ReportWire

Tag: U.S. Foreign Relations

  • Debt ceiling blues. Find political experts on the debt negotiations and the presidential bids in the Politics channel

    Debt ceiling blues. Find political experts on the debt negotiations and the presidential bids in the Politics channel

    The House is on track Wednesday afternoon to begin considering a bipartisan plan to suspend the nation’s debt ceiling and limit spending, with the nation facing the risk of default if the debt ceiling is not raised by June 1st. The two parties remain deeply divided about how to rein in the federal deficit, with Democrats arguing wealthy Americans and businesses should pay more taxes while Republicans want spending cuts.

    More contenders enter the Republican presidential nominees’ list with Gov. DeSantis and Sen. Tom Scott declaring their bids to run. Do they have enough support to take on the front-runner, former President Donald Trump?

    Below are some of the latest expert pitches posted in the Politics channel.

    DeSantis to launch 2024 presidential campaign on Twitter, expert discusses implications for democracy

    -Virginia Tech

    GW Experts on Ron DeSantis Presidential Campaign Launch

    -George Washington University

    University of West Florida Expert Available to Interview on the Debt Ceiling

    -University of West Florida

    University of West Florida Expert Available to Discuss Gov. Ron DeSantis’ Looming Presidential Campaign

    -University of West Florida

    University at Albany Experts Available to Discuss U.S. Debt Ceiling Crisis

    -University at Albany, State University of New York

    GW Experts on Tim Scott 2024 Presidential Campaign

    -George Washington University

    Social media expert discusses consequences of changes for TikTok, Twitter

    -Virginia Tech

    University of West Florida professor available to interview about Gov. DeSantis’ potential run for President

    -University of West Florida

    Media Availability: Experts to Comment on New Hampshire’s First-in-the-Nation Primary Status

    -University of New Hampshire

    Looming debt ceiling deadline: Expert says economic impact could be significant if deal is not reached by June 1

    -Virginia Tech

    After Title 42: Limited Access to Asylum, Increased Discrimination, Rapid Deportation, predicts SMU Expert

    -Southern Methodist University

    Politics Experts in the Expert Directory 

    Yphtach Lelkes, PhD
    Associate Professor of Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, Annenberg School for Communication

    Yphtach (Yph) Lelkes’s interests lie at the intersection of political communication, public opinion, and political psychology.

    Jennifer   Chudy, PhD

    Jennifer Chudy, PhD
    Knafel Assistant Professor of Social Sciences; Assistant Professor of Political Science at Wellesley College

    Dr. Chudy focuses on White racial attitudes generally and the attitude of racial sympathy – defined as White distress over Black suffering – specifically.

    Adam   Cayton, Ph.D.

    Adam Cayton, PhD
    Associate Professor, Government Department at the University of West Florida

    Dr. Adam Cayton conducts research on representation in Congress, legislative institutions, campaign effects, institutional change, and other topics.

    Megan  Goldberg, Ph.D.

     Megan Goldberg, PhD
    Assistant Professor of American Politics at Cornell College

    Her work examines the dynamics of state politics in an increasingly nationalized context, studies how governors and state parties shift their rhetoric and ideologies towards elections, and how often governors use national politics to frame issues.

    Adam   Cayton, Ph.D.

    Neil O’Brian, PhD
    Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Oregon

    Neil can comment on public opinion and political participation in Oregon’s congressional and statewide races as well as national politics. His research agenda and expertise also include the partisan politics of abortion in the United States.

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    Immigration experts on Title 42, analysis of immigration policies, and other migrant news in the Immigration Channel

    Title 42, the United States pandemic rule that had been used to immediately deport hundreds of thousands of migrants who crossed the border illegally over the last three years, has expired. Those migrants will have the opportunity to apply for asylum. President Biden’s new rules to replace Title 42 are facing legal challenges. The US Homeland Security Department announced a rule to make it extremely difficult for anyone who travels through another country, like Mexico, to qualify for asylum. Border crossings have already risen sharply, as many migrants attempted to cross before the measure expired on Thursday night. Some have said they worry about tighter controls and uncertainty ahead. Immigration is once again a major focus of the media as we examine the humanitarian, political, and public health issues migrants must face. 

    Below are some of the latest headlines in the Immigration channel on Newswise.

    Expert Commentary

    Experts Available on Ending of Title 42

    George Washington University Experts on End of Title 42

    ‘No one wins when immigrants cannot readily access healthcare’

    URI professor discusses worsening child labor in the United States

    Biden ‘between a rock and a hard place’ on immigration

    University of Notre Dame Expert Available to Comment on House Bill Regarding Immigration Legislation, Border Safety and Security Act

    American University Experts Available to Discuss President Biden’s Visit to U.S.-Mexico Border

    Title 42 termination ‘overdue’, not ‘effective’ to manage migration

    Research and Features

    Study: Survey Methodology Should Be Calibrated to Account for Negative Attitudes About Immigrants and Asylum-Seekers

    A study analyses racial discrimination in job recruitment in Europe

    DACA has not had a negative impact on the U.S. job market

    ASBMB cautions against drastic immigration fee increases

    Study compares NGO communication around migration

    Collaboration, support structures needed to address ‘polycrisis’ in the Americas

    TTUHSC El Paso Faculty Teach Students While Caring for Migrants

    Immigrants Report Declining Alcohol Use during First Two Years after Arriving in U.S.

    How asylum seeker credibility is assessed by authorities

    Speeding up and simplifying immigration claims urgently needed to help with dire situation for migrants experiencing homelessness

    Training Individuals to Work in their Communities to Reduce Health Disparities

    ‘Regulation by reputation’: Rating program can help combat migrant abuse in the Gulf

    Migration of academics: Economic development does not necessarily lead to brain drain

    How has the COVID-19 pandemic affected immigration?

    Immigrants with Darker Skin Tones Perceive More Discrimination

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill Imperils HIV Fight

    Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill Imperils HIV Fight

    Newswise — [KAMPALA] Uganda’s anti-homosexuality bill, if signed into law, could lead to the withdrawal of foreign aid and threaten goals to end HIV/AIDS by 2030, advocates warn.

    Uganda’s parliament passed the revised Anti-Homosexuality Act (AHA), which criminalises homosexual conduct, with minimal amendments this week (2 May).

    The legislation was first passed at the end of March but revised in April after President Yoweri Museveni returned it to parliament for amendments.

    “If it becomes law, it will increase stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ people and men who have sex with men, further limiting prevention and treatment services.” – Richard Lusimbo, director-general, Uganda Key Populations Consortium

    The bill includes a punishment of life imprisonment for same-sex sexual conduct and up to ten years behind bars for attempted same-sex sexual acts. It also imposes the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality” and criminalises the “promotion” of homosexuality, which many people fear will encourage homophobia.

    UNAIDS had warned that passing the bill into law would jeopardise progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS and undermine fundamental human rights including the right to health and the right to life. 

    “Uganda’s new Anti-Homosexuality bill is an outrage,” said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of UNAIDS.

    “Access to timely and quality health care is a human right – sexual orientation should not determine one’s rights.”

    Anne Githuku-Shongwe, director of the UNAIDS support team for eastern and southern Africa, said Uganda had made “excellent progress” in tackling the AIDS pandemic. “This new bill, if passed into law, would undercut that progress,” she warned.

    Human rights ‘disaster’

    According to a study published in The Lancet, HIV prevalence is significantly higher among men who have sex with men (MSM) and in African countries with laws that criminalise same sex relationships.

    “If it becomes law, it will increase stigma and discrimination against LGBTQ [lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer] people and men who have sex with men, further limiting prevention and treatment services,” said Richard Lusimbo, director-general of Uganda Key Populations Consortium, a human rights organisation.

    Lusimbo explained that the bill, if passed into law, would be a disaster to the human rights of LGBTQ people, to public health and the fight against HIV/AIDS.

    The US government has threatened to withdraw funding for Uganda through its President’s Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) if the law is passed.

    “At this time, we are reviewing the possibility that the AHA, if signed, might prevent us from providing lifesaving prevention, care and treatment services equitably to all Ugandans receiving PEPFAR support,” said a US State Department spokesperson.

    PEPFAR’s annual HIV/AIDS response investment in Uganda is about US$400 million.

    Despite the pressure from the US and other governments, there is speculation that President Museveni will most likely sign the bill into law. However, the power of ascension of a bill does not lay primarily with the president.

    The Ugandan parliament can also pass the bill into law if the president does not assent to or veto a bill after it is passed by parliament within 30 days or if the bill is returned to parliament twice.

    In his speech on April 22, at conference themed ‘Protecting African culture and family values’, President Museveni thanked members of the Ugandan parliament for passing the bill.

    “It is good that you rejected the pressure from the imperialists,” he said, reflecting his support for what has been described by activists and advocates as a draconian law.

    The bill is setting the pace for other African nations as countries like Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana and others indicate readiness to introduce similar bills in solidarity with Uganda.

    Charles Brown, executive director of Preventive Care International (PCI), a Ugandan non-governmental organisation that focuses on HIV, says the bill is harsh and not well thought through. He fears it will further entrench inaccessibility of health services for people in same sex relationships.

    “Already, the landlady of one of my offices in western Uganda called me saying that she was told that our organisation promotes homosexuality and she is scared of being arrested,” Brown told SciDev.Net, fearing eviction.

    “We hope that the president doesn’t sign it into law,” he added.

    This piece was produced by SciDev.Net’s Sub-Saharan Africa English desk.

    SciDev.Net

    Source link

  • New Braintrust Seeks to Launch Era of North American Regional Competitiveness

    New Braintrust Seeks to Launch Era of North American Regional Competitiveness

    Newswise — Given the U.S.-China trade conflict and concerns over trade disruptions caused by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, regionalizing supply chains is at the center of the discussion in North America. Now, a new working group spearheaded by the University of California San Diego is using this opportunity to propose policy recommendations for the relocation of global production chains in North America where it’s economically advantageous.

    The working group is a partnership between Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies (USMEX) at UC San Diego’s School of Global Policy and Strategy, the George W. Bush Institute, Canada’s Future Borders Coalition and the Mexican Council on Foreign Relations.

    “U.S. and China decoupling has prompted renewed interest in integrated North American trade and investment as well as considerations of a broader economic community that could include Central American nations,” said Caroline Freund, dean of the School of Global Policy and Strategy and working group member. “Our group is poised to propose policy approaches to ensure that the current opportunities strengthen North American economic integration, boosting the productivity, prosperity and competitiveness of the U.S., Mexico, Canada and neighboring countries.”

    The group hopes U.S. economic leadership can launch a new era of North American competitiveness. They cite President Joe Biden’s two signature legislative accomplishments, the CHIPS and Science Act (CHIPS Act) and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which are aimed at strengthening the U.S. industrial base, particularly regarding the manufacturing of semiconductors, electric vehicles and products related to clean energy and the decarbonization of the U.S. economy.

    The consensus in Washington, D.C., that China represents a strategic rival to the U.S. also calls for exploration of stronger supply chains in North America, according to Rafael Fernández de Castro, director of the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies and member of the group’s steering committee.

    “These regional opportunities are rare events in a century — North America cannot waste this opportunity,” Fernández de Castro said. “Our working group is developing a road map so that nearshoring becomes a reality for the region.”

    The timing is bolstered by North American alliances. Both Canada and Mexico have proved their worth as essential partners for U.S. supply chains because of their geographical location as neighboring countries, reliability as partners, complementary economic strengths and the framework provided by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).

    Although Central America has a narrower industrial base, it also presents cost and access advantages that make it a strong potential link in North American supply chains.  

    Members of the working group have backgrounds in government, academia, non-governmental organizations and private sector. They include the former Deputy Prime Minister of Canada Anne McLellan, former Undersecretary of Foreign Trade in Mexico Juan Carlos Baker, as well individuals from the Mexican firm Deacero and Harvard Kennedy School.

    “We have assembled a fantastic brain trust led by three women with very distinguished careers in public service and think tanks in Canada, the U.S. and Mexico to chair the working group: Louise Blais of the Business Council in Canada, Luz María de la Mora of the Atlantic Council and Shannon K. O’Neil of the Council on Foreign Relations,” said Cecilia Farfán-Méndez, head of research at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies and steering committee member. “Under their leadership, we are convinced the group will produce clear, implementable recommendations for the benefit of the North American region.”

    The working group will meet virtually during 2023 and will issue a series of policy recommendations in early 2024 — a key year for North America, since both Mexico and the U.S. will hold presidential elections.

    For information on the working group, go to this website.

    University of California San Diego

    Source link

  • After one year of war, how to break the stalemate in Ukraine?

    After one year of war, how to break the stalemate in Ukraine?

    February 24 will mark one year since Russian tanks rolled over the border into Ukraine. As it stands there is still no end in sight and the U.S. is facing increasing pressure to provide military aid in the form of high tech equipment such as F-16 fighters and M1 Abrams tanks.

    David Silbey is an associate professor of history at Cornell University where he specializes in military history, defense policy and battlefield analysis. He says the war in Ukraine is starting to resemble the kind of proxy conflicts we saw during the Cold War.

    Silbey says:

    “The United States is gaining a substantial geopolitical advantage at low cost to itself while the Russians are bleeding themselves dry against a defiant enemy.  

    “For 2023, I wouldn’t be surprised if the U.S. eventually sends fighter jets, though like tanks, it’s going to take them a while to get there and then train Ukrainians on them. They would be a substantial military help but also a challenging logistics burden for Ukraine.

    “I seriously doubt American forces will get sent to Ukraine. I suspect there may already be U.S. special forces in-country, (though I have no evidence). It would escalate the war massively if regular troops were sent in, which is something the U.S. doesn’t need to do at the moment.”

    Cristina Florea is an assistant professor and historian of Central and Eastern Europe.

    She says the Russian-Ukrainian war has become a war of attrition, where a Ukrainian victory is far from guaranteed.

    Florea says:

    “Despite Ukrainians’ unwavering will to fight, the fact of the matter remains that over one fifth of Ukraine’s territory is currently in Russian hands. What worries me is that after one year of fighting, the conflict will gradually recede into the background, and concern will give way to complacency.

     “The war’s end will be decided on the battlefield. Since there are no signs that Russian support for the war is any weaker today, it is imperative that the U.S. and NATO throw their weight fully behind Ukraine. Halfway measures will simply prolong the conflict and put Ukraine at risk of running out of military equipment before Russia does.”

     

    Cornell University has dedicated television and audio studios available for media interviews.

    -30-

    Cornell University

    Source link

  • State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    State of the Union Coverage: Experts Available

    Rutgers University–New Brunswick faculty experts are available before, during and after President Biden’s State of the Union address on Feb. 7. For interviews, please reach out to the listed contacts.

    David Greenberg, @republicofspin

    Expert on U.S. political and cultural history, including the presidency, campaigns and elections, political parties, political ideas, public policy, and a contributing editor to Politico. Greenberg can discuss past States of the Union, presidential history and rhetoric, and the impact Biden’s speech may have on current divisions in the United States. Professor of history and of journalism and media Studies.

    Ross Baker, @Rosbake1

    Expert in U.S. government, legislative politics, Congressional issues and the presidency. Baker can discuss coronavirus relief, bipartisanship and polarization in the House and Senate, and passing legislation. Distinguished Professor in political science.

    John J. Farmer, Jr.

    Expert on U.S. politics, redistricting, law, security and community protection for vulnerable populations. Farmer can discuss the U.S. Capitol riots, national security and how President Biden is working to bridge the partisan divide. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers’ Miller Center for Community Protection and Resilience, and University professor of law.

    Ashley Koning, @AshleyAKoning

    Expert on U.S. public opinion, survey design, polling trends and mass political behavior. Koning can discuss President Biden’s approval rating and public opinion on COVID-19, the vaccination rollout and coronavirus relief, and the national political dynamic and polarization. Director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Center for Public Polling and Eagleton assistant research professor.

    Saladin Ambar, @dinambar

    Expert on race and U.S. politics, the president and American governors. Eagleton associate professor of political science, senior scholar at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    John Weingart

    Expert on U.S. politics and government, including history of relevant past elections, and the administrative functioning and inclusion of the public in government operations. Associate director of Rutgers’ Eagleton Institute of Politics and director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Kristoffer Shields

    Shields researches and analyzes the office of the governor in a national context. He is an Eagleton Assistant Research Professor and Historian at the Eagleton Center on the American Governor.

    Debbie Walsh, @DebbieWalsh58 Expert on the modern history of women in politics, progress in political representation, women and the political parties, and campaign messaging for women candidates. Director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Jean Sinzdak Expert on milestones in women’s political history, candidate recruitment and training, and state legislatures. Associate director of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kelly Dittmar, @kdittmar Expert on gender and campaigning, women and institutions of government, current data and analysis on women’s representation, and women voters. Director of Research and Scholar of the Center for American Women and Politics, a unit of the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers.

    Kira Sanbonmatsu Sanbonmatsu’s research interests include gender, race/ethnicity, parties, public opinion, and state politics. Professor of political science and senior scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics.

    Rutgers University-New Brunswick

    Source link

  • GW Expert Available to Discuss Summit of North American Leaders

    GW Expert Available to Discuss Summit of North American Leaders

    WASHINGTON (Jan. 11, 2023)— Two days of talks between the leaders of North America in Mexico ended on a positive note during the meeting of President Joe Biden and Mexico President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. Two years ago President López  Obrador was seen as having a distant relationship with the new elected American president, but the leaders found common ground on migration, economic integration, and fentanyl interdiction. López Obrador, who is known for being recalcitrant, ended their meetings with nothing but praise for Biden, particularly on issues surrounding migration across the border separating their countries.

    Susan Ariel Aaronson is research professor of International Affairs and Director of the Digital Trade and Data Governance Hub which aims to educate policymakers, the press and the public about domestic and international data governance issues. She is available to discuss the trade or human rights policies discussed at the summit. 

     

    George Washington University

    Source link

  • Chinese Communist Party zero-covid “volunteers” have suffered from stress and anxiety, study shows

    Chinese Communist Party zero-covid “volunteers” have suffered from stress and anxiety, study shows

    Newswise — “Volunteers” tasked with enforcing the Chinese Communist Party’s zero-covid policies have suffered from stress and anxiety, a new study shows.

    Having to act as a “buffers” between disgruntled citizens and the Party’s image has led to “grassroots fatigue”, high workloads and people being put under intense pressure, researchers have found.

    These members of residents committees are responsible for monitoring and tracing sick residents and enforcing quarantines, as well as administering vaccines and achieving centrally set vaccination targets.

    Academics conducted 37 semi-structured interviews during summer 2021 in eight Shanghai estates in three districts. This included secretaries and directors from residents committees, government officials, representatives from property management companies and people who worked in party-community and social centres, as well as social workers, volunteers and residents.

    They found an increasingly pressurized grassroots infrastructure, then exhausted after 18 months of mobilizational governance, in which party secretaries are required to shoulder ever greater workloads and manage increasingly hierarchical chains of command.

    At the pandemic’s height, government officials were also sent into communities to assist with grassroots COVID management. In the second phase they went door-to-door providing information about the vaccine, alongside working in their usual party jobs. They were expected to do this voluntary work. One party worker described the work as ‘voluntary’, but when asked if she could choose not to go, she replied, ‘it seems like we cannot”.

    One residents committee secretary told researchers: “Now it seems like the public is forcing Party members onto the moral high ground in all issues. It feels like, if you are a Party member, you have to do this. If you don’t, you will be ashamed of your title of Party member.”

    The research, by Dr Catherine Owen from the University of Exeter and Xuan Qin from Fudan University, is published in the Journal of Chinese Political Science.

    Dr Owen said: “Since Spring 2022, when Chinese citizens have become increasingly dissatisfied with the on-going commitment to zero-COVID, the high costs of resource mobilisation and the hierarchical chain of command have resulted in intensified workloads and intense pressure on local cadres, leading to grassroots fatigue.

    “Following the emergence of Omicron and the hike in public dissatisfaction with the on-going lock-down policies it was the grassroots cadres that filtered out public discontents, protecting the Party’s overall image.”

    Another residents committee secretary said: “Now the secretary and the director are under too much pressure. It’s just hard work, and the psychological pressure is too great. We have indicators for every job, including vaccination, and every residential area has a ranking every day. I’m too anxious to sleep at night. Because the city has indicators for the district, the district has indicators for the streets, and the streets have indicators for the residential areas, it is very anxiety-inducing”.

    Researchers found tensions were created because higher-level authorities have asked for compulsory enforcement of policies at grassroot levels, but citizens are not formally required to comply. Local volunteers were told to meet vaccination targets, but mandatory vaccination was prohibited. This put the grassroots cadres in the impossible position of having to meet rigid targets without the authority to enforce the policy.

    Dr Owen said: “Leeway for street-level bureaucrats to adapt or customise decisions from above during periods of campaign governance is very limited. The tension between the requirement for comprehensive compliance and the basic need for personal freedom is a result of top-level design, but it is experienced and negotiated at the grassroots level.”

    University of Exeter

    Source link

  • Contemporary Japanese politics and anxiety over governance

    Contemporary Japanese politics and anxiety over governance

    Newswise — Chapters start by revealing the declining impacts of social capital on politics, the shrinking range of political parties from which to choose, and the mixing of Asian values with liberal democratic values. Then, by conceptualizing and empirically examining anxiety over governance, i.e., the perception of excessive risk for future governance, Ikeda explores the links of anxiety to Japanese political behavior. While the high regard for democratic politics lowers anxiety among the Japanese, the changes in Japanese political behavior/environment and culture contribute to a generally high level of anxiety, which also had a significant negative impact on the evaluation of countermeasures against COVID-19.

    Chapter 1 captures the changes in Japanese political behavior in the 21st century by contrasting social capital and political actors as determinants. A gradual decline in social capital and weakening of the ties with political actors occurred. By examining the elections from 1983 to 2019, especially the 2009 election that switched power from the long-dominant Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) to the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ), Chapter 1 shows that the transition of power to the DPJ in the 2009 election was not supported by the social capital of civil society, but rather by perceptions regarding the political actors. The DPJ administration ended along with a decline in their reputation, whereas what is visible in the LDP administration after regaining power is a decline in the prospective expectations on the administration. 

    Chapter 2 examines the changes that have occurred in micro-level vote choice and macro-level meaningfulness since 1996 when voters became entitled to cast two votes in every national election in both Houses. Voting behavior is a choice for a set of alternatives, i.e., a set of political parties, but voters do not vote from the full range of the set as available choices; rather, they vote from a limited set of parties. On the other hand, the set of possible party choices defines the sense of meaningfulness that voting brings, i.e., the subjective empowerment on national politics. In fact, voters’ perceived set of party choices fluctuated in multiple LDP- and DPJ-centered clusters, and vote choices were basically distributed among possible choice sets of parties in each cluster. The LDP-centered clusters were consistently stable in determining vote choice, while the DPJ-centered clusters were less stable, and vote choice for the DPJ was rather heavily dependent on selective cues provided by its political actors. After the collapse of the DPJ administration, the perceived set of possible political parties to choose from has been greatly reduced to for or against LDP-centered clusters, along with the sense of empowerment.

    Chapter 3 examines whether the Japanese are unique in Asia and the world (which is often claimed) and whether such uniqueness is linked to the Japanese people’s social capital and their support for democracy, using extensive international comparative data from the Asian Barometer and World Values Surveys over a 20-year period. Although the Japanese are outliers in the Asian value system, which consists of the two dimensions of “vertical emphasis” and “harmony orientation,” in that the Japanese are weak in these characteristics, Japan is not uniquely positioned on the cultural map of the world. Nevertheless, Japanese people’s attitudes and actions are influenced by Asian values in terms of general trust and political participation, which are formed through social interactions with others, whereas this is not the case in terms of support for liberal democracy, which is enculturated by the post-war formal education. Overall, the Japanese may not necessarily be capable of making political and social decisions in a value-consistent manner, which may have a negative impact on the operation of the process of politics.

    Chapter 4 examines Japanese idiosyncrasy in their perception of social and national risk. In the World Values Survey, the degree of anxiety about future unemployment, education, and possible involvement in war, terrorism, and civil war perceived by the Japanese is considerably higher than objective indicators, demonstrating excessive risk perception, termed the “anxiety over governance index.” It was presumed that this excessiveness comes from Japanese people’s sense of worry over the future governance of their country. Analyses confirmed the excessive level of risk perception among the Japanese and revealed that this perception was reduced when the country was perceived to be democratically governed, i.e., the index was precisely related to perceptions of governance. Finally, anxiety over governance was more conceptually sophisticated as a pair conception, i.e., political distrust and anxiety over governance expressing diffuse negative evaluations of the past and the future, respectively.

    Chapter 5 explores the structure of Japanese anxiety over governance in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite Japan’s relatively good control during its first wave, an international comparative survey demonstrated that not only was there an overperception of risk, but the intensity of fear (risk perception) was positively correlated with a low evaluation of government handling ability, especially among the Japanese, which is consistent with Chapter 4. An Internet survey on the first general election of the Kishida administration in October 2021 revealed that Japanese excessive risk perception corresponded to the newly constructed direct measure of anxiety over governance, indicating that it was indeed anxiety about the future direction of Japanese politics and political dysfunction. Anxiety was reduced by perceptions of Japan’s degree of democracy, while its high level was explained by the cumulative negative effects of factors such as nonfunctioning social capital, reduced party choice, and inconsistent values.

    Chapter 6 examines a possible countervailing approach from citizens’ perspectives using an analysis of the 2021 election. While criticizing the government in the face of anxiety over governance, many Japanese are less involved in politics, even when confronted with the pandemic. However, the analyses indicated possible pathways for the Japanese to engage in politics, starting with protecting their everyday lives. The book closes by arguing that such grassroots movements are one way to reduce Japanese people’s anxiety over governance.


    [Book URL] http://www.routledge.com/9781032159331

    [About the author] Dr. Ken’ichi Ikeda is a professor in the Department of Media Studies at Doshisha University, Kyoto, Japan since April 2013, after 21 years of teaching at the University of Tokyo. He has been involved in many national/international survey research as the Principal Investigator of Japan, such as Japanese Election Study, World Values Survey, Asian Barometer, and Comparative Study on Electoral Systems(CSES).

    Doshisha University

    Source link

  • There’s no evidence that U.S. aid money sent to Ukraine was then used to invest in FTX as a money laundering scheme

    There’s no evidence that U.S. aid money sent to Ukraine was then used to invest in FTX as a money laundering scheme

    The news that FTX, the cryptocurrency company, filed for bankruptcy protection amid news it was short billions of dollars has spawned many conspiracy theories being shared on social media. Viral tweets like this one posted on November 13th claim that U.S. aid to Ukraine was laundered back to the Democratic Party through the failed cryptocurrency exchange firm FTX. An article in the conservative site The Gateway Pundit with the headline “Tens of Billions of US Dollars Were Transferred to Ukraine and then Using FTX Crypto Currency the Funds Were Laundered Back to Democrats in US” was shared widely on social media. There is no evidence to support this claim. The Ukrainian government has not invested nor stored money in FTX, according to the country’s Ministry of Digital Transformation. The claim has been rated False.

    Dr. Nigel Williams, a Reader in Project Management at the University of Portsmouth has this to say…

    The collapse of FTX was catalyzed by a tweet on Sunday, November 6th, by the CEO of Binance, Changpeng Zhao: 

    As part of Binance’s exit from FTX equity last year, Binance received roughly $2.1 billion USD equivalent in cash (BUSD and FTT). Due to recent revelations that have came to light, we have decided to liquidate any remaining FTT on our books. 1/4

    Before this date, however, FTX’s actions were heavily scrutinized by conservative commentators on Twitter despite the fact that FTX donated to both political parties. Even before the collapse, efforts were made to link FTX’s actions to the Democratic Party. For example, on November 4th, Wayne Vaughan, CEO of Tieron tweeted, “Sam [Sam Bankman-Fried. former CEO of FTX] is one of the largest Democrat donors. It’s logical that he’d want to get the bill done before Republicans take control of Congress.”

    On November 8, when it became clear that FTX was floundering, commentators attempted to blame the company’s troubles on their political involvement (example here).  While the results were being tallied, early conspiracy theories emerged (example here). These theories later evolved into the story that now links FTX, the Democrats, and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine when it became clear that the Democratic party performed better than the previous media narrative would suggest.

    While FTX’s bankruptcy has begun to offer insights into possible gaps in financial controls that resulted in their collapse, the full story will not be known until detailed audits are completed. To date, the promoters of the FTX/Ukraine/Democrat narrative have not offered any supporting evidence for their theory.  This is, of course easily explained by these promoters who claim that there is a cover-up and no evidence would be available. 

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Case study proposes framework for analyzing U.S.-China geo-political tensions in Indo-Pacific

    Case study proposes framework for analyzing U.S.-China geo-political tensions in Indo-Pacific

    Newswise — Social sciences and international relations experts at Hiroshima University in Japan have proposed a new framework for studying the immensely complex power dynamics between China and the U.S., and its allies bordering the Pacific Ocean – “hybrid balancing.” The concept evolved out of “hybrid warfare,” which was an outgrowth of the Cold War between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, when war became more about public perception, trust in governments, and economic leverage than bullets and tanks.

    Since then, and especially since the invasion of Crimea by the Russian Federation in March 2014, hybrid warfare has been popularized to the extent that the concept has become a cornerstone of security studies worldwide, according to Assistant Professor Ryuta Ito of the Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, who wrote and published the case study in peer-reviewed journal International Affairs in early November 2022.

    “Hybrid warfare has recently attracted scholarly attention,” Ito said. “Despite its importance, hybrid warfare research remains underdeveloped, as it sometimes falls into the trap of ‘simplistic hypothesis testing’, which focuses on narrowly defined military factors while downplaying the fundamentals of international politics (e.g. balancing and diplomacy). My recent article fills this gap by constructing a new theoretical concept called ‘hybrid balancing’ by introducing the essence of hybrid warfare into classical realism, based on the scientific realism in the philosophy of science as a meta-theoretical foundation.”

    Political scientists and international relations academics and analysts hope to better understand how China uses its vast social and economic influence across the Indo-Pacific region to maintain favorable trade conditions while also seeking to quell the proliferation of liberal Western cultural ideals. Geographically, the Indo-Pacific region extends from the Indian Ocean to the Pacific Ocean (especially the western Pacific): namely, from the eastern coast of Africa and the environs of Madagascar, through the waters around the Philippines and Indonesia between the two oceans, to the eastern edge of Oceania, Ito wrote in the case study. “Politically, since 2010, it has gradually established itself as a strategic concept in the foreign policy lexicon of some countries, particularly Australia, India, Japan, and the United States.”

    “Rather than being a new form of conflict, hybrid warfare is a strategy that the belligerent uses to advance its political goals on the battlefield by applying military force subversively,” Ito wrote, referencing a 2016 paper in International Affairs.

    The interest and urgency surrounding the study of hybrid warfare are growing in part because of the conflict between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. “As has been widely reported, the war in Ukraine has the potential to demonstrate costs and consequences of a powerful nation attempting to overtake a smaller, yet highly productive and resource-rich state such as Taiwan,” Ito said. “In the case of China and Taiwan, the stakes in an all-out military conflict would be on the orders of magnitude greater than what we’re seeing in Ukraine, so a conventional war is virtually unthinkable. However, hybrid balancing as I’ve described better encapsulates the ebb and flow of power in the Indo-Pacific.”

    What has emerged in the past decade in response to China’s hybrid balancing posturing is the “Free and Open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) Coalition,” which includes pro-democracy nations across the Indo-Pacific and led by economic heavyweights U.S., Japan, and Australia.

    “It is apparent to us that China is engaging in hybrid balancing in this region to counter the liberal democratic coalition advancing the FOIP strategy,” Ito said. “Further study is warranted as tensions across this economically crucial region continue to grow. Cases other than China’s use of hybrid warfare in the Indo-Pacific are needed to verify hybrid balancing more robustly. Since our article’s case-study is a plausibility probe, which aims not to test a theory but merely to illustrate it to show that the argument is sufficiently grounded in evidence to justify further research, the next step may be rigorous case-studies to confirm the logic of hybrid balancing.”

    ###

    About Hiroshima University

    Since its foundation in 1949, Hiroshima University has striven to become one of the most prominent and comprehensive universities in Japan for the promotion and development of scholarship and education. Consisting of 12 schools for undergraduate level and 4 graduate schools, ranging from natural sciences to humanities and social sciences, the university has grown into one of the most distinguished comprehensive research universities in Japan.
    English website: https://www.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/en

    Hiroshima University

    Source link

  • Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    Herschel Walker’s claim on how China’s “bad air” would move over to America is grossly inaccurate

    At a campaign event in Georgia, Herschel Walker, the former NFL star who is running for Senate and endorsed by President Trump, shared his thoughts on the “Green New Deal” and efforts to curb climate change with government policy. Walker suggested that U.S. climate efforts were pointless because “China’s bad air” would simply move over into American “air space.” 

    “We in America have some of the cleanest air and cleanest water of anybody in the world,” Walker begins at about the 24 mark in the video of his speech. Under the Green New Deal, he said, the U.S would spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up. … Since we don’t control the air, our good air decided to float over to China’s bad air so when China gets our good air, their bad air got to move. So it moves over to our good air space. Then now we got to clean that back up, while they’re messing ours up.”

    “So what we’re doing is just spending money,” he continued. “Until these other countries can get on board and clean what they got up, it ain’t going to help us to start cleaning our stuff up. We’re already doing it the right way.”

    We find nearly every aspect of this claim to be completely inaccurate. Walker’s description of how air circulates around the world is not correct, nor is the simplification of his assessment of “clean air” and “bad air.” The United States does not actively “clean” air now or under the proposed “Green New Deal.” The “Green New Deal” is a nonbinding resolution introduced in Congress in 2019 that lays out a broad vision for how the country might tackle climate change over the next decade in order to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. It didn’t pass the Senate vote. The Green New Deal does not address traditional air pollutants nor does it propose to spend “millions of billions of dollars cleaning our good air up.” Facts on the “Green Neal Deal” can be read here.

    “Bad” air does not take over “good” air or vice versa. Yes, some forms of air pollution can travel to other places. Near-surface pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, can be lofted to high altitudes where strong winds can transport high concentrations across oceans to other continents. However, greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, are responsible for climate change. These greenhouse gasses accumulate in the Earth’s atmosphere on a global scale as a result of human activity, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, which traps heat and warms the entire planet. Also, to suggest curbing pollutants from its local source is pointless because some other locality’s pollutants will take over is missing the point. These harmful air pollutants affect local residents the most. Read more about the harmful effects of air pollution here, here and here

    As reported by Jessica McDonald at Factcheck.org

    “Each of these gases can remain in the atmosphere for different amounts of time, ranging from a few years to thousands of years,” the Environmental Protection Agency has explained. “All of these gases remain in the atmosphere long enough to become well mixed, meaning that the amount that is measured in the atmosphere is roughly the same all over the world, regardless of the source of the emissions.”

    “There can be enhanced concentrations near point sources and urban areas, but the levels of atmospheric CO2 over the US aren’t drastically different than over China,” Davis said in an email, referring to carbon dioxide. He noted that in April 2020, carbon dioxide levels over China and the U.S were within three to four parts per million of each other.

    In other words, there is no American “good air” or Chinese “bad air.” When it comes to greenhouse gases, everyone ultimately shares the “air” — and the concentration of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere is increasing. This is raising the global average temperature, which is also causing other effects, such as sea level rise, ice melt and more extreme weather.

     

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Relief from high gas prices is not likely to come from more drilling, as many politicians are demanding

    Relief from high gas prices is not likely to come from more drilling, as many politicians are demanding

    U.S. consumer prices were 9.1 percent higher in June than a year earlier, the biggest annual increase in four decades. Gasoline prices are one of the major factors, as the price of gas affects commuters, the delivery of food and other goods, as well as those aching to travel this summer. The good news is that the price of gas has fallen in recent weeks by about 40 cents per gallon, the longest decline since the collapse in energy demand in early 2020, when the pandemic kept many consumers at home. Nevertheless, gas is still averaging about $4.57 per gallon (as of July 15) according to AAA. That’s a pretty steep leap up from the average of $3.15 per gallon we were paying last year. 

    So of course, gas prices and domestic energy production have become a political tool that Republicans use to condemn the policies of the Biden administration. On July 14, Ohio Republican congressman Jim Jordan tweeted, “Inflation isn’t getting better until gas prices go down. And how do you get gas prices down? Drill DOMESTICALLY. Sadly, Joe Biden and the Democrats refuse to.” The tweet was shared by thousands.

    We rate this claim as mostly false due to its inaccuracy. Policies and decisions by the Biden administration have nothing to do with the current price of gasoline. The one-two punch of recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic followed by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is the reason for the high gas prices. The price of crude oil, which is a major factor in the price of domestic fuel, is controlled by the supply and demand of oil globally. According to the American Petroleum Institute (API), the main factors impacting gasoline prices are the cost of global crude oil (61 percent), refining costs (14 percent), distribution and marketing costs (11 percent) and federal and state taxes (14 percent). In other words, when the price of a barrel of crude oil rises in the global market, we see an eventual rise in the price of gas domestically. 

     As reported by Maria Azzurra Volpe in Newsweek back in May…

    There’s no specific body or policy that regulates the oil and gas industry in the U.S. but federal, state and local governments each regulate various aspects of oil and gas operations. Who regulates what mostly depends on land ownership and whether the territory is covered by federal regulations or state laws.

    In general, according to research by the American Geosciences Institute (AGI), most drilling and production is regulated by state laws, while federal regulations mostly safeguard water and air quality, worker safety, and exploration and production on Native American and federal lands.

    In addition, there isn’t much a sitting U.S. President can do to get more oil from U.S. producers. Brittany Cronin of NPR has written an excellent article explaining how difficult it would be for U.S. producers to drill for more oil.

    U.S. crude production currently stands at 11.6 million barrels per day, according to the latest data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That’s below March 2020 levels, when the country was producing 13 million barrels per day of crude oil.

    Farzin Mou, vice president of intelligence at Enverus, an energy analytics company, warns that boosting supply was not easy even before the coronavirus pandemic wreaked havoc on the supply chain.

    “The point from which you drill a rig to the point that you can turn it online, it takes about six to eight months typically,” she said.

    Now add in the difficulties that oil producers are facing to procure materials like sand and steel, and it becomes clearer that producers are unlikely to provide a quick fix to current gas prices.

    In an analysis published Washington Post in March, Glenn Kessler answers the question, “Can the U.S. truly change oil prices by encouraging more drilling and allowing pipelines?”

    Not really. The United States in 2020 was the biggest oil producer in the world and also the biggest consumer — but it is just one player in a global oil market. (“Oil” includes crude oil, all other petroleum liquids, and biofuels.) Much of what happens in the market is beyond the government’s control.

    In 2021, the United States slipped to third place in oil production, behind Russia and Saudi Arabia. That’s mainly because large shale companies committed to Wall Street that they would continue to limit production and return more cash to shareholders — “an effort to win back investors who fled the industry after years of poor returns,” according to the Wall Street Journal. Scott Sheffield, chief executive of Pioneer Natural Resources, told investors in February: “$100 oil, $150 oil, we’re not going to change our growth rate.”

    Newswise

    Source link

  • Abe assassination is a rare act of gun violence in Japan

    Abe assassination is a rare act of gun violence in Japan

    Following the horrific mass shootings in the United States, social media is rife with discussions on gun laws and regulations. Friday morning’s news of the assassination of former Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe by a gunman has brought the issue of strict laws on gun ownership to light. How could this happen in a country with only one firearm-related death in all of 2021? Since 2017, there have been 14 gun-related deaths in Japan, a remarkably low figure for a country of 125 million people. Compare that to the 45,222 people who died from gun-related injuries in the U.S. in just one year (2021).1

    Republican Congressional candidate Lavern Spicer has chimed in on this shocking assassination by tweeting, “How did Shinzo Abe get assassinated when guns are banned in Japan? Liberals, care to explain?” Her tweet was shared by thousands. We find this claim to be misleading and inaccurate.

    Firstly, guns are not banned in Japan but are regulated by very strict gun ownership laws. 

    This backgrounder by the Council on Foreign Relations explains how guns are regulated in Japan…

    Gun control advocates regularly cite Japan’s highly restrictive firearm regulations in tandem with its extraordinarily low gun death rate. Most years, fewer than one hundred Japanese die from gun violence in a country of 125 million people. Most guns are illegal in the country and ownership rates, which are quite low, reflect this.

    Under Japan’s firearm and sword law [PDF], the only guns permitted are shotguns, air guns, guns with specific research or industrial purposes, or those used for competitions. However, before access to these specialty weapons is granted, one must obtain formal instruction and pass a battery of written, mental, and drug tests and a rigorous background check. Furthermore, owners must inform the authorities of how their weapons and ammunition are stored and provide their firearms for annual inspection.

    Some analysts link Japan’s aversion to firearms with its demilitarization in the aftermath of World War II. Others say that because the overall crime rate in the country is so low, most Japanese see no need for firearms.

    Secondly, by asking “liberals” to explain, Spicer is suggesting that gun laws don’t prevent gun violence, since those who identify with “liberal” political beliefs tend to support stricter gun control measures. However, the simple fact that this act of violence is so rare in Japan supports the idea that gun control in Japan is working. Yes, culture is one reason for the low rate, but gun regulation is a major one, too. The result is a situation where citizens and police seldom use guns. The fact that the shooter of Shinzo Abe most likely used a “homemade gun”2 to get past laws restricting the sales of firearms and ammunition, proves that guns are harder to obtain in Japan. 

    According to a recently published article on Vox, gun regulations in other countries reflect a significant difference in recorded instances of gun violence. 

    No other high-income country has suffered such a high death toll from gun violence. Every day, more than 110 Americans die at the end of a gun, including suicides and homicides, an average of 40,620 per year. Since 2009, there has been an annual average of 19 mass shootings, when defined as shootings in which at least four people are killed. The US gun homicide rate is as much as 26 times that of other high-income countries; its gun suicide rate is nearly 12 times higher.

    The following excerpt published in The Guardian by reporters Cait Kelly and Justin McCurry compares gun violence in U.S. and Japan and other high-income countries.

    A 2022 report from the University of Washington revealed that, while the US had more than four firearm homicides per 100,000 people in 2019, Japan had almost zero. Comparing high-income countries in the World Bank with the rate of firearm homicide per 100,000 people, the US had 4.2, Australia had 0.18 and Japan 0.02, the report found.

    In 2013, the country hit a record high for gun crime, with 40 criminal cases of guns being fired, but it has followed a downward trend since.

    There are also strict laws about how many gun shops are allowed to open – in most of the countries’ 47 prefectures, a total of three gun shops can operate in each prefecture.

     

    https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/03/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-u-s/

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/07/08/japan-shinzo-abe-shooting-gun-laws/

    Newswise

    Source link