2022 WAS NOT ALL BAD

While historians may not rate the year 2022 in particularly positive terms, it seems to me that we can't end the "Year of the Tiger" remembering only the distressing events that took place during these past twelve months. There certainly remain a multitude of challenges worthy of analysis and discussion. They tend to pile up. However, they will keep for another time. A cursory search of the internet exposes a variety of entries specifically designed to publish the brighter side of news stories. Moreover, multiple diagnoses of international events will highlight silver linings to otherwise traumatic occurrences. Given the inflation induced economic hardship endured by many of our citizens, among the multiple points of light shining brightly in the face of so much suffering and discomfort for many stands out the recognition that overall charitable giving increased significantly this year. If the projection holds, total charitable giving in our country this year will exceed $500 billion. This is the 6th consecutive year over year increase. Our 1.7 million active nonprofits will continue to receive some of the necessary funding needed to do their work. It also seems appropriate to acknowledge that a number of the nation's billionaires, who routinely receive criticism from political operatives, are instrumental in supporting this fundraising effort. A few of the outstanding contributors in 2022 were: MacKenzie Scott, ex-wife of Jeff Besos, who announced donating $5.8 billion in grants to 500 different organizations; Warren Buffett, who annually contributes between $2 and $3 billion in Berkshire Hathaway stock; and the Gates Foundation which committed $1.75 billion for pandemic relief. On a different scale, but contributing a significant effort to bring relief to troubled areas, we need to include Chef Jose Andres' "World Central Kitchen." This philanthropic organization raised $7.8 million for their efforts in Ukraine last year, and served upwards of 1.7 million meals a day. Another constant is "Rotary International," which spent $250 million on service projects around the world this year. These are just a few examples of organizations making a difference in 2022. Shifting to unintended consequences of adversarial situations: Russia's invasion of Ukraine may have initiated some significant movement on the climate change discussion. While cruel, traumatic and criminal, this inexcusable act of war resulted in changing the energy paradigm in multiple western nations. Countries which thus far largely relied on gas supplied by Russia began to wean themselves more aggressively from that energy source and ramped up their focus on renewables, powering a transition away from fossil fuels. In the midst of all of this, Ukraine inspired us all by showing that self determination and liberty are worth fighting for. Well deserved, its president, Volodemyr Zelensky, was selected Time magazine "Man of the Year." Ukraine was chosen the Economist's "Country of the Year." Politically, the extremes of far-right populism took a hit. Here, at home, almost all election deniers nominated by our previous president, lost. In the U.K. and France the radical right became the more moderate center. Except in Italy and Israel, centrist predominantly won their elections. In Canada, conversion therapy was officially banned. It became illegal to provide or promote services intended to change someone's sexual orientation or gender expression. The World Health Organization declared that the end of the first pandemic in a century is now "in sight." At a micro level, a selection of random positive or heart warming scraps of information might include: - Monarch butterflies returned to California. This year researchers counted nearly 250,000, up from just 2,000 in 2020. - Due to global conservation efforts, the once endangered humpback whale population rebounded from a low point of 10,000 to nearly 80,000. - In Las Vegas, a Burger King cook, who had never missed a day of work for 27 years, received over $270K in donations from a "Go Fund Me" account set up by his daughter. - In Burlington, North Carolina, in what amounted to an extreme palindrome, a baby boy was born on 2/22/22 at 2:20 am in labor and delivery room 2. Judah Grace made his astonished parents, Aberli and Hank Spear, very happy. - Maya Angelou became the first African American woman featured on a U.S. quarter. - Stephanie Frappart of France became the first female lead referee at a men's world cup match - officiating a game between Costa Rica and Germany. - For the first time three women were appointed to a Vatican committee advising Pope Francis on candidates for bishops in the Catholic Church. - "Dictionary.Com" announced its word of the year - it is: "Woman." And for anyone who feels the urge to communicate positive stories, I recommend you share your narrative on a website set up by the family of the late Captain Sir Tom Moore of Yorkshire, England, who, leading up to his 100th birthday, raised more than $20 million by walking across his garden 100 times. The website is: http://www.agiftofkindness.net, and is designed to offset much of the negative vibes emerging from the news these days. Have a marvelous 2023 - the "Year of the Rabbit."

TIME TO REFLECT

The end of the year 2022 is finally in sight. Many of us will heave a sigh of relief. This year has been consequential and memorable in many ways. It is customary that during this time of the year, when numerous holidays converge, we reflect on what got us here. We traditionally review what transpired during the past twelve months that we consider worth remembering. Although our memories of historic events, statistics, legislative transitions and cultural shifts are admittedly selective, it is worthwhile to identify some of these. While the impact of an inflation surge deserves to be mentioned as dominant for struggling families, the consequences of sweeping price increases resulted substantially from some of the preeminent events playing out across the globe. The Covid-19 pandemic remained the undercurrent in people's lives for much of the year. January saw a global roll-out of vaccines, the lifting of Covid-19 restrictions and the reopening of international borders. By the end of that month 10 billion vaccinations had been administered. However, sadly, at that point more than 300 million people had already died from the disease world wide. Also in January, China, France, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S.A., all permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, issued a rare statement that a nuclear war could not be won and must never be fought. A month later, on February 24, Russia invaded Ukraine. Putin subtly threatened the use of nuclear weapons, and ordered Russia's nuclear deterrent forces to be on "special alert." His invasion prompted the largest armed conflict in Europe since World War II. By mid November, 15.7 million Ukrainians had been displaced. In addition, General Mark Milley, the chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, estimated that both sides had suffered more than 100,000 fatalities each. In the mean time, NATO invited Finland and Sweden to join the organization. Their membership application is being processed, while it announced the deployment of an additional 40,000 troops to its eastern flank. Among the prominent people we lost this year were: Queen Elizabeth II, Shinzo Abe, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jiang Zemin, and a significant number of entertainers like: Sidney Poitier, Olivia Newton John, Jean-Luc Godard, Angela Lansbury, Jerry Lee Lewis and Loretta Lynn. While in our country the political balance of power shifted slightly, a number of globally significant countries experienced a more significant ideological shift. Israel, Sweden and Italy elected far-right leaning political parties to run their government. In Brazil, right-wing populist Jair Bolsonaro lost to left-wing populist Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. In the U.K. the principle players kept shifting every few weeks. Boris Johnson resigned as Prime Minister on July 6; Liz Truss was appointed on September 6; Fifty days later, Ms. Truss was replaced by Rishi Sunak. Thus far, he remains in place. Finally, Xi Jinping, General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, was elected to an unusual third term. And, not to forget, Queen Elizabeth's son Charles was officially proclaimed King Charles III of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth Realms on September 10. A smattering of other notable events include: - The first successful heart transplant from a pig to a human patient took place in Baltimore, Maryland on January 7. The patient died two months later, but his death was not considered caused by organ rejection. - The International Panel on Climate Change concluded that many impacts are on the verge of becoming irreversible. - On May 6, the first Monkey Pox virus was detected in London, England. By the end of July the virus exceeded 17,000 in 75 countries. - The Ukrainian Folk-Rap group named "Kalush Orchestra" won the Eurovision song contest with the song "Stefania." - An earthquake between Pakistan and Afghanistan killed at least 1,163. - A heatwave across Europe in mid-June killed at least 20,000. - More than 42,000 Americans died from gun violence. - The world population reached 8 billion. - U.S. life expectancy dropped to 76. Culturally and politically our country still suffered from the consequences of the January 6, 2021 insurrection at our Capitol. The Select Committee investigating the attack is due to produce its final report by the end of this month. Our mid-term elections included significant participation by followers of ideas which essentially opposed our democratic traditions and values. Fortunately for the country, the majority of voters declined to support this movement. Unfortunately, prominent supporters of these anti-American ideas in support of this insurrection can't seem to stop their verbal assaults. It is not comforting or promising when the leader of this movement, who declared his candidacy for the job he lost in 2020, suggests that our Constitution ought to be suspended. Neither does it bode well when a prominent supporter claims that if she had been in charge of the insurrection it would have succeeded, because everyone would have been armed. These are not insignificant ideologues. These are major players, claiming significant political support from their political base. So, the end may be near for this year. However, there remains significant residual carry-over for 2023. Happy New Year!

FIFA WORLD CUP BY THE NUMBERS

The 2022 FIFA World Cup, currently under way in Qatar, is on target to break all records. These include elements of its inception, preparation, execution and the ultimate place it will assume in the history of international sports events. Many wonder how a tiny Gulf state with little footballing history ended up hosting the biggest event the sport has to offer. Qatar is one of the world's smallest nations, with fewer than 3 million inhabitants. However, it also ranks as the world's 4th richest nation based on GDP per capita. Its selection stirred controversy from the very beginning. It was selected ahead of bids by the U.S., South Korea, Japan and Australia. Opponents exposed the lack of existing infrastructure and the region's intense heat in the summer when World Cup tournaments are traditionally held. Its bid was considered "high risk." Nevertheless, it triumphed with 14 votes against 8 for the U.S. in the final round of balloting. Given the country's immense wealth and the intense pressure it applied to be selected, "bribery" emerged as a prevalent charge. The country contracted David Beckham, a well known popular British player, who had represented England internationally 115 times, including at 3 FIFA World Cups, as ambassador to promote its culture, tourism and its hosting of this year's World Cup. For Beckham's efforts. Qatar is paying him $277 million over ten years. FIFA's president at the time, Sepp Blatter, initially welcomed the selection as showpiece of the event going to "new lands." Twelve years later he changed his mind, admitting during an interview with a Swiss newspaper that "Qatar is a mistake ... the choice was bad." "It is too small a country. Football and the World Cup are too big for this." In preparation for the World Cup, and to contradict charges of owning a deficient infrastructure for the event, Qatar's finance minister, Ali Shareef Al-Emadi, reported that his country had spent $500 million per week on roads, hotels, stadiums, and airport upgrades since its selection in late 2010. It built seven new soccer stadiums, an airport, hotels and shopping malls. All in all Qatar spent $229 billion to prepare for this event, making it the most expensive World Cup ever. By comparison, Brazil spent $19.7 billion in 2014, Russia $16 billion in 2018, South Africa $7.2 billion in 2010 and the U.S. $500 million in 1994. The return on this kind of massive investment will not come close to covering the expenditure. Expectations are that FIFA stands to gain $7 billion in revenue - generated from T.V. broadcasting rights, marketing, ticket sales and hospitality rights. Long term revenue for Qatar is estimated to be between $17 and $20 billion, anticipating future tourism, improvement of its global reputation and promising development of and investment in expansion of its natural gas export industry. The country currently ranks second in the world in this industry behind sanctions burdened Russia. Comparing costs and revenue numbers of this year's event with the World Cup organized by the U.S. in 1994 comes across as an apples and oranges correlation. That year's event was hosted in a number of cities. Los Angeles, which hosted the final that year, netted $623 million. New York, San Francisco and Boston combined reported a revenue of $1 billion 45 million. While the total cost of organizing the 1994 Cup reached $500 million, this year's prize money alone amounts to $440 million. Just to qualify, clubs received $1.5 million; the top two finishers in group play get $9 million each; winners of the round of 16 earn $16 million; Quarter finalists get $17 million; 4th place finishers $25 million; 3rd place gains $27 million; second place $30 million and the overall winner receives $42 million. Moreover, Fox has added another $425 million for the rights to the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournaments. And Nike, among others, added another $60 million in sponsorship dollars. One of the downsides to all of this spending by host countries has been that almost all end up with massive debt caused by overspending on infrastructure and stadiums. Many are left with construction that serve little purpose after their World Cup comes to a close. A clear illustration of this is the $1 billion Brazil spent in 2014 on building the Mane Garrincha Stadium in Brasilia. It is now being used as a bus depot. In addition to financial liabilities, being the focus of much of the world has its drawbacks. Something Qatar to its detriment experienced. The country's use of 1.7 million migrant workers for 90% of its entire workforce, mostly underpaid, while 6500 reportedly died in the process, severely undermined its proclamation of success. So, why do this when the cost benefit analysis is unlikely to pencil out? Hosting the FIFA World Cup is viewed as an honor. Soccer is the world's most popular sport with over 5 billion fans. The FIFA World Cup is the biggest sporting event on the global calendar - even ahead of the Olympics. More than 5 billion people are expected to watch this year's event in Qatar, with more than one million turning up to watch the games in person. By comparison, the Beijing Olympics "only" drew in 4.7 billion viewers. This result would not only be a record for the World Cup, it would propel the 2022 World Cup into being the most watched sporting event in history. If, as predicted, the event reaches 5 billion viewers, 65% of the world's population would be watching. Much to think about and compete against for the U.S., Canada and Mexico who are scheduled to host the FIFA World Cup in 2026. Theo Wierdsma

DUTCH TRADITION REMAINS CONTROVERSIAL

Several weeks ago I asked one of my brothers in the Netherlands to send me traditional literature depicting the Sinterklaas (Saint Nicholas) festivities that get under way around November 12 each year. While the U.S. prepares to celebrate Thanksgiving, one of our major holiday traditions, Dutch citizens, and especially their offspring, get ready to immerse themselves into what has been described as perhaps the most important Dutch annual celebration. As kids, growing up, we anticipated this perennial event with mixed emotions. A few weeks before the actual holiday, which is either December 5 or 6, depending on a convoluted mix of factors, Sinterklaas arrives from Spain on a steamboat filled with presents his team prepared the previous year. He visits with a white horse and an entourage of black-faced helpers, the "zwarte pieten" or black Petes. His helpers are traditionally portrayed by white people in full blackface, complete with oversized lips, dangling earrings and Afro wigs. Government officials and all media outlets welcome Sinterklaas officially. Press coverage is national, and the entire country generally plays into the folkloric narrative. After the saint's arrival, and leading up to the official holiday celebration, before going to bed at night, children place their shoes in front of the fireplace or under the chimney. They may insert carrots, hay or milk for Sinterklaas's horse to entice attention. At night Sinterklaas visits all the houses by traveling across the roofs on horseback. Black Pete will enter the houses by sliding down chimneys to place candy or little gifts into the shoes. When the actual holiday arrives major gift giving takes place. This may happen family style, or during large gatherings involving schools and other organizations. Sinterklaas will selectively review some kids' performance during the previous year. Naughty kids may be singled out for a symbolic beating, or end up in Pete's gunny sack to be transferred to Spain and converted into peppernuts. Hence the mixed emotions entering this folkloric festival. Parents tend to use this potential threat to control their kids' behavior during this time of the year. The story of Sinterklaas is based on the supposed history of the bishop of Myra, who lived in the 4th century A.D. There are many legends about the exceptional selfless acts of kindness he is said to have performed during his lifetime. The Catholic Church declared him a saint, and he is considered to be the patron-saint of children among many other designations, including merchants, archers, repentant thieves, brewers, pawnbrokers and others. At the end of the 19th century, the Sinterklaas character was given a servant, a young black man in the costume of a 16th century page. In 1850, the writer Jan Schenkman wrote a children's book: "Saint Nicholas and his servant." The servant had no name, but was inspired by the representations of the Moors in portrait art of the 17th and 18th century. This concept was adopted by other authors of children's books. The name "zwarte Piet" emerged first in a children's book of 1891. Sinterklaas is white, old, wise. Black Pete is a subservient helper, resembling concepts from Dutch colonial and slave running past. My brother responded to my request by letting me know that he had to search through antique book stores to get the documentation I wanted. He indicated that these days the term "zwarte Piet" was no longer acceptable and considered discriminatory. In fact, even though this folkloric celebration remains popular and continues going strong, the past decade the entire idea of black Pete as Santa's helper has morphed into a pitched culture war within Dutch society. Anti-racism activists denounce the racial stereotype, while others insist that the figure represents a harmless tradition, according to which Pete's skin is darkened by soot from sliding down chimneys with gifts. In 2013 the U.N. even decided to investigate the "zwarte Piet" controversy. That year the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination delivered a report to the Dutch government, essentially suggesting it abolish the tradition. In response, some Dutch politicians angrily retorted that they would rather the Netherlands pull out of the U.N. Although diminishing, the controversy has not significantly abated. Entire PHD dissertations have dissected multiple sides of the concept. Some libraries have actively removed relevant documentation, others refuse. Every year protests pro and con flare up in multiple locations. In some large cities, black Pete has appeared in multiple colors. In some case he shows up as "chimney-Pete," with dark smudges on his face - a compromise narrative that envisions Sinterklaas' helper as covered in soot because he came down the chimney. Opponents suggest that this is a lame movement from "racism" to "racism light." In general, people are tired of the perennially recurring discussion. However, most seem unwilling to give up on this cultural tradition. A 2021 "Statista research" study indicated that a little more that 80% of respondents do not believe that black Pete is a racist phenomenon. The same study also reveals that a growing percentage of Dutch consumers are beginning to adopt the commercial gift-giving side of Christmas as practiced in the U.S. However, very few, (only about 9%), are giving up on Sinterklaas altogether. Theo Wierdsma

COUNTING THE VOTES

Midterm elections have traditionally been ho-hum affairs, generally favoring the party out of power and featuring a significantly lower turnout than presidential elections. Nevertheless, this year's election could well be the most consequential in years, possibly defying political history. With minuscule Democratic majorities in both chambers, all 435 House seats and 35 U.S. Senate seats up for grabs, control of Congress is definitely in play. Perhaps more importantly, the 2022 midterms may also well be the first election ever in which the elections themselves are on the ballot. While President Biden is not up for reelection per se, the midterms will be a referendum on the first two years of his administration and the performance by his Democratic party. Basic issues like the economy and inflation, crime and gun policies, climate change, immigration, and the increasingly more prominent reproductive rights, AKA abortion, issue will encounter a vastly different approach in Congress depending on which party wins control. But, after all, Mr. Biden will still be president wielding veto power. Odds makers tend to agree that the Republican Party will most likely end up as the majority in control of the House of Representatives. It takes 218 seats to win control of the House. Right now Democrats hold 221 seats, Republicans have 213. They need a net gain of 5 seats to unseat Nancy Pelosi and others, and presumably install Kevin McCarthy as Speaker. Anyone interested in keeping track of the votes in all 435 Congressional districts as they happen, will need an interactive computerized spreadsheet. Fortunately for us, multiple media outlets will help us take care of that. However, keeping track of the Senate races is more interesting and manageable. We currently have a 50-50 Senate. This includes 50 Republicans, 48 Democrats and 2 Independents voting with the Democrats. Twenty-one seats currently held by Republicans and 14 held by Democrats are in play. Of these, most appear secure for their respective incumbents. Only a hand full are considered "toss-ups" in which either party has a legitimate chance of winning. Anyone interested in keeping track of the electoral outcome of this race ought to focus on Arizona, Nevada, Pennsylvania, Georgia and, possibly, Ohio. The Arizona contest is between Democratic incumbent, former astronaut, Mark Kelly, who is considered vulnerable against Trump backed venture capitalist Blake Masters. In Nevada, incumbent Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto is thought to be the most likely sitting Senator to lose her seat to Republican challenger, former state attorney general, Adam Laxalt. Pennsylvania exhibits an interesting contest between Dr. Mehmet Oz, who is supported by the former president, and Lieutenant Governor John Fetterman, who recently recovered from a massive stroke. Current Republican Senator Pat Toomey decided not to run for reelection. Georgia has also been in the news lately. Republican candidate, former running back, Herschel Walker will attempt to unseat Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock. This contest appears to be key to the GOP strategy to retake the Senate. However, Mr. Walker, who is running on a family values, strict anti-abortion, platform, allegedly reimbursed a former girlfriend for the cost of an abortion - a charge he denies. This race is still too close to call. Finally, in Ohio, U.S. Representative Tim Ryan, a Democrat, will attempt to take the state's senate seat away from the Republican party, defended by their candidate J.D. Vance. Incumbent Rob Portman also decided not to run for reelection. The Republican party could win all of these toss-ups and claim control of the Senate. Democrats are defending three out of five, and would enhance their dominance over the Senate by claiming victory in the two states abandoned by their incumbents. While these contests will likely determine the balance of power in Congress for the next few years, the arguably most consequential electoral battle is being fought over control of the electoral process itself. In many places the choice is between Democratic and Republican supporters of our democratic traditions, and those still asserting that the 2020 election was stolen and that American elections are deeply flawed. The latter movement, emboldened by open encouragement from former president Donald Trump, is no longer an aberration on the fringes. In many constituencies the influence of these so-called election deniers is overwhelming and permeates all levels of government. On ballots across the country, the Brookings Institution identified 345 candidates who have expressed election denial beliefs. These are candidates, across a variety of races during this election, who perpetuate ex-president Trump's assertion that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Many election deniers are congressional incumbents who voted to reject certification of the presidential election results. This group of candidates will be on the ballot in virtually every state and make up more than half of all Republicans running for congressional and state offices. According to the Cook Political Report and a Washington Post analysis more than 170 election deniers are running in districts or states where Republicans are expected to win. If they succeed, especially at state levels, they could have the power to interfere with non-partisan election administration and put our free, fair and secure elections at risk. Governors, Attorneys General and Secretaries of State set the rules, run the elections, supervise the counting of ballots and control certification of results. In some extreme cases bills have already been introduced which, if passed, would give legislators the power to reject election outcomes and replace winning candidates with those more to their liking. Across the country, 13 of 27 secretary of state races, 10 of 30 attorney general contests and 19 of 36 campaigns for governor have openly declared election deniers on their respective ballots. Few are shy admitting that their main objective is to have more control over certification of elections and control the outcome of the upcoming 2024 presidential contest. More than 100 years ago, Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin was very blunt when he proclaimed that "those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." A disturbing number of recent converts to this philosophy seems to be ready to agree. Arizona candidate for Governor Kari Lake is not alone when she insisted a week or so ago that she would only commit to accept the election results if she wins. If this becomes a trend, we are in trouble. To quote another politician, courageous, highly principled Wyoming Republican Liz Cheney makes it clear: "If you care about democracy, and you care about the survival of our republic ...we cannot give people power who have told us that they will not honor elections." Theo Wierdsma

WHAT JUST HAPPENED IN EUROPE?

The handwriting was on the wall: the headlines could not be ignored: "Italian voters appear ready to turn a page for Europe." (NY Times); "Election will test Italian's cautious optimism." (Gallup); "Right-wing alliance seen as likely winner as Italians vote." (Reuters). News media across the spectrum warned the world that Italy, the E.U.'s third largest economy, was about to elect a Fascist alliance to run its next government. As predicted, it happened. So, now what? People ask "why?" How could this happen? Is Europe about to return to a darker past? The outcome of this election, although uncomfortable for many, should not come as a total surprise. Continental Europe, a landmass significantly smaller than North America, has been home to at least 20 hard-right political parties. Many of these have roots in a Nazi or Fascist past, and most all proclaim Neo-Nazi or Neo-Fascist leanings. Virtually all proclaim frustration with their country's political establishment. They point out that Democracy is not terribly efficient. They resent globalization. They tend to hold extreme nationalist, xenophobic and racist views, and charge that liberal immigration policies are diluting their national identity. Most exhibit an inclination to be Eurosceptic, fundamentally opposed to the E.U. and European integration, even if their country benefits substantially economically from membership in the European Union. A growing number of hard-right nationalist parties have accumulated sufficient electoral support to enter governing coalitions in their host countries. In Hungary, Viktor Orban's "Fidesz" party has run the country for over a decade. It is staunchly anti-immigrant, openly intolerant of minorities and the liberal leanings of philanthropist countryman George Soros, and vocally critical of E.U. sanctions on Russia. Austria's far-right, anti-Muslim, "Freedom Party", founded in 1955 and rooted in National Socialism, is a dominant participant in the country's government. The right-wing opposition "AFD" (Alternative for Germany) political party is overwhelmingly supported in areas which prior to the country's reunification in 1990 were part of East Germany. As of the federal elections in 2017 it became Germany's third largest party. The "Sweden Democrats," once a fringe, anti-immigrant, party created out of a group of hard-line Neo-Nazis, recently received 20.5% of the vote and became the largest party in Sweden's new center-right majority in parliament. In France, Marine Le Pen, who presides over the "National Rally," a perennial candidate for president, received 41.5% of the popular vote in last April's run off election with Emmanuel Macron - a significant improvement over the 33.9% she received in 2017. And there are numerous others who have gained prominence: "Vox" in Spain, the "Danish People's Party," "Vlaams Belang" in Belgium, "Forum voor Democratie" and "Party for Freedom" in The Netherlands. And, outside of the European Union, the dominant "Swiss People's Party." Most of these are hard-right, nationalist, anti status quo, and ready to take the reigns of traditional democratic countries. That within this political environment another right-wing fringe party, the "Brothers of Italy" should manage to become a serious player is hardly surprising. Italy is the birthplace of Fascism. Following World War II, the country never repudiated Fascism and Mussolini in the way Germany renounced Nazism and Hitler. Rachelle Mussolini and Alessandra Mussolini - il Duce's granddaughter - are still prominent in Italian politics. However, labels don't necessarily reflect ideology. Georgia Meloni has said that she dislikes talking about Fascism. She is convinced that the Italian right "has banned Fascism over to history for decades" already. She expresses support for NATO, the E.U., Ukraine, and the sanctions on Russia. Although these are positions not necessarily shared by her coalition partners. Europe anxiously waits to see what will happen. Roberto D'Alimonte, professor of Political Science and an acknowledged expert on Italy's electoral system at the University of Florence, advises critics to remain calm. He rejects the believe that the country has moved to the right, and does not think that its citizenry considers Ms. Meloni a threat. According to him the country did not vote for Fascism. It was simply tired of an inefficient liberal government, and just wanted a change. His take is that the Italian establishment is more concerned with her party's lack of competence than with an authoritarian takeover. The fact remains that a century after Benito Mussolini's 1922 "March on Rome," which brought the Fascist dictator to power, Georgia Meloni will lead Italy's first far-right-led government since World War II and becomes Italy's first woman Prime Minister. Opinions aside, this remains a big political shift for a pivotal European country dealing with ongoing economic and political instability. Theo Wierdsma

ARE MONARCHIES STILL RELEVANT?

Queen Elizabeth II, the only queen most everyone in the English speaking world ever knew, died at the age of 96. Upwards of two million people expressed their anguish, sorrow and respect observing the carefully choreographed and flawlessly executed funeral arrangements throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. For most, the Queen's impressive regal funeral ceremony was largely appreciated. For many it must have felt like the passing of a greatly admired and respected family member. The pomp and ceremony surrounding the ascension of Elizabeth's son, Prince Charles, to King Charles III, however, came across as the pageantry from a bygone era. For some spectators the spectacle must have raised questions about the kingdom's orthodox attempt at portraying Britain as the last remaining vestige of traditional royal rule. While the display of pageant splendor surrounding the British royal family may well be the most elaborate of its kind in the western world, the institution itself is not the last remaining monarchical relic in modern times. There are still 43 sovereign states in the world that are ruled by a monarch as head of state. Of these, Europe features seven kingdoms: Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Spain, The Netherlands, Belgium and, of course, The United Kingdom. Andorra, Liechtenstein and Monaco are principalities. Luxembourg is a Grand Duchy, and Vatican City is described as a theocratic elective monarchy. Most of these are constitutional monarchies in which the monarch does not influence the politics of the state, either because of convention or because it is explicitly forbidden by their constitution. None of these exhibit the elaborate demonstration of traditional pageantry displayed in the U.K. All of them have adapted to contemporary realities. None are seriously threatened with extinction. Almost all regularly receive 80% plus support from their constituency. This last point ought to be considered as one of the challenges newly minted King Charles needs to be concerned about. While the timing may be inappropriate, "republicans," organized in a persistent movement seeking to replace the monarchy with an alternative form of governance ruled by an elected head of state, are already erecting anti-monarchy banners advocating to "Make Elizabeth the Last." Support for King Charles' ascension to the throne is benefiting from the emotions of the moment. However, his challenges are rapidly mounting. Domestically, the republican movement feels that their time has come. Graham Smith, CEO of the campaign group "Republic," clarified that "the Queen is the monarchy for most people. After she dies the institution is in serious jeopardy." Charles is significantly less popular than his mother was. The word is already spreading that Britain's new Prime Minister, Liz Truss, albeit 27 years ago, confirmed that, in her opinion, the monarchy should be abolished. If not abolished, chances are that significant reductions could affect the size of the realm. In Northern Ireland, Sinn Fein, the Irish nationalist party which seeks unification with the Republic of Ireland, captured the largest number of seats in the Northern Ireland Assembly this year. In Scotland, First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, leader of the ruling Scottish Nationalist Party, already announced plans for another referendum on Scottish independence next year. And then there is the issue of the Commonwealth. King Charles becomes the titular head of state of 14 countries, or realms, in the Commonwealth. Doubtlessly influenced by pressure from Queen Elizabeth, the 2018 Commonwealth Conference agreed that Charles would get the role after becoming king. However, his position is honorary, not hereditary. While his role as head of state is symbolic, and while few things are expected to change, some suspect that the royal succession could strengthen existing republican movements in Commonwealth countries as well. Last year, Barbados already removed the British monarch as head of state, and transitioned to a parliamentary republic with a ceremonial, indirectly elected, president. Jamaica's prime minister, Andrew Holness, announced that his country intends to leave the monarchy by the time of its next election in 2025. Belize, Antigua and Barbuda have indicated similar intentions. Support for a break with the monarchy in Canada, Australia and New Zealand is still relatively minor. However, the sentiment is growing. Amongst the elaborate symbolism and pervasive historic, but archaic pomp and ceremony reminiscent of 16th Century monarchism, many "subjects" are revisiting the question whether the institution has enduring relevance and utility. Steadfast royalists answer this question in the affirmative. They argue that: Monarchs can rise above politics in the way an elected head of state can not; In politically unstable countries, like e.g. Thailand, the existence of a monarch is often the only thing holding the country back from civil war; Monarchs prevent the emergence of extreme forms of government - they encourage slow, incremental change instead of extreme swings; and, perhaps just as important, they are repositories of tradition and continuity - which is comforting to many. King Charles' challenge will be how to refashion the monarchy and maintain public support for it as a ceremonial institution at the center of British public life, providing an anchor at a time when the pace of change is bewildering to many. His expressed commitment to slim it down might include bringing it into the modern world, akin to what most continental European monarchies have done, safeguarding their continued existence in the process. Theo Wierdsma

HISTORIC TRENDS FORECAST ELECTION OUTCOME

Democrats have recently grown more confident that their party may escape the predicted slaughter at the ballot box during the upcoming midterm elections this November. President Biden still receives negative approval ratings. Only 13 percent of Americans still believe that the country is on the right track. Seventy-four percent believe we are going in the wrong direction. Those voters blame Biden, even though most still favor him over Trump. Inflation, immigration, Afghanistan and supply chain are still major issues. And even though the president is not on the ballot and voters can't take their dissatisfaction out on him, they tend to take it out on members of his party, which hold incredibly thin majorities in Congress and have very few seats to lose. So, what prompted these somewhat improved confidence levels? One major issue dominating political campaigns this time around is the Supreme Court's decision to overturn "Roe v. Wade," which legalized abortion in 1973. The current court's decision conflicts with the opinion expressed by a significant majority of the population. Credible polls indicate that 61% of those interviewed believe that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, contrasted with 37% who believe the opposite. With at least 12 states subsequently banning abortion all together and states like Texas now passing legislation making abortion a felony punishable by life in prison, emotions are running high. In addition, recent significant legislative accomplishments, an increased attention on former president Donald Trump's manipulations during the transition, and heightened concerns about attacks on our democratic system of government, have given candidates even more to run on. The sequence of events have proven marginally beneficial for the Democratic party's prospects. According to several recent polls, President Biden's approval ratings surged from a low of 31% in July to a high of 44% in late August - his highest yet this year. The president is still "under water," but Democrats believe they see a trend. Nevertheless, Democrats would be advised to not be over confident. History tells us that during midterm elections the party in power generally does not do very well. Since World War II, the president's party has lost an average of 26 seats in the House and an average of 4 seats in the Senate. Republicans only need to gain 5 House seats and 1 seat in the Senate to take over as majority party in Congress. To put the statistics in perspective, since 1934, the president's party has only twice managed to pick up seats during midterm elections. Bill Clinton added 5 additional seats in 1998, although Republicans maintained control of Congress. During George W. Bush's first midterm election in 2002 the Republican Party added 8 House seats and two Senate seats, only the third time since the Civil War that this happened. Some midterm losses, however, were very significant: In 1938 FDR lost 71 seats, even though Democrats retained the majority; Bill Clinton lost 52 seats in 1994 as a result of Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" campaign; Barack Obama ended up with 63 fewer seats in 2010; and Donald Trump received 40 fewer seats in 2018. Aside from contemporary politically salient issues, factors influencing midterm election outcomes include: redistricting, viable contestants, voter turnout, and, this time around, the "Trump factor." Every ten years, after the country completes a census, redistricting causes many legislative districts to change. Redistricting is an ugly process, which generally prompts multiple lawsuits. Some of these do reach the Supreme Court. However, the Court has declined to enter the political partisan fray, concentrating instead on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Nationally, Republicans currently tend to have the advantage. There are 28 states with Republican governors and only 22 governed by Democrats who control the process. It goes without saying that, in most cases, it is important who actually competes for eligible seats. As of now, 6 senators and 32 representatives are not running for reelection. Seventeen of these are running for other offices. The reputable Cook Political Report estimates that 32 House seats - 24 Democrats and 8 Republicans - fall in the "toss-up" category, meaning that these seats are most competitive, giving either party a chance of winning. In the Senate race, 14 Democrat controlled seats and 21 Republicans are up for election. Only four of these appear appear to be "toss-ups." Whoever turns out the vote usually wins. Voter turn out during midterm elections is generally 20% lower than participation in presidential elections. In general, Republicans tend to vote more consistently than Democrats. Nevertheless, major issues may determine who comes out to cast his or her ballot. While a number of weeks ago the focus might still have been on Covid, the economy, supply chain issues and others, Democrats are hoping that abortion, their recent legislative successes and the ever more conspicuous "Trump factor" may bring their supporters out in larger numbers this time around. While some of their support may have been fading, they expect that, instead of not coming to the polls at all, these subgroups decide to come out and make their voices heard after all. So, finally, the "Trump factor" cannot be ignored. While the former president has energized and enlisted substantial new numbers of voters to the GOP, his celebrity status has turned to notoriety after January 6, 2021. His insistence to continue as power broker in the party has developed negative consequences. Having Trump to run against helps Democrats even when he is not on the ballot. They can make the election about him. Even Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell acknowledged this during a recent speech at a Chamber of Commerce luncheon. McConnell admitted that his party may not win back the Senate because of a "lack of candidate quality." He suggested that the former president was in essence on the ballot, but that some of his hand-picked Senate candidates were "looking gloomier" than some prognosticators might have predicted. And then there is Donald Trump's own counsel to his party, which he issued on October 13 of 2021: "If we don't solve the Presidential Election fraud of 2020 (which we have thoroughly and conclusively documented), Republicans will not be voting in '22 or '24. It is the single most important thing for Republicans to do." If enough Republicans listen to that, the party is in trouble, and Democrats may rejoice against all odds. Theo Wierdsma

ATTACK ON OUR CAPITOL IN PERSPECTIVE

Nineteen months ago supporters of outgoing president Donald Trump stormed the U.S. Capitol. The mob attempted to stop certification of the Electoral College vote, which would cement the outcome of the 2020 election, one Mr. Trump lost. Thus far, many still believe that the violence represented the worst affront to our constitutional democracy in history. Their perception appears to be substantiated by the overwhelming evidence unearthed by the "January 6 Committee" investigating the attack. Although the assault ranks as an example of one of the most extreme exhibitions of convulsion during a presidential transition, it was, historically, not the only, nor even the worst, instance of belligerent behavior following a contentious election. Nothing is more dangerous and strains our democratic system more acutely than the period of a presidential transition, which runs from election day in November to inauguration day on January 20. This is the time when our government is in limbo, during which our adversaries could attempt to do something nefarious. It is also the time during which a President-Elect prepares to take over the administration of the federal government from a lame-duck incumbent. During this time period political behavior frequently proves to be more intensely quarrelsome, especially after an incumbent loses his or her reelection attempt to a challenger from a different party. Snubs and insults between competing personalities who are still making sense of new realities at this time are not uncommon. Examples are plentiful. Very early in our history as an independent state, during the election of 1800, when our second president, John Adams, ran against his vice president Thomas Jefferson, interaction between the two camps was extremely nasty. The election outcome was inconclusive and ended up in the House of Representatives. Adams lost. Jefferson won after 36 ballots. Distraught over his loss, Adams refused to attend the inauguration of his opponent, and left the Presidential Mansion at 4am on that morning. In 1824, John Quincy Adams defeated Andrew Jackson by managing to collect more electoral votes in the House of Representatives, even though Jackson had actually won more popular and electoral votes. Jackson, being denied victory by the electoral count in the House, called the outcome a "corrupt bargain." Four years later Adams lost against Jackson. While considering the latter's triumph a "hostile takeover," Adams left before the transition took place. An example of contentious behavior during more modern times emerged from the 1952 contest, which elected Dwight Eisenhower. Outgoing president Harry Truman apparently insulted the incoming president by publicly commenting that "the general doesn't know any more about politics than a pig knows about Sunday." Thoroughly offended, Ike subsequently declined to be briefed by Truman. The most consequential political violence following an election resulted from the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had won with 39.8% of the vote in a four man race. He competed with Stephen Douglas, John Bell, and John Breckinridge, President James Buchanan's vice president and Lincoln's most significant opponent, who ran on the Southern Democratic ticket. Five weeks after the election seven slave holding states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Georgia and Texas, seceded from the Union to form their own Confederate government. They claimed to be committed to the legitimacy in perpetuity of slavery and to interrupt the peaceful transition of power from a Democrat to a Republican. A joint session of Congress met on February 13, 1861 to count the Electoral College votes needed to certify the result of the election. The New York Times at the time described the atmosphere as one of "tense apprehension" on Capitol Hill. The paper expressed the fear that "the counting of the electoral votes would never be peacefully accomplished." A large police force had been assembled to secure the area and to limit access to the chamber. The certification count would take place among credible threats of murder. Ultimately the process was completed. Breckinridge received all 72 electoral votes from the seceded states. Lincoln and his running mate Hannibal Hamlin each gained 180 votes, exclusively from Northern states - they had not even been on the ballot in ten slave states - with 152 needed to win. While the count took place in Congress, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated in the south. Eight weeks later, on April 12, Confederate guns fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, the first shots of what would become a four-year civil war. Lincoln was assassinated six weeks after his second inaugural. None of this is meant to suggest that peaceful transitions are rare. After all, one of the hallmarks of democratic governments is that after an election the losing parties gracefully step aside and accept their fate. Richard Nixon, as Eisenhower's vice president, who lost the 1961 election to John F. Kennedy, had to count Kennedy's disputed electoral votes. He did it, and attended the president-elect's inauguration, seated next to Lyndon Johnson, the incoming V.P.. Al Gore, as President Clinton's vice president, had to read the electoral vote count after the 2000 election, which he lost to George W. Bush. He performed his constitutional duty, and he and his wife rode down Pennsylvania Avenue in a limo with their successors, Dick Cheney and his wife, on inauguration day. And, on January 6, Donald Trump's vice president Mike Pence, under enormous pressure from an uncompromising boss and death threats from a violent mob, showed his constitutional temperament and character when he executed his responsibility. Vice President and Mrs. Pence attended President Biden's inauguration as well. Much of the world displayed shock or glee over the January 6 assault on our Capitol during the transition period following our 2020 election. Our allies especially expressed their concerns about our ability to continue to support leading democratic systems across the globe, at a time when many of their leaders were having difficulties keeping their governments intact and functional. However, with the exception of our civil war, our constitutional system has thus far held together. Civility, character and commitment to democratic norms of our elected officials will be essential to its continued survival. Theo Wierdsma

CLIMATE GOING BERSERK

It has become a familiar horrific sight recently. Images of defeated, devastated people, lamenting that they lost everything: family members, their home, livelihood, family keepsakes, confidence in their future - all evaporated in a few agonizing moments, lost to fire or floods - leaving them uncertain about what to do next. What used to be anomalies, now appear to have become common occurrences. Catastrophic wildfires killed an estimated 3 billion animals in Australia in January of 2020. Perennial fires in California destroyed more than 4 million acres and 10,000 structures, killing 33 and costing over $12.1 billion that same year - the state's worst fire season in history. Calamitous flash floods in Eastern Kentucky and Appalachia already killed 37, while hundreds are still unaccounted for. A monstrous heatwave enveloped much of the globe, but seemingly centered on Western Europe, where most people do not have air conditioning. Temperatures averaged well over 100 degrees across the continent. They reached a lethal 117 degrees in Portugal and killed 2,000 on the Iberian peninsula. What used to be a climatic aberration melted roadways, buckled tarmacs, warped railroad tracks and, in turn, triggered wildfires across Southern Europe, displacing tens of thousands of its residents. Is this evidence of our climate going berserk? No! Believe it or not, it is caused by climate change, long identified, worse than expected, and consequences, perpetually predicted, manifesting much sooner than anticipated. There is convincing evidence that climate change is an existing, constantly evolving phenomenon. Human culpability and the means to confront or combat its consequences, however, have for decades been relegated to a political battleground. It is true, as some assert, that the earth's climate was changing well before humans emerged onto our planet. These changes were driven by large scale processes - like adjustments to the earth's orbit - which took tens of thousands of years to evolve. It was after the start of the Industrial Revolution, during the 1760s, that scientists began to measure detectable global temperature changes resulting from a spike in the release of greenhouse gasses, including carbon dioxide, methane and others. These gasses are trapped in the atmosphere and re-emitted to the earth, causing surface temperatures to increase. Over time the resulting climate change affected global temperature and precipitation patterns, which, in turn, influenced the intensity and, in some cases, the frequency of extreme environmental events, as we have experienced with increasing regularity during the past few years. With all the evidence of extreme climate change surrounding us, probably in perpetuity, it is confounding that there are still those who steadfastly deny that we have a problem. This would not be a serious issue if this group of skeptics remained a fringe element. However, some of the most ardent climate change deniers inhabit positions of significant power. They continue to argue that "climate change is natural and normal - we've seen fluctuations throughout history." The fact is that present climate change is occurring 20 to 50 times faster than the most rapid climate change events in history. Some believe that not all scientists agree that the change is actually happening and, if it does, that humans are the primary cause. Again, facts contradict that belief. More than 99% of scientists confirm that the phenomenon is real. The remaining 1% is likely composed of indecisive politicians that are funded by the fossil fuel industry. Even those that are on the fence claim that asserting a crisis condition is unwarranted, and that plants and animals will adapt to the change. In fact, climate change is happening too rapidly for species to adapt. Climate change accelerates extinction rates. More than one million species are at risk of extinction, and estimates are that dozens of species already go extinct every day. And then there is the prevailing argument that the economic impact of making substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions is too large. That we can't afford it. However, the ultimate cost of inaction or limited action to society is far greater than the cost of robust responses to climate change. Delaying action now will necessitate more aggressive action in the future - likely to be much more expensive. The U.S. government is actually already beginning to budget anticipated impacts of climate change at $2 trillion a year. Moreover, financial ramifications and political pressure by the fossil fuel industry aside, the human cost of inaction is overwhelming. A fairly recent study, identified as "the world's largest study of global climate," led by Monash University, one of Australia's leading educational institutions, links 5 million extra deaths a year to abnormal hot and cold temperatures caused by climate change. To be fair, even responsive and responsible legislators have difficulty getting their arms around the problem. Climate change is a global phenomenon, not confined within national boundaries. The mix of means needed to confront and combat its consequences is complex and repelled by entrenched economic and political interests. Alternatives to the use of fossil fuels are slow to develop, and are often ridiculed by some in policy making positions. However, we have already pushed the tipping point of no return for some time. We have no choice but to act. It must be done! A positive indicator emerging from the 2020 pandemic crisis shows us that we can make progress. In April that year, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions dropped 17% below those of previous years, and ended up 8% lower for the entire year, the largest annual drop since the second world war. Theo Wierdsma

WE ARE NOT ALONE

President Biden concedes that his top economic priority is, or ought to be, inflation, currently at 9.1%. Biden, an accomplished politician, frames the discomforting news within a package of positive economic developments: "Unemployment is near historic lows." His administration "cut the federal deficit by 1.7 trillion this year." "Millions of Americans are moving up to better jobs and better pay." "The job market is the strongest it's been since World War Two, adding 8,700,000 new jobs" since he took office. Nevertheless, the president concedes that inflation is a real challenge for American families. However, he suggests that America can tackle inflation from a position of strength unlike any other region in the world. He wants us to recognize that "every country in the world is getting a big bite of this inflation - worse than we are in the vast majority of countries." While it is certainly true that an overwhelming majority of states are suffering significant inflationary pressure, blanket statements that every nation is worse off than we are is a grossly exaggerated assertion. Not only do many comparable economies report various rates of inflation, many differ in the significance of what sectors are mostly impacted. The reported rate of inflation in the 19 states that compose the Eurozone currently averages 8.6%. In Europe as a whole, in part because of individual countries' relative dependence on self-imposed scarcity of Russian fuel, rates run the gamut from 3.4% in Switzerland to 78.62% in Turkey. Aside from these significant outliers, countries that are geographically closer to Russia tend to have notably higher rates of inflation. Ukraine, predictably, comes in at 21.5%, Estonia at 20.1%, Lithuania 18.5%, Poland 15.6%, Hungary 11.7% and so on. While a number of western European states report rates on par with what the U.S. has endured - Spain 10.2%, Belgium 9.65%, and the U.K. 9.1%, Germany and France, respectively the fourth and fifth largest economies in the world, compare positively to our numbers. France, especially, at a "paltry" 5.8% is a statistically shining example. France's rate of inflation illustrates the correlation between energy resources and their effect on domestic malaise. It uses nuclear power, which accounts for 70% of the country's electricity production and 40% of its overall energy consumption. This makes the country less vulnerable to shocks of gas prices. The European Central Bank is actually forecasting that France's inflation rate will drop significantly during the next few years. Switzerland's low inflation rate seems to be partially due to its existing cost of living, which is already very high. Prices for household goods in Switzerland are generally about 60% higher than those averaged in the surrounding European Union countries. Besides, its politicians have aggressively legislated to tackle prices, energy mix and wage restraints. Turkey's inflation is an entirely different issue. Analysts claim that, because of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's long running unorthodox strategy on monetary policy, inflation rates have soared. Food prices have risen 91.6%, energy costs are off the charts, and economists predict that the situation is bound to get worse. In many Western European countries rates hover around the levels we have experienced recently. However, a number of countries have taken pro-active steps to protect the impact on their citizenry. Some imposed caps on energy prices, or provided rebates for low-income households to offset the cost of gas and diesel. Germany effectively reduced the price of gasoline at the pump and is offering monthly $10. tickets for public transportation. By keeping gas prices at $6.90 per gallon, it effectively undercuts the rest of Europe, where prices fluctuate between $8.50 and $10.00 a gallon. What are we complaining about? Outside of these countries inflation rates are somewhat of a mixed bag. Australia and New Zealand, while experiencing rates historically high for their economies, report considerably lower rates than in the U.S. and E.U. Australia came in at 5.1% year-to-date. New Zealand is now up to 6.9% - a 30 year high. India shows a 7.01% rate. But across Africa the average has soared to 12.2%, not helped by 245% in Sudan and 90% in Zimbabwe. China, the world's 2nd largest economy, has managed to keep its rate under control at an acceptable 2.2%. This remarkable percentage may be due to a plunging domestic demand caused by its zero-Covid policy, and because the country is largely self sufficient in food. The fact that it may have a competitive negotiable advantage on the energy market, as much of the western world is drastically reducing Russian fuel imports, doesn't hurt either. All in all a diverse assortment of outcomes. President Biden is essentially correct. We are not alone. But when we compare our situation to that of the rest of the world, we should be selective, and figure out if some of these economies are adopting strategies we could benefit from. Inflation will likely stick around for some time to come. Former Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers cautions that inflation rates are unlikely to fall without a significant economic downturn. Fasten your seat belts! Theo Wierdsma

AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM REVISITED

After the conclusion of a vigil for the 21 killed at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde Texas, Senator Ted Cruz was cornered by British Sky News reporter Mark Stone. Mr. Stone pointedly asked the senator: "Why do mass shootings only happen in America? Why is this American exceptionalism so awful?" Cruz, whose campaigns and political action committees are among the primary beneficiaries of financial support from the gun rights lobby, taken aback, retorted: "I am sorry you think American exceptionalism is so awful. America is the freest, most prosperous, safest country on earth!" Unfortunately, it seems that both participants in this verbal altercation missed the mark about "American exceptionalism." However, their conversation generated an impulse to clarify this much used, but mostly misunderstood, concept. "Exceptionalism" refers to the perception or belief that a species, country, society, etc. is unusual or extraordinary - implying that it is superior in some way. "American exceptionalism" involves the belief that the United States possesses qualities that make it unique and special. The concept was first identified by the French aristocrat and diplomat Alexis de Tocqueville during the 1830s when he spent ten month here studying the effects of the American Revolution on our political culture. De Tocqueville enumerated five values he considered crucial: Liberty, egalitarianism, individualism, populism and laissez-faire. His conclusions were later picked up, elaborated and redefined by political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset during the 1960s. Lipset also traced the idea of exceptionalism back to the American Revolution from which the U.S. emerged as "the first new nation" with a distinct ideology - based, again, on Liberty, equality before the law, individual responsibility, republicanism and laissez-faire economics. He added "republicanism" to the value mix, which is meant to recognize the sovereignty of the people as the source of all authority under the law, rejecting monarchy, aristocracy and hereditary political power. Throughout our history, political leaders managed to develop the concept of American exceptionalism into a symbol of national identity by convincing Americans, and by extension the world, that the U.S. is both destined and entitled to play a dominant, distinct and positive role on the world stage. Especially during periods of great change and tumult, leaders sought to inspire beleaguered Americans by reminding them of their national identity, deliberately incorporating the idea of exceptionalism. Outstanding examples of oratory manipulation included references to the country as: "Empire of liberty" - Thomas Jefferson; "The last best hope of earth" - Abraham Lincoln; "The leader of the free world" - Harry Truman; "Shining city on a hill" - Ronald Reagan; and "Indispensable nation" - Madeleine Albright. Barack Obama had a contentious disposition towards American exceptionalism, considering it no different from British or Greek exceptionalism, for which he encountered significant criticism. As a dominating principle the continued strength of American exceptionalism depends domestically on the depth of our acceptance of a national identity and internationally on our perceived dominance in many domains of power - military, economic, political and cultural. This, in turn, involves the existence of a believable image and an observable reality. Internationally our arrogant shortsighted glorification of exceptionalism and military interventions have taken their toll. Francis Fukuyama, a political scientist at Stanford University, postulated that the peak period of our hegemonic strength diminished after the financial crisis of 2007-2009. Domestic challenges, which significantly affect personal beliefs in a national identity, permeate our borders as well. Society is deeply polarized, not just on political issues like taxes and abortion - it extends into a struggle over cultural identity. Even external threats, such as the coronavirus, deepened divisions over masks and vaccinations, which became political issues. Michael Mazarr, a senior political scientist at the Rand Corporation, in a study commissioned by the Pentagon, concluded what many of us already know: three quarters of those surveyed are unhappy with where we are going as a country; across party lines, we no longer trust our institutions; only 10% are "very satisfied" with how democracy is working; the American "melting pot" is dead to many; median net worth of the middle class fell 20%, of the working class 45%. (Michael Mazarr, "The Societal Foundation of National Competitiveness," Rand Corporation, 2022). We are anxious that we may be taken over by China, that our consumption is unsustainable, and that we cannot afford the entitlements we have today. A civic identity that prided us as a multi-ethnic democracy has been replaced by warring narratives on questions of freedom, history of slavery and even sexuality. Every day, more that 110 people are killed by guns and more than 200 are shot and wounded. Our electoral system, once the envy of the world and emulated by many, are under attack by anti democratic, illiberal forces. Moreover, the January 6, 2021, insurrection at our Capitol, akin to what most of our allies would have expected in lesser developed countries, not the United States, helped to undermine our standing in the world. American exceptionalism, because of its systemic origins, is not entirely dead, but rapidly fading. Theo Wierdsma

VIOLENT POLITICAL RHETORIC SURGING

It has become glaringly evident that violent political rhetoric, on a scale and with a focus seldom seen before in this country, is out of control. We have experienced heated political discourse before, especially during periods of political instability like the run up to the Civil War, or the fierce cultural clashes of the 1960s and 70s. However, with some notable exceptions, agitation during those episodes was predominantly focused on political control or property. The Civil War was essentially an economic dispute over states rights, while the massively intense protests during the 60s and 70s were predominantly left wing inspired cultural movements exhibited by groups targeting civil rights, the Vietnam War, women's liberation and others. Our current political dialogue, exacerbated by gridlock at the highest levels, appears to have transitioned into an era of frustration, prompting an increasing number of actors to resort to violence as a primary recourse. Today, with assistance of social media, mainstreaming of violent political speech has encouraged a growing number of Americans to target election officials. In 2021, threats against members of Congress reached a record 9,600, 4,100 during the first three months alone. Violent threats against U.S. lawmakers have more than doubled during the past five years. A survey published November 1 of 2021 indicated that 18% of all Americans, 30% of Republicans, 17% of independents and 11% of Democrats, believe that "patriots might have to resort to violence to save the country." ("Cultural Change and Anxiety in America," PRRI Research, Nov.1, 2021). Violence throughout our political history is well documented. Four presidents were assassinated: Abraham Lincoln (John Wilkes Booth), James Garfield (Charles Guiteau), William McKinley (Leon Czolgosz) and John F. Kennedy (Lee Harvey Oswald). Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford survived targeted attacks. Barack Obama apparently received 30 death threats a day when he was in office and, following the 2016 election, Donald Trump faced 12,000 calls for his assassination on social media. In addition, Representative Gaby Gifford was shot and severely wounded in 2011, and Representative Steve Scalise barely survived an assassination attempt during a Congressional baseball game in June of 2017. Multiple other attempts have remained unpublished. The Secret Service prefers not to communicate threats on our chief executives in the belief that doing so would generate more criminal behavior. Attacks are also not limited to the top echelon of our government. Anyone involved in the election process is a potential target. One week after the 2020 U.S. presidential election, Eric Coomer, an executive at Dominion Voting Systems, was forced into hiding. Angry supporters of then President Donald Trump, believing false accusations that Dominion had switched votes in favor of Joe Biden, published Coomer's home address and phone number and put a million dollar bounty on his head. The families of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, Illinois Representative Adam Kinzinger, Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers and many others have suffered incessant threats throughout this epidemic. And, just recently, Missouri Republican Senate candidate Eric Greitens, armed and in full tactical gear, published a campaign ad urging supporters to get a "RINO" (Republican in name only) hunting permit, proclaiming "no bagging limit, no tagging limit, and it does not expire until we save our country." Even voting "the wrong way" can invite threatening repercussions these days. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Georgia) posted the names and phone numbers of the 13 GOP lawmakers who supported the bi-partisan infrastructure bill Congress passed in November last year, calling them "traitors" on twitter. The threats are everywhere. Even minor functionaries involved in the execution of our electoral system are now looking over their shoulders and feel the need to protect their families. Under federal law threatening government officials is considered a felony. Just threatening the President is punishable by up to 5 years of imprisonment. Anyone convicted of targeting other officials can receive anywhere between 5 and 10 years of incarceration. Perpetrators caught in the act frequently refer to their "freedom of speech" in defense. While "Freedom of Speech," a feature of the First Amendment to our Constitution is fundamental in our democracy as a right to articulate opinions without fear of retaliation, censorship or legal action, it is not absolute. The Supreme Court, in "Brandenburg v. Ohio" (1969), clarified that this provision does not include inflammatory speech "directed to incite or produce imminent lawless actions." The onset of social media has made the application of this principle more controversial and cumbersome however. Representative Adam Kinzinger, whose family was pointedly threatened with execution, issued a somber assessment: "I've noticed a decline in our civil discourse over the last 5 years, and it's devolved to a scary point, where anger and vitriol are reflexive and the art of disagreeing without being disagreeable is all but lost." We continue to slide down the slippery slope of incivility. We need to acknowledge and identify these incidences and tell people the truth, unless we want to end up in another civil war. Theo Wierdsma

THE HUMAN TOLL OF FEARMONGERING

It is frustrating for anyone who attempts to discuss salient newsworthy topics when pertinent statistical details of issues uppermost in people's minds are constantly evolving. No sooner had the horrible massacre at Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24, hit the news cycle, or similar, although less "spectacular," incidents already began to turn up. During Memorial Day weekend alone, during 14 distinct episodes, between 5 AM Friday and early Tuesday, gun violence killed another 156 and injured 412. Where in most countries any of these acts of violence would have merited prime news coverage, we no longer seemed interested and buried the information towards the back of major publications. We are caught up in a perpetual cycle of Groundhog Day episodes. We quickly lose interest, even when attention is needed. While effective responses to gun related crimes and gun control are complicated, what is becoming increasingly obvious is that, at its core, the violent outgrowth of what historian Richard Hofstadter called our "gun culture," is being fueled by manipulated fearmongering, intentionally and unnecessarily attempting to make people afraid of something. On the one hand we are confronted by a proliferation of indiscriminate types of fire arms in civilian hands, fed by fear of losing "constitutional rights," spearheaded by a very active gun lobby. On the other hand we are exposed to aggressive marketing of what has been referred to as the "Great Replacement Theory," identified by multiple shooters in publicized "manifestos" as justification for their killing sprees. This conspiracy theory caters to the fear that white, Anglo-Saxon, Christian dominance is gradually and deliberately being replaced by non-Christian people of color - a conviction firmly embedded in white supremacist and xenophobic ideologies. The role these organizations play in effectively insuring accessibility of fire arms is somewhat unique. Typically, lobbying organizations serve as checks on industry groups. In the U.S. they are actually aligned with gun manufacturers. With war chests filled with hundreds of millions of dollars, they have successfully managed to counter any attempts at limiting gun ownership. Their position has been that any infringement on individual "rights" would ultimately lead to repeal of the Second Amendment and forfeiture of all guns. Political Action Committees associated with gun rights groups have consistently managed to secure support from legislators for their point of view - some of whom have received tens of millions of dollars in campaign donations- insuring that gun control legislation proposals introduced in the House and Senate are destined to fail. These include bans on assault weapons, expanded background checks, and even prohibition of fire arms sales to people on federal terrorism watch lists. Consequently, this relentless, effective, targeted fearmongering has resulted in our country's unique position of having more civilian owned fire arms in circulation than we have people. With less than 5% of the world's population, we own 46% of the world's civilian owned guns. Statistical consequences are eye opening. According to the "Brady Campaign," every day 321 people are shot in our country - 111 are shot and killed and an additional 95 are shot intentionally but survive. It should not come as a surprise that when any kid turning 18 can purchase an AR15 three years before being allowed to buy a beer, we are asking for trouble. Opponents of gun control legislation tend to suggest that we should concentrate on mental illness, not on guns. But do we really propose that the U.S. contains more criminally insane people than other countries? The difference between our social environment and that of other, safer, countries is accessibility to guns, especially assault weapons. While the fear of losing constitutional rights is being manipulated to support the unabated proliferation of fire arms in this country, a growing number of motivated assailants use the perceived threat to white America losing its dominance in society as justification for their homicidal rage. The theoretical foundation for this belief stems from a hypothesis promoted by Renaud Camus, a French novelist, who invented the "Great Replacement," a far-right conspiracy theory which claims that a"global elite" is colluding against the white population of Europe to replace them with non-European peoples. American pundits have readily adapted and adopted Camus' teachings for their own use when preaching from their domestic platforms. Fear sells! The premise of this proposition, while not new, was readily internalized by white supremacist groups across the globe, justifying assaults that ranged from the Mosque attacks in Christchurch in New Zealand, which killed 51, to exclamations uttered by torch bearing "Unite the Right" demonstrators terrorizing Charlottesville in 2017, shouting "Jews will not replace us." Domestic targets for these groups are becoming openly obvious. We have experienced mass attacks on African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Jews, Muslims, and immigrants in general. Target groups are being demonized. Politicians are no different. President Trump called Mexicans "criminals and rapists," and intimated that African immigrants came from "shit-hole countries." Studies show that one in three Americans now believe that immigrants are being brought into the country for political gain. The message is clear: fearmongering pays off for promoters and perpetrators. However, it comes at a horrible cost for its target audience. Former Lewis and Clark College president Barry Glassner, in his book "The Culture of Fear," suggests that there is a lot of power and money available to individuals and organizations who can perpetuate these fears. If money and power are the objective, truth and consequences no longer seem to matter. Theo Wierdsma

TIME FOR REFLECTION

This was forwarded to me some time ago. It spoke to me, and this seemed to be the right time to share its content. Barely the day started and it's already six in the evening. Barely arrived on Monday and it's already Friday. ... and the month is already over. ... and the year is almost over. ... and already 40, 50 or 60 years of our lives have passed. ... and we realize that we lost our parents, friends. ... and we realize it's too late to go back. So, let's try, despite everything, to enjoy the remaining time. Let's keep looking for activities that we like. Let's put some color in our grey. Let's smile at the little things in life that put balm in our hearts. And despite everything, we must continue to enjoy with serenity this time we have left. Let's try to eliminate the afters. I'm doing it after. I'll say after. I'll think about it after. We leave everything for later like "after" is ours. Because what we don't understand is that Afterwards, the coffee gets cold. Afterwards, priorities change. Afterwards, the charm is broken. Afterwards, health passes. Afterwards, the kids grow up. Afterwards, parents get old. Afterwards, promises are forgotten. Afterwards, the day becomes the night. Afterwards, life ends. And then it's often too late. So ... Let's leave nothing for later. Because while still waiting to see later, we can lose the best moments, the best experiences, best friends, the best family. The day is today. The moment is now. We are no longer at the age where we can afford to postpone what needs to be done right away. It looks like an eternity, but it's a short trip. Enjoy life and always be kind. Original author unknown to me. Theo Wierdsma

ROTARY'S UNRELENTING PASSION FOR SERVICE

On February 23, 1905, when Chicago attorney Paul Harris and three of his business friends met in a small office "to create a club of professionals and businessmen for friendship and fellowship," nobody anticipated that this small gathering would ultimately bloom into the most prestigious service club in the world. Over the years Rotary, so named initially to recognize its rotating meeting locations, grew into a global network of 46,000 clubs with 1.4 million members in 200 countries, who dedicate their time and talent to tackle the world's most pressing humanitarian challenges. A standout among many significant contributions to humanitarian causes around the world, and among Rotary's major accomplishments over time was its highly successful attempt at eradicating polio, a program the organization launched in 1985. Within twenty-five years of its inception Rotary amassed $900 million in contributions to the cause, which helped to support the immunization of two billion children worldwide. With financial assistance from the "Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation," and through the massive involvement of Rotary's international network of volunteers around the world, polio cases, over time, were reduced by 99%, leaving only Afghanistan, Pakistan and Nigeria still reporting cases today. Rotary's vast network of like-minded volunteers has proven to be instrumental in support of addressing multiple causes and challenges in many parts of the world. Its response to the humanitarian crises resulting from the current war in Ukraine is a case in point. The organization, headquartered in Evanston, Illinois, under guidance of John Hewko, whose mother was born in Kharkiv, one of Ukraine's most embattled cities, began focusing on the consequences of Russia's invasion within days of the start of hostilities on February 24. As General Secretary and CEO of Rotary International, Hewko, an actual member of the Rotary Club of Kyiv, used the reach of his organization to coordinate reactions to the need for humanitarian relief for refugees from the very beginning. Literally within days, Rotarians contributed $14.4 million to help financially support regions that assisted Ukrainian refugees or other victims of the war. Ukraine's 62 clubs, with an estimated 1,100 members, which, with the exception of a few now in Russian controlled areas, continue to meet regularly. They are active in war zones, even in cities like Kharkiv, they help refugees adopt to their new realities, help people evacuate to safe zones, prepare and deliver hot meals, and function as distributors of supplies provided by clubs from surrounding countries. Across Europe, Rotaract members, a younger group of Rotarians, use digital tools to share information and coordinate assistance to people affected by the war. Iryna Bushmina, a member of the Rotaract Club of Kyiv-City, after fleeing with her sister and three month old nephew - journeying to Vienna - organized a huge scale relief effort and an online platform to find shelter for thousands of Ukrainian refugees. The point is this: Rotary has become a very significant international force for humanitarian relief efforts. The organization does go out of its way to insist that it is not politically motivated. In effect, when asked about its interest in the military operation in Ukraine, Rotary International responded: "As one of the world's largest humanitarian organizations, we have made promoting peace the cornerstone of our global mission. Our call for an immediate ceasefire and a restoration of diplomatic efforts is not about politics, it's about safety and humanity." While, internationally, Rotary's reach and coordinated involvement is significant, local clubs, while supporting international efforts, are doing their best to be relevant to their own communities as well. Watsonville Rotary, one of seven clubs in Santa Cruz County, is celebrating it's 95th anniversary this Sunday, May 22. As reported in the Register-Pajaronian, the Rotary Club of Watsonville received its charter on May 21, 1927. While the initial twenty-five charter members hoped that this occasion would earn them headline coverage in the paper that day, the honor bestowed by Rotary International on our community received second billing to "Lindbergh Lands Safely in Paris" that same day. A coincidence old-timers never forgot. Membership in the local club, which meets every Wednesday for lunch at the Elk's Club on Martinelli Street, averages between 70-80 Rotarians. Over the years the club has substantially contributed to a wide variety of community as well as international philanthropic efforts. Its Community Trust program, serving Watsonville youth and local non-profits, has distributed well over $500,000. The club's "adopted" schools - E.A. Hall, Renaissance, New School and Cabrillo - benefited to the tune of $160,000 for scholarships and equipment. Projects funding literacy programs, health education, medical supply needs and water sanitation projects in Guatemala and Peru received more than $200,000. over time. Job shadowing events for Watsonville High students, speech contests, support for foreign exchange students and weekly student achievement recognition at informative luncheon meetings round out inclusive, well thought out programs. The club's 95th anniversary and its legacy of productive empathy represent a well deserved milestone in the Watsonville and Pajaro Valley community. Theo Wierdsma

PUTIN'S "BIG BROTHER" BARRIERS

Recent press reports of polling results indicating that upwards of 71% of Russians say they support Putin's war in Ukraine caught many by surprise. After all, Western media continue to cover the horrific effects of military activity Ukraine is daily exposed to in great detail. However, these statistics should not astonish anyone. While, internationally, as a result of imposed sanctions, Russian society has become more or less isolated, domestically, Vladimir Putin has spared no effort putting up barriers to insure it is insulated from unwanted and unsanctioned outside sources of information. Staying true to autocratic leadership principles, Putin has had 22 years to wrest control over Russia's communications channels. In today's Russia all major media outlets are controlled by the state. The Russian government owns 60% of newspapers and all national television stations. Russia's system of "Operational Investigatory Measures" requires telecommunications operators to install hardware provided by the FSB (formerly KGB), which allows the agency to unilaterally monitor users' communications and content, including phone calls, email traffic and web browsing activity. Besides, according to a 2016 Rand Corporation report, Russia's propaganda machine broadcasts "incredibly large volumes [of propaganda] via text, video, audio, internet, social media, satellite TV and traditional radio and television broadcasting." So, why do so many Russians say they support the "special operation" in Ukraine? The government controls the media and the message. It consequently controls the collective mind of the citizenry. Putin has taken the edict from his favorite historic mentor, Joseph Stalin, to heart: "The press must grow day in and day out - it is our party's sharpest and most resourceful weapon." This sentiment was restated by one of Stalin's successors, Nikita Khrushchev, who also believed that "the press is our chief ideological weapon." Many influential leaders, in Russia and beyond, have since repeated this point of view. One of the most poignant articulations came from Malcolm X, who expressed the opinion that: The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that is power, because they control the mind of the masses." Putin developed governmental control into a science, managing to either block, sanitize or drown out interpretation, commentary and criticism that conflicted with officially sanctioned coverage of news content. In light of the military conflict in Ukraine, the government passed laws criminalizing "discrediting" the Russian military, spreading "fake news" and mentioning in the press that the Russian invasion of Ukraine amounted to war. Penalties for disobeying these laws can add up to 15 years in prison. Thus far, well over 15,000 dissidents have been arrested. For many, the mere expression of unsanctioned thought begins to feel like a criminal act. What Russians are hearing from their government every day are statements like: There is no ongoing war; The special operation held in Ukraine is aimed strictly at the military infrastructure of the fascists who seized power in Kyiv to intimidate and oppress the nation; We fight for our freedom and the freedom of the Ukrainian people; The Ukrainians welcome the Russian army, the only ones resisting are Nazi groups and military forces controlled by the fascist Kyiv regime; Russia has not started the war, it has come to end it; If it had not been for the Russian operation, NATO and the Nazis would have attacked us imminently to proceed with the genocide of the Russian and the Ukrainian nations - and so on. (Robert Coalson, Radio Free Europe). After being subjected to this persistent propaganda blitz and the reality of the government's uncontested control over official media outlets, polling results are not at all surprising. Combine these influences with the liberal use of leading questions, like: "Do you support a battle against Nazism?" and the caution expressed during virtually every interview that answers are recorded for "quality control," and the fix is in. No wonder Putin's popularity exceeds 80%. Who dares to dispute that? In March, Maxim Katz, an opposition politician in Moscow, with a team of researchers, commissioned a poll on public attitudes towards the war. Out of 31,000 people contacted, 29,400 ended the conversation as soon as they heard the topic. The sociologist Iskander Yasaveyev has suggested that "many Russians understand that they are being lied to, that they are getting propaganda, but they want to be deceived. It is simpler for them to suppress their inner conflict." Seventy-three years after George Orwell published "1984," "Big Brother" is still watching. Theo Wierdsma

WAR CRIMES - LEGAL CONCEPT OR OXYMORON?

The seemingly unending military confrontation in Ukraine continues unabated. As Russian troops move from areas they controlled to a newly declared front in the Donbas region, they leave behind gruesome evidence of inhumane depravity and savagery, inflicted on a defenseless civilian population. In Bucha, a suburb of Kyiv, so far more than 500 bodies have been discovered: shot, tortured, raped, burned, killed without apparent pretext. For the greater Kyiv area the additional body count already exceeds 1000. Add to these statistics the lethal result of the horrific missile attack on the train station in Kramatorsk, where 4,000 refugees were waiting to escape the fighting, and the more than 20,000 civilians estimated to have been killed in Mariupol and elsewhere, the picture becomes crystal clear: with genocidal intent and its advance successfully obstructed by Ukrainian forces, Putin's military is pursuing a scorched earth strategy, leaving nothing behind. As she was interviewed while exhuming another mass grave in Bucha, Ukraine's Prosecutor General Iryna Venediktova observed that, throughout the country, more than 6,000 alleged war crime cases were already being investigated. (Mark Lowen, BBC News, Apr. 14, 2022). Charging the aggressor with committing war crimes helps to define the extent of the war as experienced by the domestic population. However, to have those charges adjudicated, they need to be prosecuted before the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Its process is quite time consuming and does not produce swift justice. To make their case, prosecutors would have to establish a direct line of responsibility from the top of Russia's government to the atrocities on the ground - and show they were not just committed, but ordered. The use of the term "war crimes" raises a number of questions. Some would argue that war in itself is a criminal, lawless activity involving ruthless, inhumane violence. If that is true, "war crimes," a legal concept, implying a violation of, supposedly, non existent "rules of war," is really an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. While this may be an academic debate, over time other national actors have attempted to modify the severity of military conflict by establishing "rules of war" that embody the essentials of human dignity. Attempts at civilizing warfare date back at least to the Code of Hammurabi, a legal text created by the king of Babylon around 1755 - 1750 BC. It imposes a code of conduct in the event of war, designed to "keep the strong from oppressing the weak." The Bible and Quran also contain rules of respect for adversaries. Over time, frequently following horrendous exhibitions of genocidal conflict, these rules evolved. In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued a set of rules, commonly known as the "Lieber Code," which introduced a code of conduct for Union soldiers during hostilities throughout the Civil War. This code inspired other countries to adopt similar rules for their military and served as a template for international efforts to codify the laws of engagement during war. Ultimately international treaties were agreed upon, culminating in the Geneva Convention adopted in 1949, dictating what can and cannot be done during armed conflict. Many crimes identified in the protocols adopted by much of the international community responded to horrendous acts of cruelty displayed by feuding armies. These include Hitler's "euthanasia program," murdering newborn infants displaying mental or physical disabilities to cleanse the "Aryan" race of people considered genetically defective, killing at least 10,000; the Holocaust, killing more than 6 million; medical experiments conducted by Japan's Lieutenant General Ishii Shiro, leading to the assassination of up to a half million mostly Chinese and Russian human beings; the genocide of Armenian and Assyrian people, resulting in the death of well over a million; hundreds of thousands killed in the Balkans during the Yugoslav wars at the end of the last century, and many others. The Geneva Convention specifically identifies intentionally killing civilians and prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, sexual violence, pillaging, genocide and ethnic cleansing as violations of the rules of war. Many of these certifiably apply to acts committed by Russian troops in Ukraine. The International Criminal Court, which was established by the Rome Statute in 1998, nominally assumes jurisdiction over alleged war crimes. The Statute is designed to facilitate and prosecute war criminals before the court and, since inception, multiple heads of state have had their cases tried in this facility. Some of these include notorious defendants like Japan's General Hideki Tojo, Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic, Bosnian President Radovan Karadzic and Lybian leader Muammar Gaddafi. The Court's tenure has not been without controversy. It is often accused of only trying cases brought by the winners of military conflict, suggesting these cases result in "victors' justice," in pursuit of revenge. Some question why not all horrific bloodshed was prosecuted as war crimes, such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The U.S., Russia, China and Israel have not recognized the Court's jurisdiction, although the U.S. participates as an observer. Finally, it is important to recognize that proceedings before the Court can only be brought by a national government or by the U.N. Security Council - in which Russia has veto power. Also, the Court tries people, not countries. While establishing responsibility for the war crimes committed in Ukraine would not be problematic, pointing clearly at the Russian president, to give the allegations their intended effect, Vladimir Putin would need to be apprehended and taken to The Hague for trial, something not likely to happen any time soon. So, yes, "war crimes" is an internationally recognized legal concept. However, unless the world can bring Putin and his chief collaborators to justice, identifying the thousands of openly flaunted violations of this concept, while illuminating, remains effectively symbolic. Theo Wierdsma

FRENCH ELECTION IMPACTED BY RUSSIAN AGGRESSION

In just a few days, about 48 million French voters will go to the polls to select their next president. In what is traditionally a two step process, twelve candidates will face off on April 10. If one of them receives an absolute majority, he or she is elected president. If not, the top two contenders will compete in a run-off election on April 24. Since 1965, when the current direct election system was introduced, every election has gone to a second round. Until recently, the issues dominating the campaign centered on immigration, climate change, the ballooning national debt accumulated in fighting the coronavirus, and the country's troubled anti-terrorist effort in Mali, a former French colony. Once Russia invaded Ukraine, the focus shifted notably. Public debate moved from domestic issues to geopolitics. Campaign coverage almost ground to a halt. Political broadcasts were replaced by TV specials on Ukraine. At the same time the current crisis forced the candidates to rethink their political campaigns, the first time in recent history that they had been hijacked by foreign policy - an issue that is not usually a top priority for French voters. The French election is not only significant for France. The outcome could be consequential for the European Union and for the cohesion of the NATO alliance. France is one of the two largest EU member states. It has the second largest economy in the EU, and it is one of the founding states of the bloc. French leadership matters hugely to the future of the European project, which has continued to evolve since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. Its continued reliable stewardship during the current conflict is crucial. The country's approach to Russia has always been a significant, although inconsistent, element of presidential election campaigns, generally requiring guidance. Moreover, public support for NATO has dropped recently, from a high of 71% in 2009, to only 47% according to a recent poll. Besides, the French population is currently skewing towards becoming one of the most euroskeptic countries in the European Union. Given these trends, France's current president, Emanuel Macron, still the favorite to win the election, remains Europe's only hope. Macron has been one of the most visible and vocal European leaders responding to challenges facing the 27 member organization. He is openly attempting to fill the void created by the retirement of former German chancellor Angela Merkel. His ambition to lead a progressive revival of pro European liberals against national populists in France and across Europe is largely acknowledged. And his February 7 trip to Moscow in a diplomatic effort to talk with Putin and negotiate deescalation of the current conflict, although unsuccessful, allowed him to look like Europe's de-facto leader in the quest for constructive engagement with Russia. His most prominent opponents may think twice about criticizing their president too blatantly now that there is a war on European soil, for fear of appearing to work against France's interests. What concerns much of the rest of Europe is that Macon's opponents in this election tend to be euroskeptic, and that they have displayed cozy views on Moscow and Vladimir Putin. Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Rally, the odds on favorite to end up in second place behind Macron, has long maintained a special connection to Russia and the Putin regime. Russia even funded part of her presidential campaign five years ago. She has openly proclaimed that she believes Ukraine belongs to Russia's sphere of influence. She intends to withdraw France from NATO's Military Command structure - something Charles de Gaulle did in 1966, but was reinstated by Nicolas Sarkozy in 2009. She does not like article 5 of the NATO treaty, opposes military assistance to Ukraine and continues to be a staunch euroskeptic, even though she served in the European Parliament until 2017. If elected, she would be a disturbing force in European politics. Currently polling in third place, hard-left Jean Luc Melenchon, is radically opposed to NATO, calling it a "tool of subservience to the United States, He wants France to stay entirely out of the fray and he says that he understands why Putin feels threatened by the perceived encirclement of Russia by NATO. The current war has not changed his perspective. Further down the list, but diluting far-right support for Le Pen, sits Eric Zemmour, a TV personality who turned his notoriety into a platform for anti-immigrant venom. He adamantly opposes NATO and, while condemning Russia's aggression, he holds NATO responsible for the war in Ukraine. Putin's aggressive action in Ukraine served to unite and focus the 30 member states that make up the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. At the same time, the war motivated all but one the most euroskeptic European Union member states to sign on to a unified and determined response. The outcome of the French election could potentially disrupt this cooperative approach, not just for the short term, but for the indefinite future, affecting European strategies for years to come, and possibly leave Ukraine and other former Soviet states wondering about an uncertain future. Now that Viktor Orban's April 3rd election victory in Hungary will likely keep that country officially in, or close to, Putin's camp, the stakes are high for the rest of Europe, much of which hopes that Emmanuel Macron pulls out a win and will continue to lead the continent during the next five years. Theo Wierdsma