Two months after challenging Vladimir Putin’s leadership in an apparent but abortive “mutiny”, Yevgeny Prigozhin – the former owner of the mercenary private military company Wagner Group – has joined a long list of prominent Russians to die in mysterious circumstances.

Prigozhin’s private jet apparently crashed on a routine flight from Moscow to St Petersburg just after 3pm local time. Confirmation of Prigozhin’s likely demise came in the form of announcements by Russia’s authorities and a Telegram channel linked to the Wagner group. Conveniently, there was also video footage of the plane falling out of the sky and burning on the ground.

With him on the aircraft was Dmitry Utkin, widely considered to be his second in command at the Wagner Group. Other passengers are reported to have included Valery Chekalov, the head of Wagner security, Yevgeny Makaryan, who has been described as Prigozhin’s bodyguard and other Wagner Group personnel.

While it is unlikely that we will ever know for sure how, why and on whose orders Prigozhin might have been killed, it is far less difficult to imagine that he finally paid the price for his march on Moscow at the head of a column of his Wagner Group troops at the end of June 2023. The deaths of other top Wagner personnel in the crash spell the likely end of the group in its current form.

At the time, Prigozhin went to great lengths to paint his mutiny as directed against the top brass in the Russian ministry of defence and not as a direct challenge to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Yet the brief episode exposed cracks in the regime. Unopposed by local and regional security forces, Prigozhin’s troops were able to take Rostov-on-Don and the headquarters of Russia’s southern military district and command centre of the war in Ukraine. They also marched to within 200km (125 miles) of the Russian capital, again mostly unopposed.

Following a deal brokered by Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko, Prigozhin called off his rebellion, agreeing to relocate his men and himself to Belarus and Wagner’s overseas bases – mostly in Africa. https://www.youtube.com/embed/Gpd4V5DbDIw?wmode=transparent&start=0 Yevgeny Prigozhin in what appears to be a recruitment video for the Wagner Group apparently filmed in Africa.

Despite some concerns over an increasing Wagner presence closer to Nato members Poland and Lithuania, little of the agreed relocation seems to have happened. Prigozhin himself appears to have enjoyed significant freedom of movement in Russia in the weeks after his abortive mutiny, including making an appearance on the sidelines of the Russia-Africa summit at the end of July.

Putin’s purges

Though abrupt, his death is not unexpected. Under Putin, a former KGB operative himself, Russia has carried out several high-profile assassinations and assassination attempts, including in the UK and Germany, to go after alleged traitors and Putin critics.

Many opposition figures in Russia have either died mysteriously or been assassinated. The list includes figures such as Alexei Navalny (who survived novichok poisoning), former deputy prime minister Boris Nemtsov, anti-corruption lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, and journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

Meanwhile, some regime critics may have thought themselves to be beyond his reach in the UK or other countries, have also been disposed of. These include oligarch and former friend turned critic, Boris Berezovsky, and former spies Alexander Litvinenko and Sergei Skripal, who were both poisoned (although Skripal survived) have been targeted. https://www.youtube.com/embed/bXOWK-Vj7_M?wmode=transparent&start=0 Former spy and Putin critic Alexander Litvinenko died of polonium poisoning in London.

Putin’s message here has been clear for two decades: opposition will not be tolerated and will probably have fatal consequences.

Prigozhin’s likely assassination reaffirms this message spectacularly. But it is not the only step that Putin has taken to reassert control. On the day of Prigozhin’s death, one of his presumptive allies in the military establishment, Sergei Surovikin – a former commander of Russian forces in Ukraine – was apparently dismissed as head of the Russian aerospace forces. This followed weeks of speculation following his disappearance after the Prigozhin mutiny.

Other top military officials critical of Russia’s conduct of the war in Ukraine, including the commander of the Russia 58th Combined Arms Army, Ivan Popov, were dismissed. Other officials, considered close to Prigozhin, including the deputy head of military intelligence, Vladimir Alexeyev, are still unaccounted for.

Outside the military, alleged critics of Putin’s war in Ukraine have not been safe either. A series of mysterious deaths struck fear into Russian oligarchs in the months after the full-scale Russian aggression against Ukraine began in February 2022. Since then, criticism from the Russian business elite has been muted.

The apparent assassination of Prigozhin would therefore seem to be business as usual for Putin. It was foreshadowed in the Russian president’s speech on June 24, the morning after Prigozhin’s mutiny began, when he vowed to punish the “traitors”, as he described them.

Back to business as usual?

Prigozhin’s demise also draws a line under the apparent power struggle within the Russian military. As the chief architects of the war in Ukraine, the defence minister, Sergey Shoigu, and chief of general staff, Valery Gerasimov, are the most obvious beneficiaries of Prigozhin’s death and the wider purges of critics inside and outside the military.

Putin, and his inner circle, clearly have prevailed on this occasion. This is not surprising, given how little direct and public support Prigozhin received over the course of his mutiny. In this sense, Putin’s regime is still highly effective and has demonstrated its capacity to survive domestic challenges.

But the underlying problem – a disastrous military campaign in Ukraine – has not gone away with the death of Prigozhin. Putin may have silenced one of the most outspoken critics of the conduct of the war, and have others arrested or murdered, like prominent pro-war bloggers Igor Girkin and Vladen Tatarsky. But many who share Prigozhin’s misgivings without backing him publicly will have survived Putin’s clean-up operation.

Putin can be sure that they will now be extra careful not to stand too close to high windows or accept cups of tea from anyone connected with Russia’s security services. But this may not be the only lesson they have learned from Prigozhin’s demise – and that will likely worry the Kremlin and increase the paranoia of Putin and those around him.

Stefan Wolff, Professor of International Security, University of Birmingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Industry plays a crucial role in the Japanese economy. Japan leads globally in producing automobiles, electronics, chemicals, and other goods. The Japanese industry excels due to its high level of automation and use of advanced technologies, enabling to produce top-tier products at competitive prices.

However, Japan’s economy does encounter challenges. A significant one is its high dependence on exports, making it vulnerable to global economic changes. Moreover, recent years have seen problems in the fields of labor and employment, including job cuts, decrease in the workforce and rising unemployment. The latter can be attributed to migration from rural to urban areas. Additionally, environmental pollution issues could impact investment and hinder economic growth. Recent political changes in Japan, such as changes in government and electoral reforms, may also add to the country’s economic stability.

Despite these hurdles, Japan’s economy continues to move forward. In recent years, the Japanese government has implemented measures to boost economic growth, such as increasing investment in infrastructure and education, as well as improving conditions for small and medium-sized businesses. 

Japan consistently invests in technology and innovation, which contributes to the economic development. However, it can also lead to increased research and development costs, potentially reducing competitiveness in the global market. The economy has lately seen growth, although it has been somewhat uneven, influenced by export earnings and investments in infrastructure.

All these factors ultimately affect the exchange rate of the Japanese Yen (USD JPY). The rate carries weight with international investors and businesspeople working with Japan, having impact on the value of Japanese assets like stocks and real estate, along with the prices of Japanese goods sold abroad.

It’s worth noting that the USD JPY currency pair ranks second in terms of trading volume, following only the EUR USD, which is known for its liquidity.

Throughout 2023, there has been an upward trend in the exchange rate following a correction last year. The suggested growth of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) could lead to an even bigger increase in the exchange rate.

However, the primary factor to watch is the inflation rate. The market has frozen in anticipation, with almost all traders preparing to sell. Lingering concerns lean towards weakening, aligning with bearish sentiments.

Japan’s struggle with inflation is somewhat of a running joke. Despite being highly developed, it isn’t immune to inflation woes. Between 1985 and 2014, inflation rate in Japan lagged behind other developed countries, prompting low-interest rates and low returns on investment assets. However, starting 2020 inflation began to rise and reached unprecedented levels in 2022.

A catalyst for Japan’s inflation is low labor productivity coupled with high labor costs. To combat inflation, the Japanese government initiated various measures, including lowered import taxes and increased infrastructure spending. Structural reforms were introduced to reduce reliance on foreign investors while boosting domestic investor participation.

Nevertheless, despite these efforts, inflation continues to rise. In 2022, inflation in Japan reached 4.3%, marking the highest level in 25 years. Factors also include elevated energy and commodity prices, increased spending on social welfare and healthcare.

Thus, grappling with inflation remains an ongoing challenge for Japan. The government must persist in financial system reforms, reduce reliance on external investors, enhance labor productivity, and curb labor costs. 

Returning to the USD JPY rate, from a technical standpoint, concerns about a decline are well-founded. The price is approaching the historical resistance of 147.00-150.00. 

Roughly speaking, this level is critical for all market participants. Its breakdown will mark a new stage in the development of the currency pair and will open the path for systematic growth. 

Conversely, a downward bounce would maintain a balance between supply and demand, consolidating the price within a horizontal channel around 127.00. 

So watch it closely if you see Japanese market as a great addition to your portfolio. However, do not forget that technical and fundamental analyses should go prior to any investment decisions. 

There has been an indication that Chinese President Xi Jinping and PM Modi may have a bilateral meeting, according to the Chinese sources.

China’s ambassador to South Africa Chen Xiaodong told the media, ‘I am confident that as two nations, two countries, we will have direct talks, direct meetings’

‘I cannot say there is tension between us, but as neighbouring countries, we have many common interests at the same time we have some problems,’ Bloomberg reported him as saying.

While Modi and Jinping did meet during the G20 summit in Bali, Indonesia in November 2022, this could be their first officially scheduled meeting since the border skirmishes in 2020.

BRICS as a group represents 42% of the world’s population, 30% of the world’s territory, 23% of global GDP, and around 18% of world trade, according to the official website.

An informal meeting of the BRIC grouping was held in 2006 among Russia, India, and China on the sidelines of the G8 Outreach Summit in Russia.

The first formal meeting was in 2009, also in Russia. South Africa joined in 2010, expanding the group to ‘BRICS.’

The ‘Global South’ now has increased prominence on the world stage that is set to to challenge the dominance of European and Western countries at international forums and institutions, such as the United Nations.

With the economic rise of countries such as India and China in recent decades, the creation of fora such as G20 have addressed the lack of representation of the Asian economies on the global stage, as well as countering the influence of the US.

Similarly, BRICS came about to enhance cooperation between its five member countries, be it political or economic, such as through the New Development Bank, which provides financial support to developing markets for improving infrastructure.

BRICS has evolved over the years, as China has gained significantly more economic heft than others in the grouping.

China and Russia are also now joining hands against the West as the Ukraine War becomes the stage on which geopolitical loyalties are determined.

India, while maintaining cordial relations with Russia and not-so-cordial relations with China, is also deepening its relations in spheres of economy and technology with the US, which has not been a traditional ally.

This makes having a common BRICS policy and cooperation within the grouping a bit more challenging, as equations change.

As a post-COVID world emerges and the world in which the group first was formed no longer really exists, the BRICS chairmanship rotates among the group annually.

This year, the agenda of the 15th Summit is ‘BRICS in Africa: Partnership for Mutually Accelerated Growth, Sustainable Development and Inclusive Multilateralism’

Notably, both China and Russia have developed a significant presence in Africa in recent years. China has made investments worth billions of dollars in various infrastructure projects, and Russia’s mercenary Wagner Group, whose troops also participated in the Ukraine War, has also made its inroads in several local conflicts.

Further, in July, a South African diplomat said that more than twenty countries have formally expressed an interest in joining the grouping, including Saudi Arabia and Iran. Argentina, the United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain and Indonesia are also keen on getting a membership.

For India, as a core member of the BRICS, its major efforts would be to represent the Global South. It could also be a moment where the Summit could help resolve matters such as the Indo-China border conflict from a diplomatic perspective.

‘Can you believe it? I’ll be going to Atlanta, Georgia, on Thursday to be ARRESTED,’ Trump posted on his social media on Monday night.

This was hours after a court order that set his bond at $200,000.

The Fulton county sheriff’s office said in a news release on Monday afternoon that there will be a ‘hard lockdown’ in the area surrounding the main county jail, when the former US President is brought in.

In a court document posted online on Monday outlining the 13 charges against Trump, bond amounts range from $10,000, for counts including criminal conspiracy and filing false documents, to $80,000, for a violation of the Georgia Rico Act, often used against organised crime which has seen many mob bosses go to prison.

The bond document also said Trump ‘shall not communicate in any way, directly or indirectly, about the facts of this case with any person known to him to be a codefendant in this case except through his or her counsel.’

Fulton county district attorney Fani Willis has set a deadline of noon on Friday for Trump and his 18 co-defendants to turn themselves in to be booked.

Authorities in Georgia are also investigating threats made to grand jurors.

Arraignments for the defendants will be done in the week of September 5, before a trial in March.

In Fulton county, when defendants are not in custody, their lawyers and the district attorney’s office will often work out a bond amount before arraignment.

During the booking process, the accused are typically photographed and fingerprinted and personal details are collected.

Trump will be released from custody once the booking process is complete, as his bond has already been set.

Defendants also include the former New York mayor and Republican presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani. The deadline for defendants to turn themselves in is 12pm ET on Friday.

Willis, who last week secured indictments of Trump and 18 aides and allies, signed off on the bond agreements along with Trump’s lawyers.

Trump denies wrongdoing in Georgia and in three other indictments which have produced a total of 91 criminal charges.

The charges cover federal and state election subversion in 2020, the retention of classified information after leaving office, and hush-money payments to a porn star during the 2016 election.

Despite such unprecedented legal troubles, including civil investigations of Trump’s business affairs and a defamation case in which a judge said Trump was adjudicated a rapist, the former president dominates the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Ahead of the first debate on Wednesday, which Trump will not attend, he leads his nearest challenger, Florida governor Ron DeSantis, by about 40 points in national polling averages and by wide margins in key states.

On social media on Monday, some observers doubted that Trump would abide by the terms of his bond.

Others suggested Trump leveraged his predicament to fund his campaign to return to the White House, widely seen as a means of avoiding prison.

Understanding Interpol Notices

What is Interpol?

A supranational organisation called Interpol, formally known as the International Criminal Police Organisation, promotes cooperation between foreign law enforcement authorities. Its main function is to support national law enforcement agencies in their coordinated efforts to combat transnational criminal activity.

What are Interpol Notices?

International warnings known as Interpol notices are created to deliver specific information to member nations and their respective law enforcement organisations. These notifications are sent out at the request of the member countries and are used to transmit important information concerning people, things, or procedures that are important to law enforcement.

The Spectrum of Interpol Notices

Red Notice: The Pursuit of Criminals

Perhaps the most famous Interpol notice is the infamous Red Notice. It acts as a request to find and temporarily detain a person pending extradition. This notice typically serves as a global call for cooperation to uphold justice and is issued for people sought in connection with major crimes including murder, fraud, or drug trafficking.

Blue Notice: Locating Individuals for Help

The Blue Notice is used in situations where someone is missing or needs assistance. Those who are unable to identify themselves, such as accident victims or those with impairments, can be located and identified with the use of this notification. Its goal is to make it easier for these people to be reunited with their family or guardians.

Green Notice: Warning About Criminal Activities

The Green Notice is published when a person’s unlawful acts endanger the safety of the general public. It serves as a source of criminal intelligence and a warning about people who have committed crimes and are likely to do so again in other nations.

Yellow Notice: Finding Missing Persons

The Yellow Notice is extremely helpful in identifying people who can’t identify themselves or in finding the missing, especially children. Additionally, it can help identify those who require protection.

Black Notice: Seeking Information on Unidentified Bodies

It might be difficult for law authorities to identify unidentifiable bodies or remains. By allowing member nations to exchange descriptions and details of unidentified bodies or body parts, including clothing and personal possessions, the Black Notice strives to collect information about these occurrences.

Criteria for Issuing Interpol Notices

Case Justification

Notices from Interpol are carefully issued and supported by appropriate justification. A government making the request must give complete information about the situation, including proof of the person’s involvement in a crime. Due diligence is taken to prevent political manipulation of notices.

National Jurisdiction

In the nations that are members, Interpol has no legal authority. The requested country retains the right to decide whether to take action after receiving notices in accordance with its own laws and regulations.

Documentation

All required supporting papers must be supplied by the requesting nation. This comprises court orders, pertinent case information, and specifics of the subject person.

The Process of Issuing an Interpol Notice

Requesting Country’s National Central Bureau

The National Central Bureau (NCB) of the seeking nation files a notice request to start the process. Between the nation making the request and Interpol’s General Secretariat, the NCB serves as a conduit.

Interpol General Secretariat’s Review

The request is carefully examined by Interpol’s General Secretariat to make sure it satisfies requirements and follows rules. The notification is published and added to Interpol’s global databases after being approved.

Notice Publication and Distribution

The alert is made available to authorised law enforcement agencies and member nations using Interpol’s encrypted communication channels once it has been approved, enabling an immediate and private information exchange.

Controversies and Limitations

Political Misuse

Interpol alerts have occasionally been used improperly for political purposes, which has resulted in the targeting of those who oppose particular regimes. Such occurrences raise questions about the organization’s honesty and objectivity, a subject that Interpol lawyers regularly examine.

Lack of Enforcement Power

Understanding that Interpol alerts are not arrest warrants is essential. They act as requests for collaboration and information exchange instead. Interpol lawyers frequently discuss the fact that member countries are in charge of carrying out arrests and taking legal action.

Real-Life Examples

The Case of Red Notice for Political Dissent

Red Notices have occasionally been used to target political dissidents or other dissenting people. Such incidents highlight the importance of maintaining notices free of political interference, a goal supported by Interpol lawyers.

Successful Tracking via Blue Notice

Positively, the Blue Notice was crucial in helping reunite a family with a lost kid. This notification made it possible for law enforcement authorities from many nations to work together effectively, resulting in the child’s safe return—a success acknowledged and valued by Interpol lawyers.

Interpol’s Evolving Role in Modern Society

Technological Advancements

In order to strengthen its notifications system, Interpol recognises and incorporates technical innovations. Interpol attorneys constantly watch this evolution as digital communication and extensive databases speed member countries’ access to information and improve response times.

Balancing Security and Human Rights

A difficult balance between security and human rights must be struck as Interpol develops. Maintaining the moral use of notifications while defending people’s rights is a constant challenge that Interpol lawyers carefully navigate.

Conclusion

The Interpol notifications system is a sophisticated tool for cooperating with other nations’ law enforcement. The variety of notice kinds covers a wide range of situations, from catching criminals to helping the weak. Interpol continues to adapt, using technology to combat international crime in a world that is constantly changing—an effort that Interpol lawyers actively support and shape.

Japan’s economy is under pressure from rising energy prices and defence costs and the impact of the pandemic. Plummeting birth rates and an ageing population further threaten the sustainability of its labour market. A 2023 study by independent thinktank the Recruit Works Institute points to a labour supply shortage of 3.41 million people by 2030, and over 11 million by 2040.

Gender inequality is another significant pressure point. Research shows that a gender-inclusive society and workforce leads to innovation and economic growth. However, Japan has one of the lowest levels of gender equality among G7 countries. It has slipped to its lowest ranking yet in the World Economic Health Forum’s latest Global Gender Report, particularly in terms of women in leadership positions.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida recently declared that Japan needs to urgently raise its birth rate. He also vowed to increase the percentage of women executives in Tokyo stock exchange-listed companies, from 11.4% to 30% or more, by 2030. A policy draft released in June indicates that this will be achieved through leadership quotas legally imposed on listed companies.

Japan has tried this countless times, however, and largely failed. As my research shows, this is because gender norms are deeply embedded in Japanese society.

Socialisation of gender norms

Gender norms in Japanese society are tightly connected to patriarchal hierarchies that have evolved historically from the influence of Confucianism. The role of a man is linked to being the breadwinner and head of the family. Women, by contrast, are seen as wives and caregivers, ultimately subservient to the head of the family.

Children are taught these norms from an early age. Research shows that Japanese preschool teachers position children in various gender roles by encouraging gendered speech and behavioural patterns. Girls speak softly and act in a cute, non-threatening way. Boys, by contrast, use more dominant language and behaviour. Children’s books and TV programmes often perpetuate these hierarchical linguistic patterns and behaviour.

These beliefs and values influence hiring practices and organisational behaviour within the Japanese workplace, which is still based on the male-based breadwinner/female-dependent model.

From 1945 to 1991, a period which economists refer to as the economic miracle years, most Japanese women were isolated from the leadership career path. This resulted in low levels of Japanese women in key decision-making positions.

Today, leadership is still seen as a male-dominated environment – even when the topic is about female empowerment. Japan was the only country to send a male delegate to the recent G7 delegation on gender equality and female empowerment.

Gaining promotions to higher-paid positions relies on long hours and commitment to the company, regardless of gender. Gendered norms therefore result in a significant double burden on Japanese women.

Despite having one of the most generous paternity-leave provisions in the world, only 14% of Japanese men took paternity leave in 2021, compared with Sweden’s 90% rate of uptake. Japanese men also spend the lowest amount of time doing unpaid housework (41 minutes a day) among OECD countries.

Both the highly gendered workplace and unequal division of household labour mean that women are more likely than men to miss out on promotions, take on lower-paid irregular jobs, and/or only consider having one child.

Work-life expectations are unrealistic. And in the workplace, women face discrimination and harassment, as well as restrictive expectations of gendered behaviour and appearance. Yoshiro Mori stepped down as head of the Tokyo Olympics organising committee in 2021, after sexist remarks he had reportedly made in a Japanese Olympic committee meeting caused an international furore. Mori was quoted as saying women talk too much, and that when “allowed into” high-level meetings, they take up too much time.

Failed solutions

Previous Japanese government initiatives to raise the birth rate and improve gender equality have focused on introducing quotas for female leadership and executive boards, more childcare places, and enhanced parental leave. However, these have either failed to reach their target or have become tokenistic. In fact, recent initiatives are reported to have exacerbated gender inequality and driven some women into poverty.

Singapore recently embarked on a similar mission as part of a national gender equality review. Its government has gathered ideas and feedback from women’s and youth groups, private organisations, academics, policymakers and the wider public. This has resulted in a policy wishlist and report, the findings of which will be implemented into both policy and education.

My research shows that this approach would work for Japan, too. It could allow people to voice their opinions and wishes in an open debate – which chimes with Japan’s cultural preference for decision-making achieved through consensus – rather than making direct criticisms of the patriarchal order.

Such a review would need to look at all stages of life and aspects of society that are involved in the socialisation of gender roles, and the impact these have, from both a human rights and an economic perspective. There is already evidence that gender inequality is leading to mental health issues in Japan, especially for divorcees and single mothers.

This review would also offer an opportunity for feedback from the younger generation. Research shows that many younger Japanese are becoming disenchanted with traditional gender roles. They are looking at new ways of living by choosing careers outside the echelons of power within Japanese society. They are also rejecting the institution of marriage.

Japan has the opportunity to rewrite its gender equality trajectory. Doing so would hopefully include other representations of gender and diversity that have so far not been widely accepted within Japanese society, or protected within the law. Same-sex marriage is still unconstitutional in some prefectures. Societal change at this level will take a generation. The conversation needs to start now.

Sarah Parsons, Senior Teaching Fellow and Lecturer in East Asian Business, SOAS, University of London

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Of the measurable targets, which range from providing quality education to all to clean water and sanitation, half of them illustrate moderate or severe deviations from the desired trajectory. More than 30% of said targets have experienced no progress or even regression below the baseline established in 2015. Should the current trends continue, in 2030 575 million people will be living in extreme poverty, and an estimated 84 million children and young people won’t have access to education. Furthermore, the global temperature has risen 1.1°C above pre-industrial levels and is likely to surpass the critical 1.5° C tipping point by 2035. 

While there are very clearly big problems facing us, not all is lost as businesses are also understanding that this is not simply a problem that can be solved through a single solution. The impact of not meeting the SDGs is relatively non-discriminatory in the fact that it affects everyone, admittedly in different manners and to different extents, but businesses will also suffer. Thus, it is in their interest to also bring solutions to issues that affect everyone, which is why it is promising to see progress being made through innovative methods in a variety of fields. 

Different sectors bringing about positive change 

Certain sectors are more challenged than others to find creative solutions to big issues simply based on their core business. The solutions are there and when they are applied they are a testament to a company’s willingness to roll up their sleeves and contribute to a better world, these companies also incidentally tend to be industry leaders. 

A well-known exemplification of a company invested in sustainability is Nestlé. Nestlé seeks to build a business by taking decisions that are not just influenced by the bottom line and shareholders, but also by society and the planet. A clear example of Nestlé’s move towards sustainability is its commitment to net zero by 2050. This means sourcing key ingredients from farmers using regenerative farming techniques as well as investing in sustainable logistics, packaging, and manufacturing activities. Regarding packaging, Nestlé is using the Nespresso capsules as an effective cornerstone project of their recycling commitments with the development of paper capsules.  

In the mining sector, CMOC has shown itself as a leader in the industry. Founded in the late 1960s, CMOC is currently the second-largest producer of cobalt and niobium in the world. CMOC is an interesting case study for other companies looking to sustainably manage an outpost in a geologically and geographically complex place. Aside from its technical attributes, CMOC is increasingly well known for its ability to integrate into the local community and follow exacting sustainability standards and best practices. The company does this by pursuing, where practicable, energy efficiency, use of renewable energy sources, and recycling of materials. It also identifies locations of potential environmental sensitivity (areas of high biodiversity), and develops best practice mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce impact on those locations. 

However, potentially most importantly, CMOC has rolled out an ambitious net-zero plan for Scope 1 and Scope 2 (direct and indirect) emissions in its operations by 2050. In 2022, they were already able to recycle 38.8% of their non-hazardous waste, and 83.9% of their hazardous waste was recycled. The company plans to put significant investment behind the plan, with a projected minimum spend of 1.5 billion USD up to the year 2050 in order to meet its goals. 

Another company deeply committed to being an industry leader is Suez SA , the French-based utility company that operates mainly in the water and waste management sectors. In January of this year, the company unveiled its new sustainable development goals for 2027 and beyond. The company aims to reach electrical self-sufficiency in Europe this year, as well as significantly raise the proportion of renewable energy consumed throughout the group. Finally, between now and 2027, the company will stop using phytosanitary products on all the sites that it owns or operations as well as propose solutions to eliminate microplastics and micropollutants. 

While Nestlé, CMOC, and Suez represent very different sectors, what they share is a commitment to excellence not only in their offering but also in the treatment of the climate question by engaging in ambitious goals to contribute to a better future. 

Climate mitigation requires all hands on deck

The appeal and the utility of the Sustainable Development Goals is the fact that it takes a holistic approach to sustainability and its interplay in how we all live. Investing in the future is a worthwhile investment, for businesses, governments, and people. Companies like Nestlé, CMOC, and Suez show that it doesn’t matter in what sector one operates, what matters is one’s commitment to sustainability because a sustainable environment makes for a sustainable business. 

Ultimately, as the world tries to come back from the setbacks of SDG goals due to unforeseen circumstances, the private sector is an integral stakeholder in the advancement and betterment of our planet. With them on board, our chances are significantly better of righting the ship and sailing toward a future in which we can all live. 

Like any millennial pop music fan active on social media, I’ve been following Taylor Swift’s Eras Tour – the surprise songs, the scramble to get tickets, her brief romance with that guy from The 1975 with a history of racist comments.

But as a political scientist, I was intrigued by something else: reaction to the tour by government officials. New Jersey renamed the state’s famed Taylor ham, egg and cheese in her honor – it’s now the “Taylor Swift Ham, Egg, and Cheese” official state sandwich.

Pittsburgh’s mayor briefly renamed the city “Swiftsburgh” when her tour hit town.

And in my neck of the woods, Swift Street in North Kansas City was temporarily rebranded “Swift Street (Taylor’s Version).”

Local or state governments have lauded Swift in some way at virtually every stop on her tour. While these honors make for great photo opportunities for Swifties, the politics of these moves is worth examining. Do politicians have something to gain in appealing to Swift’s fans?

Celebrities can help politicians

Unlike many celebrities, Swift does not involve herself much in politics. One particular tool of politicians looking to boost their numbers is to get celebrity endorsements. But Swift’s use of endorsements has been limited, save for backing two Democrats in her adopted home state of Tennessee: Phil Bredesen in his Senate race and U.S. Rep. Jim Cooper in his 2018 reelection campaign. Swift also endorsed Joe Biden in 2020.

Bredesen’s peak in Google search interest from 2010 to the present coincided with Swift’s endorsement in October 2018. Cooper saw more Google search traffic with Swift’s endorsement than at any point since his vote for the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in March 2010.

While the specific impact of Swift’s endorsements is difficult to assess, an Emerson College poll of Tennesseans in 2018 found that 11.7% of those surveyed said Swift’s endorsement would make them more likely to support Bredesen – a number unlikely to make a difference in a race Bredesen lost by nearly 11 points despite Swift’s support. Cooper easily won reelection in his heavily Democratic Nashville-based district.

Although Swift’s endorsements likely did not sway these particular races, celebrity endorsements can matter in close races, particularly when the celebrity making the endorsement is viewed favorably – a likely scenario in Swift’s case.

Fawning = attention

A slight majority of Americans consider themselves at least something of a fan of Swift’s music – that includes me – and a June 2023 Echelon Insights poll showed 50% of likely voters view Swift at least somewhat favorably. This is a higher favorability rating than Joe Biden, Donald Trump and both major political parties.

We’re not talking about endorsements here, though – we’re talking about politicians aligning themselves with Swift with no reciprocity. One clear benefit to public officials fawning over Swift? Attention – not unlike that seen for Bredesen and Cooper in 2018.

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy’s tweet declaring the “Taylor Swift ham, egg, and cheese” garnered 5,700 likes; his next unrelated tweet had fewer than 100.

A cursory analysis of social media data seems to support the idea that the use of Swift’s name in honorary government actions produces a result similar to that of Swift’s endorsements: it drives engagement. Murphy’s Instagram post lauding Swift garnered the most likes on any post of his in 2023, with the exception of an early June post on the state’s air-quality crisis.

OK, so politicians need publicity, and they can use Taylor Swift’s name to get it. But what about Swifties as a voting bloc?

The idea that Swifties might be a key demographic in future elections is not far-fetched given their location and age. A majority of Swift’s fans live in the suburbs, the swing territory of American politics. Further, most are Gen Zers or Millennials. These groups encompass an increasing share of the electorate with each passing year – up to 31% in 2020. Swift’s favorability among those ages 18 to 29 stands at 72%, and by one poll’s estimate, 21% in that age cohort say they would vote for Swift over Trump and Biden.

Taylor Swift Post Office?

World leaders from numerous countries have taken to social media to ask Swift to bring her tour to their countries. There’s an economic angle to this, of course, as a Swift tour stop can generate huge sums in consumer spending. In the U.S., however, the honorifics bestowed upon Swift have come since her tour dates were confirmed.

There is a question of whether these Swift-adjacent stunts boil down to campaigning thinly disguised as official government action. This is perhaps best demonstrated in Canada, where a member of Parliament filed a parliamentary grievance over the singer’s lack of Canadian tour dates.

Such behavior is perhaps analogous to, on a larger scale, the renaming of post offices in the U.S. Congress. While generally innocuous and locally meaningful, these moves still require government resources and staffers to put their attention toward them as opposed to substantive policy matters.

Taylor Swift is an enormously popular figure, particularly among demographic groups that will be increasingly important in future American elections. In close races, voices such as Swift’s could prove critical – not necessarily because she influences how fans vote, but because her voice provides attention and credibility to candidates.

Matt Harris, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Park University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

“Oppenheimer,” the epic new movie directed by Christopher Nolan, takes audiences into the mind and moral decisions of J. Robert Oppenheimer, leader of the team of brilliant scientists in Los Alamos, New Mexico, who built the world’s first atomic bomb. It’s not a documentary, but it gets the big historical moments and subjects right.

The issues that Nolan depicts are not relics of a distant past. The new world that Oppenheimer helped to create, and the nuclear nightmare he feared, still exists today.

Russian President Vladimir Putin is threatening to use nuclear weapons in his war in Ukraine. Iran is doing everything it can to develop nuclear weapons. China is expanding its nuclear arsenal. Hostile governments like China are stealing U.S. defense technologies, including from Los Alamos.

Charges that Oppenheimer was a Soviet spy and a security risk – a major focus of the movie – have been disproved. In December 2022, the Biden administration posthumously voided the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission’s 1954 decision to revoke Oppenheimer’s security clearance, calling that process biased and unfair. Declassified records reveal that Soviet spying on the U.S. atomic bomb effort advanced Moscow’s bomb program, but Oppenheimer was no spy.

Oppenheimer’s perspective

Oppenheimer joined the Manhattan Project, a nationwide effort to build an atomic bomb before the Nazis developed one, in 1942. The scientists he led at the Los Alamos site were probably the most talented group of minds ever assembled in a single laboratory, including 12 eventual Nobel laureates.

In 1954, at the height of the McCarthy era, Oppenheimer was accused of being a communist and even a Soviet spy. What’s the truth?

We know that in the 1930s, and until 1943, Oppenheimer was a Communist sympathizer. His brother Frank and his girlfriend Jean Tatlock belonged to the Communist Party of the United States, and Oppenheimer’s wife Katherine was a former member.

For Oppy, as his students called him, Marxism was intellectually interesting, but it was also practical. Oppenheimer saw communism as the best defense against the rise of fascism in Europe, which, being of Jewish heritage, was personal for him.

By 1943, however, Oppenheimer’s support for Communist Party causes shifted – evidently, as he realized the enormity of his mission to produce an atomic bomb. That year, Oppenheimer helped U.S. Army security officers identify scientists he believed were communists.

Los Alamos, N.M., was developed as a secret town where scientists built and tested the first atomic bomb.

Russian overtures

Oppenehimer was a top target for Soviet intelligence, which assigned him the code names CHESTER and CHEMIST. He was also being cultivated by Soviet intelligence officers. But being targeted and cultivated for recruitment is not the same as being a recruited spy.

As the movie shows, in 1943, Oppenheimer’s academic colleague at the University of California, Berkeley, Haakon Chevalier, told Oppenheimer that a British scientist working in San Francisco could relay information to the Soviets. Oppenheimer rejected the approach, but for reasons that remain unclear, he did not inform authorities for several months.

Over the ensuing years, Oppenheimer provided at least three versions of the story, sometimes involving his brother Frank. It seems likely that Robert was trying to protect his brother from Army security.

Archives made available after the Soviet Union’s collapse now establish beyond doubt that Oppenheimer was not a Soviet agent. In fact, Soviet intelligence reports about the Manhattan Project reveal that at key points, Stalin’s spy chiefs were frustrated that their operatives had not recruited Oppenheimer. But the Russians did penetrate the Manhattan Project – the greatest security breach in U.S. history.

All the Kremlin’s men

Multiple scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project provided critical information about U.S. atomic bomb research to the Soviet Union.

“Oppenheimer” focuses on Klaus Fuchs, a brilliant theoretical physicist who fled from Nazi Germany to Britain and became a British naturalized subject. From the time he started to work on Britain’s wartime atom bomb project, Fuchs was in what he later described as “continuous contact” with Soviet intelligence, providing theoretical calculations that were necessary to build the atom bomb.

General Leslie Groves, the military commander of the Manhattan Project, later blamed the British for failing to identify Fuchs as a Soviet spy. That’s correct. But the declassified dossier on Fuchs from Britain’s security service, MI5, shows that at the time, the agency did not have any positive, reliable evidence of Fuchs’s communism. MI5 knew that Fuchs was anti-Nazi, but not that he was pro-Soviet.

As I discuss in my new book, “Spies: The Epic Intelligence War Between East and West,” other spies at Los Alamos included a prodigious scientist, Theodore “Ted” Hall (code name MLAD, or “Young”); Julius Rosenberg (code name ANTENNA, later LIBERAL); David Greenglass (BUMBLEBEE, CALIBER). Other Soviet spies, like the British scientist Alan Nunn May, worked in other parts of the Manhattan Project.

These men had multiple motives for betraying U.S. atomic secrets. They were communist true believers and thought atomic weapons were too powerful to be held by one country alone. Moreover, they had a (misguided) defense – that the Soviet Union was America’s wartime ally, so they were “only” delivering secrets to an allied government. But as Nolan correctly shows in the movie, when Chevalier approached Oppenheimer with the same argument, Oppenheimer retorted that it was still treason.

Soviet espionage inside the Manhattan Project would change history. By the end of World War II, Stalin’s spies had delivered the secrets of the atomic bomb to the Kremlin. This accelerated Moscow’s bomb project. When the Soviets detonated their first atomic weapon in August 1949, it was a replica of the weapon built at Los Alamos and dropped by the Americans on Nagasaki.

Even now, nearly 80 years later, secrets about Soviet nuclear espionage are still emerging. One Soviet agent whose espionage has only recently been revealed is George Koval (code name DEVAL), an American engineer who was drafted into the Manhattan Project, where he worked on polonium bomb “initiators” at a facility in Dayton, Ohio.

After Koval died in 2006, at the age of 93, Russia’s ministry of defense disclosed that the initiator for the first Soviet atomic bomb was prepared to specifications provided by Koval. Putin posthumously honored Koval as a “Hero of Russia,” offering a champagne toast in his honor.

New targets

If Nolan’s film inspires audiences to read the deeply researched biography of Oppenheimer by Kai Bird and Martin Sherwin, which inspired Nolan to make this movie, or other accounts of the Manhattan Project or the Cold War, they will find that the underlying tissues of science and espionage remain alive.

Today, the world stands at the edge of technological revolutions that will transform societies in the 21st century, much as nuclear weapons did in the 20th century: artificial intelligence, quantum computing and biological engineering. Watching “Oppenheimer” makes me wonder whether hostile foreign governments may already have stolen keys to unlocking these new technologies, in the same way the Soviets did with the atom bomb.

Calder Walton, Assistant Director, Applied History Project and Intelligence Project, Harvard Kennedy School

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As the “Barbie” movie’s worldwide box office passes the billion-dollar mark, and some conservative pundits push back against its popularity with negative hot takes, the phrase “toxic femininity” is back in the news.

On National Public Radio’s “It’s Been a Minute,” panelists discussing “Barbie” speculated about whether toxic femininity exists as the opposite of toxic masculinity. Conservative pundits have been less tentative. A Salon story reporting on conservative coverage of the film noted that the right wing has blasted “Barbie” with charges of toxic femininity. On Fox News, conservative panelist Douglas Murray associated the movie – which he admitted to not having seen – with toxic femininity.

The phrase toxic femininity has become popular with conservatives in recent years. However, it lacks a consistent definition and is often invoked by people with competing and even opposing views about women, men and gender.

As a scholar of gender and communication, I study how language shapes people’s understanding of themselves, others and society. Examining how toxic femininity means different things to different people reveals important insights about gender, power and how language affects our well-being.

Toxic masculinity

First, it’s important to consider the role the predecessor of toxic femininity – “toxic masculinity” – has played in U.S. culture.

Clinical psychologists, academics and feminist advocates have used the phrase to describe a pernicious form of manhood that has produced widespread harm.

Sociologist Michael Flood explains that “the phrase emphasizes the worst aspects of stereotypically masculine attributes,” including “violence, dominance, emotional illiteracy, sexual entitlement, and hostility to femininity.”

The term first appeared in the 1980s but recently has gained prominence in public discussion, cited as a contributing factor to mass shootings, the exploitative behavior exposed by the #MeToo movement, and Donald Trump’s persona and political popularity.

Not all academics agree that using a gendered label to describe structural oppression is helpful. Cultural studies scholar Carol Harrington warns that labeling the outgrowths of patriarchy and misogyny as toxic masculinity shifts responsibility from harmful social systems to the behavior of “‘backward’ and ‘mentally unwell’ men,” making sexism an individual, rather than societal, problem.

Nevertheless, when critics talk about toxic masculinity they are invoking a term that has had a mostly consistent meaning for 30 years. The same cannot be said for toxic femininity.

The many faces of toxic femininity

Toxic femininity is a relatively new phrase that emerged in response to conversations about toxic masculinity.

But people who use the term often have very different motivations for doing so – from altruistic concern about the harms of sexism to indignation over men’s ostensibly dwindling power in society. Given these diverse motivations, people often employ the phrase to mean wildly different things.

Psychologists such as Meaghan Rice see toxic femininity as the inverse of toxic masculinity – a constellation of characteristics like meekness, emotionalism, passivity and self-sacrifice. Writing for “Psychology Today,” psychologist Ritch C. Savin-Williams describes toxic femininity as “internalized misogyny” that encourages women to ignore their “mental or physical needs to sustain those around them.”

In other words, toxic femininity is what many people think of as “stereotypical femininity” and is a product of patriarchal gender norms. In this formulation, toxic masculinity and toxic femininity are both fueled by sexism, and each erodes human thriving.

A different perspective regards toxic femininity not as a stereotypical notion of gendered weakness but as an inappropriate demonstration of female strength, cunning or privilege. Psychologists Shoba Sreenivasan and Linda E. Weinberger ascribe the trait to professional women who are “hostile to nurturance and cooperation, opting instead for aggression and backstabbing to get ahead.”

Similarly, organizational psychologist Nancy Doyle links “toxic femininity at work” to the infamous “Karen” meme, which refers to white women who use their gender and whiteness to manipulate or dominate others. This version presents toxic femininity as a woman’s version of the domineering individualism that drives toxic masculinity.

The conservative pundits arrayed against both “Barbie” and feminism, more broadly, are promoting a third definition of toxic femininity. Cultural studies scholar Hannah McCann explains that many men’s rights activists deploy the term as a rebuff of assertions about toxic masculinity, arguing that men are victimized by “toxic” women – not the other way around.

Conservative pundits like Matt Walsh and author Jeff Minick invoke toxic femininity to oppose feminism writ large. Right-wing commentator Candace Owens tweeted, “Terms like ‘toxic masculinity’, were created by toxic females.”

Carrie Gress, author of “The Anti-Mary Exposed: Rescuing the Culture from Toxic Femininity,” takes this perspective to the extreme, asserting that the pro-choice radical feminism of the 1960s ushered in a cultural and spiritual transformation that “led to the toxic femininity that has destroyed the lives of countless men, women and children.”

The right-wing iteration of toxic femininity attempts to neutralize the argument that patriarchy systematically disadvantages women and others who fail to fit traditional gender norms. Toxic femininity is regarded as equally dangerous to men – or even more – as toxic masculinity is to women.

Beyond a toxic gender binary

In her examination of popular discussions of toxic masculinity and femininity, McCann argues that what makes gender ideology toxic is rigidity – adherence to an inflexible gender binary. Gender norms are scripts that direct people to behave in ways that are consistent with one group’s ideas about what it means to be a woman or a man.

Of course, these scripts leave many people feeling uncomfortably constrained – not only the men and women who buck tradition, but also nonbinary, transgender and other people whose existence demonstrates that a gender binary is too simplistic to account for the fullness of human experience.

In the end, the movie “Barbie” recognizes the toxicities of both the matriarchal and patriarchal versions of Barbieland. Director Greta Gerwig’s happy ending requires Margot Robbie’s stereotypical Barbie to leave Barbieland for the real world, where she can forge a unique, less toxic, identity.

Karrin Vasby Anderson, Professor of Communication Studies, Colorado State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.