A negotiated settlement in Ukraine is still an option

There have been a lot of articles coinciding with the anniversary of Russia's invasion of Ukraine discussing how the war might end. The vast majority conclude that the war will only end when Ukraine "wins" (although just how that is defined varies), and that a military victory is the only way that will happen, on the grounds that Putin has burnt all his boats and will never negotiate a face-saving exit from the war. That seems like the obvious and the "right" solution, however hard it might actually be to achieve. This is largely because Russia is so clearly completely in the wrong, and we are all so outraged at their behaviour, and we are all so sympathetic to the plight of the long-suffering Ukrainian people, that any other solution would seem insufficient.

There was a double-page spread of such opinions in the weekend edition of the Globe and Mail. However, one brave article - entitled A negotiated settlement is the only path to peace in Ukraine - stood out as the only one to argue that a military solution is neither possible nor even desirable. The article was by Cesar Jaramillo, leading light of Project Ploughshares, a Canadian peace research institute which focusses on disarmament efforts and international security.

The article recognizes that calling for a peaceful solution has become a fringe position, but it argues, pretty cogently and compellingly, that a negotiated settlement is actually the most realistic endgame, and that doggedly pursuing an ill-defined win for Ukraine (or for Russia) will only prolong the war, and thereby increase human suffering, while also heightening the risk that nuclear weapons will be used.

The war has been characterized by Putin as an existential struggle with the West, and is seen by most observers as a make-or-break element of Putin's perceived legacy. A humiliating and crushing defeat for Russia, well-deserved as it may be, will be perceived as a "fatal blemish" on that legacy, and is just not an option that Putin will countenance. If pushed to that eventuality, the man is mentally unbalanced enough to resort to the ultimate remedy, a nuclear attack, either on Ukraine or on NATO as a whole. We should not minimize that risk, and we should stop and think whether this is a gamble we are willing to take.

It does seem quite likely that further militarization could undermine the prospects for a negotiated settlement, continuing the cycle of violence with no end in sight. Tens of thousands more may perish as a result of the blind pursuit of a military victory. Can we justify this (can Ukraine justify this?) merely in order to protect the integrity of the borders of a nation-state? There are still some points of negotiation, whether you like them or not - the status of Crimea and the Donbas region of Ukraine, Ukraine's prospective membership of NATO, NATO's military presence on Russia's borders, Russia's breaches of international law and war crimes - and some unpleasant compromises may be required. 

Although talk of a negotiated settlement with a bully like Russian might rub us the wrong way, it should not be dismissed out of hand. Kudos to Mr. Jaramillo for being brave enough to remind us.

Mining on the moon is probably coming - are we ready?

So, here's a perfectly serious article about how lucrative mining the moon would be, and how such a development is jot only essential but imminent and inevitable. Lunar water ice, Helium-3, carbon, nitrogen, precious minerals - they are all up for grabs according to some, and Canada needs to stake its claim.

The article - partially written, it must be said, by a representative from the Canadian Space Mining Corp, who might be assumed to have a somewhat partisan opinion - makes such sweeping statements as: "A $100 billion lunar economy beckons"; "So, space mining will be necessary, and we have about a decade to figure out how to do it"; "Canada has a competitive edge, because we know how to mine in isolated locations"; and "The federal government recognizes the opportunity".

It also mentions, almost in passing that, in addition to NASA'S plans to establish a base camp on the moon, "China and Russia announced jointly in 2021 that they are planning the same". Japanese companies are planning on getting in on the act too, as also might India, Israel and South Korea. Don't forget that the USA (under both Obama and Trump) has already unilaterally declared the moon to be fair game for economic development, free of government oversight.

So, are just going to let humanity's rapacious tendencies have free run? We are going to mess up another planet (OK, moon) like we messed this one up? We are going to establish a new front of the burgeoning Cold War up in space?

Hold on! Surely, mining the moon is by no means inevitable, not is it even desirable. There must be a robust movement to prevent such an eventuality, no? Say, some part of the United Nations? Does the moon have no rights?

Well, there is the Declaration of the Rights of the Moon - and yes, it does begin, "We the people of earth..." - established a couple of years ago by a group in of mainly Australian academics, with the intention of starting a conversation about the ethics of exploiting the moon for profit. They hope to get members of the global public to discuss and sign it, but it certainly doesn't have the force of a UN charter, even if sufficient interest could be drummed up.

In theory, there is also the UN's 1967 Outer Space Treaty (technically, the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer space, including the Moon and other Celestial Bodies"), which states explicitly that the moon "is not subject to national appropriation by claim of sovereignty", and that "exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of and shall be the province of all mankind". This suggests that mining on the moon could be legal under certain restrictive conditions, but good luck trying to interpret THAT in court.

There's also (again in theory) the UNs 1979 Moon Agreement (technically, the "Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies"), which specifically declares that lunar resources are the "common heritage of mankind", and calls for the establishment of an international regime of oversight. But it remains one of the UN's least popular multilateral treaties, with only 18 signatories (even the USA refused to sign it).

NASA itself has recently established the Artemis Accords, a "shared vision for principles ... to create a safe and transparent environment which facilitates exploration, science, and commercial activities for all of humanity to enjoy". Twenty other nations have already signed on to this accord, but you have to know that the likes of China and Russia are not likely to join in with anything they consider to be "US-centric".

Maybe it's premature to be even discussing these matters. After all, humans haven't actually walked on the moon since 1972. But, make no mistake, it's coming, and probably sooner than we might think, what with the USA's Artemis program, and some pretty firm plans by China, Russia and Japan (plus, you can bet that the Middle Eastern oil States will involve themselves soon enough). We need to have out act together BEFORE these people start tearing up the lunar surface.

Is repatriation of Indigenous cultural items always the best solution

The momentum is building behind the drive to return Indigenous museum pieces to their rightful owners. The latest such move on this front is the return of a pipe and saddle by the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM) to the family of 19th Century Plains Cree Chief Poundmaker. The "repatriation" of the cultural items was highly celebrated, and took place amid lavish Indigenous ceremonies. 

I understand the impetus behind this movement, and I am cognizant that many such items were basically stolen, or obtained under duress, and in general terms it makes sense that they should be returned if requested. 

What I am less sure about is whether this should be a blanket [sic] operation. It seems to be me that in some cases, it may be the best option - for the country, for the Indigenous community, even for the family of the original owners - for high profile national museums like the ROM to continue displaying such items (which appropriate accreditation, of course).

Chief Poundmaker was one of the great Indigenous leaders of the the 19th century, and was instrumental in negotiating Treaty 6, which covers portions of present-day Saskatchewan and Alberta. As such he should be applauded and acclaimed, and what better way than having history front and centre in a well-known national museum?

I just think that, if my grandfather had done something special and noteworthy, I would probably be more than happy to have his deeds broadcast to the world through a museum than to hide it away at home. Is it possible that Indigenous communities are cutting off their noses to spite their faces by their dogged insistence on repatriation all cultural items? Or is the ability to "stick it to the man" on this issue more important than any such practical considerations? If so, I can probably appreciate that.

The problem of Russia - what's an IOC to do?

I don't have a whole lot of time or patience for the International Olympic Committee (IOC), but I have to admit that it finds itself stuck between a rock and a very hard place as regards the loud demands to ban Russia and its side-kick Belarus from the next Olympic Games.

Led, of course, by Ukraine and neighbouring countries, but vocally supported by at least 30 countries including the USA, Britain and France, many are calling for a full ban on Russia from all international sports competitions, including the Paris Olympic Games, as a punishment for its invasion of Ukraine. The IOC is stoically sticking to its tired position that to do so would violate its own Charter, and that "sport is above politics". 

The IOC says it's stance is "non-negotiable", but it risks a full boycott of the next Olympics if it were to stick with it. Financially, that would be disastrous, although the IOC is ridiculously profitable and has built up a staggering $5.6 billion in reserves. The moral slap-in-the-face might take some living down, though, and you have to feel sorry for the athletes who have been building up to their day in the sun for years (and who may personally be adamantly against Russia's invasion, or who may not), only to be suddenly not allowed to compete.

Having Russia and Belarus compete as "neutrals" is clearly not a good compromise, but it's about the only one the IOC has. Nobody thinks that calling Russia "ROC" or "OAR" is a satisfactory solution, but what's a self-respecting Olympic Committee to do? Yes, sport should be above politics but, in the real world, it's not. So, what to do?

It's one thing to ban Russia for their ongoing doping scandals; that's a sports matter and an Olympics rules matter. It's less justifiable to ban athletes because their president is a jerk, or because we don't agree with their politics. The athletes don't have to get on with each other (although that would be nice), but the Olympics is supposed to be open to everyone everywhere. It is supposed to show that, if only for a couple of weeks every two years, people from all walks of life can get together and compete without killing one another. Spare a thought for IOC president Thomas Bach who has to explain this over and over again, to politicians, journalists and even competitors.

The "absurd censorship" (or sensitive edits) of Roald Dahl

You may have heard that Puffin, the British publisher of Roald Dahl's books, is rewriting parts of the books for more modern sensibilities, taking out some of the language they was considered perfectly acceptable in Dahl's day, but considered offensive by some today.

So, Augustus Gloop is no longer "enormously fat", but just "enormous"; Mrs. Twitter is jo longer "ugly and beastly", just "beastly"; Matilda reads the slightly more politically correct Jane Austen, rather than Rudyard Kipling, and the Oompa-Loompas (which, in Dahl's original version, were "pygmies" from "the very deepest and darkest part of the African jungle" before they became small orange people in a previous edit) are now gender neutral, for some reason.

Puffin maintains these are "small and carefully-considered" edits, designed to ensure that the books can "continue to be enjoyed by all today", even if some of them may seem somewhat random or pointless. Predictably, though, some critics, including some very well known names in the literary firmament, are accusing Puffin of "absurd censorship", "cultural vandalism" and "botched surgery", most of which seems rather over-the-top, but authors and critics get very hot under the collar over this kind of thing. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak weighed in with, "We shouldn't gobblefunk around" with Dahl's words (to use a Dahl neologism).

It should be pointed out that these kinds "sensitive text revisions" are nothing new. A bunch of revisions were made recently to Enid Blyton's beloved but irredeemably racist and sexist Famous Five books, and even the books of the "blatant and admitted anti-Semite" Dahl have been edited previously, as noted above.

Some critics suggest that a better solution would be, rather than carrying out wholesale edits to classic children's books which, over repeated iterations, could change the books substantially, leave the original text as is, and provide an introduction and explanation for parents and teachers, almost like a government health warning. 

Would that really be a better solution. Maybe. Or maybe some older books just deserve to fall out of general circulation, and be consigned to the dusty shelves of academia. It's not like there aren't many modern alternatives available, just as good if not better, and much more politically correct to boot.

UPDATE

And now Ian Flemings James Bond books are to receive the same politically correct treatment. Well, now they're really playing with fire! (Ian Fleming Publications claims that Fleming himself was on board with making changes to some of the more egregious racial epithets prior to his death in 1964.)

Not just another EV-bashing diatribe

I came across another article about electric vehicles, and I confess I feared another EV-bashing diatribe. The very title - "In northern Norway's bitter cold, the durability of electric vehicles is put to the test" - gave that impression. But I read it anyway. You have to look at all sides, right?

It didn't look good from the start. The first section recounted the results from a testing facility in northern Finland, where five new electric vehicle models were kept in a special cold chamber and subjected to temperatures of -40°C overnight. In the morning, three of the five cars being tested would not start. This may well be the case, but then neither would most ICE vehicles in those circumstances, the problem being not the main drive battery, but the small 12v battery that most electric cars use for peripherals like lights and, oh yes, starting, just like ICE cars do. 

Plus, quite frankly, it's not that often that even northern Norway or Canada dips down to -40°C (-25°C / -30°C, maybe), so I'm not sure how practical a test it was. I guess if you live in such a place, you make sure you buy one of the two cars that DID start in -40°C.

After a few more negative anecdotal quotes from northern Norwegians complaining about how electric vehicles are not up to the task of an Arctic Norwegian winter ("The effectiveness of the battery is not so good in this cold" - well, duh!), the tone of the article changed somewhat. For the minority of people who persisted with the article to this point, though (and I have seen at least one version of this same article on an anti-EV website that deliberately deletes the second half!), a rather different impression would have been gained. 

The upshot of the article is, as one seasoned vehicle tester summarizes, that electric cars "are quite able to cope with winter if you know what you are doing", and indeed that they are "perfect for this area". Yes, winter battery range is only around 70% of the summer range, and charging times tend to be longer. But, with newer longer-range vehicles, better batteries, and many more public charging stations, there is no reason that EVs should not do well in even the most challenging environment. Which is just as well because Norway has committed to phasing out ICE vehicles by 2025, well ahead of Canada's target of 2035.

The moral of the story? Read the full article. And keep the faith.

Insatiable Chinese demand for donkeys is a major problem for Africa

What is it with the Chinese and their wacky "traditional" medicines and beauty treatments? Not content with decimating a whole raft of endangered species in the interests of unproven health remedies and skin treatments, it seems they are also intent on slaughtering vast numbers of the world's donkeys for an obscure collagen treatment made out of donkey skin.

Why donkey skin in particular? Don't ask me. And does it actually work? Also don't ask me (although I have my suspicions). But the Chinese seem convinced that donkey skin can slow ageing, enhance beauty, boost the libido, and cure a whole host of ailments from anemia to insomnia to pregnancy issues.

Ejiao (a collagen extracted from donkey hides) now sells for $780 per kilogram, and is sold in China in the form of cakes, tablets, bars and liquids. It is no longer a remedy reserved for Chinese royalty; it is a must-have for its huge upwardly-mobile middle class. Demand for donkey skin from China is insatiable. It is a $7.8 billion market, and has doubled in just the last few years, largely due to intensive advertising campaigns by Chinese companies. China consumes about 5 million donkey skins annually, and depletes about 10% of the entire world population of donkeys each year.

Anyway, you say, it's only donkeys, right? No-one really cares about donkeys, and it sure as hell isn't an endangered species, right? Well, donkeys are certainly not endangered, but it's not true that no-one cares about them. And I don't just mean because they're cute, and because you may have contributed to a donkey sanctuary while on a sunshine holiday at some point in your life.

The thing is, China has blown through its own supply of donkeys, once the largest in the world, and it now sources its donkey hides abroad, largely from Africa. Donkeys are the workhorse of much of Africa, and the continent is now home to nearly two-thirds of the world's donkeys. They are used to carry, water, food and farm goods. They boost household productivity, and free up their children to go to school.  

The global trade in donkeys is completely unregulated, and an estimated 25-35% of China's imported donkeys are now stolen or trafficked illegally. The sharp recent increase in the price of donkey hides has attracted transnational criminal networks, and traffickers are easily evading the bans that some countries have instituted. Donkeys are slow to reproduce, and are hard to breed in large numbers; some African countries like Botswana have lost half of their donkey population since 2016. 

Many African villages are suffering greatly as a result of the Chinese trade and, as usual, women and girls are suffering most, especially as they are often drafted in to do the work that donkeys used to do. The donkeys themselves are also suffering, often walked for days to market without adequate food or water, and often killed cruelly, with a hammer or dagger. The slaughtering process is unhygienic and creates a risk of the transmission of infectious diseases across the globe.

There is really little or nothing to recommend the trade in donkeys for Chinese consumption. The demand is the instigator of all these problems, and mass-market advertising on Chinese television is at the root of it. It's hard to know who to dislike most: the rapacious advertisers, the blasé authorities, or the vain and gullible consumers.

Are we really "living in the end times"?

39% of Americans believe that "we are living in the end times". The Pew Research poll that came to this conclusion recently did not specify what "living in the end times" actually means, but clearly many people believe that things are worse now than usual, maybe worse than ever before. Book publishers have seen a large uptick in interest in the end times, with a whole slew of new books on the subject.

Well, what Book publishers have seen a large uptick in interest in the end times, with a whole slew of new books on the subject. war, the pandemic, rampant inflation, energy shortages, and the climate crisis, you can kind of see why so many people might have such a negative view of humanity's prospects. But "end times"? That's rather a bridge too far, isn't it? Well, put in perspective, 58% of Americans believe that we are NOT living in the end times, which is a relief, I guess.

A breakdown of the demographics behind the poll gives a better idea of where people are getting these views from. For example, 63% of Evangelical Christians believe it, compared to 29% of Catholics (and just 9% of atheists). 68% of Black people (and 76% of Black Protestants) believe it, compared to just 34% of Whites; 45% of Republicans, compared to 33% of Democrats; 49% of those with just a high school education or less, compared to 27% of college graduates. Fascinating stuff.

Religious people of a certain ilk (and you can see the overlap with the Black population, Republican sympathizers and the poorly educated here) are always looking for Signs. They are actively looking forward to the end of the world as we know it, because they believe that it presages the establishment of a better world, the kingdom of God on earth (oh, and that they will be the lucky ones saved to benefit from this new world, while the unbelieving masses will get their well-deserved comeuppance).

To use another rather overused phrase, a whole lot of people think that the world is "falling apart", and we are on a slippery and inevitable slope to disaster. Or that "everything feels broken", which is Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre's favourite taunt, usually accompanied by the improbable claim that it's all Justin Trudeau's personal fault. 

"Polycrisis" is another word that is often bandied around, perhaps to excess. Again some people think this is a perfectly reasonable label to apply to our current circumstances, while others (like high-profile historian Niall Ferguson, for example) believe that such a conclusion is just an "illusion", or that the term is essentially meaningless, merely an indication that "there's lots of bad stuff happening simultaneously, and one thing can affect another", as Financial Times columnist Gideon Rachman puts it.

So, should we expect the return of Jesus in a blame of glory sometime soon? Is The Rapture (or Armageddon) just over the horizon? Probably not. Is the world in a bit of a hot sticky mess? Probably. But we've been there before, and we will probably be there again in the future.