from Afghanistan three years ago.

While organized as a private company, the Al-Jazeera television network is the voice of Qatar’s regime. Founded in 1996 and financed by the then-emir of Qatar, it has described terrorist attacks that killed Israeli non-combatants as martyrdom operations and even posted articles describing Israel as “the Zionist entity.” For years, Al-Jazeera aired all of Osama bin Laden’s speeches. The late Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf Al-Qaradawi was based in Doha and for years hosted a prime-time program on the network. The war on Israel was declared on Al-Jazeera by Hamas military commander Muhammad Deif last October 7. Its operations in Israel were finally terminated by Jerusalem in May.

Qatar has been using the immense wealth it has accumulated to turn Al-Jazeera into an international media conglomerate, spreading Muslim Brotherhood propaganda, Hamas’ original sponsor, on a global scale. The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt in 1928 by the cleric Hassan al-Banna as a reaction to his perception that the Muslim world had become week in relation to the West. The royal family of Qatar has since been using the Muslim Brotherhood to minimize political opposition against them. In exchange for allowing the Brotherhood to use the country as a base for its international operations, the Brotherhood makes sure that there is no political threat based on organized religion against the Qatari monarchy.

A major shock to Qatar’s economy occurred when some Gulf Cooperation Council members -- Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates -- imposed an embargo on Qatar from 2017 to 2021. The reason for the embargo was Qatar’s support for the Brotherhood.

Qatar owns other news media that are equally awful. The London-based daily newspaper Al-Quds Al-Arabi in June published an article entitled “War Criminal Blinken Wages Diplomatic Campaign to Eliminate Palestinian Resistance and Buy Time for Israeli War in Gaza.”

Qatar is not a neutral agent, despite its attempts to portray itself as such. Time and again, it has supported the region’s most radical nations and paramilitaries, all to the detriment of American and Western interests. Its malign influence activities the United States reflect the broader issue of foreign manipulation in America’s political landscape.

“Qatar has been playing a dual role since the beginning of the Gaza war. On the one hand, it is a well-known supporter of Hamas, and even finances it with a lot of money, and on the other hand, it is trying to help in the deal for the release of the Israeli hostages,” remarked Dr. Udi Levy, a former senior official of Israel’s Mossad spy agency in April. But the U.S. relationship with Qatar will continue as long as the American government finds it useful in the on-again off-again negotiations to have Hamas release the remaining Israeli hostages.

 

Saturday, September 21, 2024

Britain’s Ethnic Conundrum

 By Henry Srebrnik, [Saint John, N.B.] Telegraph-Journal

The British riots that began in late July and lasted a week included arson, looting, and other violence. Over 1,000 arrests were made in relation to the unrest, and over 40 rioters have been imprisoned.

The disturbances reflected decades of pent-up public frustration with the country’s governing elite, particularly over mass immigration. They were a signal that their whole strategy of governing is beginning to break down. And that carries significant implications.

The hundreds of arrests and charges linked to the riots have shown the legal consequences of taking part, which is likely to make some people think again before joining a riot in future.

However, its supporters also view the state’s response as evidence of one of their central theses: that far-right activists are disproportionally targeted compared to people with different backgrounds and ideologies. This narrative is taking hold in many places, including on X – formerly Twitter – where billionaire owner Elon Musk has promoted it himself. “The U.K. is turning into a police state,” Musk posted Aug. 19.

Britain has been ruled for decades by a managerial elite who has attempted to manage immigration and the ethnic tensions it has brought with it via careful control of media and online information.

The country’s “Neighbourhood Policing” model makes state-managed avoidance of ethnic conflict the top priority of the police forces. This has gone together with so-called two-tier policing -- the authorities’ tendency to tread more lightly on crime and disorder when doing so might help to ease what are euphemistically called “community tensions.”

The recent trouble began after three young girls were stabbed to death July 29 as they took part in a Taylor Swift-themed dance party in Southport. In the immediate aftermath, locals were shocked, angry and looking for someone to blame.

The rioters, fuelled by false claims that the killer was a Muslim refugee, cheered when they injured police officers during the violence that followed. Clearly, the police have lost some public support. It soon spread to many other cities in England. Many of those involved described themselves as patriots who maintain that record levels of illegal and legal immigration are undermining British society. Hundreds have been appearing in court for their role.

Keir Starmer’s new Labour government reacted against those who continued to speak out on the issue. They were labelled as “racist,” “xenophobic,” or “far-right” and accused of spreading “misinformation” on “unregulated social media.”

Of course misinformation exists. But the country is sliding into state-led censorship. The new Online Safety Act contains a so-called “false communication offence” and it could serve as a censor’s charter because of its inclusion of the phrase “legal but harmful” to characterise certain content. Platforms will be required to scan even encrypted messages and use algorithms to see to it that no one sees disapproved political speech anymore.

A 55-year-old woman was arrested in Cheshire on suspicion of committing this offence and another one for spreading the rumour about the Southport killer being a Muslim. “Think before you post” is the government’s new mantra.

Cases like this will open a Pandora’s Box where censorship is concerned. Governments should not prohibit ideas, words or images that might offend.

British liberals, for whom mass migration is a moral cause, have also blamed Nigel Farage, leader of the populist Reform UK Party, as well as the media, the Conservative Party, and even Vladimir Putin, for the rioting. But this will hardly solve the deeper problems that are driving the nation further into chaos.

There is an actual term for the ongoing disorder: ethnic conflict, a term avoided by the British state for fear of its political implications. Hence, politicians refuse to talk about the issue at all, and place social sanctions on those who do.

Instead, ethnic groups are euphemistically termed “communities,” and the state-managed avoidance of ethnic conflict is termed “community relations.” But when the rioting is carried out by ethnic “whites” -- let’s call them British -- as in this case, the perception of an ethnic identity is actively guarded against as state policy. So political advocates of a British ethnic identity such as Farage are isolated from mainstream discourse.

The gaping hole in multicultural logic, that every group must think of itself and be treated in ethnic, racial or religious terms, except for the white majority, is being exploited by the right. Agitators have presented two-tier policing not as an affront to law and order and blind justice, but as an expression of “white male British victimhood.”

Reform UK’s entry to Parliament in the recent general election is understood by Farage’s voters and opponents alike as the success of a tacitly ethnic British party. He has promised to “change politics forever” after the party won more than four million votes, propelling them into Parliament for the first time. Reform UK won five seats in the House of Commons, with a 14.3 per cent share of the popular vote.

So occasional outbursts of ethnic violence, whether by the “British” (that is, indigenous whites) or by others, acting in their perceived communal interests, will become commonplace, as in other multi-ethnic plural states. To manage such conflicts, the state will become more coercive, as Starmer has already indicated. This is now Britain’s ethnic conundrum, and the future doesn’t look bright.