Written by Depali Rai

As a British Asian, from the very beginning of the Coronavirus outbreak, I had felt silent calculations forming in the heads of strangers I passed on the streets, waited on station platforms with and rode on buses alongside. Was I Chinese? Had I recently been abroad? Did I exhibit any symptoms? Never in all my twenty years in Britain had I felt so conspicuous.

Over dinner back home in London, my father tells me of a woman who crossed the road upon seeing him. He shrugged it off and reasoned that it was non-confrontational and she was wrong- he wasn’t a Chinese coronavirus patient. Perhaps she was just a passionate social distancer. The recommended two-metres was just simply not enough.

Whatever that stranger’s logic was, her visible distrust in my father fits neatly into the current experiences of many other Asians, at home and abroad. A friend tells me how her parents back in New York were denied a viewing upon their arrival at the property. The doorman insisted that the agent was not at the apartment and so refused them entry. Confused, they called her up. She tells them that she was indeed there and cannot think why he told them differently. Perhaps the doorman was also fiercely committed to the cause of social distancing.

Yet, the rise in anti-Asian sentiment around the world following the outbreak of COVID-19 has meant that microaggressions and everyday racism against Asian people have become increasingly obscured in the face of violent attacks and explicit demonstrations of xenophobia.

Indeed, there is an entire Wikipedia page entitled ‘List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic‘. Scrolling through the paragraphs of abuses and hate crimes, it appears that every continent save Antarctica is represented.

In the U.K, on the 24th February, Jonathan Mok, a 23-year-old from Singapore, was violently attacked by four males whilst walking down Oxford Street in London. After shouting “we don’t want your Coronavirus in my country”, the attackers left Mok with a broken bone. Across the ocean, Jose L. Gomez, 19, stabbed three members of an Asian family on March 14 in Midland, Texas before being taken down by a store employee. The FBI reports that Gomez was motivated by the perception that “because he thought the family was Chinese, and infecting people with the coronavirus”. These incidents aren’t isolated hate crimes but follow a global trend of xenophobic attacks against Asian communities.

On the one hand, there is a strong and continued rise in Sinophobia, namely racism and prejudice against those of Chinese origin. In northern Italian towns of Como, Brescia and Varese, posters plastered on the storefronts of Chinese-Italian businesses read: “Coronavirus? Buy Italian. It’s a moral duty”. The posters also carried the logo of the far-right Forza Nuova group. In San Francisco, on her way to the gym, Yuanyuan Zhu was harassed and spit on by a stranger who yelled: “F*** the china” at her.

Such Sinophobia, particularly towards Chinese immigrants, is not limited to the recent COVID-19 outbreak. Racist narratives about Chinese communities are historical and enduring. In the case of the USA, “close from the very beginning, Chinese immigrants were seen as inferior, filthy and diseased,” tells Claire Jean Kim, a professor of political science and Asian American studies at the University of California at Irvine. Kim is right to ask: “What is being accomplished by using this kind of language?”

Closely following, Sinophobia has bubbled over into a wider racist homogenisation of Asian people. The stereotype that “all Asians look the same” is proving to be dangerous and consequential. There has been an evident racist conflation of different Asian backgrounds into a single category. When 24-year old Pawat Silawattakun was violently assaulted and robbed by two teenagers shouting “coronavirus” at him, it didn’t matter that he was British Thai. His appearance alone satisfied the one-dimensional xenophobic conception of Asian identity.

Lumping all people of Asian background into a monolithic unit is far from a novel phenomenon arising from the recent outbreak of the Coronavirus. Historically, the term ‘Yellow Peril’ was used to describe the alleged threat that all East Asians posed to the west. Irrespective of differences and nuance, skin colour or features are used to homogenise Asians. Despite being the largest, most populous continent on earth, the bigot’s logic is that anyone vaguely “oriental” looking belongs to a single, static yet ambiguous category of ‘Asian-ness’.

I am prompted to think back to a recent Instagram post I came across. It was an Asian girl eating an ice-cream. At that moment, I already knew to brace myself for the comment section: “Have they now decided to start eating normally?”, “at least it isn’t a bat”, “I hate China”. The girl with the ice cream is Korean.

It was a moment that made me pause from my scrolling and recall all the times that I had been racially vetted by curious peers and strangers: are you Chinese? Japanese? Maybe Thai? After the rise of K-pop, Korean also joined the list of possibilities. The weird guessing game that I have humoured too many times before now holds a more disturbing weight. Perhaps the reunions I have been waiting for, the trips I have been planning and the perishable foods that I have been craving are no longer just simple pleasures that I once took for granted. Even in our allegedly post-racial world, my visible ‘Asian-ness’ may continue to be seen as a threat long after the virus is contained.

Undeniably, major incidents of any sort have often manifested in racial tensions. After the 2016 Brexit Referendum, the Home Office reported a doubling in the rise of hate crimes in the U.K in which race was cited to motivate 76% of all crimes. Across the pond, as Stephen Rushin from Loyola University Chicago School of Law argues, Donald Trump’s presidential election victory and the racist rhetoric it espoused, fuelled a surge in race-related hate crimes in the USA.

But no circumstance of any kind can justify this or any other surge in racism. In a world where the President of the United States labels the outbreak as the “Chinese virus”, fear is eroding at our supposedly universal and timeless commitment to human rights. It is a difficult and challenging time but the anger, upset and anxiety we feel cannot be channelled at a single country or continent. The coronavirus is indiscriminate in the suffering it has caused.

We live in historic times and we need now, more than ever, a collective realisation of our values and belief systems. Mutual respect and compassion should not be reserved for when it is convenient for us. In the face of extreme adversity, may the enduring legacy of this pandemic be one of humanity towards all.

Edited by Aliza Wall

Written by Siobhan Ali

Rape has been a persistent and prevalent issue in India with more than 32,500 cases brought to the police in 2017 alone and many more going unreported. According to data compiled by the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), the state of Madhya Pradesh has the highest number of reported cases in the country, earning it the title of India’s ‘rape capital.’ This has serious repercussions for women in the region, restricting them from carrying out routine, daily tasks such as walking around their villages unaccompanied or attending school. Women with disabilities such as visual impairment feel this fear tenfold as they are more vulnerable to an attack and struggle to defend themselves. Research conducted on the prevalence of sexual assaults amongst individuals with and without visual impairment demonstrated that visually impaired women have higher rates of assault than the general population.

It was with this understanding of the plight of visually impaired women and a desire to empower them that international non-governmental organisation Sightsavers launched free judo lessons in 2014. Working in collaboration with local charity Tarun Sanskar which supports disabled individuals, local Madhya Pradesh police and the Department of Crime Against Women, Sightsavers began training blind, or partially blind, young women in self-defence.

Beginning initially with 20 students, specialist instructors offered coaching that catered to the women’s visual disabilities using physical touch, clapping sounds and clear instructions. The classes had an immediate impact on women’s confidence with Jayashree Kumar, Programme Manager at Sightsavers noting that women’s voices had ‘become so strong’ and they were able to walk independently and ‘interact with the villagers’ in ways they were not able to before. Many women who had been forced to drop out of school due to fears for their safety were able to go back and continue their schooling. Programme participants have gone on to pursue higher levels of education and vocational training to become teachers, volunteers and activists. Several women have felt empowered to speak about their disabilities and the challenges they face, becoming spokespersons not only for the programme but also for other charity organisations designed to support visually impaired women. Therefore, through this programme, young women have been placed on a path of greater societal and financial independence where they can not only defend themselves against attack but also support and sustain their lifestyles.

Witnessing the startling and transformative change, other women were encouraged to get involved. Over the last five years, the programme has grown, touching the lives of nearly 60 women. Many women have gone on to compete national and international blind judo competitions, such as the Commonwealth Judo Championships, winning medals for both their region and country. In this way, these women have come to serve as role models for other visually impaired women around the world. Some girls in the programme also felt encouraged to qualify as judo trainers themselves, continuing the support and guidance they received. Many have taken younger women under their wing, supporting their quest for autonomy and independence. The programme has had lasting effects on these women, shaping the course of their life and empowering them to explore new possibilities and countering their previous mind-sets that they are limited by their condition. It has also supported the families of these women as it reassures them of the security of their mothers, daughters, wives and sisters. Over time, the project has also worked towards addressing abusive community attitudes towards disabled women.

While there is a much larger, nationwide issue of sexual assault against women which requires direct addressing, self-defence projects such as the one offered by Sightsavers canform an important opponent of this response. Sightsavers has not only improved women’s sense of safety as they can defend against sexual assault, it has also allowed them to break away from the societal constraints and restrictions of their disability towards greater self-sufficiency and freedom. It has improved their self-esteem, equipping them with the knowledge that they can protect themselves and tackle the challenges that come their way. The programme is extending to other neighbouring regions in India with hopes to expand to a national level.

Photo courtesy of https://www.sightsaversindia.in/

Written by Adam Rektor-Polánek

Photo via Pixabay.com.

The outbreak of Coronavirus has shined a light on many uncomfortable truths about the world we live in. For example, the ways in which popular media feed off sensationalist, spectacle-centred reporting that leads to mass panic. Or how easily this panic then transforms into racist attacks, in this case against people of East Asian descent. Or the stunning incompetence of world leaders in dealing with such a critical issue. However, there exists a key player that continues to be widely unquestioned: multinational pharmaceutical companies. The industry’s actions are ineffective and its existence is morally indefensible. Now is the time to break up Big Pharma in order to build a fairer, more compassionate world.

1) Big Pharma is killing people for profit

There is no other way of putting it. By neglecting diseases that do not generate profit and by setting drug prices too high, pharmaceutical corporations are killing people by denying them essential care. For decades, patients have been reduced to consumers and money has determined whether they live or die. This injustice burdens mainly developing countries, and though the number of people that have fallen victims to Big Pharma practices is difficult to estimate, an MSF report from as far back as 2003 concluded neglected diseases have killed millions of people. Not much has changed since.

Examples of conditions with expensive medication include diabetes –only half of the people requiring insulin have access to it- and cervical cancer, which, despite being preventable and curable, kills hundreds of thousands of women, 85% of which live in lower- and middle-income countries. The cure exists but is too expensive for many governments and NGOs to obtain at large. And while the world’s poorest continue to suffer, pharmaceutical CEOs get paid as much as $38 million/year. Big Pharma would rather see people die than lose capital.

2) Big Pharma is making the world more prone to epidemics

Rolf Hilgenfeld, a structural biologist now working on Coronavirus treatments, made an ominous statement in a recent issue of the Nature journal:

‘…the total number of people infected, if you combine SARS, MERS and this new virus, is under 12,500 people. That’s not a market. The number of cases is too small. Pharmaceutical companies are not interested.’

The cure to COVID-19 is being developed now, since the ‘market’ has since become sizable enough for Big Pharma to care. But as Hilgenfeld points out, we could have had the cure, or its close approximation, years ago. Coronavirus is from the same family as SARS and MERS, viruses that the world faced in 2003-2005 and 2013, respectively. Because the ‘market’ was not big enough then, corporate pharmaceuticals had no incentive to fund the kind of research that would arrive at a reliable treatment. Had this research happened earlier, then scientists today would have a much easier job battling COVID-19, saving both time and lives. Big Pharma operates almost exclusively in terms of short-term profits, which has made the world ever more prone to epidemics like the one we are facing now.

3) Big Pharma is hindering scientific research

One of the arguments used to defend Big Pharma is the supposed quality of research. By putting together the best scientists from all around the world and providing them with the latest equipment, pharmaceuticals could be overseeing the development of unprecedented medicinal achievements. The only problem is that they are not.

Up to two-thirds of all the drugs that arrive on the market are no better than the ones which already exist. Pursuing the prolonging of monopolies through additional patents, Big Pharma focuses on the tweaking and rebranding of existing drugs, considerably limiting possibilities for original research. In turn, scientists are very rarely encouraged to work on what excites them or what they find important, as evident from Rolf Hilgenfeld’s story. Big Pharma is not unlocking scientific potential, but obstructing it.

Above are just some of the cruel and reprehensible practices that define the multinational pharmaceutical industry. To fight against it, consider donating to causes that provide medical aid where it is needed the most, be it MSF or, specifically related to COVID-19, the official WHO Solidarity Response Fundraiser. Also, put pressure on companies to lower drug prices, for example through the #NoMoreTears campaign which targets the monopoly Johnson & Johnson has on the lifesaving drug bedaquiline. And, above all, campaign for the end of an institution which has put profit before people for way too long.

By Leonie Malin

Degraded forest in the area of Yangambi, DRC. Photo by Axel Fassio/CIFOR via Flickr.

While newsrooms continue to be consumed by the chaos caused by the uncontrollable spread of the coronavirus, other relevant (and more lethal) issues are being swept under the rug. Countries with a history of civil conflicts and a future of high vulnerability to climate change are being sidelined in current conversations, even though they often experience the highest risk to the spread of epidemics. After over a year of battling an Ebola virus outbreak which has killed 2,200 people, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has now been identified among 13 countries most at risk of coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Most people in the DRC still do not have access to safe drinking water and sanitation, exposing them to increased risks of waterborne and emerging infectious diseases. As a result, the status of human security in the DRC is precarious.

Human security, which refers to the extent of economic, food, health, environmental, personal, community, and political security experienced by an individual, has never been a straightforward or simple topic in the DRC. Economic deprivation, armed conflict, and institutional failures have been destabilizing the DRC ever since the 15th century when outsiders initiated a violent and long-lasting trend of exploiting the Congo for the trillions of dollars worth of resources hidden within its landscapes. The historical context of European colonization and extreme exploitation serves to illuminate why the country confronts so many interlinked issues today.

Although the DRC is extremely rich in resources such as energy, minerals, gemstones, and timber, it only ranks 168 out of 169 on the UNDP’s Human Development Index and 70% of the country’s economy is informal and dominated by rural sectors. The level of development in no way reflects the level of natural wealth present in the region. The root cause of the low levels of development and human security in the country can be traced to violent conflicts that have been rampant in the region for decades. Large values have attracted a variety of powerful interests as market demand for Congolese minerals has increased. In this vicious cycle, war facilitates the excessive exploitation of resources and this has reinstigated further conflict.

Aside from generating an enormous death toll, the country’s past and present conflicts have resulted in immense environmental damage and degradation. The conditions of environmental damage and threats to human safety are mutually reinforcing and have been difficult to address effectively, as political instability, poverty and inequality has remained pervasive. With some successes, the UNDP is implementing several projects to support development in the DRC, such as one titled “Building Capacity in DRC to Threats Posed by Climate Change on Food Production and Security,” which aims to address the increased variability in agro-climatic conditions and subsequent impacts on the agricultural sector. The Congo Basin is the second-largest tropical rainforest in the world and provides food, shelter, and livelihoods for over 80 million people, making it a highly environmentally valuable region. The DRC’s share of the region’s tropical rainforest also stores 8 % of global forest carbon, making it a valuable area for carbon sequestration.

Unfortunately, the region is threatened by the prospect of increased temperatures and variable rainfall as a result of climate change. These changes are projected to negatively affect livelihoods and ecosystem services which are already in danger as a result of land-use change and deforestation. Although determining the vulnerability of different sectors to climate change is challenging, there is a great urgency for action to address access to safe drinking water, the displacement of people due to environmental change, reduced agricultural yields, potential damage to infrastructure, and the increased prevalence of water- and vector-borne diseases. The urgency of institutional change and quality health infrastructure has been increasingly evident in the past few years, but the actually political ability to act remains limited. The human-environment dilemma facing the DRC is an enormous one, often sidelined or forgotten in the midst more high-profile news stories and immediately shocking trends than the slow violence that institutional failure and climate change can provide.

Conversations about human health and security must be multi-sectoral and include environmental consciousness on every level in order to successfully promote the individual and institutional responses necessary. In the case of the DRC, local armed groups that continue to wreak havoc in many regions hamper the progress of development, threaten human security, deepen instability, and complicate responses to diseases. If the threat of violence cannot be contained, then the prospects for peace and human security in the Congo will remain gloomy. Each element of human security is interconnected and requires a holistic approach to support its development in vulnerable countries. As civilians of countries like the DRC continue to suffer the consequences of a violent and greedy mineral trade, extensive environmental degradation, armed group attacks, and vulnerability to epidemics and climate change, wealthier nations are failing to make the supportive financing commitments needed to help communities on the front lines of crisis. While the urgency to address humanitarian and climate crises rises, the concrete actions taken by powerful states and corporations continue to disappoint and newsrooms continue to be swept up in stories distracting from the more fundamentally life-threatening issues confronting humanity today.