Hard Work Triumphs: Supreme Court Embraces Merit

 

 

June 29, 2023 should really be a good day for the minorities in America because the Supreme Court has finally recognized that we are smart people. They have confirmed that we can get accepted into the fancy Ivy League schools by working really hard and being really smart, and not by relying on the “academic crutches” called affirmative action.

I want to make it clear that I am a black man, which means I belong to what Americans call a "minority group." I don't like affirmative action, which is when the government or organizations try to include certain groups like women, different races, people with certain beliefs, or people from different countries in places where they are not represented enough, like in schools or jobs. People who support affirmative action say it's meant to stop unfair discrimination, fix the effects of past discrimination, and prevent future discrimination. Nonsense: if affirmative action is meant to make up for past discrimination or disadvantages, it should only help people who have been discriminated against. However, current affirmative action programs give advantages to certain groups, even if an individual in that group hasn't personally faced discrimination. Also, most of the people who were victims of past discrimination are no longer alive, so it doesn't make sense to try to make it fair for them now.

Without putting it in so many words, when colleges or other organizations (including government agencies) give out social benefits like educational opportunities or jobs, everyone should be treated the same unless there is a good reason to treat them differently. When deciding who should get a job or go to college, the affected colleges or organizations should look at a person's qualifications and abilities, not their race or gender. It is just as unfair to give or deny benefits based on race or gender as it is to discriminate like in the past. Also, the way current affirmative action programs are set up, they unfairly ignore the needs of some people  who are in a tough situation simply because they are not in the minority group, while, at the same time, giving lots of benefits to minorities who may not really need them. It is important to know that even rich people also cry sometimes. We should understand and accept that truth.

It is not an exaggeration to say that affirmative action programs do more harm than good. First, these programs can overlook people who may be more qualified for a job or college, and instead choose people who are only a little qualified. This makes the workplace less productive and efficient and lowers the standards in schools.

Second, these programs can make minorities feel like they got accepted into college or hired for a job just because they belong to a minority group, not because they are the best for the position. This can make them feel stigmatized and like their achievements are not valued. They might even start doubting themselves and feeling inferior. Third, these programs can make people depend on them and not encourage them to become self-reliant or develop the skills they need to succeed in school or work. Fourth, when qualified non-minorities are passed over for positions that go to less-qualified minorities, it can create resentment and tension between different groups.

In my opinion, our society's burdens should be shared fairly by everyone. These preferential treatment programs, like affirmative action programs, are unfair because they put the burden on non-minorities who are looking for jobs or higher education. These individuals are not directly responsible for past injustices or fixing present inequalities more than anyone else. It is not fair that they should have to bear the full burden. They shouldn't be punished for things their ancestors did.

History and economics both shows that even though affirmative action programs  may seem helpful, it actually causes problems. When we give special treatment to women and minorities, it doesn't always help the people who have suffered the most from discrimination and deserve compensation the most. Often, those who are most disadvantaged don't have the qualifications and skills needed to get jobs or go to college. Reports show that there is a growing difference between poor black people with little education and job skills, and wealthy black people who have more opportunities. It is also not clear if even the minorities and women who qualify for the affirmative action programs really benefit from it. Recent studies show that many minority college students who were admitted through affirmative action programs end up dropping out. When these individuals are given opportunities they are not ready for, it can make them feel inferior.

A Victory for Merit

As was noted above, the Supreme Court made a decision that ended affirmative action in college admissions on June 29, 2023. In my view, this ruling is a big win for the idea that people should be chosen based on their abilities, not their identity. But the fight against racial preferences is still going on. Our top universities don't really care about having true diversity. They want everyone to think the same way and have an appearance of equal outcomes, even if it is not really fair. Regardless of the recent court cases, it is clear that most Americans don't support racial preferences.

Whenever affirmative action is put up for a vote, people usually vote against it by a large majority. It doesn't matter if they live in a Republican or Democratic state. Most Americans believe that our laws and institutions should treat everyone equally, without considering their race. A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center showed that 82% of Americans think that college admissions should not take race into account. That is almost everyone! But the Left and the institutions they control still want to push this idea on us. The situation in California is a good example of this.

Back in 1996, California voters passed a law called Proposition 209. It said that public institutions couldn't use race, sex, or ethnicity when making decisions about jobs, contracts, or academic admissions. This law was popular in the state, and it seems that black and minority students who got into California schools actually did better after the law was in place. Then, in 2020, some left-wing activists tried to bring affirmative action back in California. They failed by an even bigger margin than before. Almost everyone, no matter where they lived or what background they had, didn't want it. People who support racial preferences made excuses for why it failed, but it is hard to believe those excuses when the measure was defeated by such a large amount.

The people supporting Prop 16 had a lot of advantages. They spent way more money than their opponents, almost 20 times as much. They had a lot of nonprofit organizations and big companies supporting them. The universities were also on their side. They tried to pass it in 2020 when there were protests about racism, like the Black Lives Matter riots and the "defund the police" movement. At that time, California was very liberal and had more people from different races than ever before.

But even with all these advantages, they couldn't convince people to support a system based on race. People in California and all over America didn't want it. The elites in charge of institutions, though, they kept pushing for it. They just wouldn't give up. The New York Times even said that not having racial preferences was a crisis for the Left. According to the newspaper, the Democratic Party strongly believed in bringing back affirmative action based on race, but the big defeat in California showed that regular people in the party didn't agree. The New York Times suggested that if the Supreme Court made another ruling against racial preferences, which they just did, it could make the Democratic Party change its agenda.

I'm not so sure about that. They might be less likely to bring race-based policies to a vote because they know it won't win. Instead, they will use their power in institutions and bureaucracy to get the results they want. Sadly, many schools in California and other places have found ways to get around the ban on racial preferences. They lower their standards to make sure they have the mix of races they want. This has been a problem at Harvard and other elite schools that were sued. The evidence shows that Harvard tries to have a certain balance of races among its students. It also shows that black and Hispanic students get admitted at higher rates than white and Asian students with the same grades and qualifications.

Will colleges and universities accept the Supreme Court's recent ruling and move forward? Not a chance. If they can't use race in admissions, some schools with more resources will find other ways to promote diversity. They might look at household incomes, ZIP codes, or use special programs to recruit certain students. Their goal will still be to have a certain number of students from different races, even if the Supreme Court says they can't.

Higher education is where the belief in racial preferences is strongest and unquestioned. That is where the power of this movement lies. Universities will keep teaching students, who will become future leaders, that we should focus on race and make sure everyone has the same outcome regardless of their abilities. The institutions will fight against any changes, and the media will support them. It is up to Americans and elected officials to put pressure on them to stop. That might mean taking away funding from diversity and inclusion programs. It might mean making it easier to remove staff and faculty who push a highly racialized way of thinking instead of encouraging real learning and independent thought. Those who disagree with race preferences need to be proactive in fighting against these harmful ideas.

The Supreme Court dealt a serious blow to racial preferences, but we can expect the institutions to fight back. The end of racial preferences in college admissions won't be the end of this battle. It is the people versus the institutions, just like in many other issues today. Let us support the people and help them win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Ax, J. (2023, June 29). What the Supreme Court's Ruling on Affirmative Action Means for Colleges. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/what-supreme-courts-ruling-affirmative-action-means-colleges-2023-06-29/

Keenan, A. (2023, June 29). Supreme Court Rules Affirmative Action 'Must End' in College Admissions. Retrieved from Yahoo! Finance: https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/supreme-court-rules-affirmative-action-must-end-in-college-admissions-145400431.html

Pew Research Center. (2023, June 8). Asian Americans Hold Mixed Views Around Affirmative Action. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/race-ethnicity/2023/06/08/asian-americans-hold-mixed-views-around-affirmative-action/re_2023-06-08_asian-americans-affirmative-action_0-05/

Powell , M., & Marcus, I. (2023, June 11). The Failed Affirmative Action Campaign That Shook Democrats. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/11/us/supreme-court-affirmative-action.html

Slattery, E. (2015, December 2). How Affirmative Action at Colleges Hurts Minority Students. Retrieved from The Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/courts/commentary/how-affirmative-action-colleges-hurts-minority-students

Stepman, J. (2023, June 28). On Racial Preferences, It’s Institutional Elites vs. the People. Retrieved from The Daily Signal: https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/racial-preferences-its-institutional-elites-vs-the-people

 

 

The Clothes Business: Luxury Labels Shine, Mass Market Faces Challenges.

 

 

Fashion companies are facing a storm of challenges, like trying to swim against the tide. Meanwhile, luxury brands are like superheroes, unaffected by economic troubles.

Last year, people in the United States had a lot of money to spend. The Commerce Department announced on February of 2022,  that shoppers in the country spent 3.8% more in January compared to December. They didn't seem worried about the rising prices and the uncertainty caused by COVID-19. This increase in spending is the fastest it has been in one year. Some of the money is being spent on new clothes. Clothing stores in other places are also doing well. In Britain, fashion was the only type of product that had an increase in online sales last year. The fashion industry is very happy and hopeful right now.

Expensive fashion brands like Christian Dior and Gucci are not affected much by economic problems. People who can afford their clothes may struggle a little during a recession but they don't end up with nothing. Other fashion brands that are not as luxurious are also doing well lately.

Ralph Lauren, which is an American brand that is a bit more expensive, opened 80 new stores in 2021 alone. They opened a really important store in Milan, Italy, and also in cities like Atlanta, Chicago, Detroit, and Miami, in the fanciest shopping areas. The boss of the company, Patrice Louvet, believes that people will keep buying new clothes, and he says his company is doing great. Hennes & Mauritz, a big fast-fashion company known as H&M, has seen its sales go back to how they were before the pandemic, and they are making more profit than they have in many years. Helena Helmersson, who became the CEO of the company in January 2020, right before COVID-19 started spreading in Europe, noted that she wants to double the company's sales by 2030 and make sure they are making more than 10% profit within three years. In 2020, their profit was less than 2%, but in 2021 it was 7.7%.

Ms. Helmersson and Mr. Louvet are feeling hopeful about the fashion industry as it recovers from the problems caused by the pandemic. However, they should be careful not to celebrate too much this year. Clothing companies, especially those that cater to a lot of people, are facing many challenges. Some of these challenges, like using technology and being more environmentally friendly, were there even before COVID-19. The pandemic has added even more challenges, such as problems with getting supplies and paying a lot for shipping, as well as not having enough workers. On top of that, the decisions of the world's most populated autocracy (probably referring to China) can make companies lose a lot of money if they make a mistake. H&M's sales went down in China last year because the company expressed concerns about forced labor in the Xinjiang region.

Fashion stores did well in 2021 and 2022 because of unusual circumstances that won't last forever. When stores finally reopened, people had a lot of built-up desire to buy things, especially expensive clothes for special occasions. People also had extra money from the government. And the pandemic caused some weaker companies to go out of business, so there was less competition in the crowded market. In Britain, stores like Topshop, Laura Ashley, and TM Lewin closed, and in America, Ann Taylor, Brooks Brothers, and J. Crew closed too.

Now that people are no longer getting money from the government and have already bought new clothes, they might start being more careful with their money. Unlike rich customers who buy luxury brands and might not even notice that the price of a handbag went up from $5,000 to $8,000, regular customers of mass-market brands might not want to pay higher prices. Investing in technology and being more environmentally friendly, like Ms. Helmersson did with a vegan collection and a digital platform for trading second-hand clothes, will make it harder for fast-fashion companies to make as much money.

Passé Brands Beware

When it comes to competition, some old-fashioned brands might disappear, but there are new brands that are more threatening to the big stores that sell a lot of things. Companies like Shein from China, Asos from Britain, and Zalando from Germany are better at using technology than H&M and Inditex, which owns brands like Zara. They are also finding ways to attract young people who love fashion. Because of all this, experts think that H&M's sales will increase by about 50% by 2030, which is not as much as what Ms. Helmersson thinks, and they won't make as much profit. The price of H&M's shares, just like Inditex's shares, is lower than before the pandemic.

In its report about the clothing business in 2022, McKinsey, a consultancy, says that cheap and luxury fashion will continue to impress investors. Stores that sell clothes in the middle range might have a couple more seasons of people buying a lot of things to get back at the stores, but after that, things might not go so well for them.

 

 

 

 

 

 Notes

 

Gross, E. L. (2020, July 23). Ann Taylor, Lane Bryant Owner Latest Retailer To File For Bankruptcy. Retrieved from Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/elanagross/2020/07/23/ann-taylor-lane-bryant-owner-latest-retailer-to-file-for-bankruptcy/?sh=232033cb3f21

Howland, D. (2021, November 2). Ralph Lauren is Opening 90 New Stores this Year. Retrieved from Retail Dive: https://www.retaildive.com/news/ralph-lauren-is-opening-90-new-stores-this-year/609307/

Marcos, C. M. (2022, February 16). Retail Sales Jumped in January, Another Sign of the Economy’s Resilience. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/16/business/economy/retail-sales-january.html

McKinsey & Company. (2022). The State of Fashion. Retrieved from Annual Report : https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/retail/our%20insights/state%20of%20fashion/2022/the-state-of-fashion-2022.pdf

The Economist. (2022, February 19). The Middle-Market Corset: After Expanding in 2021, Fast Fashion May Be Squeezed Again. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/business/2022/02/19/after-expanding-in-2021-fast-fashion-may-be-squeezed-again

The Guardian . (2020, December 31). Analysis: From Laura Ashley to Debenhams: The Biggest Retail Collapses of 2020. Retrieved from The Guardian: Retail Industry: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2021/jan/01/from-laura-ashley-to-debenhams-the-biggest-retail-collapses-of-2020

 

 

Comrades No More: Prigozhin's Rebellion Shakes Foundations

 

 In the words of Winston Churchill, Russian leaders are like "bulldogs fighting under a carpet." More than a year after Mr. Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it seems that his dogs of war are now openly fighting each other. As the drama unfolds, the world becomes a captive audience, observing with bated breath how the intricate plot of power dynamics will unfold on this turbulent stage.

In the face of accusations, betrayal, and rising insurrection, does Vladimir Putin's response reflect a cunning manipulation of power-hungry factions or a loss of control over his subordinates? The whole drama started on Friday (June 23), when the fight between Russia's warlords suddenly turned into what is basically a big rebellion. Wagner mercenaries started  going against the regular army and trying to control the city of Rostov-on-Don, which is close to Ukraine. The president, Vladimir Putin, spoke to the nation about the crisis and called Prigozhin's actions a betrayal of Russia. People are asking if he is playing games with power-hungry groups or if he is losing control of his own team.

The Wagner rebellion started when their leader, Yevgeny Prigozhin, made videos accusing Russia's army of attacking his group. He threatened to bring thousands of his fighters to fight back. Some generals made videos asking the Wagner troops to stay loyal, but it didn't work. On June 24th, there were videos on social media showing Wagner soldiers surrounding important places in Rostov-on-Don. People watched the videos and saw a street-sweeper working nearby. Later, Prigozhin was filmed outside a military building, calling Russian generals "clowns." He said they could keep fighting in Ukraine but demanded that the top leaders talk to him, or he would go to Moscow. Further north in Pavlovsk, videos seemed to show helicopters fighting. Wagner claimed they shot one down, and the army let them pass. Russian media didn't report on what happened in Rostov-on-Don, but the TASS News Agency published pictures of the soldiers, calling them Wagner fighters in English.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainian forces have been trying to push back against their enemy, Russia. Although their progress has been slow, they will be happy to see the confusion and disorder among the Russian troops. It's not clear yet if they can take advantage of this situation and win in battle. Russia said that the Ukrainian troops were using Prigozhin's actions to plan an attack near Bakhmut, where there has been a lot of violent fighting involving Wagner. The Ukrainian commanders say they haven't used all their forces yet and are still looking for weak spots. However, it seems that they have already caused enough problems for Russia's military leaders.

Epic Showdown!

Mr. Prigozhin and the military leaders have been rivals for a long time. He has gained a lot of followers by making videos where he complains about the high command's corruption and incompetence. His group, filled with ex-convicts, has proven to be better fighters than regular Russian troops. Mr. Prigozhin has accused top officials of being cowards and deliberately withholding weapons and supplies from his group.

On June 23rd, Mr. Prigozhin posted videos that were even more surprising than usual. He questioned the reasons for Mr. Putin's military operation and claimed there was no real threat from Ukraine. He said Russian leaders, not Mr. Putin, had led the country to war because of corruption and selfishness. He also said Ukrainian forces were advancing, contradicting the Kremlin's claims. He called the information from the Kremlin a complete lie.

Things took a serious turn when Mr. Prigozhin claimed that Russian army units had attacked and killed thousands of Wagner fighters. He vowed that his group would respond and march against the Russian army, but he denied it was a coup. He specifically targeted Mr. Shoigu, accusing him of ordering the attack and running away to avoid explaining his actions. In another video, Mr. Prigozhin declared that the military leadership's evil deeds must be stopped. He demanded that nobody resist but didn't say what he would do. He also warned that his group would consider anyone who resisted a threat and destroy them immediately.

There is a lot of uncertainty about Mr. Prigozhin's actions. Mr. Putin has allowed him to criticize the campaign, even though others are jailed for calling it a "war." However, Mr. Prigozhin seems to have genuinely unsettled the top military brass. The defense ministry denied Mr. Prigozhin's accusations and called them a "provocation." The FSB, the main Russian security service, announced that they would prosecute Mr. Prigozhin for calling for an armed uprising. They warned Wagner fighters not to make a mistake, stop using force against the Russian people, and take steps to detain him. Senior generals who support Wagner also released their own videos late at night. General Surovikin, a deputy commander, sat with a rifle and pleaded with Wagner units to stop. He said the enemy was waiting for the political situation in Russia to worsen and urged them to follow Mr. Putin's orders.

Security forces, including armored vehicles, were seen in Moscow, and important facilities and authorities were given extra protection. Mr. Putin's spokesperson said that the necessary measures were being taken, and Mr. Putin himself vowed punishment for anybody or group causing armed uprising in Russia. Some analysts see this as a power struggle between Mr. Shoigu and Mr. Prigozhin.

In the words of Winston Churchill, Russian leaders are now like "bulldogs fighting under a carpet." More than a year after Mr. Putin's invasion of Ukraine, it seems that his dogs of war are now openly fighting each other. After over a year since Mr. Putin launched his invasion of Ukraine, a surprising turn of events has occurred. Instead of focusing on external conflicts, it appears that the internal strife within Russia's ranks has escalated. The once united "dogs of war" under Putin's command are now engaged in open conflict amongst themselves. This unexpected twist highlights a growing rift and power struggle within the Russian military and government. As the dogs of war fight amongst themselves, the consequences and implications of this internal turmoil remain uncertain, leaving observers questioning the stability and future course of Russia's actions.

 

 

 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

 

Notes

Getty, J. A. (2013). Practicing Stalinism: Bolsheviks, Boyars, and the Persistence of Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Osborn , A., & Liffey, K. (2023, June 24). Russian Mercenary Boss Prigozhin in Standoff With Russian Army Amid 'Armed Mutiny'. Retrieved from Yahoo! News: https://www.yahoo.com/news/wagner-head-suggests-mercenaries-headed-043537006.html

Regan , H., & Raine, A. (2023, June 24). Russia Accuses Wagner Chief of Urging "Armed Rebellion". Retrieved from CNN: https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/russia-ukraine-war-news-06-24-23/index.html

TASS News Agency. (2023, June 23). Prigozhin Charged With Armed Mutiny, to Face Up to 20 Years in Prison. Retrieved from https://tass.com/russia/1637475

The Economist. (2023, June 24). Rebellion in Russia: Wagner Rebels Turn Against Putin’s Army. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/europe/2023/06/24/wagner-rebels-turn-against-putins-army

 

 

China as Africa’s New Overlord

 

Africa is becoming the new battleground for the global infrastructure race. China is winning, and the West is starting to sweat.

 The next time you're in Africa, look around. Chances are, you will see something that was built by the Chinese. In plain terms, China has become the leader in constructing large projects in Africa. Chinese companies, supported by Beijing, have transformed the transportation system on the continent. They have built railways connecting cities, shortened travel time in Congo, and improved numerous airports. In addition to these achievements, China has constructed skyscrapers, bridges, dams, and ports, making a significant impact in Africa.

However, things were different in the past. In 1990, American and European companies dominated the construction industry in Africa, securing more than 85% of the contracts. Chinese companies were not even considered. But now, Western companies are struggling to compete in this rapidly growing market. The World Bank reported that by the year 2040, the need for money to build infrastructure will be more than $300 billion every year. Africa's population is growing faster than any other continent, and people are migrating to cities at a rapid pace. These factors will drive the demand for infrastructure. Chinese companies currently account for 31% of all infrastructure projects valued at $50 million or more in Africa, up from 12% in 2013, while Western companies are responsible for only about 12%, compared to 37% in 2013, according to Deloitte, a consulting firm.

This shift in favor of Chinese companies concerns not only shareholders of Western firms but also their governments. Western governments view China's increasing economic influence in Africa as a threat to their own strategic and diplomatic power. China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which finances infrastructure projects, including ports and roads, has raised concerns that it may lead to China establishing naval bases in Africa, similar to the one in Djibouti. Western governments are also worried that Chinese investments in African mines could give China control over strategic minerals like cobalt, which is used in electric cars. Recently, the United States has prioritized competition with China in its foreign policy. Both the US and Europe have been trying to provide African countries with alternative financing options to the Belt and Road Initiative. European leaders, for example, earmarked over  €150 billion ($170 billion) for investment in African infrastructure during their  EU-Africa summit in February 2022.

Western governments are urging their companies to invest more and undertake more projects in Africa. However, this is challenging because Western construction firms feel disadvantaged from the beginning, primarily due to China's significant financial resources. Between 2007 and 2020, Chinese development banks provided $23 billion for African infrastructure, while all other development banks combined only contributed $9.1 billion, according to the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank in Washington (See figure 1 below).

 Table 1

Finance for Sub-Saharan Africa from Bilateral Development Finance Institutions

(2007 – 2020) 

Bilateral Finance Institution	Amount ($)
China EXIM Bank	$20 Billion
China Development Bank	$2.50 Billion
Oversea Private Investment Corporation (US)	$2.10 Billion
Japan’s Bank for International Development	$1.70 Billion
KfW (Germany)	$1.60 Billion
FMO (Netherland)	$1.40 Billion
Development Bank of Southern Africa	$1.10 Billion
Proparco (France)	$0.90 Billion

               Source: Culled from The Economist, 2022.

Pluckier, Riskier, and Hilariously Reckless

Chinese lenders in Africa are generally braver than Western lenders. Sometimes they take big risks. When Kenya's president, Uhuru Kenyatta, wanted $4.7 billion to build a new railway, the World Bank said it would never make money. But Chinese lenders supported the project. Unfortunately, the railway has lost over $200 million. Chinese companies are also tough when it comes to making deals. They have made agreements in Ghana and Guinea, where they give loans for roads in exchange for valuable resources like bauxite. A study by AidData, which is part of William & Mary University, found that Chinese lenders often put tough conditions to make sure they get their money back.

Western companies also complain that their governments don't offer as many benefits. In 2021, China said it would use its own money to build new foreign ministries in Congo and Kenya. They have also paid for other important buildings, like parliament complexes in Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe, and presidential palaces in Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, and Togo. Because of this generosity, it's not surprising that some African governments prefer Chinese companies. On the other hand, Western governments often use their aid for less glamorous and sometimes unpopular things, like educating girls.

One important thing is that Chinese companies are known for building things quickly. They get money from Chinese banks easily, and some projects in Africa look like copies of ones built in China. This probably saves time because they don't have to make new plans. For example, the stations along the new railway between Ethiopia and Djibouti, which China built, look like they were taken from China. They might be able to work fast by not doing things like checking the impact on the environment.

Because of this, Chinese companies can finish a big project before the next election. This gives the current leaders a chance to take pictures cutting ribbons right before people vote. Western companies are usually not as quick. Someone from a European engineering company said that it can be hard for Western companies to even start a project.

It is also worth noting here that Chinese companies often win contracts because they are more competitive, says a study by Brookings, an American think-tank that looked at projects financed by the World Bank. Western companies complain that some Chinese projects are poorly built, and there are stories of roads that fall apart after a few years. However, another study by the China-Africa Research Initiative at Johns Hopkins University found no difference in the quality of work between Chinese and Western contractors on infrastructure projects funded by the World Bank. The World Bank is strict about fair bidding and high construction standards, so companies bidding on its projects need to be on their best behavior.

In many cases, Chinese companies get the work because there is no competition. Many Western companies avoid Africa because they see it as too risky. And indeed, there are risks. Property rights are often weak, and there is a lot of fraud. One Western manager described trying to buy land and later finding out that the people they were negotiating with didn't actually own it.

These challenges explain why many infrastructure projects fail before they even begin. McKinsey, a consultancy firm, estimates that 80% of infrastructure projects in Africa never progress past the planning stage, and only one in ten successfully secure the necessary funds.

Corruption is another major problem. In the past, Western companies would often pay bribes to win contracts in Africa and other places. A survey conducted in 1999-2000 found that construction companies spent 1-2% of their revenue on bribes, according to a World Bank report by Charles Kenny. He also noted that in 2005, 40% of international construction companies reported losing contracts because a competitor had paid a bribe.

Today, anti-corruption laws in the United States and Britain are stricter and apply regardless of where the bribery occurs. Western companies are now more reluctant to pay bribes, although some still get into trouble. For instance, in 2017, Halliburton, an American company, was fined $29.2 million for violations in Angola, and the World Bank has imposed sanctions on a subsidiary of Bouygues, a French construction company, due to irregularities in contracts.

However, a Western project manager complains that some African officials don't care about anti-corruption laws. They still expect bribes in the form of "brown envelopes" for ministers and permanent secretaries. The leader of a Western mining company is frustrated because Chinese firms have more freedom to operate. They can work without licenses and even without permission from the government in places like the Central African Republic, as long as they have paid off local warlords.

Some Western companies still try to compete for business in Africa. However, not all of them have positive experiences. In 2017, Bechtel, a large American construction company, won a $2.7 billion contract to build a major road in Kenya. But then the Kenyan government changed its mind and asked for a loan instead of upfront payment for the road. When the American government refused, Kenya lost interest in the project.

Another example involves GBM Engineering, a British company that won a $2 billion contract to build a dam in Kenya. They got the contract because five Chinese competitors failed to submit their bids on time. However, six months later, GBM's contract was canceled due to allegations of Chinese pressure on the government board that awarded the tender. GBM appealed five times, but their appeals were ignored. The case is still going through the courts, and the dam, like Bechtel's highway, remains unbuilt.

Not all Western executives are disappointed, though. More and more French companies are now working together with Chinese companies. Initially, these relationships were informal, with French and Chinese firms separately working on the same project, often with the French companies handling the more complicated tasks.

In recent times, the collaboration between France and China has become more formal. For example, CMA CGM, a French logistics company, has entered into partnerships with firms like China Harbour Engineering Company. Sometimes French companies want Chinese partners because they can provide state-backed financing that is not available in Paris. In other cases, formal collaborations emerge after years of informal work together. According to Deloitte, in 2020, around 15% of all major infrastructure projects were being built by consortia consisting of both Western and Chinese firms.

China's Chuckles

China's involvement in African infrastructure is a double-edged sword. It's like a storm that brings both destruction and blessings. On one hand, it has burdened countries with overwhelming debt and fueled corruption, creating projects that will never make a dime, just like Kenya's unprofitable railway. However, as time goes by, the scandals will fade away, and the debts will be left unpaid. What remains will be China's lasting legacy: the much-needed roads and ports that Africa desperately requires for its economic growth.

Interestingly, China's actions are unintentionally attracting Western money by igniting the fears of Western leaders, like throwing fuel on a fire. The British government, for example, recently announced that its development arm would invest $1 billion in Kenyan infrastructure. Additionally, a British company will construct a brand-new railway hub in central Nairobi. Furthermore, the g7 group of countries launched the Build Back Better World initiative last year, shamelessly imitating China's strategy. All of these developments should create more opportunities for construction companies from various nations, whether they are Western, Chinese, or, if luck is on their side, even African firms.

 

Notes

 

Albert, E. (2017, July 12). China in Africa. Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations: https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/china-africa

Cassin, R. L. (2017, July 27). Halliburton Pays $29 Million to Settle Angola FCPA Offenses. Retrieved from The FCPA Blog: https://fcpablog.com/2017/07/27/halliburton-pays-29-million-to-settle-angola-fcpa-offenses/#:~:text=Halliburton%20Company%20paid%20the%20SEC,friend%20of%20an%20Angolan%20official.

Deloitte Global. (2019, March 22). If You Want to Prosper, Consider building Roads: China’s Role in African Infrastructure and Capital Projects. Retrieved from Deloitte Global: https://www.deloitte.com/global/en/our-thinking/insights/industry/government-public-services/china-investment-africa-infrastructure-development.html

GCR. (2018, April 10). British Engineer Wins $2bn Kenya Dam After Legal Wrangle. Retrieved from Global Construction Review: https://www.globalconstructionreview.com/british-engineer-wins-2bn-kenya-dam-after-legal-wr/

Gelpern, A., Horn, S., Morris, S., Parks, B., & Trebesch, C. (2021). How China Lends: A Rare Look into 100 Debt Contracts with Foreign Governments. Retrieved from Aid Data: https://docs.aiddata.org/reports/how-china-lends.html

Kenny, C. (2007). Construction, Corruption, and Developing Countries . World Bank Policy Research Working Paper , World Bank. Retrieved from https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/571281468137721953/pdf/wps4271.pdf

Lakmeeharan, K., Manji, Q., Nyairo, R., & Pöltner, H. (2020, March 6). Solving Africa’s infrastructure paradox. Retrieved from McKinsey & Company: https://www.mckinsey.com/capabilities/operations/our-insights/solving-africas-infrastructure-paradox

Reuters. (2022, February 10). EU Earmarks 150 Billion Euros for Investment in Africa. Retrieved from Reuters - Africa: https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/eu-earmarks-150-billion-euros-investment-africa-2022-02-10/

Stein, P. (2021, August 25). China in Africa: The Role of Trade, Investments, and Loans Amidst Shifting Geopolitical Ambitions. Retrieved from Observer Research Foundation: https://www.orfonline.org/research/china-in-africa/

The Economist. (2022, February 19). Chasing the Dragon: How Chinese Firms Have Dominated African Infrastructure. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/how-chinese-firms-have-dominated-african-infrastructure/21807721

The Zimbabwean. (2023, June 22). How Zimbabwe’s new Parliament Symbolises China’s Chequebook Diplomacy Approach to Africa. Retrieved from https://www.thezimbabwean.co/2020/01/how-zimbabwes-new-parliament-symbolises-chinas-chequebook-diplomacy-approach-to-africa/

Warters, N. (2021, April 28). AidData’s Work on Chinese Lending Study Draws Attention from Governments and Media Outlets Worldwide. Retrieved from W&M News Archive - AidData: https://www.wm.edu/news/stories/2021/aiddatas-work-on-chinese-lending-study-draws-attention-from-governments-and-media-outlets-worldwide.php

Wiegert, J., & Schneidman, W. (2018, April 16). Competing in Africa: China, the European Union, and the United States. Retrieved from Brookings Institution: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/africa-in-focus/2018/04/16/competing-in-africa-china-the-european-union-and-the-united-states/

Trump’s New Indictment: Can He Outfox the Courts?

 

The US establishment's obsession with indicting Trump is a puzzle wrapped in a mystery. But Trump may dance his way to victory once more, eluding their grasp like a slippery eel, if it goes to trial. A Florida jury would hear the case since that is where the special counsel sought the indictment. In the conservative-learning state, Trump would need only one juror to oppose his conviction for there to be a mistrial.

With the release of a slew of charges by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the end of a protracted investigation into the alleged removal of sensitive information from the White House, Trump finds himself at the epicenter of a legal storm once again. This humiliating distinction is an unusual chapter in American history in which a former president has become entangled in the complicated web of the law. As the curtain rises on this high-stakes story, the country waits with bated breath for the result of this legal crisis that threatens to define Trump's legacy.

The indictment's specifics were revealed in a 49-page document. The claims are breathtaking. Prosecutors claim that Mr Trump placed sensitive information, including those pertaining to national security, in boxes in an egregiously careless and negligent manner. They were discovered scattered throughout the former president's Florida residence, including a shower stall, a restroom, an office, a bedroom, and—most ostentatiously—the stage of a ballroom where receptions and meetings were often held. Mr. Trump's attorneys said that the records were all kept in a storage closet.

The documents were confiscated in August, when FBI agents executed a search warrant at Mar-a-Lago to collect highly top  secret materials that Mr Trump had failed to return despite several demands. The unusual behavior shows that Mr. Trump's arrogance may be to blame for his new pain. An important  defense Mr Trump provided at the time—that as president, he had the authority to declassify the records by fiat—is at odds with an audio tape acquired by prosecutors in 2021, in which he appears to concede that some files in his possession were still secret.  During a conversation with two authors working on a book about an aide, Mr. Trump stated that the fact that he has this type of power completely wins his case, even though the papers are highly confidential, that is, they are top secret.

The Department of Justice has traditionally advised prosecutors to avoid investigating or charging candidates for public office in the run-up to an election, lest they damage public trust in the rule of law. The attorney-general, Merrick Garland, instructed his department in 2022 to be especially mindful of preserving the department's reputation for impartiality, neutrality, and nonpartisanship. As a result, he appointed an independent special counsel, Jack Smith, to handle two investigations involving Mr Trump: his handling of sensitive materials and his role in the January 6th, 2021, Capitol Hill violence.

Mr Smith and the department would be severely embarrassed if a conviction was not obtained. Mr. Trump and his followers argue that the indictment is only the latest incarnation of a "witch-hunt" carried out by a weaponized deep state. Mr. Trump argued that Joe Biden has troves of classified documents from his time as vice president, which is a far more serious breach. Both former Vice President Mike Pence (now a Republican primary contender) and former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton had sensitive materials in their possession while out of office.

Indictment charges include, but are not limited to: keeping classified documents without authorization and possibly sharing them with others; conspiring to obstruct justice by resisting requests to return documents; putting pressure on individuals to refuse to testify against him or to make things up; concealing documents and making false statements. All of these charges carry significant prison sentences. In total, Mr. Smith is accusing Mr. Trump of breaking 37 federal criminal laws, one of which being the Espionage Act, which was passed in 1917 during the first world war.

Those who watched Mr. Trump appear in court in New York less than three months ago on state charges related to his alleged hush-money payments to Stormy Daniels, an adult-film actress who says she had a tryst with him, will find the scene in Miami, where he will be arraigned in court on June 13th, to be very familiar. The arraignment will take place in the same court that Mr. Trump appeared in in New York. The former president will enter a not guilty plea once more, and he will be given bail and released pending a trial date that will be set many months down the road. Because he appointed Aileen Cannon to her position as a federal judge, he will be the first person in the history of the United States to face a criminal process in front of such a court.

The political repercussions are rather foreseeable, despite the unprecedented spectacle of a former president being brought into a federal courtroom. After all, this is not the first time that Mr. Trump has been the subject of a judicial investigation, nor is it the first time that he has been indicted for a crime. The Republican Party looks to be coming together to protect him, much like they did in the past, even if some members of the party are competing with him for the presidential nomination in 2024. The incumbent governor of Florida and one of his most formidable opponents, Ron DeSantis, was driven to speak up in his support.  He stated on his Twitter account that the arming of federal law enforcement posed a grave danger to a nation that values its freedom. Tim Scott, a senator from South Carolina who is also running for nomination, has remarked that the legal system that exists in the United States now is one in which the scales are tilted in a particular direction. These statements were made by both candidates before they were aware of what was contained in the indictment.

 

A Comedy of Errors

The last eight years of Trumpism have distorted the Republican Party to such an extent that an onslaught of charges and legal processes may actually assist the former president obtain the nomination, rather than hurting him. It is heretical to suggest that the president may have broken the law and could be fairly prosecuted for it; the price for thinking it aloud still looks to be excommunication. If the party was willing to forgive him for his acts that led to the attack on the Capitol, it is difficult to see what might break the allegiance of his supporters. It is unlikely that a finding of civil culpability for sexual abuse, nor allegations of financial crimes over hush-money payments, could break their loyalty to him.

Keeping highly classified information and deceiving federal officials who wanted to get them is a new level of malfeasance, and it may place Mr. Trump in greater legal risk than the other cases combined. However, the former president's following may be unfazed by any accusations made against their political hero.

It is possible that local prosecutors in Georgia may add conspiring to undermine the election process to the long list of accusations that have been brought against Mr. Trump. Throughout the course of the presidential primary, the candidate will continue to face trials and court dates, which will evoke the compassion of voters and force his opponents within his own party to spend less time attacking him and more time condemning the purported persecution. Due to the fact that the criminal trial in New York is scheduled to begin on March 25th, 2024, it will cast a shadow over the most important first two months of the primary season.

However, there is really little room for debate on the fact that Mr. Trump's most recent and severe legal exposure puts his chances of winning back the White House in jeopardy. Although it is exceedingly doubtful that Mr. Trump will be locked up before November 2024 due to the sluggish speed at which American courts operate, the impending indictments that helped him in the primary would be liabilities in a general election rematch against Mr. Biden. There is no reason for moderate voters who are already turned off by Mr. Trump's behavior in office (and the Republican effort to restrict abortion) to view him as the safer and saner option when he is proposing to rid the deep state of his persecutors.

On the other hand, Trump does have certain plans under his sleeve that have a chance of being successful. It is possible for his legal team to dispute the testimony of witnesses, place blame on third parties, or argue that he was merely following the advice of his legal team and did not mean to infringe the law. Since the special counsel's office seeking the indictment was located in Florida, a jury from that state would hear the case in the event that it went to trial. In order for there to be a mistrial in the state that prioritizes conservatism and education, there just needs to be one juror who is against convicting Trump. There is also the possibility that his legal team will make requests to have the trial delayed until after the election in November 2024. Legal scholars dispute on whether or not Donald Trump may pardon himself if his case is successful.

One thing is for certain: the Trump and US establishment legal circus has arrived in town, and they're putting on a display that even the best acrobats would envy! This spectacle has us all on the edge of our seats, with jaw-dropping twists, mind-boggling debates, and blame-shifting gymnastics that would make a contortionist happy. Who needs Netflix when we've got this never-ending narrative of legal wrangling? Anyone for popcorn? Keep an eye on the center ring, where Trump and the US establishment are juggling truth, justice, and the American way. It's a spectacle more amusing than a bucket of monkeys, and we can't wait to see what wild act they'll come up with next!

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Garver, R. (2023, June 9). Republicans Rally Around Trump After Indictment . Retrieved from VOA News: https://www.voanews.com/a/republicans-rally-around-trump-after-indictment-/7130999.html

Queen, J. (2023, June 10). Analysis: Trump Faces Difficult Odds in Classified-Documents Case. Retrieved from Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-faces-difficult-odds-classified-documents-case-2023-06-10/

The Economist. (2023, June 9). United States of America v Donald J. Trump: Donald Trump is in His Most Serious Legal Trouble Yet. Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/united-states/2023/06/09/donald-trump-is-in-his-most-serious-legal-trouble-yet

The United States Department of Justice. (2022, November 18). Appointment of a Special Counsel. Retrieved from Office of Public Affairs Press Release: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/appointment-special-counsel-0

Vlamis, K. (2023, January 15). The Ways Federal Officials From Richard Nixon to Donald Trump — and Now Joe Biden — Have Been Accused of Mishandling Government Records. Retrieved from Business Insider: https://www.businessinsider.com/officials-accused-of-mishandling-records-trump-hillary-clinton-nixon-2022-8

 

 

Forest Fires in US East Coast and Canada: Blame the 2015 Cottonwood Ruling

 

The Cottonwood decision and the environmental resistance to forest thinning fuels the raging fires in Canada and the U.S East Coast.  As the Forest Service remains hostage to the left, and the smoky taste of congressional inaction lingers, the East Coasters are grasping for a breath.  

The smoke tendrils have made their way to the East Coast of the United States, providing a bittersweet taste of the West's wildfire devastation. Perhaps the persistent haze will kindle a burning sense of urgency in Congress to overturn the catastrophic Cottonwood ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which is impeding progress toward better forest management.

As smoke blankets the East Coast, its presence is expected to linger for days, possibly longer if the Canadian flames burn unchecked. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau conveniently blames climate change, using it as a handy scapegoat, disguising the underlying inadequacies of government policies that worsen the havoc inflicted by natural disasters.

Fires that have long destroyed Canada's boreal woods, ornamented with conifers, birch, and poplar, have become less frequent over the years, like a smokescreen. However, the growing stockpile of timber fuel has ignited the possibility of a record-breaking year in terms of acres burned. Environmentalists, acting as reluctant firemen, have fought critical forest thinning, adding fuel to the flames of these disastrous fires.

 

Legislative Lamentations

For thousands of years, fires have basically "danced" through Canada's boreal forests, providing a blazing stage. While the number of fires has been decreasing since the early 1990s, the year 2020 saw the fewest infernos in three decades. Yet, beneath the surface, the acreage burned continues to spread like a raging wildfire, fed by an accumulation of timber ready to catch fire. As the year progresses, it threatens to break records and roast the land.

The main foe fueling the fires in the fiery battleground of Canada and the United States is environmentalists' opposition to reducing overgrown woods. While the government has become more cognizant of forest management issues, employees with the US Forest Service are still constrained by the Cottonwood judgment from 2015. This order, like a smoky haze, requires the EPA to cooperate with other entities on land management plans whenever a new endangered species is identified or a "critical habitat" is declared.

With over 1,300 species on the verge of extinction, environmental advocacy groups actively push for new designations, burying forest officials in paperwork and delaying critical management initiatives. This collision of opinions even sparks disagreements inside the judicial system, as the Tenth Circuit judicial of Appeals disagrees with Cottonwood's criteria. As a result, the Forest Service is pulled between various management systems, resulting in a perplexing dance among Ninth Circuit states.

While a temporary solution was introduced in the form of a 2018 appropriations bill provision that provided a five-year exemption from Cottonwood's consultation requirement, this reprieve evaporated with the approach of spring. The Forest Service becomes a hostage to the left once more, mired in a maze of bureaucracy and legal entanglements. Sens. Steve Daines, Jon Tester, James Risch, Mike Crapo, and Angus King have banded together to support legislation to reverse Cottonwood's negative consequences. Their passionate messages to President Biden emphasize how this judgement fosters frequent litigation, hinders essential animal habitat and forestry projects, and diverts valuable federal resources away from critical conservation efforts.

The rider's expiration has now put a shadow over more than 100 forest plans, necessitating a new round of consultation. While there was a glimmer of light in the form of a bipartisan Senate remedy passing the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, the White House's pleas were met with the sound of a falling tree in the vast forest. Members of Congress from Western states, however, are all too familiar with this shroud of uncertainty as smoke fills the halls of power in Washington, D.C. In this uncertain picture, there is a glimmer of hope that it will serve as a wake-up call for President Biden to the fundamental underlying problem.

The flames that lick the sky hold a figurative mirror in the conflict between nature's fury and human intervention, showing the need for rapid and decisive response. Will Congress embrace the opportunity to overrule Cottonwood's verdict while smoke signals dance on the horizon, or will the flames rage on, consuming the forests we cherish? Only time will tell if the embers of change will light a road to better forest management.

The fate of our woods is at stake at this vital juncture. Once again, the flames are a metaphor for the urgency we face, compelling us to act quickly to prevent greater devastation. The road ahead is obvious, and the moment to take action is now. Congress must seize the opportunity to overrule Cottonwood's decision, put out the opposition fires, and usher in a new era of responsible forest management. The smoke signals are reaching out for our attention. Let us take their message to heart and save the natural treasures that tie us to the world.

 

 

 

 

 

Notes

 

Downey, H. (2022, August 30). The Cottonwood Fix Means a Return to Healthy Forests. Retrieved from Frontier Institute: https://frontierinstitute.org/the-cottonwood-fix-means-a-return-to-healthy-forests/

Montana Public Radio. (2017, October 24). Senators Draft Legislation To Reverse 'Cottonwood Decision'. Retrieved from https://www.mtpr.org/montana-news/2017-10-24/senators-draft-legislation-to-reverse-cottonwood-decision

Voice of America. (2023, June 8). US East Coast Continues to Grapple with Wildfire Smoke Billowing from Canada. Retrieved from VOA News: https://www.voanews.com/a/us-east-coast-continues-to-grapple-with-wildfire-smoke-billowing-from-canada-/7129265.html

Wall Street Journal. (2023, June 8). A Smoke Signal on Forest-Fire Management. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com/articles/forest-fires-cottonwood-decision-ninth-circuit-forest-management-f3ae0926?mod=opinion_lead_pos3