Peace for the World

Peace for the World
First democratic leader of Justice the Godfather of the Sri Lankan Tamil Struggle: Honourable Samuel James Veluppillai Chelvanayakam

Monday, June 3, 2019


FOREIGN POLICY ILLUSTRATION/MADOKA IKEGAMI-POOL/GETTY IMAGES/DREW ANGERER/GETTY IMAGES

The only way to win the next superpower showdown is to understand what exactly caused it.

No photo description available.
BY CHARLES EDEL AND HAL BRANDS-
JUNE 2, 2019
How should Washington deal with an authoritarian regime that is expanding its influence abroad and repressing its citizens at home? That is the question the United States faces today in dealing with Xi Jinping’s China. But it is not a new challenge. After World War II, the United States faced another authoritarian state intent on expanding its borders, intimidating its neighbors, undermining democratic institutions, exporting its authoritarian model, and stealing U.S. technology and know-how. The result, after a period of initial debate and uncertainty in U.S. policy, was the Cold War: a 40-year competition over power, influence, and the contours of global order.

Journalist killings, arrests and assaults climb worldwide as authoritarianism spreads


2 Jun 2019
Burma, nudged by the conscience of the world, recently released two Reuters journalists imprisoned for more than 500 days – good news in what otherwise has been a dismal period for media freedom.
The 2019 Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without Borders shows how hatred of journalists has degenerated into violence and created “an intense climate of fear” worldwide.
According to the Paris-based nonprofit, 12 reporters have been killed so far this year and 172 are in jail. In the last decade, according to the group, 702 journalists have been killed, including 63 last year.
“The number of countries regarded as safe, where journalists can work in complete security, continues to decline, while authoritarian regimes continue to tighten their grip on the media,” the report states.
Myanmar ranks 138th of 180 countries evaluated on media independence, laws, abuses and other factors. Norway, Finland and Sweden are seen as the most free. The U.S. is 48th, dropping three spots since 2018. Eritrea, North Korea and Turkmenistan are at the bottom of the list.

Reporting under authoritarian rule

Many countries in the lower third of the Press Freedom Index are authoritarian regimes in Africa, the Middle East and Asia.
In these places, which have few protections for free speech, media organizations are weak and often depend on the government for advertising. Journalists typically are poorly paid and have little training.
In this environment, reporters who upset the government are at risk.
As head of the University of South Carolina’s Newsplex initiative, I have trained journalists all over the world, many from countries with restrictions on free speech.
I always have been struck by the similarities among journalists, regardless of country. They are curious, they like to help people, and they want their work to have impact.
What is different, though, is the environment in which those journalists work.
In strong democracies like those of Europe, the United States and parts of Latin America, journalists aspire to uncover the facts and to hold the powerful accountable. They are shielded by centuries-old traditions and laws that protect freedom of speech.
In young or weak democracies, there are few if any protections. Journalists are seen by the government and to some extent by society as partners in the country’s development. As in authoritarian countries like China or much of the Middle East, stories that question or embarrass the government are often suppressed.

Journalism under siege in Burma

Burma is a case study of the tensions between authoritarian regimes and truth-seeking journalists.
Burma, formerly known as Burma, was a military dictatorship from 1962 to 2011. While it has begun to move toward democracy, the military retains significant control over this Southeast Asian nation of 53 million.
Burma is largely Buddhist and the government has little tolerance for the country’s Muslim minority, called the Rohingya. Since late 2016, the Rohingya have been victims of what the United Nations describes as “ethnic cleansing” by the government.
2017 report from Doctors Without Borders, a humanitarian organization, said it is likely that the Burma military has killed more than 10,000 Rohingya.
The Reuters journalists, Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo, were arrested for investigating the deaths of 10 Rohingya men and boys. Their conviction for violating the Official Secrets Act – a British colonial-era law in Burma that treats virtually all government information as confidential – shows how the country attempts to silence criticism.
2017-12-28T124137Z_1042529239_RC18455CC680_RTRMADP_3_MYANMAR-JOURNALISTS
Pan Ei Mon (C), wife of Reuters reporter Wa Lone and Nyo Nyo Aye (R), sister of Reuters reporter Kyaw Soe Oo attend a news conference in Yangon, Myanmar, December 28, 2017. Source: Reuters
In 2013 I was at the World Newspaper Congress in Bangkok, where I heard Burmese journalists talk about their hopes and concerns.
The installation of a civilian government in 2011 was a positive sign, and the Burma government had recently allowed privately-owned newspapers to operate for the first time in 50 years. Change was coming, and I sensed a spirit of optimism in the air, though it was still not clear who really held power in the country.
The journalists wondered if the limited press freedom they had experienced would continue, and they worried over how to find and train journalists in a country without a history of independent media.
Perhaps most importantly, they asked, how could they convince those in power that society is best served by a free press?
In 2015, hopes for democracy soared with the election of Aung San Suu Kyi – a Nobel Prize-winning democracy activistwho spent 15 years under house arrest for opposing the military dictatorship.
Instead, an estimated 800,000 Rohingya Muslims have fled to neighboring Bangladesh since she took office in 2016, and at least 43 journalists have been arrested, according to Human Rights Watch.

Burma’s limited democracy

The travails of being a publisher or journalist in a developing country can be seen through the experiences of Dr. Than Htut Aung, and his Eleven Media Group, one of Burma’s leading publishers.
At that 2013 World Newspaper Congress, the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers honored Dr. Aung for his fight against government censorship.
Since then, things haven’t gotten any easier for him or his company. Reporters and senior editors have been charged by the government with defamation, contempt of court and publishing incorrect information, generally for exposing or alleging government corruption and public malfeasance.
Burma-journalists-2
over 400 journalists showed their support for colleagues Wa Lone and Kyaw Soe Oo at the investigative journalism conference in Seoul, October 6, 2018. Source: Twitter
In 2016, the government even sued Dr. Aung for a column in which he questioned how a government official got an expensive watch and whether he had ties to shady business figures.
Burma’s press crackdown has attracted global attention.
“Rather than punishing investigative reporting that is designed to safeguard the public interest, officials in Burma should acknowledge the role of independent media as a necessary support to democratic institutions,” wrote the World Association of Newspapers.
Journalists in countries like Burma have little hope if they are working in isolation.
In May, editors from Burma and other countries in the region gathered in Singapore to form an Asian chapter of the World Editors Forum, which defends press freedom and promotes editorial excellence. Led by Warren Fernandez, the editor of Singapore’s The Straits Times, the collaboration could lead to training, more professionalism and more legal protections for journalists in Burma and neighboring countries.
Beyond the region, worldwide pressure led to the release of Lone and Oo, who were awarded a 2019 Pulitzer Prize for international reporting, a significant honor for two journalists doing their jobs under very difficult circumstances.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Canada must not ignore Indigenous 'genocide', landmark report warns

  • Up to 4,000 Indigenous women and girls killed or missing
  • Justin Trudeau: ‘We have failed you. We will fail you no longer’
 Canada’s prime minister, Justin Trudeau, is presented with the final report into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Gatineau, Quebec, on Monday. Photograph: Chris Wattie/Reuters

 in Toronto-
Canadians can no longer turn a blind eye to the “genocide” of Indigenous peoples in the country, a landmark report on missing and murdered women has concluded.

Indigenous communities across the country have for decades attempted to convey the depth and scope of a tragedy that has haunted thousands of families.

As many as 4,000 Indigenous women and girls are believed to have been killed or gone missing in Canada over the past 30 years – although the true number of victims is unlikely ever to be known.

On Monday the findings of a three-year inquiry were released at a solemn ceremony in Quebec, attended by victims’ families, survivors, Indigenous leaders and senior government officials.

“This is an uncomfortable day for Canada,” said the prime minister, Justin Trudeau. “We have failed you. We will fail you no longer.”

The inquiry’s final report, a 1,200-page catalogue of historical and contemporary injustices, concludes that decades of policy and state indifference amounted to genocide against Indigenous peoples.

The report’s authors were blunt in their assessment: “If you’re not outraged, you’re not paying attention … This is every Canadian’s responsibility not to turn a blind eye.”
The report, called Reclaiming Power and Place, marks the government’s most signifiant attempt at determining the scope of the epidemic of violence that has claimed the lives of thousands of indigenous women.

“The violence against Indigenous women, girls, and 2SLGBTQQIA [two-spirit, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex and asexual] people is a national tragedy of epic proportion,” wrote the chief commissioner, Marion Buller.

Commission members conceded that the term “genocide” is likely to provoke controversy in the country but said they carefully examined the United Nations definition of the term – as well as its original intent from the 1940s.

“Genocide is the sum of the social practices, assumptions, and actions detailed within this report,” they wrote.

Indigenous activists hailed the report as an important turning point.

“It’s powerful. It’s sad. It angers me. But it’s also hopeful because it shows the real strength, resilience and determination of Indigenous women and girls,” said Pam Palmater, a Mi’kmaq law professor at Ryerson University. “Our First Nations communities, our leaders and our activists just never gave up. They kept pushing and pushing.”

But others who attended the ceremony were disappointed by Trudeau’s failure to present new policies.

“The prime minister really offered up nothing more than words,” said Cindy Blackstock, a Gitxsan child welfare advocate and professor. “I was looking for something that would actually make a difference in the lives of women and girls today.”

Blackstock noted that the government’s recent budget that did not allocate any funding to implement the recommendations of the long-expected inquiry.

The inquiry – an electoral promise by Trudeau after the previous Conservative government refused to open one – accepted submissions from 2,380 people, including the testimony of 468 family members of survivors and victims across the country at 15 community hearings.

“Many Indigenous people have grown up normalized to violence, while Canadian society shows an appalling apathy to addressing the issue,” the commissioners wrote.

The report also includes 231 recommendations for future action.

“It must be understood that these recommendations, which we frame as ‘Calls for Justice,’ are legal imperatives – they are not optional,” said the report.

The wide-ranging recommendations include overhauling policing practices in Indigenous communities, giving Indigenous languages official status, creating a universal basic income and investing in early childhood programs for Indigenous youth.

While the document exposes a damning narrative of the country’s history, it also encourages a path forward.

“For many non-Indigenous people, it’s important to be ready to ‘unlearn’ some learned behaviours,” said the report.

Veldon Coburn, who teaches Indigenous studies at Carleton University, said Canadians need to understand the role of state institutions such as residential schools where more than 150,000 aboriginal children were taken in an attempt to forcibly assimilate them into Canadian society – and work to dismantle those practices.

But he added that Canadians also need to work to dismantle those practices.

“There shouldn’t be any settler Canadian who should feel personally responsible for this. They’ve never carried this out themselves,” he said. “It should be forward looking, in the true spirit of reconciliation with one another, saying we want to live in a community and respect the existence of our shared humanity.”

Before Canadian society begins to grapple with such difficult questions, Coburn said attention should be focused on the memories of the thousands of Indigenous peoples were murdered or have gone missing.

“The biggest point today is to honour those that are the most vulnerable within Canadian society, and who have borne the brunt of considerable discrimination and marginalization,” he said. “[Their] lives are worthy of equal concern and respect.”

IAF aircraft with 13 on board goes missing after take off from Assam

The aircraft was headed to Mechuka Advance Landing Ground, the landing strip in the eastern Himalayas of Arunachal Pradesh’s West Siang district. The landing strip is about 30-odd km from the nearest point on the India-China border

airforce,India,breaking
A total of eight crew and five passengers are onboard the AN-32 aircraft 

Sudhi Ranjan SenSudhi Ranjan Sen -Updated: Jun 03, 2019

Logo
An AN-32 aircraft of the Indian Air Force with 13 people onboard has gone missing after taking off from Jorhat in Assam.
The aircraft was headed to Mechuka Advance Landing Ground, the landing strip in the eastern Himalayas of Arunachal Pradesh’s West Siang district. The landing strip is about 30-odd km from the nearest point on the India-China border.
The transport aircraft took off from Jorhat at 12.25 pm.
It was in contact with ground agencies for the next 35 minutes. An Indian Air Force official said there had been no contact after 1 pm.
“Since the aircraft did not reach the airfield, overdue action was initiated by IAF,” the official said, adding that all available resources had been deployed to locate the aircraft.
News agency ANI said Sukhoi-30 combat aircraft and C-130 Special Ops aircraft had also been deployed on a search mission to locate the IAF aircraft. One official said ground troops had spotted some fire and smoke but there was no official confirmation from the IAF.
A total of eight crew and five passengers were onboard the aircraft.
Defence minister Rajnath Singh who was visiting Siachen tweeted his concern over the missing aircraft.
The AN-32s joined the IAF in 1983 and continue to remain in service. The air force has a fleet of more than 100 AN-32s.
Monday’s missing aircraft revived memories of the AN-32 that went missing while flying from Chennai to Port Blair in July 2016.
A massive search mission had been launched to find the 29 people on the transport plane. The IAF had then carried out 200 search sorties to cover over 2 lakh square nautical miles multiple times by these aircraft. The IAF court of inquiry later concluded that it was unlikely that the missing personnel on board the aircraft survived the accident.
First Published: Jun 03, 2019 15:34 IST


At least 27 protesters killed as Sudanese forces attack sit-in

3 Jun 2019
Activists in Sudan say at least 27 people have been killed after security forces launched an assault on a camp at the centre of the country’s protest movement in Khartoum, sending activists running for cover to escape the gunfire.
Other sit-in protests around the country were also attacked in what appeared to be a co-ordinated push to crush the opposition movement, which has been calling on Sudan’s military rulers to hand over power to civilian rule.
A warning: Yousra Elbagir report contains images some may find distressing.

Deng Xiaoping’s Victory

What emerged intact from the massacre of defenseless students and other citizens in Beijing's Tiananmen Square was not communism, but a version of authoritarian capitalism on a grand scale. It is a model that appeals to autocrats all over the world, including in countries that succeeded in throwing off communist rule 30 years ago.
by Ian Buruma-2019-06-03
 
China’s massive protest movement in the spring of 1989, centered in (but not confined to) Beijing’s Tiananmen Square, seems to have been the anti-Communist revolt that failed. As the brutal crackdown on and following June 3-4 played out, political freedom was being won in Central Europe – first in Poland and Hungary, and then, beginning that fall, in East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, and, albeit violently and rather undemocratically, Romania. Within the next two years, the Soviet Union, cracked open by Mikhail Gorbachev’s reforms, finally imploded.
 
These democratic revolutions followed the “People Power” rebellions a few years earlier in Northeast and Southeast Asia. Bliss it was to be alive in those days. Francis Fukuyama was not the only American who believed that liberal democracy had triumphed forever. There was no alternative to what was widely seen as a natural symbiosis between capitalism and open societies. One couldn’t exist without the other. Once the middle classes had their economic freedom, true democracy would surely follow.
 
Such was the sense of liberal post-Cold War triumph at the time that many Western countries, especially the United States, saw no reason any longer to contain the animal spirits of free enterprise with much government regulation. This was also the message brought to post-communist Europe by various evangelists of neoliberalism.
 
China appeared to be the outlier. Apart from such backwaters as Cuba and North Korea, only there had Communist rule prevailed. China continued to be ruled by the Communist Party of China. But was that really a victory for communism? In fact, what emerged intact from the massacre of defenseless students and other citizens was not really communism at all, but Deng Xiaoping’s version of authoritarian capitalism.
 
Deng had been praised in the West for renouncing decades of Maoist autarky and opening China for global business. He unleashed capitalist enterprise with the words “Let some people get rich first,” a phrase that gained currency as “To get rich is glorious.” This was the ideology that needed to be defended from students protesting against corruption and demanding political reforms. That is why People’s Liberation Army tanks were used to crush the revolt. It was a savage response, but as one of the Party leaders said: “As for this fear that foreigners will stop investing, I’m not afraid. Foreign capitalists are out to make money and they’ll never abandon a big market for the world like China.”
 
China never looked back (literally as well as figuratively, because the events of June 3-4 are unmentionable). The economy soon steamed ahead. And the educated urban classes, from which most of the student protesters in 1989 sprang, benefited enormously. They were offered more or less the same deal as the better-off citizens of Singapore, or even Japan, even though neither of these countries are dictatorships: stay out of politics, don’t question the authority of the one-party state, and we’ll create the conditions for you to get rich.
 
Even educated young Chinese now have little or no knowledge of what happened 30 years ago. And when they do, they often react to foreigners who broach the subject with prickly nationalism, as though talking about it were a sign of anti-Chinese animus. One suspects that this defensiveness might be the result of a slightly guilty conscience: many people have benefited from a shabby deal.
 
In 2001, a year after Vladimir Putin came to power in Russia, I traveled from Beijing to Moscow and wrote an article comparing Russia favorably to China. I assumed that Russia was well on its way to becoming an open democracy. I was wrong. In fact, Russia became more like Deng Xiaoping’s China, albeit a less successful version. Some people became immensely wealthy. Parts of Moscow give the impression of a new gilded age.
 
Something similar has happened in Central European countries. Hungary’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, has been most the most vociferous ideologue of “illiberal democracy,” a system of oppressive one-party rule in which capitalism can still thrive. It looks as if the right-wing populist demagogues of Western Europe, and even the US, would like to follow this example. Like Donald Trump, they are all more or less unreserved admirers of Putin.
 
Of course, this was not the way it was supposed to happen. The assumption was too strong, especially in America, but also in most other Western countries, that liberal democracy and capitalism were inseparable. We now know that this is not true. It is perfectly possible to be a rich entrepreneur, or even just a well-off middle-class consumer, in a one-party state where basic political freedoms are stifled.
 
We should actually have known this all along. Singapore offered a perfect example of authoritarian capitalism. It was dismissed, because Singapore was too small, or because “Asians” were not interested in democracy, as Singapore’s rulers never ceased to point out. The Chinese protest movement in 1989 proved that this was not the case, either. Democratic reforms that would guarantee freedom of speech and assembly were of great interest to the students in Tiananmen Square.
 
What happened in China after the protests were crushed points to another truth. China was not an outlier in 1989 at all. Illiberal capitalism has since emerged as an attractive model to autocrats all over the world, including in countries that succeeded in throwing off communist rule 30 years ago. The Chinese just got there first.
 
Ian Buruma is the author of numerous books, including Murder in Amsterdam: The Death of Theo Van Gogh and the Limits of Tolerance, Year Zero: A History of 1945, and, most recently, A Tokyo Romance.

Like it or not, 5G will become humanity’s major ‘cancer curse’ worldwide!

FDA – UNBELIEVABLY! – DOWNPLYING THE RISK, BUT . . .


article_image
by Selvam Canagaratna- 

"Take away the cause, and the effect ceases; what the eye never sees, the heart ne'er rues."
– Cervantes, Don Quixote, 1605-15.

No less than 231 scientists from 42 nations have already signed the 5G Appeal, which urgently calls for a moratorium on the technology. Steps are already being taken to slow the deployment of 5G in Italy, Belgium, Israel, Switzerland, and The Netherlands, and even in the US states of California, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Oregon.

But so far, not enough political leaders have been willing to heed the warnings. Or, perhaps, they are deferring to President Donald Trump, who said that 5G antennas "must cover every community and they must be deployed as soon as possible . . . No matter where you are you will have 5G and it is going to be a different life. I don’t know that it will be better . . . but I can say that technologically it won’t even be close." Yes, technologically, it will be far, far worse, but the ignoramus doesn’t know the difference. For him, at least, ignorance is bliss!

Iishana Artra, PhD, a public health and safety advocate and an Electro Magnetic Field testing professional, made the startling disclosure in his contribution to CounterPunch magazine that while most people believe that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) carefully assesses the health risks of these new technologies before approving them, in testimony taken by Senator Blumenthal of Connecticut, the FCC admitted IT HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY SAFETY STUDIES ON 5G!

In recent months there’s been a lot of talk about 5G – the next generation of wireless technology, wrote Artra. "5G is being touted as a necessary step to the ‘internet of things’ – a world in which our refrigerators alert us when we’re low on milk, our baby’s diapers tell us when they need to be changed, and Netflix is available everywhere, all the time. But what we’re not hearing is that evidence-based studies worldwide have clearly established the harmful effects of human exposure to pulsed radiofrequency radiation from cell towers, cell phones and other devices – and that 5G will make the problem exponentially worse!

"Telecom lobbyists assure us that guidelines already in place are adequate to protect the public. Those safety guidelines, however, are based on a 1996 study of how much a cell phone heated the head of an adult-sized plastic mannequin!

"This is problematic, for at least three reasons:

* living organisms consist of highly complex and interdependent cells and tissue, not plastic.

* those being exposed to radiofrequency radiation include fetuses, children, plants, and wildlife – not just adult male humans.

* the frequencies used in the mannequin study were far lower than the exposures associated with 5G.

5G radiofrequency (RF) radiation uses a ‘cocktail’ of three types of radiation, ranging from relatively low-energy radio waves, microwave radiation with far more energy, and millimeter waves with vastly more energy. The extremely high frequencies in 5G are where the biggest danger lies. While 4G frequencies go as high as 6 GHz, 5G exposes biological life to pulsed signals in the 30 GHz to 100 GHz range!

The general public has never before been exposed to such high frequencies for long periods of time.

"This is a big deal", wrote Artra. "It turns out that our eyes and our sweat ducts act as antennas for absorption of the higher-frequency 5G waves. And because the distances these high-energy waves can travel is relatively short, transmitters will be required closer to homes and schools than earlier wireless technologies: the build-out will add the equivalent of a cell tower every 2-10 houses!"

But former FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler has made it clear that the Telecom-dominated FCC does not put human health first, for he’s on record, having said: "Stay out of the way of technological development. Unlike some countries, we do not believe we should spend the next couple of years studying . . . Turning innovators loose is far preferable to letting committees and regulators define the future. We won’t wait for the standards."

In response to questions about health concerns, Mr. Wheeler said: "Talk to the medical people".

Well, that’s precisely what Artra next did, and this is what he learned:

The "medical people", Artra was told, have conducted over 2,000 international evidence-based studies that link health impacts with pulsed radiowave radiation from cell towers, routers, cell phones, tablets, and other wireless devices. These studies tell us that RF radiation is harmful at even low and short exposures, and that it impacts children and fetuses more rapidly than adults. Among the findings are that RF radiation is carcinogenic, causes DNA damage, affects fertility and the endocrine system, and has neurological impacts. Pulsed electromagnetic frequencies have also been shown to cause neurological symptoms: depression, anxiety, headaches, muscle pain, attention deficits, insomnia, dizziness, tinnitus, skin tingling, loss of appetite, and nausea.

The US Government has known of these risks since at least 1971, when the Naval Medical Research and Development Command published a bibliography containing 3,700 references reporting 100 biological and clinical effects attributed to microwave and radio-frequency radiation.

Recent findings, such as the $30 million 2018 US National Toxicology Program (NTP) Study, have corroborated the findings of all well-designed heart and brain cancer studies of people with 10 or more years’ exposure to cellular radiation from cell towers and cell phones. They all agree: RF radiation causes cancer.

What has been the response to these findings? Scientists are urging the World Health Organization to update its classification of RF from a Group 2B Carcinogen to a Class 1 carcinogen – making RF and 5G comparable to arsenic and asbestos. Annie Sasco, former Chief of WHO’s Research Unit of Epidemiology for Cancer Prevention, says, "Enough is enough, how many more deaths would be needed before serious action is taken? Evidence just continues to accumulate."

Ronald Melnick, the designer of the National Toxicology Program study, says that the study "shows clear evidence of a causal link between cancer and exposure to wireless cell phone signals." He adds that "An important lesson that should be learned from the NTP studies is that we can no longer assume that any current or future wireless technology, including 5G, is safe without adequate testing. But so far, not enough political leaders have been willing to heed the warnings."

Wireless technology has become so ubiquitous that most of us have been lulled into believing it is safe. Now, the hazards are about to be ratcheted up dramatically. More citizens and legislators need to join those who are actively resisting the reckless push for 5G, noted Melnick.

In a news release, the National Toxicology Program’s senior scientist John Bucher said, "We believe that the link between radio frequency radiation and tumours in male rats is real and the external experts agreed. But, amazingly, the Food & Drugs Administration (FDA) says it disagrees with this carefully conducted, peer-reviewed study’s finding of clear evidence of carcinogenicity."

According to Jeffrey Shuren, Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, "these findings should not be applied to human cell phone usage. We believe the existing safety limits for cell phones remain acceptable for protecting the public health."

Dear reader, do you believe him?
Global collaborations are changing conditions for women in STEM

 
Global collaborations between the political and educational sectors aim to address the challenges faced by women scientists. Shutterstock

The ConversationJune 3, 2019 5.13pm EDT
Broadening the representation and leadership of women in science and engineering continues to be both a focus and a challenge for Canada and the global world. Gender diversity brings a mixture of perspectives and skills on topics from salary disparity to sexual harassment that strengthens the fabric of the academic setting and workforce.
Recently, the University of British Columbia, together with the Vancouver-based consulates of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom and the United States, hosted Women in Science, Health and Innovation. We brought together women from universities, industry and government from our respective countries to showcase global leadership and possibilities for similar initiatives in Canadian cities that enjoy strong academic-diplomatic relationships.


Four themes emerged from this conference: equity, networks and incentives, international research and public diplomacy.

Equity

Academics, diplomats, industry leaders and others alike have a role to play in ensuring that understandings and principles of fairness and justice in the workplace are met. According to the Initiative on Women in Science and Engineering Working Group, key stakeholders must be identified and specifically tasked to shoulder and maintain the responsibility for equality in opportunity, pay, expression and implementation. Lessons about equity belong in the earliest stages of education, and in the implementation of learning in the workforce and through its broader expression in society.

Networks and incentives

Conferences offer discrete opportunities for discovery and networking among women and men, but creative new opportunities to establish enduring relationships are needed for sustained international collaboration. Broad initiatives such as the Athena Swan program first established in the United Kingdom, and now adopted in Canada, the USA, Ireland and Australia, provide financial incentives to promote equity in the university public sector. The 2020 L’Oreal-UNESCO For Women in Science Awards: Life Sciences and the Elsevier Foundation Awards for Early-Career Women Scientists in the Developing Worldrecognize individual excellence. Similar models could incentivize the private innovation sector for both research and business development.
The landscape is wide open for governments to expand their support for fellowships and scholarships that lead to shared exchanges and expanded thinking and possibilities for career growth and advancement. No doubt, benchmarks of impact are key for incentivization to succeed; flexible strategies will keep such programs scientifically fresh and economically relevant.

International research

Questions remain about who is conducting the research and what their findings are telling governments and the academic and business communities. Regional averages for the share of female researchers for 2015 are 28.8 per cent worldwide, and range from a low of 18.5 per cent for South and West Asia to a high of 48.1 per cent for Central Asia.
We need to understand more about the benefits and risks of non-linear careers: some of the most noteworthy women leaders in science, health and innovation and other sectors have zig-zagged by violating traditional norms. Many tackle the additional stresses of racialization and the responsibilities of parenting and partnering alongside their professional endeavours.
Non-linearity is often stigmatized by barriers to career advancement that are measured by strictly conventional, geographic or disciplinary research measures. Nurturing non-linearity might be more important than we think. Only data will lead us to know how to best foster unconventional movement in diverse cultures and contexts.


Public diplomacy

Public diplomacy involves government-sponsored efforts to communicate with publics and establish dialogues about issues that may both inform and influence them. It can foster mutual understanding about and across political, cultural and religious boundaries. Live events, including conferences that embrace the participation of the public can offer discrete moments to meet this goal. But highlighting and elevating the visibility of national leaders in science, health and innovation to the public requires more. Their stories must be featured. Digital communication through social media is a good way to achieve it.
Just like the challenges of establishing strategic benchmarks for equity, knowing whom to highlight and when is by no means trivial. Strategically profiling researchers will achieve the inspiration that such outreach can have.
The four themes outlined above are pillars for future work in the science, health and innovation sectors. They are not exclusive of other responses to ongoing threats to inclusiveness, equality and human rights. Complacency in any sector, in any country, is major one.
Our conversation demonstrated the benefits of openness and action as key principles in gaining traction and moving ahead on a shared vision.