ovid-19 is really only consolidating what has been the reality since 9/11. The question remains—can we reverse it or will we simply accept the wall as this generation’s defining structure?
Elections in the U.S., UK and Brexit were not the start of the creation of walls or the exiting multilateral arrangements. In the 2010s, the number of physical walls in the post-9/11 era increased from 15 to 70 by 2015, totaling 30,000 kilometers. Mangled responses towards immigrants and the blaming of “the other” in our societies have taken a strong hold and looks unfortunately to be bolstering the case for walls. It makes for good politics.
While the wall between the United States and Mexico has stalled, it reveals a psyche that is defining this century—fear is being stoked, increasing polarization, leading to a “me” society as opposed to a “we” society.
(Even) less connected, (even) more polarized
The likelihood of individual nation states “becoming more self-sufficient” are real. The long-term orientation of many states will be tested in the face of elections and the strong desire (usually with the accompanying results) of blaming an “other”. China will become the world’s scapegoat in the coming months. Short-term consequences may include:
• Reconsidering China as a supply chain source and potentially a dramatic reduction of items produced there for “national security” reasons (i.e. medicine, technology);
• Reaching into the realm of the private citizen through increased surveillance;
• Relaxing of environmental regulations, not just in the U.S., but in its competitors (the so-called “race to the bottom” of regulation);
• Reducing the pace of climate change mitigation policy and funding measures.
Points two and three are happening. While these may just be short-term, history tells us that these temporary measures rarely have sunset clauses or are properly reversed. The last consequence is the most crucial. If the much-needed efforts around climate change are reduced or stop while the meteorological impacts continue to be felt, the human and financial toll will be enormous.
The EU will continue to focus on addressing climate change and many cities and regions, with progressive leadership, such as California and New York, also continuing their efforts. However, the lack of federal government tailwind will make it tougher. All of the efforts for low-fuel standards in California will mean little if the auto industry starts creating larger, more polluting cars. Or if a mid-western U.S. state doubles down on coal.
Walls, not bridges. Debate, not dialogue.
With Trump’s wall came a flurry of criticism about the problematic nature of walls. As UC Berkeley’s Michael Dear has reiterated and proven—they simply don’t work.
However, the alternative structure, the bridge, has failed to take root. The end of the Cold War did bring the bridge to the forefront, but since then it has been dismantled bit by bit. The defining structure of this generation will be the wall and part of the reason is that we are programmed almost from infancy for debate, not dialogue.
Debate rules our world, starting in high school, university clubs and classes to the corridors of political power, in which winning is the only option. Six-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Steinar Bryn sums up the differences between debate and dialogue:
• Debate’s goal is to win, while dialogue is to understand.
• Debate is about persuading, dialogue is about explaining.
• Debate is about arguing, dialogue is about listening.
• In debate, to change your opinion is a sign of weakness, while in dialogue it is a sign of maturity.
For bridges to be built, dialogue needs to take root. The world’s entire education and political system needs a massive push towards dialogue, otherwise we can forget about our collective challenges—massive inequality, dramatic poverty, embarrassingly high homelessness, tackling technology’s negative impacts, and of course the largest elephant in the room—climate change.
To build a bridge, you need the willingness to cross it, the knowledge to understand that “other” and then to practice dialogue skills. It takes a great deal of maturity, leadership, and empathy, all of which the world could really use.
The current situation leaves us with a possible “big push” towards multilateralism, knowing that disease knows no border. While my hope is that governments and their populations are up to that task, the reality is that short-termism usually rules, certainly in leadership, whether public or private.
The most immediate test of that short-termism will be what happens when Covid-19 is under control in OECD countries, only to test the health systems in the world’s poorest countries. Will the world’s wealthiest countries step in? I really hope so, but given the potential scale, many governments may see the problem as too large and too costly. Looking further down the line, will the necessary investments be made to deal with the next pandemic?
Rebecca Solnit’s “hope in the dark”—how traumatic situations bring out the better in us—has recently been exhibited in the countless ways of caring for those in most need. Those stories have shown the infinite possibilities for a healthier and more just planet. More often than not, those stories are too few and far between to offer the required amount of enlightenment for political elites.
Perhaps the above is overstated, however my hope is to jar people out of their complacency. It’s up to us to tear down these walls and start building bridges. Future generations will certainly thank us for it.
a global affairs media network
Another Brick in the Wall
April 7, 2020
The most immediate test of that short-termism will be what happens when Covid-19 is under control in OECD countries, only to test the health systems in the world’s poorest countries. Will the world’s wealthiest countries step in?
C
ovid-19 is really only consolidating what has been the reality since 9/11. The question remains—can we reverse it or will we simply accept the wall as this generation’s defining structure?
Elections in the U.S., UK and Brexit were not the start of the creation of walls or the exiting multilateral arrangements. In the 2010s, the number of physical walls in the post-9/11 era increased from 15 to 70 by 2015, totaling 30,000 kilometers. Mangled responses towards immigrants and the blaming of “the other” in our societies have taken a strong hold and looks unfortunately to be bolstering the case for walls. It makes for good politics.
While the wall between the United States and Mexico has stalled, it reveals a psyche that is defining this century—fear is being stoked, increasing polarization, leading to a “me” society as opposed to a “we” society.
(Even) less connected, (even) more polarized
The likelihood of individual nation states “becoming more self-sufficient” are real. The long-term orientation of many states will be tested in the face of elections and the strong desire (usually with the accompanying results) of blaming an “other”. China will become the world’s scapegoat in the coming months. Short-term consequences may include:
• Reconsidering China as a supply chain source and potentially a dramatic reduction of items produced there for “national security” reasons (i.e. medicine, technology);
• Reaching into the realm of the private citizen through increased surveillance;
• Relaxing of environmental regulations, not just in the U.S., but in its competitors (the so-called “race to the bottom” of regulation);
• Reducing the pace of climate change mitigation policy and funding measures.
Points two and three are happening. While these may just be short-term, history tells us that these temporary measures rarely have sunset clauses or are properly reversed. The last consequence is the most crucial. If the much-needed efforts around climate change are reduced or stop while the meteorological impacts continue to be felt, the human and financial toll will be enormous.
The EU will continue to focus on addressing climate change and many cities and regions, with progressive leadership, such as California and New York, also continuing their efforts. However, the lack of federal government tailwind will make it tougher. All of the efforts for low-fuel standards in California will mean little if the auto industry starts creating larger, more polluting cars. Or if a mid-western U.S. state doubles down on coal.
Walls, not bridges. Debate, not dialogue.
With Trump’s wall came a flurry of criticism about the problematic nature of walls. As UC Berkeley’s Michael Dear has reiterated and proven—they simply don’t work.
However, the alternative structure, the bridge, has failed to take root. The end of the Cold War did bring the bridge to the forefront, but since then it has been dismantled bit by bit. The defining structure of this generation will be the wall and part of the reason is that we are programmed almost from infancy for debate, not dialogue.
Debate rules our world, starting in high school, university clubs and classes to the corridors of political power, in which winning is the only option. Six-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee Dr. Steinar Bryn sums up the differences between debate and dialogue:
• Debate’s goal is to win, while dialogue is to understand.
• Debate is about persuading, dialogue is about explaining.
• Debate is about arguing, dialogue is about listening.
• In debate, to change your opinion is a sign of weakness, while in dialogue it is a sign of maturity.
For bridges to be built, dialogue needs to take root. The world’s entire education and political system needs a massive push towards dialogue, otherwise we can forget about our collective challenges—massive inequality, dramatic poverty, embarrassingly high homelessness, tackling technology’s negative impacts, and of course the largest elephant in the room—climate change.
To build a bridge, you need the willingness to cross it, the knowledge to understand that “other” and then to practice dialogue skills. It takes a great deal of maturity, leadership, and empathy, all of which the world could really use.
The current situation leaves us with a possible “big push” towards multilateralism, knowing that disease knows no border. While my hope is that governments and their populations are up to that task, the reality is that short-termism usually rules, certainly in leadership, whether public or private.
The most immediate test of that short-termism will be what happens when Covid-19 is under control in OECD countries, only to test the health systems in the world’s poorest countries. Will the world’s wealthiest countries step in? I really hope so, but given the potential scale, many governments may see the problem as too large and too costly. Looking further down the line, will the necessary investments be made to deal with the next pandemic?
Rebecca Solnit’s “hope in the dark”—how traumatic situations bring out the better in us—has recently been exhibited in the countless ways of caring for those in most need. Those stories have shown the infinite possibilities for a healthier and more just planet. More often than not, those stories are too few and far between to offer the required amount of enlightenment for political elites.
Perhaps the above is overstated, however my hope is to jar people out of their complacency. It’s up to us to tear down these walls and start building bridges. Future generations will certainly thank us for it.
